1922-05-31

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MILLAR:: Has the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, or any person representing said legislature, made representation, verbally or in writing to this Government or in writing to the Government immediately preceding this Government that could properly be construed as an effort to prevent the importation of alcoholic liquor into the province of Saskatchewan for purpose of export to other Canadian provinces?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Yes.


LABOUR UNIONS
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Are there any shops, depending directly or indirectly on public moneys, In which skilled labour and ordinary labour are employed?
Questions

2.	Are not the Public Works Department, the Marine Department, the Secretary of State Department, the Railways Department, and the Militia Department employing non-union persons, in shops under control of said departments?
3.	If not, what special department or departments provide moneys for shops in which labour unions are recognized?
4.	If any shop depending on public moneys is under one union, under what department is the money coming from after having been voted by Parliament?
5.	How many labour unions exist in this country?
6.	What are the names of such unions?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by reply to No. 2.
4.	The Government does not distinguish between organized and unorganized labour or as between different branches of organized labour.
5.	The number of local trades union branches reported as for the calendar year 1921 was 2,668.
6.	Details appear in the 11th annual report on Labour Organization in Canada, pages 165 to 236.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAW BRANCH
Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Are the amounts aggregating $24,260, appearing under the heading Law Branch on page 18 of the estimates, to be paid out in connection with the preparation of legislation to be enacted during 1922-23?
2.	What are the duties of Parliamentary Counsel, salary $6,000?
3.	What are the duties of the two Assistant Chief Parliamentary Counsel, salary $4,020 each?
4.	What are the duties of the Assistant to the Parliamentary Counsel, salary $3,300?
5.	What are the duties of the principal clerk, salary $2,160?
6.	What are the duties respectively of the senior law clerk stenographer and law clerk stenographer, whose salaries aggregate $2,760?
7.	In addition to above Parliamentary Counsel are there not solicitors employed in each or in most of the departments?
8.	Is not the legal advice of the Department of Justice available to Parliament?
9.	How many of the Bills that have come before the House at this session have been wholly prepared by Parliamentary Counsel, the two Assistant Parliamentary Counsel or the Assistant to Parliamentary Counsel?
10.	Are the great majority of the bills that come before Parliament prepared by outside counsel, not in the permanent employ of the Government?
11.	Is the assistant to Parliamentary Counsel assistant as well to the two assistant chief parliamentary counsel?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes, in part.
2.	To advise the Speaker, officers or members of the House whenever requested,
to supervise the printing of statutes, and such other duties as are mentioned in rule 64 of the House.
3.	To assist the Parliamentary Counsel.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	To assist in the general work of the office.
6.	To take and transcribe dictation from the chief and his assistants.
7.	Yes, eleven departments have solicitors.
8.	Yes.
9.	Eight public bills; no private bills.
10.	The great majority of the private bills that come before Parliament are prepared by outside counsel, not in the employ of the Government. Of the public bills, a majority are outlined or drafted before coming to the Parliamentary Counsel, some very completely, but others requiring more or less extensive alterations.
11.	He acts under the instructions of the Parliamentary Counsel.


WHEAT BOARD
Mr. DAVIES:: 1.	What is the total amount of funds transferred by the Canadian Wheat Board to the federal government (a) from surplus account; (b) from participation certificates; and (c) from any other source?
2.	What is the total value of outstanding participation certificates, if any, issued by the Canadian Wheat Board?
3.	Is the value of such outstanding participation certificates still collectable by the owners thereof?
4.	If so, when does the Government propose to discontinue making payments on the same?
5.	If the Government has already discontinued redeeming outstanding participation certificates, what action has been taken or will be taken by the Government in regard to the final disposition of the funds set aside to meet payments on participation certificates?
6.	Have any recommendations as to the disposal of such funds been made by the Canadian Wheat Board?
1.	If so, what were the recommendations?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	(a) From surplus account, $560,000; (b) from participation certificates, $175,000; (c) from any other sources, nil; total, $735,000.
2.	The total value of outstanding participation certificates issued by the Canadian Wheat Board as on May 23, 1922, is $209,526.84.
3.	Applications for payments on outstanding participation certificates are still being presented, and payments on such certificates are still being made by the Canadian Wheat Board.
4.	The question has not yet been considered.

Questions
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	Yes.
7.	The Canadian Wheat Board recommended that the first amount, viz. $560,000, transferred from surplus account to the federal government, should be distributed to the provincial governments pro rata, on the basis of the quantity of wheat delivered by producers in each of '*he said provinces to the board, such moneys to be used for the immediate relief of distressed farmers in the various provinces, and that any money remaining on account of unpaid certificates should be used for research work, particularly for the prevention of black rust in wheat.


NEW BRUNSWICK WHARVES
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: When did the Department of Public Works recommend that seventy-eight wharves in the province of New Brunswick be taken over from the provincial government?
2.	Was an( Order in Council passed, based upon such recommendations?
3.	If so, what was the date of such Order in Council and what were its terms?
4.	Did the government of the province of New Brunswick secure the legislation necessary to enable it to make a transfer of such wharves at the sites thereof to the Dominion Government? If so, when?
5.	Did Engineers Stead and Goodspeed, under date of 14th of April, 1920, and the 10th of April, 1920, respectively, report that the amount required for the repair of said wharves was $86,823 less the amount of $5,385 in respect of five wharves not included in the recommendation to Council?
6.	Has the Department of Public Works any further information as to the amount required since the date of these reports for the repair of said wharves, and what is now the estimated cost of such repairs?
7.	Is it the intention of the Government to complete the acceptance of a transfer of said wharves from the province of New Brunswick?
8.	If so, at what time?
9.	Is the Dominion Government now bearing the cost of repairs of said wharves? If so, for what period has it been so doing?
10.	If transfer has not yet been accepted, does the Government suggest that anything, and if so, what, remains to be done by the provincial government to warrant transfer being accepted?
11.	Is it the intention of the Dominion Government at the present session to make any provision for the repair of said wharves, or any of them?
12.	If so, what provision and for which wharves?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1, 2 and 3. No Order in Council passed.
4.	Yes 'by Act 8, Geo. V, Chapter 10, supplemented by Act 9, Geo. V., Chapter 44, Statutes of New Brunswick.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7 and 8. Under consideration.
9.	No.
10.	Nothing further is required on the part of the provincial government.
11 and 12. Under consideration.


MERCHANTS BANK CASE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to appeal the dicision of His Honour Judge Cusson in the Merchants Bank case against D. C. Mac-arow, former general manager, of wilfully giving false returns to the Minister of Finance?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to prefer a bill of indictment at the assizes against the said Macarow?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to hold a parliamentary inquiry into the whole Merchants Bank fiasco-if not, why not?
4.	And is it the intention of the Government to so amend the Criminal Code as to compel presidents, auditors and directors and general managers of chartered banks to direct and fulfil their functions as bank officials, and to provide penalties for breaches?


Hon.   S@: 1 and 2. There is no right of appeal, but the Government has asked the Attorney General at Quebec to submit the case against D. C. Macarow to the grand jury at the next assizes upon the charges and proof with a view to the finding of a bill of indictment.
3.	While these proceedings are pending the Government do not propose any further action.
4.	These are matters for consideration when the question of a renewal of the Bank Act comes before Parliament.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What buildings were occupied, as offices, at Ottawa, by the Department of Militia and Defence, for the year ending March 31st, 1911, and for the year ending March 31st, 1922, (a) for the General Headquarters, and (b) for each service of this Department?
2.	What buildings were occupied, as offices, in each military district, (a) for the district staff: (b) for the army pay corps; (c) for the veterinary corps; (d) for the medical corps; (e) for the engineers corps; (f) for the ordnance corps; and (g) for the army service corps?
3.	What was the strength of the permanent force in each military district for the year ending March 31st, 1911, and for the year ending March 31st 1922?
4.	During the above years, what was the number of officers of the army pay corps, the respective rank and salary of each, and the number of clerks employed in this service, in each district?
5.	Does the department in future intend to keep more than one officer of the army pay corps in each district, and to continue the auditor branch which was organized in each military district during the war?
Wheat Board


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: 1.	Prom what companies in the Maritime provinces did the Canadian National Railway Company purchase coal in the year 1921-22?
2.	What was the amount contracted for with each company?
3.	What was the price agTeed upon in each contract?
4.	How many tons were obtained from each of the companies with whom contracts were made?


Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What was the cost for the operation and maintenance of the fisheries of British Columbia annually, for the years 1917-1918, 1919-1920 and 1921, in the nature of office staff, buildings, upkeep and rentals, patrol, boats and upkeep, field work, hatcheries, and any other such items that may be charged against this department?
2.	What amount of revenue has been collected from the fisheries of British Columbia by the Dominion Fisheries Department, annually for the years 1917-1918, 1919-1920 and 1921, in the form of license fees, royalties on canned salmon, prosecutions and fines, sale of confiscated boats and gear, and any such revenue as may be collected by the department?



CLAIMS OF ROBERT DEBEAUX

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports to Council, Orders in Council and ' other documents passing between the Government and any other parties relating to the internment, deportation, return, and claims for compensation of Robert DeBeaux.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to this motion, I should say that what is called for includes one or two confidential reports that have been made to the Government by its special officers. There is no objection to my hon. friend being shown those reports in the office of the Minister of Justice, but it is hardly in the public interest that they should be brought down in the return. Any other papers may be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider certain proposed resolutions in favour of amending the Fisheries Act, 1914, as regards salmon curing establishments and herring drysalting establishments.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to address two questions to the leader of the Government,

based upon the reference by this House to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization of a very important proposal, namely, the establishment of a Wheat Board. On March 27 it was indicated that there was need of haste. On May 26 a report was made to the House which involves the passing of legislation by this House and the subsequent passing of legislation by provincial legislatures for the handling of the wheat crop of 1922. I cite these facts to emphasize the need of haste and to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that no motion has been made for concurrence in this report, though it has been before the House for several days. I would like to ask if the delay in moving concurrence has anything to do with the action taken by the committee at its meeting on Friday last, an action which, in my estimation was somewhat irregular-to put it mildly, was extraordinary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I may take my hon. friend's last question first. There has been no ulterior intention to delay in any way the discussion of the report to which he has referred; the desire has been simply, to get through as quickly as possible with the debate on the budget. It has been felt that we would proceed more quickly in the long run if we concluded with the debate on the budget before taking up other matters. As soon as the debate is closed, the Government will be glad to have this report considered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask one further question arising out of the Prime Minister's answer? Is it not rather out of the ordinary to postpone action on an important report of this kind when it daily precedes the order to which my hon. friend has referred?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned, some days ago, I think, before the debate on the budget commenced, that once that debate commenced the Government would like to have it carried through. The report referred to had not been made to the House at the time; it was not ready then. I think we are following the ordinary custom in proceeding as we are in the matter.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I would point out to my hon. friend that the budget debate comes after routine proceedings. The Prime Minister's statement would apply only to business that comes after routine; the matter of this report would come be-

The Budget-Mr. Neill
fore routine. I am sure a fair consideration of the two subjects would indicate at once that if the one is to be dealt with effectively at all, it is in a greater hurry by far than is any disposition of the budget.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend knows, perhaps, as well as any one, that there is possibility of a debate arising on the report which might occupy a considerable time. I think I can assure him that any legislation that may be introduced will not be prejudiced in any way in consequence of the delay in considering the report.


Arthur Meighen: It cannot help but be.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from' Tuesday, May 30, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. A. W. NEILL, (Comox-Alberni) : Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to waste the time of the House listening to me expounding my views on the tariff. In the opinion of one or two hon. members of this House-I hope it is only one or two-my views on that subject are both crude and unorthodox. Probably they are, Sir, but at least they are my own, founded on conditions as I have myself observed them, and not inherited from my parents or from the traditions of some half-worn-out party. They at least possess one saving grace, and that is they afford wide tolerance of the views of any other hon. gentlemen who hold different views from my own. They afford any other hon. member ample opportunity to differ from me on this subject without my feeling called upon to reflect upon his mental capacity or moral standing, which I see by the debates of this House some hon. members are rather in the habit of doing.
At the beginning of this session I laid it down as an axiom that the discussion of free [trade and ^protection ofBers ample scope for interminable argument on both sides of the question, and the longer I sit in this House the more convinced I am that that axiom is absolutely correct. Everything can be said on one side and everything can be said on the other side. I do think, however, that we are rather in danger of making a fetish out of this question of the tariff. After all, it is not a question of principle: it is a question of fact and policy. I think some of us at least are rather apt to elevate what is only a matter of opinion into a matter of moral standards, and make it a matter of moral principle from which it is improper for any one to deviate. I repeat that it is not a question or right or wrong. It ds a question of opinion. An hon. gentleman who spoke the other day referred somewhat slightingly to a statement I made earlier in the session, that because I lived in British Columbia I advocated protection, but that I had no doubt if I lived on the prairies I would be advocating free trade. It seemed to him that that was somewhat derogatory. After all, Mr. Speaker, I only said that I would do what every other hon. member does without saying so; that is an absolute fact. I certainly said that the tariff was a matter simply of geography, and that because I was in British Columbia I believed in a tariff policy for British Columbia. In British Columbia we do not, most of us at any rate, steal from, or rob our neighbours, not to any appreciable extent, but we do not do that simply because we live in British Columbia. If we moved to Manitoba we would neither rob nor steal there, because that is a question of moral standards by which honourable men are bound. It has nothing to do with the tariff, and because I advocate protection in British Columbia I fail entirely to see why I should not advocate free trade in Manitoba. Here is a fair example of the difference between the two.
In the part of the province of British Columbia from which I come, it has been found appropriate and most successful to plant potatoes at a certain period of the year, we will say the first of May, and we invariably follow that practice because we have found it appropriate to the conditions. If we moved down to Manitoba where experience had shown that it was wise to plant potatoes six weeks earlier perhaps, would I receive any applause from hon. members because I then took the position: No, I have planted potatoes always on the 1st day of May; I will not lower the flag that I have lived under for twenty years, of planting my potatoes on that date; I will go on doing so. I think I would get little applause, and still fewer potatoes. I will go further and say that not only
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Neill
[Stage Direction]
do I believe it is right for me to advocate protection for British Columbia; but I believe it is also right for hon. gentlemen to my left to advocate free trade for the prairies, because presumably experience has shown that that is the policy best adapted to that district. The only dispute which will arise between us is when hon. gentlemen to my left try to convince me that free trade 'is the policy for British Columbia. Then we shall get into a dispute. Once we accept the fact that certain sections of this country from their geographical position and economic conditions want, some free trade, and some a tariff, all we have left to do then is to formulate a tariff policy, not that will attempt to give every section what it wants, but as far as possible will be a compromise between the different sections. The tariff is always a compromise. Then our only question to consider to-day is, have we-* British Columbia in my case, the prairies in the case of hon. gentlemen to my left 

got such a measure of justice out of this tariff compromise as we are entitled to? Any further remarks I make on the tariff to-day will be along that line.
The budget is a compromise. I think the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will take no exception to that. It is a compromise, as I said in my election campaign months ago that it would be, and I believe that the only question for us to discuss to-day is whether that compromise is fair to the different sections we represent. The budget has been so fully discussed the past few days in this House, and there are leaders much more competent to discuss it than I am, that I shall not touch further on it. I only wish this afternoon to consider the question for a few minutes from one angle, and that is the angle of British Columbia. I would not have spoken on this subject at all except that I did not want to give a silent vote. I do not believe in ambiguity of thought, word, or deed, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will frankly and plainly say now that I intend to vote against the amendment moved by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and on the main question of the budget resolutions I intend to support once again the Government. I will say with equal frankness that I have very grave doubt and hesitation in my mind whether in doing so I am acting in the best interests of the constituency I represent or of the province that I come from. I somewhat suspect that my constituents may share that doubt and hesita-
'Mr. Neill.]
tion, and it is for that reason I wish to go on record explaining briefly the position I take here to-day.
After the election last December, when it was shown what the complexion of this House would be, I consulted with my friends throughout the riding as to what attitude it would be proper for me to take in this House and we arrived at the decision that being elected as an Independent, being a new member in a new Parliament, and with a new Government, it would be proper, provided the Government introduced reasonably -suitable legislation, which was to be supposed, that I should support them for at least one session in order to give them an opportunity to set their house in order, formulate their plans, and bring down a programme which might or might not meet our views then. I may say that had the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) been the leader of the Government, or had a coalition been formed which included that hon. gentleman, we would have taken the same attitude, that is to say, we would have given them a reasonable opportunity for one session to show what their programme would be. In pursuance of that attitude I have supported the Government through this entire session, with one exception, and that was on the Asiatic question, when the question was too great and too important to British Columbia for me to deviate from what I believed to be -the exact necessities of the case. I hold no mandate for the other members from British Columbia, and I have no right to traverse their motives, but the records of the House -are before us and I can see from them that the other members from British Columbia, except the Conservative members, have practically -supported the Government solidly during this session. It is not for me to traverse their motives, but presumably they were actuated by some -such idea as animated myself and my friends. -So we find the situation is this, that practically fifty per cent of the representation of British Columbia, six at least out of thirteen, have given strong support to the Government of the day during this session, no doubt with the idea that if their policy continued to meet with the approval of their constituents they might continue that support; and also, no doubt, with the ulterior idea on the part of the government that if their policy, as developed, was suitable to the districts we represent, then, in the event of an election, they would secure greater support from the members from

The Budget-Mr. Neill
British Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, was the fond dream that we, in our political youth and innocence, brought down to this House. It has been said:
There's nothing half so sweet in life
As love's young dream.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry to say there is nothing so bitter and complete as the disillusion that sometimes follows "love's young dream." Let us canvass for a moment what the results are. The session is drawing to its close and from my point of view the only members from British Columbia that will be going home with a cheerful countenance and a glad heart will be those representing the Conservative cities of British Columbia. And, why indeed, should they not have a glad heart? They have excellent reasons for it, and those reasons are furnished by the government that sits opposite us to-day. In the first place they have succeeded in getting huge sums of money for their constituencies, very large votes. It may have escaped the notice of hon. members that the whole of the vote for public buildings for British Columbia, and it is a very considerable sum, is to be spent in the cities of British Columbia

Victoria and Vancouver. There is a vote for William's Head. That is a little outside of Victoria, but it practically means that city because the money will be spent there, and the men to be employed will be from that city; so that the whole of the vote for public buildings in British Columbia goes to the two cities of Victoria and Vancouver. I say to the representatives of those cities: Well done. I am not casting any reflection on them. In addition to that, Victoria gets a few million dollars-I do not know the exact amount, I think it will be millions- for the continuation of its dry dock. Vancouver is also to get its dry dock. Possibly it has not yet been decided on; but the members from there have only got to continue as they are doing, attack the Government a little more, move a few more votes of want of confidence, and I have no doubt they too will get their dry dock. I may say that I had the opportunity of seeing an election address brought out by one of the candidates for the city of Vancouver at the last election, and he made it quite plain that he had been instrumental more or less in obtaining in four years for the city of Vancouver expenditures amounting to something like $5,000,000. I have no doubt his statement was correct, at least I am not prepared to dispute it; and it 147J
surely is very much to his credit as a representative that he was able to get an expenditure of something like a million and a quarter every year for the comparatively small city of Vancouver. May I be allowed to offer the suggestion that people who have been getting public expenditure at the rate of a million and a quarter a year for a number of years past might perhaps have taken a holiday in expenditure this session and allowed some of the money to go where it was really, perhaps, more needed. It may be said that this is none of my business. As I say I am not attacking these gentlemen at all; the more credit to them for their ability in securing these sums; but what does interest me is the question: Who is furnishing this money, and where does it come from? It may be said: "It comes from the public exchequer; what matters that to you?" Yes, Mr. Speaker, it comes from the public exchequer but it is also diverted from where it should be spent, and that is the rural constituencies of British Columbia. It is well known that only a certain amount of money will be voted to any province in a given time; and when that money is spent by the million in certain cities in the province it is obvious that no money will be available for the rural constituencies of that province; and that is exactly what has happened, and is going to happen, in the case of British Columbia. Now in the past, that policy has gone on for many years; it has not been so obvious, for the simple reason that the rural constituencies in previous years have been so ill advised as to elect city representatives, representatives living in the cities of Victoria and Vancouver. For twelve years at least the member for the riding that I now represent lived and had his business interests in Vancouver; and he was not likely to stand up here and object to a few additional contracts going into that city where he had all his interests. The same thing applies to other cities in British Columbia and, no doubt, applies to other provinces. The country sections have now awakened, and they have decided to send men, as in the case of the gentlemen to my left, who really and truly represent not only their own interests but their own constituencies; and the result is there is going to be a howl go up from the country districts of British Columbia at all the money being voted and distributed in the city municipalities.
I might mention incidentally-and let me say that I want to keep away from all petty or parochial politics-that the popu-
The Budget-Mr. Neill
[Stage Direction]
lation of the district that I represent has increased, according to the last census, 33 or 36 per cent, and there is no other riding in the province of British Columbia where the population has increased to that extent, and it is one of the largest there, except the riding of South Vancouver, which is largely urban. Some of the other constituencies that are dragging down these big votes, have increased only 7 per cent in the same period. It can be readily understood that a district as large as that, growing at the rate I have indicated, must have ever-increasing needs in the way of wharves and lights for navigation, and so on; much more so than a stagnant city whose population only increased 7 per cent in the same period. The resources of British Columbia are to a large extent undeveloped. They are not to be found in the cities but in the country districts; and if you do not develop the country districts your cities will not make very rapid progress.
Another reason why the Conservative members of British Columbia should go home with a glad heart is the fact that the Government, unwittingly I should suppose, has furnished them with the very best of campaign material for the next election. They have put it in the power of these hon. gentlemen to go home to their constituencies, and to other constituencies and say: "I told you so; the Government have done exactly what we said they would do if they got into power." I would not say they have done it all, because the statements made by some Conservative candidates went too far altogether; but they are in a position to say, "I told you that you would suffer from the tariff; that you would suffer in this way and that way." Every opportunity has been given to them to do so. I do not need to imagine that such a claim would be made because we heard the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) saying the other day that the doing away, as it practically is, of the dumping clause on fruit was very much to his interest politically; but he was man enough to go on and say that he did not wish to take advantage of that. He would be willing to forego that, that is the way he put it, if the Government would change back to the old policy in the interests of his constituency; but the fact that the dumping clause has practically been done away with is virtually an election by acclamation for him at the next election. Therefore I say that those hon. gentlemen are going home with a glad heart rather than those men who supported the Government.

Now let me consider for a moment, very briefly, what the rural sections of British Columbia have obtained during this session.
Not only the rural districts, but all the districts, of British Columbia by almost unanimous vote asked the Government for the exclusion of orientals and we got- promises, it is true, promises-promises that cannot under any circumstances fructify into legislation for another twelve months, a sort of political promissory note, dated a year ahead and always subject to be renewed then. What we did want at that time, and what we want now, is action -immediate, prompt and decisive action. I may say that even since that debate on the exclusion of orientals took place in the House another aspect of it has come to my attention to which I would like to invite the consideration of the House. I have here British Columbia's Lumber Journal and, under date of April 20, we find the following in it:
Valuable timber tracts on Vancouver Island are likely to pass into Japanese ownership in the near future, according to reports in circulation here. It is said that Hon. Samuel Hill, Seattle millionaire, who recently returned from Japan, is extensively interested in Alberni Canal timber limits and that he is negotiating for a sale of a big block of this timber to Japanese interests. Another deal is now being handled by a Victoria real estate firm, it being understood that the prospective buyers are lumber importers oif Kobe. In the event of the sales being put through, the Japanese would probably establish their own logging camps and mills, cut the logs into big-dimension timber suitable for export and ship it across to Japan in Japanese freighters.
Further on a lumber merchant from this same Tokio, Japan, says:
"British Columbia lumbermen should not think that the Japanese market is merely a flash in the pan-here to-day and gone to-morrow. If my estimate is worth anything, Japan will be in the market for British Columbia lumber, just as long as British Columbia has lumber to sell.'*
I ask hon. members to notice this next sentence:
"The Japanese government has prohibited the cutting of lumber in most of our native forests, and consequently we must get our supplies elsewhere."
Observe the shrewdness and the foresightedness of the Japanese government. They have prohibited the exploiting of their own forests at the present time and forced them to come to our forests to get their lumber, and that is all right, because we want to sell our lumber. That shows their foresightedness, because they want to protect their own forests. I have here a

The Budget-Mr. Neill
memorandum of the loadings of lumber shipped from British Columbia, and I find the following took place in less than one month.
From Alberni the Canadian Prospector was loaded with lumber for the Orient; the Canadian Farmer was loaded with lumber for California, and the Canadian Winner was loaded with lumber for the Orient. From Chemalnus the Canadian Freighter and the Canadian Prospector were loaded with lumber for the Orient.
Four government boats, besides other boats, left our shores with lumber inside of three weeks, and the Japs are going to do away with it all. The Japanese government has become aware of the business we were doing, and they are going to buy up our lumber, and have it cut by their own men, and ship it in their own bottoms. I think history tells us that Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. In a different sense and in a less worthy sense we are "fiddling" whilst Japan is buying our raw resources, and pouring in her nationals to exploit them, and we get nothing but the bare original cost of the raw material. That is why we are asking for urgent action. I was saying that we asked for exclusion of orientals, and only got promises from the Government. But, in justice to the Government, it may be asked "What did you get from the previous government?" I do not know whether we got as liberal promises as we have received from the hon. members opposite, but the comparison does not prevail. There are two arguments against that which show that is not a just comparison. One is that the fact that the late government had not acted along these lines proved a very considerable factor against their candidates in the last election, and was a no mean factor in their defeat in the country districts in British Columbia: the public said "We do not like this lack of action; we will send men to parliament pledged to take some action." Therefore it is not sufficient to say "Well the late government did not do any better either", because our constituents and the public expect something to be done in the near future.
There we have the oriental question, and we will take the working man now. I believe it is not popular here to refer to the working man, but we are going home by and by and we will come in contact with him. He asked for an eight hour day, and he was told by the provincial government that it was a matter for the Dominion and not for the provinces. He was told it had some connection with the Treaty of Versailles and he was entitled to have
it. I think that it formed no inconsiderable plank in the Liberal platform, I am speaking subject to correction as to that, but we came here and reiterated the demand made by our constituents, and we were told that it was not a matter of Dominion legislation but a matter of provincial legislation. That may be; I do not gainsay that statement. There was a suggestion and an inquiry made in the House, would the Government not call the representatives of the various provinces together, and have a conference with a view to passing legislation by all the different provinces, so that the matter would be adjusted? And we were given no assurance that it would be done. Further than that, the Government itself has fallen down and refused to carry out this principle on its own public work. I consider we are more or less obligated to do this under our treaty obligation. So much for that aspect of the case.
The next item I draw attention to comes under the tariff, and this matter, as I said, is a compromise, a sort of political grab bag. Each province and each interest shuts its eyes and puts in its hand and sees what it will bring out, and some of the things they succeed in getting are quite out of keeping with the needs of the people who draw them. You often see the same thing at a ladies' aid sale.
The lumber industry wants one thing and that only-and my hon. friends from British Columbia will agree with me in this-they want a reduction of high freight rates. They do not care about the tariff, if they can only get a reduction on the freight rates. Those mills situated on the water where they can ship their products are not so badly off, but there is a number of them situated inland; the only way they can ship is by train to the prairies and they cannot sell the lumber at a profit, after paying the freight. They come down asking for a reduction in the freight, and what do they get? They get 2h per cent reduction on their new machinery. I am not deprecating that at all1, beCause 21 per cent on a mill that would cost $100,000 to equip amounts to a very considerable sum; but the irony of the thing is that they do not want new machinery, because their present machinery is lying rusting by reason of the fact that they have not the freight rate necessary to take the timber out. When a man wants bread what is the use of offering him a stone? And until he can make the wheels of his present machinery turn it is little use to say that
The Budget-Mr. Neill
[Stage Direction]
he can get a rebate if he buys machinery. It is a reduction in theory but not in effect.
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: In the Crows-nest Pass agreement is there a provision relating to lumber?


Alan Webster Neill: No, lumber is not mentioned in that agreement.
I come now to the coal mining question. The coal miners ask protection-and I am not ashamed to use the word'-against the importation of fuel oil from the American side, and ask for an opportunity to work more than two days a week-that is all they are working now. You hear a great deal about the big wages they make but if they only work two days a week how much does it come to? At present they are only working two days a week, and they receive $40 a month. In my opinion that is not as much as $25 a month in Ontario, because the cost of living is so much higher out there. And these men are expected to live, have their homes, raise their fami-_ lies on $40 a month and pay high taxation.' The inspectors appointed under the British Columbia Minimum Wage Act have decided that $65 a month is the minimum sum that a girl in business can live decently on, and it is provided by law that she cannot be paid less than $65 a month. But the coal miner is expected to keep his wife and family and feed and clothe them on $40 a month, and that is all they are receiving at the present time in these mines. What do they get out of the political grab bag? They get nothing. They did get something. They got a vision of their own Canadian Merchant Marine going over three or four thousand miles to Japan and buying Japan coal mined by Japanese, and bringing it over, and selling it at the doors of our own coal mines, where the men are working only two days a week. How the Japanese authorities must laugh to see us sitting here passing resolutions, as solemnly as a lot of children playing at church, about restrictions and so on, and our very own Government boats are bringing Japan coal over to the detriment of our own workers out there in British Columbia. More than that, I claim the Government has not kept faith on this subject. I put a question on the order paper some time ago and drew the attention of the Government to the fact that a Canadian Government boat had gone over to Japan and brought a load of coal. After bringing the matter to the attention of the Government, I asked if this policy would be discontinued, and in reply, there was a positive assurance that,

so far as it was possible to do so-I think those were the words used-the practice would be discontinued. I sent that word home to those coal miners, and I assured them that at least this would not happen again. Only a few hours ago, however, I received this telegram from Cumberland, signed by the President of the Board of Trade:
Another shipment Japanese coal brought by C.G.S.S. Inventor transferred to Britisher. Britisher was due here for coal but had order cancelled result no work in mines to-day do not consider this good business for Canadian industries.
Neither do I. I will go further than that and say that that is an insult to our Canadian workers, a disgrace to the Canadian government, and incidentally a reflection upon ourselves. Those men who are not working are not Hungarians nor Poles; they are British-born miners, and they are the men about whom some hon. gentlemen waxed so eloquent the other day in the discussion about oleomargarine when they said that we must maintain at any hazard the right of the poor man to buy a cheap, spurious imitation of butter. Is there not a more potent right than that, the right of the poor man to have employment? I have cited this quotation before, but I will quote again what one of the leaders of the British government said in a debate in the House of Commons in London:
The classes who had the running of the country would be Judged in proportion as they could find or organize employment for the great mass of the people.
The word "people" in this connection means the people of Canada, not the people of Japan. That is the situation to-day, that these men are working two days a week, and we ourselves, for it is we, are bringing coal over from Japan. I might also mention incidentally that quite a large number of orientals are working in these mines with the full sanction and authority of law. They are dangerous; they are ignorant of our language; in case of an explosion or accident, they would add trebly to the danger and difficulties of the white men who are employed there. They are keeping out white men there to-day, and they, I suppose, are getting their two days' work a week. If the white men took the law into their own hands and broke out into open rioting, they would be promptly and properly punished, because the law must be observed. But if anything of that kind happened, would not some portion of the blame rest upon this Government and

The Budget-Mr. Neill
this House which, if not directly, have indirectly sanctioned conditions that prevail there to-day? I do not think we would be altogether clear from some blame attaching to ourselves. That is the situation as regards the coal industry. That is what the coal miners got out of this budget.
As regards the fishing industry, the fishermen asked for the elimination of purse seines and traps, and they also asked incidentally that the fishing should be limited to white men. What did they draw out of the budget? They drew a most extraordinary thing. They drew a substantial rebate on gasoline, and that reduction looked fair on the face of it, because fishermen use power boats. But the joker in this reduction is that the majority of them have motor power boats that do not use gasoline, and this reduction will be of practically no benefit to them. I imagine that, at the most, about ten per cent of them use gasoline, and the rest of them are not benefited one particle by this reduction in the budget. In some districts they are not allowed to use power boats. It was intended for fishermen; it was said so in the speech of the minister; but it does not benefit them, for the reasons I have stated.
The dairy industry asked for, not a tariff [protection, 'but simply a /protection against what they claimed was an unfair competition. I will not go into that again, because I have already discussed it. But the dairy industry is in a very critical condition to-day, and some form of protection was requested. What did the dairy industry get out of the budget? The ingredients that go into oleomargarine are allowed in free, although they are taxed if used for anything else, and in the budget we also find that free importation is provided for cottolene, which is a mess made of cottonseed oil and which is a sort of step-sister to oleomargarine. That is what the dairymen got out of the budget.
The fruit industry apparently only asked to be left alone. The fruit men did not appear to want anything; they seemed to say: "Just leave us alone." They had a dumping clause that protected them. If that dumping clause has not been removed, it has been changed to a method which they consider makes it absolutely unworkable. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was discussing the subject, it did appear to me that the original form of the dumping clause was the more practicable one; but I must give way
to the opinions of the men who operate it and who operate under it. It was introduced some fifteen years ago. The policy that is now to be the law was introduced then; it was given a fair trial and it was found unworkable. Theory is not so powerful as the practical example and they came down to the Government and got the form recently in force enacted and they have found it workable. Those who operate under it are apparently thoroughly satisfied with it and I should think it would have been part of wisdom to leave well alone. At any rate, they claim their industry, if this clause goes into effect, will be practically ruined.
Comox-Alberni is not only a very large district, but it presents a most extraordinary diversification of interests, more so, perhaps, than any other constituency in Canada. As a matter of fact all the industries that I have mentioned are to be found and are working under a hardship in the district which I represent, and there are many other interests as well. It is for these reasons, which I will recapitulate briefly-the oriental question, the eight-hour day, the lumber industry, the coal-mining industry, the fishing industry, the dairy industry and the fruit industry -and for the reasons that I have advanced in connection with these industries, that I hesitate and wonder whether I am acting In the best interests of my constituents in supporting the Government on this occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I may assure my hon.
friends to my left that while I may have somewhat loose ideas and be a little wobbly on the tariff, I have an unalterable conviction that as long as I represent the constituency of Comox-Alberni, my first duty is to look after their interests and my second to look after the interests of the province from which I come. If other hon. members would do the same, we would soon be able to get together and decide on a compromise-for all legislation is compromise-that would give a reasonable regard to the interests of all the different provinces. While these things all affect that district, they are all large questions and I am not being petty or parochial in the matter. They affect, in their entirety, the whole of British Columbia; in some cases, they affect the whole of that province, in other cases, a very considerable portion of it. But they are all burning, vital questions to British Colum-
The Budget-Mr. Neill

bia as a whole. It cannot he said that these questions concerning British Columbia have not been laid before the House; all the various members from that province have spoken and at some length on these different questions. They have been backed up by representations made by boards of trade, chambers of commerce, city councils and the like, so that it cannot be said that these questions have not been presented to the Government or that the Government are in ignorance in regard to the matter. The conviction, however, has been forced on us, most unwillingly, that the country districts of British Columbia are suffering from a double injustice. In the first place, the country is being starved for the benefit of the city ridings. In the second place, British Columbia is largely a country of raw products, and the development of those raw products is largely in its initial stages. We, therefore, can justly demand in the development of those resources the same protection as was accorded Ontario and Quebec in days gone by. I do not mean only actual tariff protection; but they got assistance and protection and some of the eastern industries are getting that still. Surely, therefore, we can demand that we get the same measure of protection until we build up our industries and get upon our feet. We are, however, feeling that we are being discriminated against in favour of the more populous or more represented portions of Canada. I do not chuckle over this as my hon. friends to my right. The reason I do not chuckle is that I have to go home and explain to my constituents why I support a government which does all these things. I have striven to avoid the consummation, but I cannot disguise the facts. They are as plain to the man on the street as to any one. If this policy is persisted in I cannot see how the Government, logically or fairly, can expect a very continued support from the country members of British Columbia, or, in the case of an election, any very great accession of support from the other districts. I may be wrong, perhaps my vision is limited; but I cannot see how it can work out otherwise. During the summer it is my intention to tour my riding. I always do that during the recess, because it is the only way to keep in touch with the people and to secure a proper measure of democratic representation. Any one who desires to know what public opinion really is must keep next to the people, and I shall 
tour the districts and hold meetings, at which the public will be invited not only to listen but to talk as well. I want to hear their views and to get their sentiments; and in accordance with the views I gather there, and the judgment which the people express generally, shall my course at the next session be shaped.
Mr. FRANCIS N. McCREA (Sherbrooke) : We have been waiting for several weeks for the budget to ascertain just what our venerable Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) proposed to do in the way of taxation, and now that it has been presented it is evident that every hon. member is not satisfied. I have received letters and telegrams urging me to use my influence to persuade the minister and his colleagues to modify the budget in such respects as those who have communicated with me are affected. Personally I was inclined to be somewhat unhappy over the budget, but when I stop to realize that this country requires about half a billion dollars to meet ordinary expenses, I have not very much to say except to make up my mind, as I think every one else should, to bear my full share of taxation. Every one must be prepared to do this, and to pay a little more than he would possibly like to pay. And I have such unbounded f aith in the good judgment and the wisdom of the Minister of Finance that I am willing to leave that part to him. Consequently, I do not purpose taking up very much time discussing the pros and cons of the tariff question or of the budget. I think there is another subject of much more importance to the people than is any slight modification in the tariff here or there. That subject is our National Railway system; indeed, not only our National Railways but the other railways in the country as well. I look upon the railway situation as very serious, and the great question that is engaging the attention of the people throughout the country to-day is, what we are going to do to improve it? As a manufacturer who does a considerable amount of shipping, I find, and I think the public generally find, that the present freight rates are too high; in fact, they are so excessive that I think they are paralyzing business. Business at the present time is stagnant; it is held up to a great extent by reason of these high freight rates, for shippers cannot move their goods freely. A nd besides the freight rates being so high, the people are faced with a deficit on the government railways, of some $72,000,000,

The Budget-Mr. McCrea
as shown by the Minister of Railways; while I believe that if the minister got a proper audit and a thorough accounting we should find that the deficit is not only $72,000,000 but well over $100,000,000. If I understand the situation correctly, there has been no proper accounting made for depreciation of rolling stock, road bed, etc.; nor has there been any allowance for capital investment. I believe therefore that with a fair and proper accounting you would 4 p.m. find the deficit in the vicinity of the higher figure I have suggested. Now, there are gentlemen in this House, some of them on this side-I do not know how they come to be here, holding such views-who advocate government ownership of railways. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) the other day predicted that the time would come when we should be proud of our National Railways. Well, it is not entirely impossible that that prediction may be fulfilled some time or other. But from time immemorial there have been prophets in this world who have foretold the immediate advent- of the millennium, which is not yet here; and in my opinion the day when we shall be proud of our National Railways will be cotemporaneous with the millennium. Those of us who were in the Railway Committee room a few days ago and listened to the evidence of Mr. Beatty learned that the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private railway which is well managed, operating over practically the same territory as our National Railways, pays its stockholders something over $30,000,000 a year in the way of returns on their investments. On the other hand our nationally owned railways, operated by the Government, are creating a deficit which the people, the owners of the system, are asked to dig down into their pockets to pay. And that deficit, as I have pointed out, is around $100,000,000. The man who stands up in this House or anywhere else and seriously declares that the nationally owned railways are a good investment has more courage than judgment, in my opinion.
What are we to do in the circumstances? We have heard Mr. Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway; we have heard Mr. Hanna, who is the chairman of Board of Directors of the National Railways; and I presume that if you asked these gentlemen who were the managers, respectively, of these corporations, they *would tell you that they were. In my
judgment neither of them manages the financial end of the road with which he is connected. I think that if you go to Indianapolis and consult Mr. Carey, the president of the international labour union, you will find that he has more to say about the financial operations of these roads than either of these gentlemen, and dictates the policy of them from the financial standpoint. To explain what I mean: A short time ago I was talking to Mr. J. H. Walsh, manager of the Quebec Central Railway, over which our company does a very large-amount of shipping. I complained of the rates, .and he said that it was true that their rates were rather exorbitant, being more than double what they were five or six years ago. "But," he said, "here is the condition of affairs. At practically every station along the line the agent's residence is in the same building in which he does his work. Ever since I have been in charge of the road, some twenty-five years now, the practice has been for one agent to look after the station, whether he worked ten or twelve hours. He was on duty in the morning, when the first train was despatched, and he was on duty m the evening to see after the last train, having put in a day of ten or twelve or perhaps thirteen hours. And he was satisfied." But under the McAdoo arrangement this method was all changed; the agents and everybody else worked on the basis of the eight-hour day. Mr. Walsh said that the agents were told: "We are willing that you should work eight hours; we do not ask you to work more. But we do ask you to spread that eight hours over the day; that is, to be on duty when the first train requires your attention in the morning. If there is no other train for two or three hours, you may do as you like during that time, but be on duty when the next train comes along and take care of it." But the reply of the men was: "We belong to the union, and they will not let us do that." The result is that these men work their eight-hour day and if a customer comes half an hour or even ten minutes late for his freight or on any other business, there is nobody to attend to him. If the work is to be done, arrangements have to be made with the agent to pay him time and a half after he has put in his eight hours. This applies to the whole system, all the way down. Mr. Walsh says that the men are being paid twice as much as they were being paid five years ago, and that it now requires two men where one man formerly
The Budget-Mr. McCrea

did the work with ease. How can you expect, he says, a reduction of freight rates under these conditions?


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I would like to ask the hon. member if he has compared the rates paid those men with the rates paid to any other classes of labour in Canada?


Mr.   McCRE A@: I would be glad to answer the question if I could hear it, but I am hard of hearing and I have not been able to grasp my hon. friend's question. In any case I w7ould ask my hon. friend and all other hon. members to wait until I have finished, and then I shall be glad to answer any questions they may wish to put.


Levi William Humphrey: Shall I repeat the question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr.   McCRE A@: What is the question?
If the hon. member can speak loud enough to make me -hear, I will try to answer his question.


Levi William Humphrey: I asked the hon.
member if he had compared the rates of wages paid to the men he speaks of with the wages paid any other men in Canada performing that work or any other work of the kind?


Mr.   McCRE A@: I suppose they are not paid any more than other men in similar employment. But this condition applies to all railways and it is responsible for the high rates which prevail. I assume, from where the hon. member (Mr. Humphrey) sits in the House that he is one of the Progressives and, consequently, a farmer. I would ask him if he would carry out his business on that system?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He is a railway employee.


Mr.   McCRE A@: If he is not a farmer, let him ask the farmers around him if they could carry on their business on any system of eight hours a day or less.


Levi William Humphrey: I may tell my hon. friend that I am not a farmer, if that is any satisfaction to him.


Mr.   McCRE A@: I say that this system applies not only to the agents but to all the railway employees. Mr. Walsh told me at the same time, by way of illustration, what now happens in the case of a locomotive which comes in for repairs. The engineer in charge runs it into the shop and reports to the master mechanic that

some repairs are necessary. The master mechanic sends a machinist to make the repairs, with all the necessary tools. But when the machinist examines the engine he finds, perhaps, that a steam pipe is leaking-possibly needs to be tightened up. Now he has all the tools, all the equipment to do that work, just as it had been done for years before this McAdoo system of running railways in Canada came into force. But he dare not touch the job; he has to send back to the shops for a steamfitter to come in and fix that pipe, though it is a job which he himself could do in five minutes. The same thing applies to half a dozen different parts of the engine. Work that one man used to do now takes three or four men before the job is completed. Now, I am not interested in the railways; I have not a dollar in railway stock. But I ship as much freight as any man in this House. I ask hon. members who criticise the railways and find fault with them: how are the railways to cope with this condition? The railways should be in a position to say to these men: "You must do thus and so, as you did before; conditions have changed; you also must change and come back to normal conditions." When a strike is called, who calls it? Mr. Carey of Indianapolis, or some other leader of an organization. In the election of 1911 we heard a great deal from our friends on the other side of the House to the effect that there should be no truck or trade with the Yankees. Well, -so far as the Yankees running our railway system is concerned; so far as their dictating when and how and how many hours our men shall work and what pay they shall receive, I say it is time that we had no truck and no trade in that direction. We ought to say: "Hands off; we will run our own business."
I am not in favour of low wages; I think I have stated that in this House before. I am a farmer's son. I was born and brought up on a farm

not a very rich one, either-and at a time when money did not come easily. Moreover, when I left my father's farm I went out as a labouring man, and without friends, without money, without anything to recommend me to the world. If I have had some degree of success it has been by putting into practice what I am now preaching to others; it has been the result of thrift and industry, of taking care of my money and not spending more than I earned. I think, therefore, I have the right to give some advice on these particular questions. I

The Budget-Mr. McCrea
say I am not in favour of very much lower wages, but I am in favour of every man, no matter what position he holds, doing an honest and fair day's work for the money he receives. This classifying of labour- and there are some men in this House who know the results of it-this classifying of labour which calls upon a man to do a particular work and forbids him to do anything else, has cost this country a lot of money. I have no quarrel with labour; what I am saying now is, I believe, in the best interests of labour. I say to the young man in this country who is starting out as I did, without friends, relations, education or anything else to recommend him, the best thing he can do is to show his employer that he is interested in his work and trying to earn money for him. That ,is the way he will get promotion. If his employer does not notice his faithfulness and other good qualities, somebody else will. That is the best road to success that I know of.
Mr. Beatty, in his evidence before the Railway Committee the other day, said that he proposed to reduce the rates, but he was very cautious to add1, on conditions, and what were the conditions? On condition that labour costs were reduced. If Mr. Beatty and Mr. Hanna were the managers of these two great railway systems as they ought to be, they would be able to say: "We are going to reduce the rates." But they are only in a position to say: "We will reduce the rates if Mr. Carey allows us, and if he does not, we cannot help ourselves." I do not know whether everybody in this House realizes it or not, but in my judgment our railway rates have reached such an exorbitant point that business is practically paralyzed, and on top of that we have $100,000,000 of deficits on the government-owned1 railways. I ask the Government and this House what are we going to do to remedy the situation? During the war, prices of everything went up, materials, wheat, lumber and everything else. Railway rates also went up; that was all right, and so did wages. Now we have reached the period where the prices of all commodities have diminished, in some cases more than 50 per cent, but labour costs have not come down in proportion. What we ask, and what we have the right to ask, of labour is that their costs should come down in proportion to the value of the goods they produce, but they do not appear to be willing to allow that. I say that if this Government have the power to legislate on the question, they should do so, and if they have not the power, we should hold a conference as they did in England, to see what they will allow us to do, because the situation is so grave. To my mind these are the only two courses, and one of them we cannot adopt too soon. If we have the power to say to these people: "You shall not go on strike," or "You shall not hold up the business of this country"

whichever way you choose to put it-if we have that power, all right. If we have not, let us invite them to a conference, take off our hats, and say: "Gentlemen, what will you allow us to do? The conditions are so grave that we cannot go on this way much longer, and some remedy must be found." I am not complaining about wages so much as the lack of efficiency. Labour is clamouring for shorter hours and more pay. I do not object so much to the more pay as I do to the Shorter hours. There is a strike of the coal miners on in the United States at the present time, and one of their demands is for a six-hour day-the six hours to be counted from the time they leave the surface until they get back up again-and a five-day week. How can we expect cheap transportation when the steam for hauling our freight has to be generated from coal mined under those conditions? What right has a man who has to work for a living, whether he be a coal miner or any body else, to ask that the industry he is engaged in shall receive such a price for its products that it can afford to employ him for a six-hour day and a five-day week, or thirty hours a week altogether, when the farmer and the man who feeds that labouring man has to work seven days a week and anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a day?
Here is the situation. The people of this country are made up of groups. They do not all work in the same shop. One group is making boots and shoes, another group clothing, another group hats and caps, and so on. But there is another group, which comprises at least fifty per cent of the total population of Canada, and it is those who till the soil, and that group cannot carry on their business on an eight-hour day or a forty-four hour week. I am speaking now of the dairy farmer, not the wheat miner as some people call him; he can probably get along on shorter hours; but the dairy farmer who produces the butter, the cheese, the eggs, the beef, the pork, the mutton, the vegetables, and all the rest that goes to feed the nation, has to work six days a week and do his chores on Sunday, and he is very lucky if he gets the chance to go to church. The dairy farmer is not the only one who has to work long hours. It is the

The Budget

Mr. McCrea
same in the lumbering industry. You cannot river-drive or carry on lumbering operations on a six-hour day. And there are many other industries in that category. I ask, what right has the man who works in a shoe factory and makes the shoes the farmer has to buy to say that the farmer must pay sufficient money for those shoes to enable that factory to pay its labour on the basis of an eight-hour day or a forty-four hour week, when the farmer himself is working six days a week and anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a day? "Someone may say that the farmer is idling part of his time, that he does net work on rainy days, for instance. I was brought up on the farm, and I know there are all kinds of farmers, as well as all kinds of labourers. There are labourers who will not work until starvation forces them, and farmers who work when they must, but these are not the ones who contribute to the feeding of the nation. I am speaking of the men who feed the nation, the men who work six days a week, and have to do their chores on Sunday, or get somebody else to do them, and who are lucky if they can go to church. What right has the man who produces the coal, or the boots, or the clothing, to say to the farmer: "You must work ten or twelve hours a day, or longer, in order to produce what I require at low prices, while I on my side will work only forty-four hours a week, and loaf most of that time if I can"? I have lived a long time, but I have yet to learn where honest, faithful toil has ever killed anybody. I believe in honest, faithful toil, and in prudence and economy, and if you want to succeed that is my rule of success.
Some people may say: If you work every man ten hours a day, and every man works to his capacity, there will not be work enough to go round, and a lot of people will in consequence be idle. That may be true of China or any densely populated country, but in this young Canada of ours, with a population of less than ten million and a capacity to accommodate one hundred and fifty millions of people, with millions of acres of untilled, first-class choice land as good as any in the world, with her inexhaustible mineral and forest wealth,

does any man tell me that there is not enough work in this country for everybody who is willing to work? We are told today that there are numbers of men in the large cities out of employment


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: Does my hon. friend suggest that there are 250,-

COO people idle to-day because they do not desire to work?


Mr.   McCRE A@: I am told that; I have rot got the actual proof. Let me tell you-


Angus McDonald: Will the-hon. gentleman deny the statistics compiled by his own government?


Mr.   McCRE A@: I am not denying anything. I said T had been told there are 250,000 idle men. But will my hon. friend tell me what those men are looking for? Are they looking for work, or is it "positions" they want?


Angus McDonald: Don't make any unfair accusations.


Mr.   McCRE A@: I know for a fact that in some cities idle men are walking the streets, and when work is offered to them they say "I want so and so." They want to select the work they shall do, and lay down the conditions of employment. I am told that is the class of men walking our streets to-day unemployed.


Angus McDonald: I would like to


Mr.   McCRE A@: Will the hon. member or any one else tell me that in this country of ours


Angus McDonald: I would like to ask the hon. member another question. Am I within my rights in doing so, or not?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would advise the hon. member that the hon. member having the floor need not answer questions unless he is willing to do so.


Angus McDonald: Will the hon. member answer my question?


Mr.   McCRE A@: I contend that in this country with its millions of acres of untilled land, with its abundance of timber, of minerals, and all kinds of wealth there is no need for any person to be idle-


Angus McDonald: Why are they idle?


Mr.   McCRE A@: -and I wish to say further: that the great majority of the men that are walking the streets and claiming they are in search of work are looking for positions, not work; positions where they can get a living with practically nothing to do. There are always lots of men engaged in that kind of quest. At the same time, it is true that we are passing through extremely hard times, and I say that if there are men or women that are destitute and are willing to work but cannot get

The Budget-Mr. McCrea
employment, and have no money upon which to subsist, the country should take care of them. Nevertheless such people should be told "This country has resources and employment can be found for every man and every woman who is able and willing to work We are going to help you now but see to it that you do not fall into need again. Take care of yourself; find some employment because there is plenty for you to do." If there are so many idle people why have we an immigration policy seeking to bring outsiders to this country? Either we have room and employment for immigrants, or conditions are such that we do not want any more outsiders.
I have a remedy for the existing situation and I am going to explain it to the House, but I would not advise this or any other government to adopt the suggestion right off. Let them ponder it well and if they think as I do they will come to the conclusion that the remedy is one worth trying. But the people will need to be educated to an understanding of what the proposition means, and of the beneficial results which will follow. My proposition is this: In the first place I would say to the labouring class, or any other class, that if they wish to form a union they have a perfect right to do that, because in union there is strength. But if they form a union they should do it under the laws of the country in the same manner that any other incorporated company is formed- if any company wishes to commence operations in Canada the first thing it must do is get a charter. That charter defines what the company may or may not do, and sets forth that those concerned are amenable to the law and must live up to any agreement into which it enters. I maintain that the first thing the government ought to do is to pass a law that a union of labour men, or organization of any other kind, must be responsible and amenable to the laws of the land. The next step should be to select from among the best men available persons learned in the law and persons experienced in industrial, labour, and other matters, to form a board to deal with labour situations. Then the government should make it an unlawful offence either for employees to walk out or for employers to declare a lock-out. That does not mean that capital and labour would not be always able to agree when differences arose, but what would happen would be this: In the event of a failure on the part of the representatives of labour to agree with the representatives of the
particular company concerned, both sides should go before this commission and be heard as in the case of proceedings in a court of justice. After hearing the facts the commission would give its finding, which would be binding on both parties to the dispute. In the meantime there would have been no strike, and no holding up of business. At present, men go on strike because they have no other remedy-that is the only course open to them. Why not try an arbitration first, why not try to reach a settlement before deciding to stike? It is not merely the men and their employers that are interested; the public generally are concerned. For example, take the strike which occurred in New York last fall when probably three or four thousand milk drivers, and a number of milk dealers went out. What was the outcome? There was almost an epidemic among thousands of children in New York, where they were depending on getting milk and could not get it. Why should such a thing exist? Is that a humane way to settle trouble? I claim it is not.
The nations engaged in the great war which ended a few years ago lost millions of men, and after the war they met in order to settle terms of peace, which are not settled yet. Why should they not have had this agreement before? We should have a period of education, and people should be taught the proper way to settle such matters. I think seventy-five to ninety per cent of the men who go on strike cannot afford to do it, and fifty per cent do not want to strike. The men who make a business of engineering these strikes go round, hold meetings, and make the men believe that their employers are the greatest enemies they have, and are trying to crush and ruin them, when the facts are exactly the opposite. Any employer of labour who understands his business-and I think most of them do-realize that the goodwill of their employees is the best asset they can have, and they have no desire to crush those employees. The commission which I propose would deal with that aspect of it, and would do justice to all parties. The reason I suggest a period of education in these matters is because the men have only heard one side of the story. They have listened to the agitators, who tell them their employers are trying to crush theta out of existence. Under the arrangement I propose, men will have their differences settled by the commission, and will receive their just and honest dues. The commissioners will be men of experience and the
The Budget-Mr. McCrea

matter will Ibe settled in the interests of the men and everybody concerned. Under these conditions, the employer could afford to pay his men better money. At present, if a contract of some magnitude is to be let in this city or elsewhere, the man who proposes to tender for that contract does not know where he is at. Suppose he tenders, is awarded the contract, and gets everything ready, and the labourers ask wages that he cannot conceive to be reasonable. Then they go oni strike, and months elapse, and perhaps the period during which the work should be d'one will have passed. The consequence may be that the contractor is called upon to do the work in the fall or winter, when it would 'cost double the money it would cost at another period. The contractor does not make any money, and the labourers do not make any money because they are on strike. Under the system of arbitration, if the labourers did not agree with the contractor who tendered for a certain work, he would know there would be no strike on his hands. But he might have to pay the men more money, but that would be a mere bagatelle compared with the cost of doing the work at the wrong time of the year, when it cannot be done to advantage.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the hon. member think that this tirade of hackneyed nonsense is helping to settle the problem?
Some hon MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr.   McCRE A@: The labour Clement of the country has only heard the agitator's end of the story, and he would be out of a job if my plan were1 put into effect, but that would be a benefit to all concerned. I come from the city of Sherbrooke, and two-thirds of my electors, at least, belong to the labouring class. I have expressed my views to them before, and I am not afraid to do it again. In my opinion1 it is the solution of this trouble, and I believe when this Government goes before the country again they would be well advised if they adopted my suggestion or something along similar lines. I believe it is reasonable, fair and just to all parties. Can any hon. member show me a case where, being dissatisfied with their Conditions, men have _ gone out on strike for one week or six months, and have derived any benefit? In cases of strikes, finally, after having exhausted what little means they have, the men come down to a method of adjustment. Why not have the adjustment before the strike, instead of after? I believe it is proper for the men to form unions to put

their case 'before the public; but if they are going to unionize the men should do it under the law of the country and should1 not be allowed to do it in any other way. Under present conditions when a strike takes place a commission is appointed to investigate. Nine times out of ten the members of that commission have had no experience in regard to labour or capital. The commissioner may be a judge, perhaps learned in the law, but he knows nothing about labour. I propose to have men of experience in this particular work, who know what is necessary and what is fair and just to both parties. The troubles between the men and the employers could be adjusted, with no tie-up of business conditions. In cases of strikes it is not merely the labourers and employers who are affected, but, in Cases of railway strikes, the whole community suffers. I contend that the very best asset any man can have in the industrial world is the goodwill of his employees. If he has not that, I pity him. I have been a labourer; I have been an employer of labour for many years, and the best asset I want to have, or believe I can have, is to have the goodwill and good wishes of the men who work for me. I have, however, never yet allowed, and I do not intend to allow any man to dictate to me and say: "This is my particular job; I will do this and I will do nothing else; I am hired to do this work, and if I can do it in an hour a day, I will not do anything else." If a man agrees to work for me eight hours a day and I agree to pay him for that, I expect him to work for me eight hours a day; and if there is something which he can do in the interest of me or the company which I represent, I expect him to do it. Surely that is a reasonable request. So long as the railways in this country are run on the McAdoo system of every man having a particular work which is classified, and is not being permitted to do anything else, we need not look for cheaper rates or better conditions. The sooner we get away from the idea that every man should have a fixed job and nothing else, the better it will be for everybody.
I think I have taken up enough of the time of the House; but I wish to touch upon one other matter. In the Agricultural Committee a few days ago I made some remarks which evidently pleased some people and displeased others. The only comment I care to make upon the matter is that, as my remarks were made in the committee they are not published in

The Budget-Mr. McCrea
Hansard, and the only report is the report made by the newspapers. In that particular case, the report of part of what I said was correct, but part of my remarks was omitted. I commenced my remarks with regard to the Civil Service by saying that, in the Civil Service, there were a number of good men and good women who were earning the money they were getting and who were capable of earning more provided they worked more hours, as I think they should. I also said that quite a number of them were not earning their money. In addition to that I think I said-I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as meaning that these people were no good-that when you employ more men than you have work for, people who have not anything to do become parasites. I said that in the Civil Service there were a certain number of employees who were simply parasites because they were not earning their money, and the reason that they were not earning their money was because they had not sufficient work to do, as the service was overmanned. That was my statement, and I do not propose to retract it, whether it pleases or displeases. I also said that my advice to the Government would be as soon as possible to get busy and dispense with the services of those whom they did not require. I also said that many of these people were Overpaid and that they were not earning their money. I have had some comment from different parties; I heard very loud talk of their poverty, how they were underpaid and badly treated, how they were living in almost starvation conditions. All I have to say in that respect is this: If anybody doubts that they are pretty prosperous people, let him walk down the streets about this time -it is now about a quarter to five, and they are not supposed to be out until five o'clock; but you will find many of them a little ahead of time-and you will think they are coming out of church. Just notice how they are dressed. If you saw the two crowds, one coming out of the government offices and the other coming from church, you would not know which was which.
I should like to cite some figures. I have always been in favour of giving good wages to people who earn their money, and I have no objection to paying good wages to the Civil Service or any other service, because my judgment is that that is the only way to deal with workers who earn their money. But when civil servants complain about
their meagre salaries or wages, we must consider that their hours of labour are six and a half hours a day. Those are supposed to be the hours of labour, but they do not always work that number of hours. Take for instance, a man or a woman receiving $1,000 a year for 300 days a year and six and a half hours a day, you will find that he or she gets 51J cents an hour for every hour's service that he or she is supposed to put in. Any person who wants to hire labour can hire as much as he wants and can get it to work hard for much less than that. The man who receives $1,200 a year is being paid at the rate of 61 cents an hour; the man who receives $1,400 a year is being paid at the rate of 73 cents an hour. The man who receives $2,000 a year is getting $1.03 for every hour he works, and the man who gets $2,400 a year receives $1.23 for every hour he works. My contention is: If they are not satisfied with the money they are receiving, in the first place, why did they take the job? In the second place, why do they not get something else to do somewhere else? Conditions are such to-day that everybody is asked to retrench and cut down expenses, and iit is no more hardship on the Civil Service than on anybody else to cut down expenses and live within their means, especially at the present time when, as an hon. member said, many men are walking the streets and cannot get anything to do at all. Two or three years ago, conditions may have been somewhat different; but today we have reached a point that when you walk into a saloon and call for a drink of lemonade, you are taxed a few cents additional to pay for the cost of running the country and the deficit on the government-owned railways. Every cheque you sign has to have an extra stamp or two .put on it for the same reason. Surely, then, it is time for the people to consider which way we are travelling and to economize. Whether the Civil Service are pleased or displeased, we should say to them: "If you are not satisfied with conditions, the best thing for you to do is to economize, and if you are still not satisfied, you can go and find work somewhere else."


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up only a very short time of the House; but for a moment I wish to refer somewhat to the arguments advanced by the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. McCrea). In the

The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
speech just delivered by him he came out against public ownership of railways, against organized labour and against almost the right of labour or any other class of the community to organize to protect itself.


Mr.   McCRE A@: May I correct the hon.
member ?


William Findlay Maclean: Keep your
seat. Hold on. I never heard such a denunciation of a political party and of political leaders as came from the mouth of my hon. friend, sitting, as he does, behind hon. gentlemen now responsible for the administration of government. He denounced the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) ; he denounced the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), who has enunciated in this House the railway policy of the Government, and most of all, he denounced the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). Indeed, the Minister of Labour blushed all the time the hon. member spoke. The labour interests of this country will look for the support of the Minister of Labour. He has been taking notes, and I know in a short time he will come forward to state the case of organized labour.


Mr. MURDOCK:: The hon. member is
mistaken. I am-writing a letter to a friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Surely the
minister is not going to allow this attack on organized labour to pass without putting in a word for the labouring people, especially as ,he chased after the office he got and was elected to it and is in the Government as Minister of Labour. I leave the matter in that way to him and his supporters. I have always been in favour of public ownership, and after my present experience I am more in favour of it than ever.


Mr.   McCRE A@: May I be permitted to
make a statement? The ihon. gentleman has repeated two or three times that I am opposed to organized labour. I said that I am not opposed; that I thought it was necessary that labour should be organized. I am not opposed to organized labour, but I am opposed to its running the country.


William Findlay Maclean: It is all very well for the hon. member now to say that he is in favour of organized labour.' But was there ever such a denunciation of the right of labour to organize in this country &3 has come from him to-day? My hon. friend is a pulp manufacturer, and in connection with the industry in which he is interested he recognizes the principle of

collective bargaining. In his business that principle is observed every day. The trouble in Canada to-day, however, is not so much that we have organized labour, or that we are perplexed over public ownership, as it is in the fact that there has been a lot of profiteering as a result of the war. Pex-haps the charge will apply to organized labour to some extent, but it no doubt applies to the industries of the country and the capitalists behind them; and if that is the case my hon. friend is narrow in his denunciation of organized labour. He must take a broad view of things and' recognize the right of labour to organize, as that right is recognized the world over. No doubt mistakes have been made and unfair things done under the aegis of organized labour; but I say there was never such profiteering, as a result of the war, as was practised in connection with organized industries of the character and organization which my hon. friend represents. Just think of what the pulp manufacturers did to the banks of the country, and, through them, to the people. They wrecked more homes in Montreal through speculation in paper stocks, and so forth, than anything else in the country did; and the thing is still going on. I know one bank in the country that lost $6,000,000 to one of these pulp organizations. And I know what I lost myself, because the paper makers with whom I had been doing business for thirty or forty years actually told me, after I had paid them millions of dollars: "We don't want your business any longer; take it away and close your accounts." And when the accounts were closed they had to give me back a cheque. Why should an ordinary publisher in this country be told, by men with whom he had been doing business for nearly forty years, that his business was no longer wanted and that he could take it away? I know how that treatment originated. But it has been the experience, of nearly everyone in the country that there has been profiteering on an enormous scale on the part of men carrying on industries, just as there may have been something of the kind in connection with labour. The hon. gentleman not only denounced the late government and its policy, but he eulogized the farmers, saying what a fine lot they were and how hard they worked. Well, they number 65 strong in this House, and they are here as an organized body. They have a right to organize and come here as collective bargainers, and surely they will not deny the same right to labour.
The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean


Mr. MORRISON:: They do not go on strike, though.


William Findlay Maclean: Not in the ordinary sense, perhaps, but they are on strike in this House; and the farmers in the United States Congress are among the greatest strikers in the world. Are not my hon. friends to my left on strike now in connection with several public questions?


John Morrison: Oh, no.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend will be able to speak for himself later. I say that the greatest strike in the world to-day is being put up by the farmers' bloc in the United States Congress, and an approach is being made to the same thing m this country. My hon. friends have my sympathy, I admit, because the farmer in Canada, no doubt, has some grievances. And the hon. member opposite (Mr. Mc-Crea) evidently does not want to allow them any relief in connection with the railways. His argument was not quite logical to me, and he did not state the full facts. However, I shall come to that in due course. Now, at a time when we are trying to pull the railways out of the difficulties in which they are struggling today, my hon. friend wants the Government to assume the responsibility of calling a halt and adopting the strange policy of going to the schoolhouses with a certain propaganda of instruction to the farmers as to how they should, or rather should not, organize, continuing that course of education for a time, and then appointing some board of arbitration to pass certain regulations with the object of denying the right of collective bargaining. If his remarks mean anything they simply mean that we should pass laws to put men into gaol- I believe those are among the words he used-if they refuse to accept certain decisions that may be given on labour matters. In the twentieth century he is preaching a doctrine centuries old, a doctrine the practice of which has caused untold mischief in the history of the world. Among those people who are gradually being freed from the conditions that have held them down for centuries is the ordin-
5 p.m. ary agricultural labourer in England. We hear a great deal about the beauty of England and how splendid a place it is in so many respects. But the other side of the story is not so engaging, especially when we remember that there are so many agricultural labourers lying in the village churchyards in that country without any headstones to tell who
they are. England was made great by economic injustice to the labouring population, not only to those who work in factories but those who labour on the farms as well; and the only hope which the labouring classes of Britain and of Europe, who have suffered this injustice for over two hundred years, have of improving their situation is by some form of collective bargaining, or unionism.
My hon. friend denounced the railways of the country, but he suppresses the main facts. He says that there is an awful situation in connection with the railways to-day. So there is. But who brought it about? The politicians, among whom are he and I. It is the orgy of railway expenditures which have been voted during the past twenty years that has brought about this condition and helped to demoralize transportation, until the governments of this country, but particularly the last government, decided that there should be no more subsidizing of railways. And, inasmuch as the railways were bankrupt, it was deemed wise to take them over and consolidate them. Now we have the roads and we are faced with a deficit, and the way to decrease that deficit is first of all to coordinate all the railways that we have now on our hands. When will the policy be brought forward which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) promised us in the statement he submitted to Parliament some time ago? He told us that we were to have a high-class board to administer the roads and that economies would be effected by the consolidation of the three or four systems that we have. When we can do that we can hope to be able to make a decent showing. But it is because certain railways are opposed to public ownership, fearing the competition from that source, that the effort is being made now to thwart the consolidation of the National Railways and the putting of a proper business administration at their head. Now, that criticism does not apply to the Government; it would be an unfair criticism of the Government, and I do not think that any one *would resent it more than the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Labour. The railway men have possibly made mistakes; and the McAdoo award may have been wrong. There have been many mistakes made in this world in connection with other organizations, and undoubtedly mistakes may have been made by the railways. But what has been done has been done, and we must deal with the situation as it exists and take steps

2324	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
to remedy it. But you cannot remedy it by such means as my hon. friend proposes. He makes a proposition for the suppression of strikes; but he can suppress strikes only by keeping an organized police force of 100,000 men at a great expense to the country. I think the hon. gentleman was rather juvenile in his discussion of the question, as well as in his reasoning. We must face the condition of affairs which exists. A number of our working people have but one trade; the character of our industrial organization may have brought that about. Of course, the ideal condition is that under which a man has his little farm, his little home, an acre of land1 and a cow. But the world of to-day is not organized in that way, nor are we to be relieved from the awful effects of the late war by any such condition. We must have organization, of capital, of labour, of industry. Why, even the political parties in this country are based on organization; the only thing is-and I want to tell it to my friends opposite-the two old parties think that nobody else has the right to organize and get into the same business. The arguments my hon. friend has made may be interesting talk for the day; it may suit his constituents; he may be able to say these things to the working people in his own home town. But he is not living in this century; he is not facing isquarely the problems which are confronting the people of Canada. For my part, I propose to address myself to the actual questions which face us and to which it is my right in a debate like this to direct the attention of the House.
One of the outstanding results of the war and of the Imperial conferences that have been held has relation to the status of Canada. At one time we were simply a Crown colony, but our status has expanded; greater responsibilities have come to us, and I see nothing ahead of us but a reconsideration of the whole question as to where we are and in what direction we are going constitutionally. As hon. gentlemen know, the British Empire is bound together by the principle of loyalty to the Crown. The supremacy of the Crown rests upon an act of Parliament, and that act of Parliament, which regulates the royal succession of the House of Brunswick, may be repealed any day by a democratic revolution in the form of a general election in England. If our position in the Empire is subject to that state of affairs, we must begin to think of what is 
going to happen. In view of the recognition of the dominions as co-equal with the Mother Country, it seems to me that we are coming to a condition where there will have to be some kind of federation of all these dominions on the basis of a written instrument. Strange to say, the whole policy of the British communities is not the result of a written instrument, as in the case of the United States; it is based on acts of the British Parliament which can be repealed at any time. I say that there will have to be a federation of English-speaking communities, especially those which enjoy British institutions; and under the written instrument on which it is based the various states will have the right to make their own constitutions. I stand here to-day in favour of Canada having the absolute authority to make her own constitution, just as the Commonwealth of Australia has done. That will come in a very short time, and we must prepare ourselves for it. In fact it is being forced upon us as the result of the war and of the Imperial conferences to which I have referred. Particularly in view of the uncertainty as to what war is to be in the future, this greater federation will have to deal with the question of what powers shall be granted to these free states which compose it. We shall get as a result of that not only the right to make our own constitution, but the right to establish our own courts and to have a court of last resort under Canadian law. Not for one moment do I say that Canada will ever achieve what we have always said she should achieve if the present condition in that respect continues. I believe there will have to be a supreme court of some kind as between the members of the league, or federation, whatever you like to call it; but so far as Canada is concerned, I agree with what has been said in this House and out of it, that these matters should be placed under Canadian law and be determined in Canadian courts by Canadian judges, who shall hear the arguments of Canadian lawyers, and the decisions ought to be filed in this country, no matter what they concern. While it is otherwise, we are more or less in a state of tutelage.
The most interesting question which now confronts us in this respect is with regard to war. War has not ceased. The great chemists, the greatest men of science, are busy to-day devising the most devilish systems for the destruction of humanity, and we are fools if we do not pay some

The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
attention to the question of what we ought to do in the matter of defence. I see no way out of it but an early convention of the different parts of the British Empire which will comprise this league of states to which I have referred, and this convention will have to decide what we are to do in the matter of war. We must settle the question whether this damnable system of scientific destruction of humanity is to be allowed to have a free hand from now on. That is the danger to every community. The time, unfortunately, has come when a peaceful country cannot for a moment maintain its place when such a war comes on unless it is ready for it. And some war of that kind is right ahead of us. Germany may be preparing for war; she has some of the ablest scientific men in the world. Some things were disclosed during the late war which indicated in an astounding way the extent to which human destruction could be carried on. Ships were destroyed from aeroplanes by radio control of bombs, and I want to tell the House that inventions of that kind have been and are now being worked out, and humanity is up against them for the future. It is time we had a convention of this kind and that we decided what we shall do in the way of our defence. True, we can hope for what arbitration may bring about. We have a League of Nations with its seat at The Hague, to which international questions are referred, and an effort is being made to get all the nations to agree to do away with war, but they have not done it so far. It is true they are scrapping certain ships and cutting down expenditure on armament, but some kind of war is ahead of us. Some kind of great constitutional shake-up is also ahead of us, as one of the nations under the British Crown. These questions must be considered; much as we dislike to talk about them, they are ahead of us, and we cannot evade them. We have to come to a decision as to what our position shall be in the British Empire, and also on the consequent question, what are to be our rights and duties in connection with our constitution:-Are we to be absolutely free within our own country? Such questions must come up and must all be decided. It is the result of our constitutional growth and development. We may have to come to a decision pretty soon on the question of defence. We are certainly up against it financially, as this budget shows. Enormous sums of money have to be raised, and heavy taxation is 148i
being imposed. With this taxation ahead of us, it is time that we began to consider and discuss these questions in a broad way.
Another question that is coming up is that of race aggression. We have to protect our own races in this country. We are threatened by all kinds of racial aggression to-day, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) dealt with that subject for a moment. There is an attempt on the part of the orientals, and on the part of people in eastern and south eastern Europe, to get a foothold in this country. We must consider whether the races in this country can keep their position and endure in view of this inrush of orientals and Europeans I have before me a telegram in connection with that immigration from Europe, which I shall read a little later on. It is another question on which we must come to some kind of a decision.
Now I come to the question of transportation, and other associated questions raised by my hon. friend, and I want to bring them up in a rather broad way. We have had these questions discussed in this House and all over this country. I am going to lay down here to-day, and I ask the attention of hon. gentlemen to it, a Bill of Eights for the public services of this country. I have been studying this matter very carefully for the last two weeks and I have put the issue in shape for presentation to-day to the House and the country. Now what is this Bill of Rights that is hastening on in this country so fast that we cannot quite appreciate it? Let me read it to the House, and I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen who care to say something about it. I intend to make this Bill of Rights a part of my speech, and it will be printed in Hansard to-morrow:
Bill of Rights of Canadian Public Services.
The Government of Canada by itself or in association with others, or by delegation to others, to acquire, undertake and operate the following public services:
1.	Transportation:	A National System of
Transportation, in and out of Canada, by railway, highway, waterway, airway or other way or means, singly or jointly, including warehouses, elevators, terminal facilities, and also including the purchase, production, distribution and sale of electrical or other energy or source thereof.
2.	Communications: A National System of Communications in and out of Canada by post, express, wire, wave or other means, singly or jointly.
3.	Banking: A National System of Banking in and out of Canada associated with the Post Office or banks or bankers or otherwise, including rediscounting for banks and provinces,
2326	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
the making of advances on warehouse receipt or other security.
4.	Marketing: A National System of Marketing of farm and other staple products, with or without co-operation of organized producers or holders thereof, including the making of advances on such products in store or other security until marketed.
5.	Waterways for sea vessels: The Government of Canada by itself or in conjunction with the United States or others to establish waterways for sea-going vessels to Inland lake and river ports: and wherever possible to develop water or other power for the movement of traffic as may be agreed upon.
Finance: Such services to be financed out of the National Treasury, or by arrangements with banks or others or by bond issue of the national government or of others, bearing bank or bond interest, further secured when so provided on the undertaking or product.
Management:	The administration of any
such national service or any other public service in whole or in part, may be associated with that of any other public service in whole or in part; And these or other public services, wherever possible, to be made community centres so as to secure day and night service and every day service and efficient service to the greatest number of beneficiaries thereof or participants therein.
That, I take it, is a Bill of Rights in regard to these public services, and every one of the principles involved therein has been adopted more or less by this House, but they have never been brought together in this way. I have put them together in this form, and I take the responsibility of saying that on this Bill of Rights the next general election in Canada will be fought. It deals with transportation, with communications, with banking, with marketing, with waterways for sea vessels, and the financing and management of these services. As I said, all these matters have come up in this House, but they have all been disassociated from one another. The time has come when there can be no more trifling in this House with these services; we must deal with them adequately, or throw them out. We must either have, or not have, a national system of transportation. If we are to have a national system of transportation, it must be broad enough to take in every means of transport mentioned in this Bill of Rights. It must included the railway, the highway, the radial, the boat on the lake and on the sea. We have been told in the past in this House that there could be no regulation of freight rates in this country because some freight passes by boats, and boats were not under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. I am not aware if the hon. members of this House know what hard work some of us had to get even vessels carrying the traffic of this country brought under the

Railway Act. We did succeed in that, and now we are proposing develcpments in other directions. For example, there are what the French call "communications", embracing the post office, express, telegraph and telephone services. We are conducting all these to-day, but the work should be done on well defined grounds and under well defined responsibility. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. MacT-aren) had a question on the Order Paper to-day dealing with the matter of cables. We have got immense investments in cables that we hardly know of; we also have immense investments in telegraphs, and similar investments in the wireless system. All these services we must co-ordinate and consolidate, and not turn them over to a private company as has been done in the States. The greatest monopoly in the world to-day is not the Standard Oil Company; it is the telegraph and telephone combination which has jits headquarters in Boston and is taking over all the British cables. How many of us know that, except a few members who are interested in that subject? The same combination have taken over all the land lines in the States, and most of the other associated interests. That combination is the American Telegraph and Telephone Company; it is not the Westing-house Company. The commitments in Canada, to which I have alluded, are so great, the services are so great, that, in these progressive times, now that they have got into the hands of the state and are being handled by the state, they must be co-ordinated. Furthermore we must have community centres in which these services will play an important part, as I pointed out in the declaration which I read. Why should not the post office, and the government telegraph, express and money order business, be located in a little central office in a community centre? That is what the West wants to-day more than anything else. Now ;that we are having public ownership of railways I hope we shall also have in the West, in every hamlet and every township, some kind of a community centre controlled by the government and that government handling the post office, the telegraph service and the express service, all adjacent to the telephone system, having an all-night and an all-day service such as the people want. But we cannot carry on business efficiently in the future unless we co-ordinate all these services; and, as I said before, there is not one of these

The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
things we have not already done in this country only it was in a disconnected way.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who led the late government, and his associates, engaged in a banking business in this country and they helped to save Canada. It is considered to be a disgrace that the country shall be in the banking business; but during the war we carried on a system of re-discounting for the banks the facts as to which have never been disclosed to the people. There is no reason why the credit of the nation should not be used to a reasonable degree in connection with the marketing of our farm products, and other similar lines, but we ought to declare where we stand on these questions.
Now I come to one more thought on the subject of the employment of our waterways for seagoing vessels. The President of the United States-as far as we could gather from the public press, and from what the Prime Minister of Canada said here the other day-has made certain proposals to this Government in connection with the St. Lawrence waterways. Well, the Progressive element in the United States, the farmer's bloc, are in favour of the scheme. They are insisting on it, and it is their force which has compelled action by the United States government. The farmers to-day are the most dominating party in the United States; they have more influence in the American Senate than any other party, and they are compelling action by the so-called old fashioned Senate; they are the most progressive parliamentary party to be found over there. They have discussed all these questions which affect the farmers, including the transportation question, and while the stage of public ownership of transportation has not yet been reached they have come to approve of public ownership of the waterways and the development of electrical energy along those waterways for the traffic of the country. That is coming in the United States, and why should we not be willing to co-operate with that country in developing the St. Lawrence waterways? The Canadian government may have some reason why the question should not come up just now, but I hope they are not influenced in their action by the eastern seaports and the eastern cities of Canada. Because those seaports and those interests are assuming a dictatorial policy as to conduct and action, and as to what the people of the West should do in regard to their transportation problems. They have denied to us the right of free access to their ports
and to their services for ocean going vessels carrying western products, and there is actually an organization in Canada now, and especially the city of Montreal and particularly in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, seeking to declare that we shall not have this development in connection with the Northwest and that we shall not have the benefit of sea transportation. What is the secret of the success of the cities and towns of Europe today? Is it due to the railroads? Over there seaports are open all the year round, and ships can navigate rivers and go from one inland place to another. Europe today is absolutely served and protected by a system of navigation, by freedom and interchange in the use of the sea, in the use of the railways, and in the use of the highways. In that way they are working out a great improvement in commerce. In this country to-day an organization is being perfected, and it has its headquarters in connection with the railroads of this country, having for its object to see to it that there shall not be waterway competition with the railways. The whole hope of the Canadian West is in getting water transportation, and reduced freight rates from that source alone. There has been more reduction effected in the cost of transportation by water competition than by anything else; but the railway interests to which I have referred do not like to see that competition and there is an organization entrenched in Montreal, perhaps in the Maritime provinces, perhaps somewhere in the city of Quebec, that would deny every port on lake Ontario, every port on lake Erie, every port on lake Huron, and every port on lake Superior its right to sea waterways and to the improvement of traffic charges. It is the most domineering system we have ever had in Canada. It is even said they are holding up the Prime Minister in regard to any policy he may have contemplated in connection with this matter. Well, when the issue as to this Bill of Rights is fought out I imagine the people will compel decisive action of some sort. I imagine that when the next election is fought it will be on these questions of transportation, communications, marketing, and banking. As I have already said, we have nibbled at every one of these issues. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were previously in office, were committed to any of them or not. To-day we have national railways and national telegraphs, and we have to go the

The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
whole hog or none. We have some national banking. The greatest system of banking in the world to-day is the national banking system of United 'States, behind1 which they have the credit of the United1 States government, and to-day the United States is the master of finance for the world. She is coming to the relief of all countries. She has, time after time, come to the relief of the cotton growers and wheat growers of the United States. Mr. McAdbo has1 been very much denounced by the previous speaker. Well do I remember the time when the cotton and wheat men could not get money from the bankers-, or had to pay 8, 9 or 10 per cent for it, and Mr. McAdoo, secretary of the treasury, said "Farmers you will get all the money you want for the movement of your crop in the shape of credit and government notes of the United1 States"-and the farmers were able to move their crops.


John Morrison: Do you not think that if the United States did a little more fighting she would not do so much financing?


William Findlay Maclean: The Budget-Mr. W. F. Maclean
based on these broad democratic and humanitarian considerations which have ever been the foundation of our Government.
Rabbi Barentt, R. Brickner, Magistrate Jacob Cohen, Leo Frankell. Eli Fullin, Edmund SCheurer, Rabbi Julius Siegall, Alderman Joseph Singer.
There is a good deal in that argument, and some very good immigrants have come to this country from portions of Europe. We must, however, have, in connection with immigration, a policy that first of all will protect the races which are already in this country, and we cannot he quite swamped by the people of Russia or the orientals from the East. We want our country settled, and we want farmers from every country in the world to come here if they wish to do so. We desire a broad immi-' gration policy; but the people whom we want most of all are farmers who will toil on the land. Very good farmers have come to this country from Russia and from southeastern Europe. It is important that the Government should adopt and shortly put into force some national policy of immigration; but we must consider the people who are here to-day, who have to carry on in this country and who do not wish to see it come quite into the hands of other races. In portions of the United States to-day, the American population is outnumbered by the foreign population, and, perhaps, a similar condition is coming to us in connection with orientals. Nobody likes to hear of the invasion of our country by the Japanese as a nation, their lumbermen taking up our Crown lands, oriental labour being brought in by gangs and paid by the Japanese government, and not a particle of that work going to Canadian workers. It rather makes one blush to think that a nation, with which we have been very friendly in the war and which we have helped a great deal, is actually going to take possession of our forests, to bring its nationals into our country to do the lumbering and to export that lumber, and to do this as a national proposition of Japan. That will hardly go down with Canadians, but it is a question which Parliament must deal with in very short order.
While I have, perhaps, trespassed upon the time of the House in bringing up these questions, I have tried to deal with them not from any party standpoint. They are vital questions which confront us, and what I have laid down to-day is a bill of rights in connection with the public services of Canada. That is going to be the issue in the next election; and to get 
ready for that election, hon. gentlemen in charge of the government to-day must prepare for redistribution in this country and give full representation. If they do not do that this session, they will have to do it next session.


Mr. CARROLL:: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know why my hon. friend is applauding the idea.


Mr. BUREAU:: Perhaps it is enthusiasm.


William Findlay Maclean: Enthusiasm,
perhaps, that the Government should immediately have redistribution passed through the House. I do not know how I am going to come out of the scrimmage; but I am going to tell the people that, no matter what I have been in the past, I am in favour of that bill of rights before anything else in the public services of this country. Progressive ideas are now affecting the people and they are talking and reading about what questions will be discussed in the coming election. These things are treated in that bill of rights, and I want my hon. friends from the West to read it over and when they take the floor to be good enough to tell this House and the country whether there is anything in that bill of rights in regard to all these public questions. If there is I am satisfied to have those questions go to the people.
The old political traditions that have obtained in this country have now come to an end. At present we are in a bog, largely because of the war and as a result of our own political action and legislation in the past. But if wre are to get on to solid ground again, we must pull ourselves together, cease to be partisans to the extent that we have been in the past, and instead, be first of all Canadians, with a faith in the future of our country. Let us make our constitution and our courts supreme; let us so act that we shall play a worthy part in the League of Nations of which, with Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the Empire, we form an important part. Parliamentary government to-day is the best institution in the world. We have inherited that form of government from the Mother Country, which has done more for the world than any other nation; and parliamentary government is based upon the principle that the voice of the people shall be expressed and crystallized in progressive legislation.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield) :: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully persuaded in my own mind that I have a contribution worthy of this moment or of the subject in the discussion of which we are engaged. I feel it incumbent upon me, however, to define my attitude very briefly and very succinctly on these proposals that have been submitted to us by the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) in his annual budget.
The great task confronting the people of Canada in this crisis-a task, of course, that confronts a finance minister in a very direct and distinct sense-is the task of meeting our financial obligations, and meeting them by methods that will bring the utmost measure of relief to what we ordinarily designate as agriculture on the one hand and the great masses of Canadian workmen on the other. When I say "the utmost measure of relief", I have in my mind such relief as is compatible with national stability and national progress. The position-shall I say, the precarious position?-in which agriculture finds itself at the moment has been dwelt upon at great length by my colleagues and associates, and I feel positive that the gravity of the situation so far as that industry is concerned is apparent to all. I cannot, however, Mr. Speaker, convince myself that the position in which the agriculturist finds himself at the moment is in any sense more precarious, is in any sense less hopeful, than is the position of the Canadian workmen, 200,000 of "whom were out of employment during the early months of this year. There is thiis, however, to be said in the case of the Canadian workman: his condition may be temporary, certainly temporary so far as absolute unemployment is concerned. In the case of agriculture- and I speak particularly of western agriculture-It seems to me that the conditions embody within themselves all the elements that make for permanency; and I hope to prove that a little later in my remarks.
The opportunity has been extended to me for a period of years of coming into association with thousands of agriculturists in the western country and with thousands of Canadian workmen. It has been my privilege to discuss economic questions with them from time to time. During the fall of last year I entered the homes of many industrial workers who were not earning enough at
that time to clothe their children-certainly not enough to clothe them in a way that would enable them to attend school regularly. I know that there are hon. members of this House who will point out to me, and very consistently, the condition in which workmen find themselves in other countries. Naturally I have given some thought to that question, and the comparison would be fair, Mr. Speaker, if we compared this country with other countries somewhat similar in area and population. I have pointed out to those with whom I have discussed these questions that so far as I could discover, so far as I could determine, the only means whereby we could bring immediate relief to these classes-and when I say "immediate relief", I have no thought that my suggestion should prove a panacea for every evil from which they suffer; I have in mind temporary relief in the case of the workmen;-I said to theim that the only means by which temporary relief could be effected would be by increasing the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. I made that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, believing that when you increase the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar you must of necessity increase the purchasing power of the individual who possesses it. And I thought that by increasing his purchasing power, the extra turnover of goods consumed would more than compensate the producer-that is, the manufacturer- for any loss the readjustment might entail. I pointed out to them also a truth that is self-apparent but which is very frequently overlooked, namely, the inseparable connection between unemployment in this country and the condition in which agriculture finds itself.
During the fall of last year, when unemployment was rampant in the city of Winnipeg, I noticed that upon every train that came into that city there were hundreds of farm labourers, coming in from the farms, helping to swell the tide of unemployment, adding to our city congestion, creating unrest and all the evils associated therewith, the situation was serious, and in discussing its seriousness with the farmers I pointed out the congested condition of the cities. I reminded them of the rents we were paying, and showed how they could help to relieve the situation by keeping the men employed throughout the winter months. I learned that a great many of the agriculturists who up till last winter ordinarily employed anywhere up to five men, were allowing their men to go because the fin-
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

ancial resources at their disposal did not justify their retaining them. Many of them admitted that a large percentage of the labourers were prepared to work through-' out the winter months almost for their board, but they said that their very presence in the home added burdens to the already overburdened farm wife. Together we reached this conclusion, that until the time came when the farmer would feel justified in erecting permanent homes for his hired help, and in that way be able to keep them throughout the year producing enough in the summer to keep them through the winter, we could do nothing to relieve the congestion in the cities during the winter months. But how many farmers to-day are in a financial position to build such homes? I venture to say, not three per cent in the province from which I come. Yet we see the absolute necessity of keeping on these labourers, who year after year reach the cities, so that they can bring up their families in the country in the open air and acquire a taste for outdoor life. If we have in Alberta and Saskatchewan the 55,000 farm homes that are to be found in the province of Manitoba to-day, Western Canada alone will be able to absorb 75 per cent of the men who are now ordinarily unemployed during the winter months in this country.
I sometimes wonder if we are fully seized of the great change that has taken place in western Canada during the last two decades. I am one of those who believe that western Canada would have reached this crisis had we never been engaged in the European conflict. Ten years ago from the public platform I made the statement that we were destined to reach this condition, and nothing has occurred since that day that would incline me to change my view. There were a great many factors contributing to this result, a thousand and one things to which I need not refer at the moment. Less than half a century ago we had a period of nomadic husbandry in western Canada. The pioneers went in there, perhaps the most heroic band of men that ever undertook similar work in any country, and found the land free, taxes negligible, if not unknown, and they started in to make homes for themselves. In those days the West had not been tapped of its resources. It was in those days, it seems to me, that a great many of our present policies were evolved. It was in those days that we evolved and determined our present system of taxation. The quests Mr. Hoey.]
tion in those days was, how much can the West bear? It was a new country where men obtained free land, where labour was cheap because thousands of labourers were reaching this country at that time from Europe, inexperienced men who were prepared to work two or three years for nothing, in order to get experience to enable them to take up farming themselves at a later date, and in those days the question that was asked was, how much can the agriculturalist stand, in the midst of this unlimited wealth, in the midst of these extended natural resources, the finest in the world? It was in those days that we undertook our expensive projects such as the railroads, and political and educational institutions far in excess of the people's needs, far in excess, indeed, of the needs of our present population. So burden after burden was added until I am sometimes afraid, although I trust I am mistaken, that we have added the last straw so far as western Canada is concerned. I have no desire to be unduly pessimistic, but I wonder if we are not living in a fool's paradise when we speak of western Canada and its ability to come back, unless we have a complete reversal of policy in this country.
I said at the outset of my remarks that the conditions in western Canada had been dwelt upon at great length. The trouble with the analysis, as I see it, is that we deal far too much in generalities. I think the time has come when someone should speak, to some extent, scientifically and authoritatively, without bias and without prejudice, and in attempting to do that, while I dislike, to put it mildly, to put these quotations on the official record, there is no doubt in my mind but that they are going to have a profound effect upon land settlement schemes in western Canada in the near future. The statements are authoritative and unassailable. They were prepared by the staff of the Manitoba Agricultural College after an extensive and intensive survey undertaken last year. This memorandum has already been submitted to the Minister of Agriculture in that province, and I have no doubt that a copy has been forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture in this Government. What are the actual facts?
In three decades the average yield of wheat in Manitoba has dropped from nineteen bushels to fifteen bushels per acre.	[DOT]
The criticism frequently advanced that we produce only fifteen bushels per acre, while Germany produces thirty-three bushels per acre, and some other small European countries

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
which import our coarse grains and feed livestock and return the manure from our feeds to their lands get almost as much, is entitled to some defence. The facts are as stated and we must not belittle them, particularly when we remember that with the practice we are following we get only three fifteen bushel crops in four years, or, an actual average of three quarters of fifteen, which is but little over eleven bushels per acre.
The report goes on to say:
The effect of a generation of cropping to wheat has been to reduce the nitrogen of the surface seven inches of soil by 20 to 30 per cent, the phosphorous content up to an equal amount, and the organic matter by from 20 to 50 tons per acre. In other words, in a generation more than one-quarter of the potential wealth of the surface soil has entirely disappeared.
A great deal has been said in this House with regard to the cost of producing wheat. Again we have been dealing largely in generalizations, which, to my mind, are confusing if not misleading. I want to read this item with regard to the cost of producing wheat:
In the survey no attempt was made to arrive at the cost of producing wheat, for the very good reason that this varies with every farmer, every district and every season, and anything less than a thorough study of the cost in different parts of the province and on many different farms extending over a number of years, would be worse than useless, since the figures would be subject to misleading application. No work of this nature has ever been done in Canada, outside of a few counties in Ontario, but some work on cost of production has been done by the Farm Management Department of the North Dakota Experiment Station with the following results:
In the year 1919 the average cost of producing wheat in that State was $2.75 per bushel; the range being from $1.21 to $14.38 per bushel on the different farms studied. In 1920 the average cost per bushel was $2.44; the lowest cost being $1.05, and the highest $3.01 per bushel. In 1921 the average cost was $1.75 per bushel; the minimum 78 cents, and the maximum $5.24.
The above figures for the State of North Dakota, which is not essentially dissimilar in soil or climatic conditions to the Province of Manitoba, should furnish food for thought to all Western Canadian people, particularly when it is recalled that the prices of No. 1 Northern wheat at Winnipeg were as follows-
And this is for the calendar year-
No. 1 Northern, 1919, $2.63
1920,	$1.76 to $2.74
1921,	$1.11 to $1.49
The figures for the years 1920-21 are the highest and lowest monthly prices for the crop year. A much greater proportion of the farmers' wheat was sold at or near the lower prices quoted than was sold at the higher figures. These too are Winnipeg prices. The farm prices were less than these figures by the amount of the freight charges.
Seventeen cents per hundred pounds, I may say, from Winnipeg to Port Arthur.
The farmers' prices were less than these figures by the amount of the freight charges, commission, and other charges for handling. Let me summarize because I think this is of the utmost importance. It is the first scientific attempt that I have been able to discover to determine the cost of producing wheat in western Canada.


Mr. McMASTER:: How did they arrive at the cost? That is important. Did they charge interest on the capital, and the cost of management?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have not those details. I have no doubt they could be obtained from the source to which I have referred, but in the memorandum in my possession the details to which the hon. member refers are not given. This is the summary:
In 1919, cost, $2.75 a bushel. Price received

And again we must deduct the freight rates and the cost of handling-
Price received, $2.63.
1920,	cost, $2.44. Price received, $1.75.
1921,	cost, $1.75. Price received, $1.11 to $1.49.
I think it will be of interest to compare the profits made by other business interests during this same period. In the budget debate of last year I noticed a statement that the net surplus profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the year 1920 were $33,000,000, of which sum $21,000,000 was amassed in handling wheat and other products in western Canada in the last four months of that year. It is also interesting to note that the Northwest Territories- this country which I claim has been bearing until now an unnecessary burden-gave that company 18,000,000 acres of land that was free from taxation for a period of twenty years, a period still further extended.
In the Canada Gazette of a few days ago I noticed certain items that indicate the dividends that banks are paying at this time. I want to put these on the official record so that the people of this country may have an idea just who was making the money while we were passing through this period of deflation:
Bank of Montreal
Notice is hereby given that a dividend of 3 per cent upon the paid up capital stock of this institution has been charged for the current quarter payable on and after Thursday the first day of June next to the shareholders on record April 13, 1922.
By order of the board,
Frederick Williams-Taylor,
General Manager.
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

Royal Bank of Canada Notice is hereby given that a dividend of 3 per cent, being at the rate of 12 per cent per annum upon the paid up capital stock of the bank, has been declared for the current quarter, and will be payable at the bank and its branches on and after Thursday the first day of June next to the shareholders on record at the close of business on the 15th May.
By order of the board,
C. E. Neal,
General Manager.
Quebec, April, 13, 1922.
Canadian Bank of Commerce Notice is hereby given that a dividend of 3 per cent upon the capital stock of this bank, being at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, has been declared for the quarter ending 31st May next, and that the same will be payable at the bank and its branches on and after Thursday the first day of June, 1922. The transfer books of the bank will be closed from the 17th of May to 31st of May next, both days inclusive.
By order of the Board.
John Aird,
General Manager.
I want to go on and refer to the statement I made earlier in my remarks, that the condition in which agriculture to-day finds itself embodies all the elements that make for permanency. You may reasonably ask what I mean by a statement of that kind? Well, let me refer for a moment or two to the ravages from which agriculture is suffering at this time, ravages that were absolutely unknown-at any rate almost unknown-two decades ago. Let me quote again from the memorandum:
Stem rust has caused an average annual loss of over 5,000,000 bushels of wheat each year, since 1916.
That is in the province of Manitoba.
The lowered production as a result of insect d&predations varies widely from year to year, but is conservatively estimated at seven million dollars per year. In 1921 the Western Wheat-stem Saw Fly alone reduced the yield of wheat in Manitoba by 3,555,000 bushels.
In increased production costs and in lowered yields tihe Manitoba weed crop costs her farmers twenty million dollars per year,-
That is, the wheat crop, on account of the method of farming to which the agriculturalist has been pressed by economic conditions, suffered a loss of $20,000,000 a year in Manitoba.
-or nearly seventy times the annual outlay for the Agricultural College.
Every forty million bushels of wheat shipped out of Manitoba takes from her soil plant food constituents that would cost more than twelve million dollars to replace."
That is what I mean When I say that the condition in which the western agriculturalist finds himself embodies, to my mind, all the elements for permanency. I wish 
to read what these unbiased investigators have to say with regard to rural discontent, because if I referred to rural discontent my right hon. friend to my right would say in reply, "Well, a great deal of the discontent is due to soap-box orators, such as you are," and my words would have no effect whatever. Therefore, I desire to quote what the unbiased investigators say with regard to discontent in western Canada. Their report reads:
Our representatives did the work in the country during June and July last, and while the price of wheat had not at that time reached the low level of later months, it soon became apparent that, even at that time, there was a strong feeling of discontent on the part of many farmers. Generally, they did not complain unduly of their immediate production problems, of soil or climate conditions, or, except in a few districts, of low yields, but the cnief tenor of their complaint was the uneven deflation,-the rapid drop in prices of farm products, and the very much delayed drop in price of most things they had to buy. Among other causes of discontent mentioned again and again were high taxes; high freight rates; the United States tariff on cattle; the high price of machinery; the difficulty of getting help on the farm and in the home, and in some instances the high overhead charges on land and equipment purchased at war prices.
They knew also that increased taxes and transportation charges, and adverse tariff schedules over which they, as individuals had no control, were also contributing causes of discontent ; and they could see no reason why agriculture should be expected to carry, without protest, such heavy losses, while transportation, merchandising and industrial interests delayed post-war deflation.
I desire to repeat what I said, that in view of these conditions I often wonder if we are too optimistic when we speak of the west and1 the ability of the west to come back. I know some hon. members will say, "Well, what about these millions of untenanted lands of which we hear so much?" Well, naturally I have thought of that, and I have discussed the matter at great length with men who ought to know, and they have informed me that these lands that are not to-day populated are almost wholly devoid of plant food elements. They assure me that, if that were not so the lands would have been taken up and cultivated by the farmers who find themselves in an impoverished condition now. A great many of these acres are alkali land. Then, again, they tell me that, where the land is not devoid of plant food content, it is heavily bushed and consequently expensive to clear. Unless, Mr. Speaker, we have a reversal of policy, I cannot see any immediate hope for western Canada. Hon members will ask, what is the solution? We speak a great deal of

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
the tariff. I am in favour of tariff reduction. If I were not in favour of redaction of tariff I would not lie permitted to Sit in this group, hut 1 think the taost drastic tariff reductions are wholly inadequate to meet the situation. We need drastic tariff reductions, or we must close up the west. We also need cheaper transportation facilities'-that is lower freight rate. We need wider markets. They talk of the removal of the cattle embargo as if it were going to usher us into Heaven by the most direct route. I studied the cost of transportation from Moosejaw to Liverpool a year or so ago, when the cattle embargo was the subject of vital interest, and I learned that it took so much to pay the transportation of a steer from Moosejaw to Liverpool that there was nothing left for the farmer who produced the steer, except the tail, and even the tail, in my humble judgment, would have been all twisted. We need drastic tariff reductions, lower freight rates and wider markets. All of these, and the accumulative effect of all of these, are needed to restore agriculture in western Canada. I say-and I am not speaking bitterly or in any partisan spirit-that the economic conditions in this country have forced the farmer, not only to do without a great many conveniences, but to exploit his farm for the time 'being, to exploit the resources of western Canada, and thus forced him to rob future generations of their rightful heritage, and I defy contradiction on that point.
I desire to refer to the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with regard to the tendency in this country of the people to lean on governments, to come to the government for support, and to seek out governments in order to obtain assistance. I do not think there is any thoughtful Canadian who has failed to notice that tendency in our public life. Next to the tendency of the average man towards cynicism with regard to politicians in this country and political institutions-and we seem to get away from that when we enter practical politics, because even a cynical man has some consideration for our feelings-that tendency to lean on governments, rather than to stand on their own legs, is to me one of the most demoralizing tendencies in the public life of this country. I remember in the country from which I came there were potato crop failures occasionally, and, of course, we subsisted almost wholly on: potatoes. When there was a potato failure, we found ourselves reduced to almost abject penury.
But I remember years when there were failures and some good philanthropist would get together with a government agent with the object of obtaining relief for us. I remember distinctly one year when we were reduced to abject poverty, when men sought relief for the district in which I lived, and when relief was offered in that thickly populated district only two families in the whole district accepted the aid and subsistence that was offered. Why? Because it was humiliating to them to accept government assistance. They had a sense of independence; they did not want government restrictions; their ancestry had fought and fallen for the overthrow of governmental interference. That was the kind of Scotch-Irish stock that built up great civilizations.
But compare that tendency to conditions in Canada to-day. If any man in this country wants to build up an industry, he comes to the government and says: "Will you not prohibit this commodity? It is likely to injure my industry." Another man may not want prohibition, but he may want regulation. I do not believe in governmental enterprises except in so far as they are absolutely necessary. I believe the people should be thrown back on their own individual and collective resourcefulness. I believe the problems of the future will be solved, not by compulsory co-operation, but by voluntary and mutual cooperation. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) would have been better advised if he had dwelt at some length upon the cause of which that tendency is the mere outward and visible expression. You ask: Is there a cause? Most assuredly, there is a cause; there is no effect without a cause. What is the basic cause? For many decades in this country we have been making subsidies, subsidies to certain interests at the expense of other interests. How can vou make a subsidy to any interest without penalizing other interests in the country? We have been affording protection to certain interests at the expense of other industris. I have spoken of the lands that are free from taxation in Western Canada. The government of Saskatchewan, a number of years ago, estimated that if the Canadian Pacific Railway were paying taxes in the ordinary way, $300,000 would come into the provincial exchequer every year. Oh, yes, the cause is there all right. Is it not the most natural thing in the world that we should reach a stage in our development when all
233G
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

classes would want to enter the vicious circle? If we are going to protect any industry at the expense of other industries, then let us all get on to the toboggan. The decline is going to be a little more precipitous, but it is going to he exhilarating while it lasts. The same thing exactly is happening in the United States. The farmers there are following in the footsteps of their old friend the protectionist. I am not a very old man, and I may yet live to see the day when my fellow-farmers will be open and avowed protectionists.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I do not mean in the sense the hon. member means. The agriculturists of the United States are following in the footsteps of their old friend the protectionist. Industrial enterprises in that country have, for years, been protected. The United States is gradually becoming a consuming nation, and now the agriculturists see their chance. Honest confession is good for the soul, and I think it is wholesome to make this confession, that agriculturists have no monopoly on altruism. If we afford protection to one industry, why not extend it to all?


Andrew Ross McMaster: You cannot.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I think I can prove to my hon. friend that you can. We have in southern Manitoba to-day agriculturists who find that, under the most favourable conditions, their lands produce only ten bushels of wheat to the acre. We have in northern Manitoba, in the constituency from which the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) comes, land that produces 35 bushels of wheat to the acre, and which has been producing that regularly for years. Would it not be most reasonable and plausible if the farmers of southern Manitoba came down to the Minister of Finance and said, looking longingly and enviously towards their northern brother: " Give us fifty cents on every bushel of wheat we produce, or we will go out of business." I think they would be perfectly logical; but I think the Minister of Finance would be very well advised in pointing out to them what I have pointed out to them for years, that whereas their land is producing only ten bushels of wheat per acre, it is selling for $18 to $40 an acre, and that their taxes are determined upon that basis; that in the Swan River valley, land is selling as high as $100 per acre cash, and that their taxes are determined by

that value; in other words, that economic phenomena have a flexibility and a levelling process that seem to have escaped completely the notice of our protectionist friends.
Mr. Herbert Spencer in that illuminating essay of his, entitled "Man Versus the State," reminds us of a time in the old country when the farm labourer received one-half of his wages from the farmer and one-half of his wages from the state. Could we not revert to that? Why should the Minister of Finance, in the interest of the unemployed, of whom our protectionist friends speak so eloquently, not revert to the days of which Spencer speaks and have the state pay one-half the wages of every farm labourer? The demoralizing tendency to lean on governments to-day is largely due to the mistaken principle that we have been following for many years in this country, a vicious principle that must lead to its own destruction. I sometimes say: "Let us all get into the circle." Let the snake put its own tail into its mouth and continue to feed. There is all kinds of nourishment before it reaches its head.
I want to refer, in my humble way, to the Fordney tariff as a factor in determining our fiscal policy. Prior to the last election -perhaps I was more conscientious than the average practical politician-that tariff gave me considerable anxiety; and in order to get at the actual facts, at considerable inconvenience I got into touch with three or four of the most outstanding business men in the United States to whom I could obtain access. I discussed the matter with them at some length on my own account; I did so because our platform, the platform that I was advocating, called for radical tariff reductions, and I could not conscientiously stand upon that platform and advocate its principles in view of what was taking place in the United States, until I had further light on the question. What was their explanation? In the fairest way possible they entered into a discussion of trade relations and pointed out to me that they were solidy opposed to the Fordney tariff, not because they had any thought of Canada;-Oh no; not in the least-they were opposed to it because they said it would increase the price of the workers' food. Hard wheat in the United States was becoming expensive, and just in proportion as the food of the worker went up, to that extent his purchasing power of manufactured articles would be limited. And, again, just in proportion as the price of food and the cost of living went up-and

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
they were hoping that it would go down- wages would go up; and they proved conclusively and to my satisfaction that if the American manufacturer ever had an advantage over the Canadian manufacturer by reason of the Fordney tariff that advantage was destined to disappear. They said: "It will not only hamper us in our relations with Canada, but it will give Canada a decided advantage over us in the foreign markets."
Now, in view of that statement, a statement that is reasonable at least, I think that if ever there was a time when we could have made more drastic reductions in the general tariff that time is the present moment. Furthermore, it seems to me that by taking that attitude we would have put an instrument in the hands of the low tariff forces in the United States that would have enabled them, perhaps, to modify the Fordney and McComher tariffs, or any other high tariffs that are likely to displace them. But let us look at the question from another angle. Let us suppose that we have not reached that stage in our development where we can consider matters of trade from that unselfish standpoint. Let us suppose for a moment that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was actuated by a desire, I will not say to retaliate, because I do not like that word, but just to punish the United States a little for their Fordney tariff. What method could he have followed better than by making a more drastic increase in the British preference? I feel that such would be retaliation with which the right hon. gentleman to my right (Mr. Meighen) would almost agree. I have said a great many perhaps harsh things with regard to the Conservative party and its tariff policy, but I want to be absolutely fair, and I do not think I would be fair unless I made this statement, that throughout their whole tenure of office it is debatable if they ever had as opportune and propitious a moment to make tariff reductions as has this Government at the present time. Certainly there was never a moment in the history of the Conservative party when the time was more opportune and propitious to make such reductions than it is to-day. Let us look at the question for a moment from the point of view of international friction. In view of the Fordney and McComiber tariffs, would we not have been justified in making a radical increase in the British preference without creating any 9 p.m. dissatisfaction in that great country to the south of us that
fought side by side with us in the great crisis? Looking at it from every angle I cannot see any justification whatever for the meagre fare that has been submitted to us. The Minister of Finance has adopted neither one attitude nor the other, and the position he has taken is, to say the least, not intelligible to me in view of present conditions. Our present system of taxation, which bears so heavily upon our working people, which takes eight times as much from the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) as it takes from me, regardless of our ability to pay, if that is the best system of taxation that we can evolve, I cannot see much hope for modern civilization. I want to read an extract from an address delivered by Mr. Lloyd George in the British House of Commons after his return from Genoa. He said:
One of the unfortunate results of the war, which had demonstrated the power of international goodwill, was that it should have developed into narrow, selfish, blind nationalism that was found in every direction-in customs restrictions and in trade and transportation, he declared. Transportation organized to develop international trade was used to prevent international trade. Not merely the amount of tariff was objectionable, he added, but its fluctuations and uncertainties. The human intellect was exhausted in order to make trade as difficult as possible. "This is the condition which we found at Genoa." he asserted.
I wondered, when I read that statement, if the contributions made to the discussions at the Genoa Conference by Sir Charles Gordon, representing the Dominion of Canada, would have any tendency to dispel Mr. Lloyd George's fears and render him more hopeful for the future. Now, someone may say, I suppose, that my address is lacking in the constructive element. A criticism such as that would, I think, have some justification. The critics will no doubt say: "You don't tell us where we are to raise the revenue if we make these drastic reductions". Well, I had in mind that we would raise the revenue from exactly the same sources from which the Liberals contemplated raising it when they framed their 1919 platform. From what source can we extract wealth? From the moon, that burnt out orb, or from the surface of the soil? There is only one way, so far as I can see, that we can meet our financial obligations, and that is by developing our basic industries. We can meet our obligations only by developing our basic industries to the extent that we dream of at this moment, and shipping the surpluses. With the wealth received we could pay off our
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

debts. I am not without sympathy, Mr. Speaker, and I sometimes think that the situation in this country is so serious that it may demand considerable faith on the part of the Minister of Finance. I mean that the Finance Minister might have to have faith enough to bring in a budget that would call for revenues perhaps considerably lower than our expenditure in order to re-establish the basic industry. I do not know; perhaps I have not given the matter enough thought, but I sometimes feel that way when I view the seriousness of the condition of what we ordinarily term the basic industry.
Let me turn for a moment to the amendment-and I do so without any bitterness whatever, in no partizan spirit, with no lust after castigation. I have found the amendment exceedingly difficult to understand, despite the fact that I have inherited all the prejudices that Tory ancestors can bequeath. In order to understand it more fully, I attempted to put myself in the place of hon. members to my right. I found the task exceedingly difficult, but I succeeded to some extent. I tried to look at it from my right hon. friend's point of view, in all fairness, and this is how it appears: the Government went in on a certain platform. That platform was wrong. They made promises that they would embody in legislation the proposals and planks contained in their platform. That is to say, they made a wrong promise. They got into power, but under a sense of responsibility they recanted.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am trying to look at it from the point of view of hon. members to my right.


Arthur Meighen: What is your own point of view. That is what should decide your action?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Perhaps-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell me then what his point of view is?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am just coming to that, if the right hon. gentleman will be patient. Having got into office and labouring under a sense of responsibility, they did not follow their own promises by wrong-doing. Would they have gone up in the estimation of hon. gentlemen to my right if they had followed a wrong promise by wrong action? I am looking at it from the ethical standpoint.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
r Mr. Hoey.]


Robert Alexander Hoey: My associates smile at the idea of mixing up ethics with politics. Well, say my hon. friends to my right, because the Government did not follow a wrong promise by wrong action, we are going to oppose them.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Most assuredly.


Arthur Meighen: Does he believe in the practice of making political promises and then violating them in office?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I certainly do not.


Arthur Meighen: Then why does the hon. gentleman refuse to censure that practice?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Well, I am not dealing with the censure; I am dealing with the angle from which the censure comes.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what my hon. friend is doing; but he does not explain his own position on the amendment until he explains why he refuses to censure a practice in which he says he does not believe.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Oh, I have been speaking only a few moments on the amendment; it is early in the night yet, Mr. Speaker. Placing myself in the position of; hon. members to my right, I could not conscientiously censure any government for not following a wrong promise by wrong action

that is to say, I could find no ethical justification for my action. I think the amendment is wholly unworthy of a great party.


Arthur Meighen: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that that is not what the amendment says? The amendment does not condemn a failure to do wrong, it condemns the making of a promise and the breaking thereof; and that practice the hon. gentleman says he himself condemns.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite are even more afraid than is my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: This also is unworthy.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. leader of the Opposition, by the exercise of the most subtle ingenuity, will place this dish in the most palatable form before his followers. I simply say that if I were in the position of hon. gentlemen to my right I could find

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
no justification for my action; that is the position I take. But I want to go on and say that in my opinion the amendment is wholly unworthy of a great party and a great leader.


Mr. DUFF:: It is not a great party.


Robert Alexander Hoey: A great party and a great leader, with natural and acquired ability, enough and to spare for every emergency. Surely we might have had something constructive. What about the platform submitted to the people of this country by the right hon. gentleman? Since when was it scrapped?


Arthur Meighen: It is not scrapped at all.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Why is it not submitted?


Arthur Meighen: Because it is mostly in elfect.


Robert Alexander Hoey: It may be in effect, but it certainly is not effective in meeting Canadian conditions. Since when has their platform been scrapped? There is no word of it at all. Here we have a great party and a great leader, not sounding a constructive note in the most serious crisis through which the Canadian people ever passed. Is that co-operation? Is that the co-operation of which we spoke so eloquently in the dark days of the conflict? Is that making the highest contribution of which my right hon. friend is capable to the cause of progress in this country? In my opinion, it is not.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? What more could I ask for in this the main issue if our principles are still in effect?


Mr. FIELDING:: Why complain if they are in effect?


Arthur Meighen: I do not complain of their being in effect at all.
Som hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I say I do not complain of their being in effect, nor does the amendment complain of it. We complain of the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite in promising something else and doing this, and thus deceiving the people of Canada.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The right hon. gentleman speaks of broken promises.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Have not broken promises been associated with the political life of this country for a great many years?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Opposed to free wheat in 1911 and afterwards bringing about its adoption. Yes, you say,-the exigencies of the war period and hon. members opposite will add, the exigencies of the post-war period. What about a government that went in on the distinct understanding- and I was associated intimately with the campaign-on the distinct understanding that it was a war government?


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That nothing of a controversial nature was to be discussed on the platforms? That is what we were informed; but did the government resign immediately upon the close of the war?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert Alexander Hoey: A broken promise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will see how many protectors he has across the floor. I will ask him here and now to produce that promise from the government or any member of it or, from the Prime Minister.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The task would be an impossible one.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Mr. MARTELL:: The candidates promised it. They did in my county anyhow.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The right hon. gentleman made a speech in the city of Winnipeg, with two other hon. gentlemen, and the distinct impression I got from his remarks on that occasion was that it was going to be a war government.


Arthur Meighen: The speech is published. I would like the hon. member to read it.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I listened to it, and I know what the impression I got was. I want to be fair. I do not want to exaggerate at all. It may not have been made, but I say that the people throughout the district in which I was, took it as a distinct promise that nothing of a controversial nature, such as the tariff, was to be discussed, but that immediately the war was over we were going to take up domestic problems.

The Budget-Mr. Hoey


Arthur Meighen: That is what was done.


Robert Alexander Hoey: But the government did
not resign and appeal to the country immediately after the war. Then we had a tariff commission travelling all over this country at considerable expense.
Mr. STAN,SELL: Before passing to another subject, I think the speaker has made it very clear that he did not-


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. gentleman has a question to put, I must ask him to put it at once, without argument.


Mr. STANSELL:: I wanted to make my question clear. Will the hon. member tell us whether he justifies the making of a wrong promise? He has made clear the other. Will he make this clear also?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have answered that half a dozen times during the last ten minutes. We had a tariff commission touring this country, and the distinct understanding was that there was going to be a tariff revision, but that tariff revision was never attempted.


William Duff: It was also promised in the Speech from the Throne.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Then we had the understanding-I will not say there was a promise made-that we were going to have redistribution giving the West the representation to which she wtas justly entitled. We did not have redistribution. I will not call that a broken promise, as it would not be fair, but it was dangerously near it.
I have made the statement, and I made it with no joy in my heart at all, that the party system of government in this country was largely discredited in the consciousness of the Canadian people. I do not want to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and say that we have discovered something better, but I do say that the Canadian people will never go back to the old by-party system, with its mysterious campaign funds that have exercised such an influence on the policies of this nation. We will never go back to that. We must, if we are true to the living and to the dead, go forward toward something better, something more worthy of us.
Hon. gentlemen to my right are exceedingly anxious to know how we are going to vote. I am going to satisfy their curiosity; I feel the time has come. There is no difficulty in my mind as to how I shall vote. I would not be true to the 
people who sent me here if I did not vote one way-and one way only. No matter what may be the motives that are actuating me in casting that vote-that is a horse of another colour-I am going to vote-and this is the most interesting part of my speech, and I want to state that the whole Progressive group are voting solidly this way-I am going to vote according to the dictates of my conscience, and as a true Canadian with the interests of his country at heart, repudiating broken promises, on the one hand, and political trickery and expediency on the other, voting as a Canadian looking forward to a day when we shall have in this country men whose word shall be as their bond, and who will enable us to build up in this country a civilization that will be a pattern of all that makes for national progress, international comity and good will.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, I should be less than courteous, and very much less than sincere, if I did not take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who has delivered his budget on this occasion, on the fact that in the sunset of life he is enjoying the opportunity of again filling a position which he has filled in past years, and which I think the people of Canada will say, without attaching any political importance to the remark, that he has always filled worthily in a personal sense. It would be too much to expect that all the members of this House, let alone the people of Canada, could possibly be in accord with the proposals which the hon. gentleman has to-day laid before the public for acceptance, but it is not too much for us to say that party differences or the differences which are engendered by opposite points of view, commercial points of view, I might call them, should not prevent us from paying a deserved tribute to a worthy Canadian whose life has been full of hard and earnest work. I would like to say, just as a personal appreciation, that it is only during a short time this session that I have had the pleasure of coming in some contact with the hon. Minister of Finance, and I have been delighted to find his extreme readiness of expression, and also to note in every act of his an absolute resoluteness which is too often lacking in the public life of this country. I am glad to be able to say things of this character. If I had criticism to offer, it probably would not be made, because I feel that a long term

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
of public service so distinguished as the hon. gentleman has had ought to entitle him to a very great deal of consideration. I have from a personal standpoint no criticism, but rather an appreciation to oifer.
In discussing the budget proposals I shall try in the short time I intend to occupy the House to approach the subject entirely from what I conceive to be the business point of view. Now my hon friend made use of some figures. I have not the slightest doubt but that they are absolutely correct, and I wish to supplement them with some other figures, because I have already said that the hon. gentleman has shown a resoluteness and courage in dealing with the matters he has laid before the House on this occasion and also, I may say, on other occasions when he has addressed the House. I feel I may digress to this extent: I believe the hon. gentleman is putting forward proposals which by no means go to the length he would like to have them go; they by no means meet his ideal of economic conditions; in fact I may also venture the suggestion that the proposals which he does make on this occasion approach much nearer to the economic ideas of the group of which I am a member than they do those of a large number of the group of which he is one of the exponents. However, he has given us this statement and he has given it, I believe, with absolute sincerity. He occupies the positon which enables him to make this statement because of the success of his party at the polls,-a success which must have been very gratifying to him and to his, party but which was obtained by the violation, in every respect, of that candour and sincerity which distinguishes the hon. gentleman himself. I would pass, for a moment, to a quotation from a speech delivered by the hon. gentleman during the campaign. He said on that occasion:
It would be possible to make the tariff much less burdensome on the people, particularly the poorer classes, without injurying industry, and the Liberals when in power would do this.
I believe the hon. gentleman was sincere when he uttered those words. I take, however, the utterances of his leader (Mrj Mackenzie King) and I am going to quote from a report in the Toronto Globe of a speech made by him in the constituency of York, Ontario. Now, I take it that in public life we had better get down to plain, blunt facts. It is possible, as the late respected Mr. P. T. Barnum said, to fool some of the people all of the time, to fool the
149J
whole of the people part of the time, but impossible to fool all the people all the time. I notice that the leader of the Government assumed in this speech that the population of Canada was nine millions, and I will use that as a basis for testing his calculations and the sincerity of the views put forward, not only by himself on the platform but by his party in their literature, to obtain the adherence of the electorate to that party: assuming nine millions as the population, he said the tax for federal purposes alone would be $62 per head, and for a family of five, $310, a statement that no doubt was read, was noted, and was commented upon by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hoey) who spoke a few moments ago; and no doubt his nerves are still tingling with the idea of this immense burden of taxation. In fact I would not doubt but that his entirely pessimistic attitude with regard to the Canadian West has been more largely inspired by speeches of the character made by the leader of the Government than by the actual facts as they present themselves in western Canada. The leader of the Government further said: that this sum of $310 per year meant the difference between a home and no home, or between giving to loved ones the food or education they needed or not-a most pathetic appeal. And when we look at the figures which have been supplied to us by the Finance Minister, and others which are easily obtained from the records of the country, we find that in the year 1920-21, the year upon which the leader of the Government must have based his calculations, the receipts of the Dominion were something over $434,386,000. That would mean not the large amount of $62 per head but $48.26, and when multiplied by the typical five-member family would come to $241.30. The receipts must surely be the measure of the taxation actually imposed upon this country. If the leader of the Government had used the correct figures I am not going to say it would have made very much difference; but I do say that his appeal was based upon a statement as to the taxation imposed by the late government which was, to say the least of it, absolutely misleading. If, however, |he took the expenditures for the year he would be no more happy because the late government had not spent up to the amount of the revenue and the burden would be $210.30. We come then to 1921-22 when we find that on the basis of the receipts, which is the burden supposedly borne by the

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
five-member family, the tax was $211.80, and on the basis of actual expenditure it was only $193.40.
Now the reason I am commenting on these figures at all is to point out that on the basis of the estimated expenditure put forward by the Minister of Finance this year as the amount-cut to the bone, pared as closely as possible,-the smallest amount he can get along with,-the tax is to be at least $244.85 on the supposed five-member family, or larger than it was under the preceding government. Where then is the relief that was promised on every platform in this country-the relief that was promised to the women of the home in a pamphlet that I have upon my desk and that was largely circulated throughout Nova Scotia; that was promised to every wage earner and to every labourer within the sound of the voice of the leader of the Gov-vernment? One would have expected under those circumstances to have found some real reduction, some real abandonment of expenditure, but instead of that we have an actual increase. Not only have we a failure to implement the pledges-not set out in the platform of the party adopted in convention, but the pledges spoken from the platform and published in the party literature-but there is, as in all other matters, an absolute disregard of them.
I noticed with much attention the attitude taken a few minutes ago by the hon. gentleman who spoke for the Progressive party. He assumed that the party sitting to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, would be intensely interested in knowing how he was going to vote. I can assure him that that party is only concerned with how it is going to vote itself. We have our principles and we stand true to them. We know how we are going to vote, and we have known for a very long time, in fact, practically, ever since the session commenced, just how the hon. member who has just spoken is going to vote. It was not necessary to volunteer any information on that point. He is going to vote as he voted on the first division this session in this House. He is going to vote in favour of a policy by which a party can go to the country upon a series of misstatements, and if returned to power, he will vote to condone such conduct and will support that party. He talks about what is ethical, and his action drives all that is ethical out of public life. He has quoted the words of the Finance Minister about leaning on governments. I am not particularly concerned with his application of it, but there is leaning and leaning; and

leaning sometimes is a support. We often see a post placed in the road which affords protection to a structure, which would topple over without its support. It is the Government that leans, and it leans for support upon the hon. member who has just spoken.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the hon. member tell me, has the Government since its inception ever leaned on the party to which he belongs?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The hon. member probably thinks the question is pertinent, and I will tell him that, so far as I know-and he 'has the same opportunity of observing that I have-the Government has never leaned upon the party which sits to the Speaker's left, but I will say that in certain matters the Government members had the good fortune to be possessed of sufficient commonsense to vote the same way as the party which I belong to has voted. That is a Heaven-born gift, that, so far, has been denied to my hon. friend and the party with which he is associated.


Robert Alexander Hoey: It is the same commonsense that has influenced me to do it on other occasions.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am quite willing to take my hon. friend's self-sufficient estimate of himself. There can (be nothing much more perfect, probably, in ethics, politics, morality or religion, and we will let it go at that. If the hon. member wants any better character, I will try to improvise one to his satisfaction, but I have no desire for any personal quarrel with him. The leader of the Government went to the country making representations of the character which I have mentioned. Those were public utterances. I have another utterance, where he said that Cape Breton Liberals had fought for the development of the coal and steel industry. I was never aware of any pitched battle on the part of the Liberals for the development of those industries, but, at the same time, that is the statement he made. He also declared that they would continue this fight until they brought back the prosperity Which Canada enjoyed for fifteen years under the Liberal regime, and I notice, as a striking commentary, that my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) told his audiences during the election campaign that a much higher duty should be paid on American coal coming into Canada. Apparently, it was not possible, however, to influence the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
the extent of altering the tariff in the direction of an increase. On that point my hon. friends to the left seem to have had their innings, because the Liberal platform was interpreted throughout the West as meaning abolition' of coal duties, while in Cape Breton, and generally throughout Nova Scotia, it was interpreted as in favour of enhancing those duties, for the protection of that very important industry.
I will refer to a pamphlet issued during the campaign, to which I referred in the debate on the address, in which, I think, a pair of boots was taken as an illustration. The people were assured-the women at all events of Nova Scotia were assured- that it was very wicked of my right hon. friend and leader (Mr. Meighen) to take 50 cents on a pair of boots, of which, I believe, some 20 cents went to the manufacturer, while, if my hon. friend the present leader of the Government were returned to power there would be a difference of some 30 cents in the duty. I said at the time that the thing looked very much like the traditional 30 Cents, 'but I find, after we have had all the tariff proposals, that it does not even reach the munificent sum of 30 cents in the reduction of the cost of living. 1 think about nine cents, after you have calculated1 the duty on an average pair of boots, and after you have taken the increased sales tax, about eight or nine cents, is the amount of the deduction, and you only get that if you import the boots or shoes from England. I am not sorry because I am not advocating the reduction of the duty. I believe in building up the industries of Canada and keeping the workmen within our own country by the produce to be raised, even in this part of the country, which, I am assured, is going very rapidly to the dogs-a statement which I do not accept at all. I want to see our own workmen and our own agriculturalists kept employed. I want to see a united Canada built up. I am glad1 the Finance Minister has not proceeded further in the work of destruction that was promised by his party When out of power.
I think it is entirely a matter of congratulation to the country that the tariff has not been very seriously disturbed, but it is a different matter when the hon. gentlemen who now control the Government and who know the effect of the tariff upon the business of the country, make representations, not only in their platform, solemnly adopted in convention, but also on all the platforms of the country. They made those declarations and stated what
they were going to do. They came into power. They knew just as well before as after they came into power how much money it would take to run this country for a year, and they knew that it could not be done accompanied by any serious tariff reduction. The Finance Minister, with a frankness that is characteristic, told the House and the country what his leader never dared to tell the country, that it is impossible to carry out the pledges that were given in the platform of 1919, and the pledges that were given during the last campaign. That is a manifest fact, and my hon. friend who discussed the matter to-night said over and over again that he was dissatisfied with and humiliated by these budget proposals. He realizes that, according to the Finance Minister, it is an absolute fact that the cost of administering government and carrying on the public services of the country cannot be brought lower, that a burden of taxation must be imposed, and that the only question that remains is as to the distribution of that taxation.
We were promised that a load would be taken off the poor people. We have the pitiful appeal of the leader of the Government, as if people were going without medicine, without food, without education and clothing, because of this tremendous burden of $310 per family, which, after all, is only an average and is not true with regard to any specified family in the Dominion. Yet, that was the nature of the appeal, and now the hon. member who made that appeal had to face the fact that they cannot carry out the promises that they gave, or the suggestions that they made. They cannot, and they dare not, carry into effect the things that they told the people they wanted to do if they came back into power.
How does the case stand with some others? We have already had a vote in this House, and the Liberal party has declared that promises do not bind them; that political platforms are only scraps of paper. The Liberals have informed us that their leader, by a certain magic formula, after the platform was adopted, rendered it as tenuous as some vapour floating over a chimney top. He waved his hands and he uttered the magic words that he accepted all the work that the convention had done, and that he would regard that simply as a chart to be followed, according as he might be advised by those whom he would gather around him into the counsels of the party. Day
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

after day was spent, mile after mile was travelled, health after health was drunk and cheer after cheer was rung around the room for this great magna charta of the Liberal party that was to give us the political and financial salvation of Canada; and yet, when their leader was adopting it, they did not know that he was damning and destroying and tearing it into the veriest shreds and patches and remnants of a policy, a thing not to be followed, not to be carried out.
But there are some other people in this House. Do they stand any better? The Liberal party, like the Conservative party, was repudiated during the campaign by certain other gentlemen. They wanted to stand on the " Mount of Promise " with their faces irradiated with the new political glory. They were going to come down that mount carrying the tables of the new law which would bring a new political salvation into this wretched political sin-struck world. Ah, they broke the tables of the law in carrying them down, just as the other Moses did. According to the other platform, we were to have not a postponed, not a delayed, not a fanciful, but an immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the custom tariff. Did the gentlemen who framed that know what they were talking about? Was this some more vaporous matter to catch votes; or was it the honest belief of the men who penned it and the men who spoke it? What are we trading on in public life anyway? Facts or fallacies, truth or fiction? The decision has to be made here as well as in the country. We can have the immediate reduction as soon as Parliament meets; the hour is now; the opportunity is here; but vigorous and united as they are, and knowing as they say just how they are going to vote, will my hon. friends to my left show me a substantial reduction of any duty, let alone a substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff? Where is it? They cannot find it themselves, and their friends opposite, their friends in conjunction, cannot and do not pretend to show it to them. Both sides have repudiated the idea of getting any practical, beneficial reduction in the customs tariff; but my hon. friends are going to vote to support a government that gives them this back-handed slap, that destroys their hopes, that repudiates their platform as well as the Government's own.
My friends to my left also solemnly announced to the people of Canada that they were going in for a reduction by 50 per cent of the preferential tariff for Great

Britain. That reduction was to be immediate; that was to be now, not five years from now, and then they were to have further gradual uniform reductions to ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years. I think it is up to my hon. friends to the left to discuss a little less, perhaps, my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), who has led this party with clearness of vision, with soundness of intellect and with a straight regard every time for the truth and the fact, and to tell us why they stand here mouthing about other things and disregarding their own platform, not daring to stand on the floor of this House and support a single plank or a single atom of the thing they said would bring salvation to Canada. Let those who live in glass houses cease throwing stones; or if they must throw them, let them throw them against a badly shattered glass house just over the way.
That was not their whole platform. Another plank was reciprocity with the United States in natural products. I do not blame them in regard to that; they might have thought they could get that. That might have been an honest mistake; they know now they cannot get it. Another demand was that all foodstuffs should be placed on the free list. Search your free list to-day; search the free list in the tariff proposals of the Minister of Finance, and tell me where you will find foodstuffs on the free list. It will take some searching to find any. Did the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who leads this party to my left, not know that these things were impossible? Is he such a child that it is only in this session that he has discovered the financial standing of the people of Canada? Is it only now that he learns for the first time that these things cannot be done? Is it possible that he sat in Parliament, in the Government of this country, as year after year went by and he was accumulating knowledge, and yet he had not attained so much knowledge as to know these things were a mere lie, a sham and a deception to the people? Agricultural implements, farm and household machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, gasoline, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils-all to be free. Show me one of them now; but vote, gentlemen to my left, vote in your morganatic alliance, vote as you told us a while ago that you would. Vote to support, as I said you were supporting, a union always a little shady, a union which gives you none of the benefits, honours or dignities,

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
but which confers upon you any of the degradations that there may be, that puts you to the menial task and takes you not into the household, that seeks you not in the home, but that puts you into a kind of inferior position. But vote for that kind of slavery if you like it.
Raw material and machinery used in the manufacture of these articles were also to be free, and we have the sanction of the great Council of Agriculture upon this. But when we have the budget, my hon. friends across the way, just as much as my hon. friends to my left, cannot refute the fact that was so clearly, plainly, honestly and courageously enunciated by the Minister of Finance, that it takes one hundred cents to pay one dollar of debt; that you have to do that, and that this country cannot go begging. I admire the stand the minister took; I admire his courage. He is about the only man in the two parties who had the courage of his convictions and who has taken hold of matters with a businesslike grasp. He says that you cannot carry out the platform of either the Canadian Council of Agriculture or the Liberal party. But where were the parties before we assembled in this House, before the people did the choosing? Ah, this old party was being blackguarded from one end of Canada to the other as a party of oppressors. From the Atlantic to the Pacific my leader (Mr. Meighen) was termed an autocrat. If there be autocracy in being just; if there be autocracy in telling the truth; if there be autocracy in being honest and four-square; if there be autocracy in not trying to camouflage the situation of the country; if there be autocracy in not begging people for their votes, giving them one kind of coin of political promises in one place and another kind in another-if that be autocracy, then I am more glad than ever that I stepped into the fight and endeavoured to help a man of the character of the leader of this party.
You can review the campaign if you will. Other parties may have things to think about themselves, or about their leaders, or about their press, but there is one thing that cannot be said honestly. It cannot be said that the Conservative party told the country anything else than the thing that it could and would do, the thing that it intended to carry out if it had been returned to power. We did not talk about making everything free and slicing off the customs revenue of the country; we did not talk about lifting burdens off the poor man;
we did not attempt to fool the people for the sake of getting their trust. We were content to come back to power, but only on such conditions that we could face the electorate afterwards and say that we had done nothing other than what we promised, from the platform and from our press, could be done and would be done. We stand therefore in a position of intense satisfaction to-night, when we see our hon. friends to the left prepared to swallow again the dose they took at the opening of the session and stand up here and approve, by their votes and their conduct, the breaking of pledges, virtually declaring that it is not necessary to have any faith or honour in public life at all,
10 p.m. and that all you have to do is to get on a platform and tell the people any old thing that will fool them for a while until the votes are counted, afterwards turning your back on your solemn pledges. My hon. friend who spoke a few moments ago (Mr. Hoey) rather sneered, I thought, at the amendment which has been moved. Let us look for a moment at that amendment. Is there any man in the House who will deny the following statement:
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 sawmill 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 same.
Will any hon. member deny that that resolution was adopted? Scarcely. Further, the Liberal party resolved:
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
What hon. member will deny by his vote that the Liberal party adopted that? None, I think.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution When returned to power.
Ah, Mr. Speaker, the prospect of a return to power was the glory of it all,

the hope of power and the realization of power. To proceed:
That such pledges were restated as the policy of the Liberal party in an official handbook issued just before the general election, namely, in October 1921, under the authority of its leader, Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King.
Will any hon. member in this House deny that statement? I think not.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
That candidates contesting on behalf of the Liberal Party in the said election, used widely the promises therein set out as a means of securing support.
No one, I think, will deny that either.
That the Liberal party having been returned to power, the Budget proposals of the Finance Minister now brought down, constitute, on the part of the Government, an utter failure to implement such pledges by legislation.
Is there a man within the sound of my voice who can say that that is not correct? The Government may offer some excuse for not implementing their pledges by legislation, but they cannot contend for a moment that they have implemented them. They have not implemented one of them. The rest of it follows:
That the making of such solemn pledges, the utilization of them to secure support, and their flagrant violation after tlhe attainment of office reveal a disregard of political honour and tend to lower the standard of public life.
I fancy this is a case where the horse comes up to the hurdle and balks at the jump; for hon. gentlemen know in their consciences that they ought to vote for the amendment. There is not a syllable of it that they can deny. But there is another platform, that of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, that is being equally violated by their supine acceptance of the proposals of the Government, whatever they may be. My hon. friends ought to be congratulated upon the plenitude of their success in this session. One sees the mere wraith of the Wheat Board trailing past the doors and disappearing into the night. There will be no compulsory Wheat Board; not even the bravest of them imagines that now. There will be only the ghost of the Wheat Board to give a warning to certain representatives in the prairies when they next appeal very unwillingly to their assistance. As regards the Crowsnest pass, I do not think my hon. friends are getting very much consolation now that there is some common sense injected into the discussion of that question. Redistribution was another immediate demand on the part of hon. gentlemen, but I think possibly they realize the futilty of repeating that demand this session. By the way, there was an observation made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) with regard to my right hon. friend and leader (Mr. Meighen) as to redistribution. It is a fact that only about the opening of the session, were the census figures sufficiently completed to enable the House, if it so desired, to consider the question of redistribution, and I should like to know how my right 
hon. friend could possibly have introduced a redistribution bill and got it through before he had those figures or before the census was even taken. When I hear criticism of that kind I am reminded oi the character of men I have canvassec from time to time in the past when I usee to go about soliciting a personal vote. 1 used to encounter a type of man, who, when I asked for his vote, would hit off on something else. There was always something that did not quite suit him. He was dodging the question, and I knew from the start that he did not intend to vote for me anyhow. The hon. member for Springfield will not mind if I class him mentally with those men whom I used to size up as natural born opponents whom I could not win over anyhow. No matter what excuses they made they were bound to vote for the other side. That is the way a great many members of this group regard the hon. member and other vociferous exponents of the Progressive party. After all, they are Liberals. I would not call them good Liberals, because they did not run under the banner of their party; but they thought they had a better chance of getting into the House under the cloak of another party, and another platform a little more deceptive than the Liberal party's, if it is possible to make one so. And now to-day the cloak begins to fall off and we see them in the colours naturally theirs.
I shall not attempt to discuss the budget at any great length. However, there are a few observations that I think it well I should make. Must it not be noticeable to hon. members that right through these budget proposals there is a significant absence of taxation upon luxuries? It strikes at the essentials or fundamentals. Now, let the farmer of this country, to whom the automobile in many cases is simply a replacement of the horse; let such a farmer -I do not mean one of the camouflaged brand who is in politics a Liberal first and a farmer only for principle's sake; I mean the real farmer-let him look at the automobile question. My own view of it is that it would have been wiser in the tariff proposals to treat in a different manner the automobile, say, of the style of the Ford.
I am not going to advocate the use of brother Henry's products in opposition to any other, but I refer to the cheap form of automobile which gives very good service and which to-day has become almost essential to rural life. Why not have helped

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
the man on the farm by refusing to impose excise taxes upon such cars? Why not have taken the broadside that Mr. Attorney General Raney delivered in the last election against undue profits of the Ford Motor Company as at least an excuse for giving to those who need the convenience of an automobile in their business a substantial reduction in the cost of that article? Let the rest of us, those who ride in cars for pleasure, pay the 10 per cent or 5 per cent or whatever it may be, and give to those who really need the automobile some real relief. That is what my hon. friends should have done. I have not heard any of the hon. gentlemen to my left demand that. It is very evident that they are not bothering at all about the farmer; the matter of an automobile to the farmer does not matter.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: They like the tax.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, charmed with it;
they must be very fond of it. A reduction has been made of a few paltry cents upon ploughs and upon a great many other articles that apparently we obtain only from Great Britain. Just imagine bringing a farm cart from Great Britain-and you get 'a reduction of 2-1 per cent on that article; but you cannot get any reduction if you bring it from across the border. Now, who in thunder among the farmers expects to get any benefit out of that part of the policy? Of course, my hon. friends to my left mildly applaud it and say it is the best thing that could be done under the circumstances-a "step in the right direction." Well, when they have stepped out on the prairies it will be a case of "Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon." That is the way this news will be received if my hon. friends go fresh from Parliament with that kind of thing going on.
Then, let us look at these proposals for a moment from the standpoint of the labourer. I notice that the labourer gets the benefit of the 21 per cent reduction on his heavy knitted wool undershirt, while the man who is fortunate enough to be able to wear collars and cuffs to his work, gets, I think, a reduction of 10 per cent, or 5- it is twice as much, anyway.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Put it on the safe side.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: At all events, we will say it is at least a very gentlemanly tariff; it has proper regard for those who dress in good taste, and the man with collars and cuffs is going to come off better than the
poor chap who has to go to work in his knitted shirt. Well, if my hon. friends to my left want to approve of it, all right. They have the votes; they have the opportunity,-and they also have a splendid opportunity to swallow their vote. I hope they enjoy it; I hope they like to gulf down budget, tariff, principles, everything, for fear that if they voted some other way this Parliament might suddenly go to pieces and they would have to give an accounting of their stewardship to the people of the prairies.
Now, I am not a very belligerent character; at the same time I do not want to be classed as an entire pacifist. I know that what I am going to say will not have very much of Christian savour about it, but I am going to express my real feeling. Perhaps what I say will be much more pagan in its character than hon. members may think it should be. But I should not jest on the subject, because I am in real earnest. Except that it might have cost many thousands of additional lives, I have felt and I always shall feel that the justice of God was not done upon Germany when her cities, her villages and her people remained intact, safe and sheltered, while the land and people of France underwent terrible devastation and suffering. It may not be Christian, but I think it is intensely human to feel that not until we are sure that the brute that is the soul of Germany
for she has no soul-is destroyed, we should not strengthen the power of what was the German Empire. You may trade with her, if you will. If you want to sacrifice everything to commerce; if there is to be no sentiment; if there is to be no feeling in the matter, then we can go on and barter with Germany and let her people do for us the work that the British artisan might do or the Canadian workingman might do near our own homes. If that is your sentiment; if you are willing for the sake of a few cents or a few dollars to let Germany engross your trade, God knows this tariff gives her the opportunity, and she is too only too willing to profit by it. Now, I do not want any one within the sound of my voice or any one who may read what I say to-night to infer for a moment that I desire in the least sense to brand the Government as intending to do anything against our nationality or our British connection, or, above all, in favour of Germany. I would not accuse the Minister of Finance or his colleagues of any deliberate intention in that regard, and I

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
would be very sorry if a thing so cheap and so capable of being used on the hustings as an election cry should be resorted to. I may say that statements of that character have been made about us, and I would not wish a reprisal of them. It is not fair; it does no good to our national life. I would like to see the matter considered on the other basis. Let us, at least, until we are moderately sure that the world is safe, raise a barrier against those countries that tried to kill democracy and slaughter liberty. Let us insist that nothing German, nothing Austrian, shall come in here to be used by our people, not even for the sake of some paltry commercial advantage. If there were a famine in Germany to-night, I would say, let her suffer as a just punishment for the deeds of the past. I would not vote a dollar of Canadian money to send a single ship of relief, to send a single bushel of wheat, even though her population disappeared from the earth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That may be too bitter for you, but it is my feeling, and a feeling to which I will give just as much expression as others will give of their sympathy with and slobbering over those who tried to destroy them. There is such a thing as mercy, such a thing as reconciliation, but there is also such a thing as justice; and sometimes the only thing that is wise in the interests of the world is to let the axe fall.


Mr. WILLIAM ELLIOTT (South Waterloo) :: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to express to this House my appreciation of the great task which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has undertaken. I do not believe there is a man in Canada in whom the people have greater faith than they have in the present Minister of Finance. In 1896 he gave to this Dominion a budget that brought a period of prosperity that has never been equalled in our history. While the budget perhaps does not go as far as we looked for in the matter of tariff reductions, I am satisfied it is a step in the right direction, and I believe that in the course of time we will eventually get where we want to be. I take this stand: We are in a period of great stress, and the financial condition of this country is such that we cannot put into effect all at once the principles we would like and which we have advocated. Changes must be made gradually, one step at a time, until
[Mr. Baxter.!
we get to the point where it is unwise to go further.
The problem of meeting the expenditure of the Dominion of Canada is a very serious one. The late government, while meeting the expenditure in a way, always failed to raise enough money, with the result that the national debt has been increasing from year to year. In my opinion, the sooner we stop increasing our national debt the better. We simply have to take hold of this question of finance. We should raise as we go along a revenue sufficient to meet our expenses, and I believe the Minister of Finance is making an honest endeavour to solve this problem, which is one of the greatest facing the country to-day, We hear a lot about reducing the expenditure, and that is certainly a wise thing to do. It is easier to reduce our expenditure than to raise money by way of taxation. I think we could reduce the expenditure in some departments of government. I am under the impression that we have a great many more civil servants in the employ of this Government than we need, and if the Government would spend more time in studying the departments with a view to reducing the staffs to the very lowest point consistent with efficiency, I believe they would ultimately come to the point where they would be able to raise a revenue sufficient to cover the expenditure.
At the present time the country is faced with tariffs imposed by other countries. We find that the United States are making an honest endeavour on their part to raise their tariff, and the same is true of practically every country with which we deal. I venture to say that it would be very unwise, much as I am in favour of a low tariff, for the Government at one step to wipe out our tariff against other countries. We must proceed by degrees, and for taking a step in that direction I think the Minister of Finance ought to be commended. While we do not agree with him in all respects I think in the main he is proceeding in the right direction, and we have every reason to follow him with confidence.
The object of every government in this country should be to develop Canada. We have a country with great natural resources. We have stores of wealth that have never been tapped. So far as agriculture is concerned, we have a country which is immensely rich, possibly the richest in the world. We have in the northwest territories perhaps the greatest wheat

The Budget-Mr. W. Elliott
belt in the world, and if we can get settlers of the right class out on that land-only a small proportion of it is under cultivation at the present time-it will help us to pay off our national debt in a way we otherwise could not do.
But the greatest problem before the country to-day to my mind, is markets. Our friends to my right lay great stress upon the home market. There is no one who appreciates the home market more than I do. I represent a constituency in the province of Ontario which has more people to the square mile, I think, than any other rural constituency. I represent the south riding of the country of Waterloo, and we have in that constituency one large city and two or three large towns all within five or six miles of each other. It is a densely populated district. I know and appreciate the value of the home market to the farmer, but unless the home market can consume all the products of our farms, it is practically of no value to us as a means of setting our prices. The prices we get for our farm products are largely fixed by the Chicago and Liverpool markets. They are fixed by our export trade. I believe that one of the greatest things that could be done for agriculture to-day is for the Government to develop markets for agricultural products. Once you get those markets established, you will find no difficulty in settling our idle acres in the northwest. While this is true of agriculture, it is also perfectly true of other industries. I am not one of those who hold the opinion that large towns and cities are a detriment to any country. I know that some of my friends on this side will not agree with me, but I believe the larger our towns and cities grow and the more people we can get into this country, the better it is for we farmers providing-and I make this proviso-that, those cities do not grow at the expense of any other industry. I am just as much opposed to building up agriculture at the expense of industry as I am to building up industry at the expense of agriculture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member believe that industry in this country in the past has been built up at the expense of agriculture?


William Elliott: I do. I
believe that the towns and cities have been built up at the expense of agriculture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member agree with the proposal to remedy that condition by the removal of the tariff?


William Elliott: I believe
that the lowering of the tariff to a certain point at the present time would be in the interests of agriculture, and also in the interests of industry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Lowering it to what point?


William Elliott: To the point where we have tariff for revenue only.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Vancouver does not seem to see the point.


William Elliott: We have a small population, comparatively, in this Dominion, about eight and three-quarter millions. We speak about the value of the home market, but my contention is that if industry does nothing more than supply the wants of these eight and three-quarter millions of people, it is not going to develop to any great extent. You have to get markets outside. You have to establish markets for the products of your factories in other countries. Some of our friends argue that the way to do that is by keeping up a tariff wall around this country and keeping other products out. I venture to say that that is the surest way to kill the industries of this country. If you want to build up the industries of this country, you must make the tariff just high enough to give us the revenue we require, and not put a great burden on the consumers of this country. Now the same is absolutely true with regard to agriculture; we produce a great many more goods than we can consume. Our friends who advocate a high tariff will say: "Oh, we will supply you with a home market which will consume your products." Well, I do not know that the Canadian people could possibly consume all the wheat that is produced in this country-at least I do not think it would be very good for them if they did. Neither could they consume all the cattle that we produce. We have to get export markets; we have to ship our products out into the markets of the world if agriculture is ever to develop.
I do not intend to deal any further with this question of agriculture, ibut I want to discuss for a few minutes the high cost of living as it affects labour in our towns and cities. To my mind one of the most serious questions which we in this Dominion have to deal with t6-day is the labour problem. We have-very largely, I (believe, as a result of the tariff imposed and the management of the war by the late government-a period of great unemploy-

The Budget-Mr. W. Elliott
ment. We find that we have more unemployed' men in Canada to-day than we ever had before. During the last winter a great many of these men were, for a time, fed at the public expense. Hundreds and thousands of other's, both men and women, were able, by the use of a little money they had saved up, to worry through the winter. Now what is the condition as we find it here today? We find that labour is not being employed as it should be, and that the coming winter will probably see greater hardship brought on the labour people than they have ever experienced1 before, simply because those people are not going to be in the position to stand a second hard year. I think the Government would be well advised to undertake some public work as a relief measure. Ultimately I believe they will have to feed these people; we cannot see them starve. These men do not want charity, they want work; and I believe that ultimately either the provincial or the federal government, or perhaps both, will have to feed this great army of the unemployed during the coming winter.
We find that the cost of living is very little lower than it was before. We find that the cost of coal and the necessaries of life, is very little lower than it was before, with the result that it is almost impossible, owing to the small amount of work which these men have had, for them to exist. Now labour has been blamed for a good many things for which, to my mind, it is not guilty. We have men who, in looking around for a reason for the high cost of living, will tell you to-day that labour is responsible for it. They will tell you that it is because of the high wages they must pay that the cost of living has gone up to its present point. I believe, however, that if we were to analyse the conditions in a great many of our important industries we would find that labour is not getting an undue reward. At the same time, I wish to say that I believe that in some of our industries, in some of our great corporations in the Dominion, labour, perhaps, is too highly paid, and in this connection I refer to the railway corporations. But coming right down to our factories, I spent a good deal of time in two of our industries investigating the conditions of labour. Take the boot and shoe industry, and there are quite a large number of factories in the south riding of Waterloo. We find that labour is blamed! very largely because of the high cost of boots and bhoes. Never in the history of Canada, as far as I can remember, has the cost of the raw material

which enters into the manufacture of boots and shoes been so low. Why, beef hides were actually selling as low as 21 and 3 cents a pound1; they are a little higher now, perhaps in the neighbourhood of 4 or 5 cents a pound, but these prices are very much lower than those paid during the war. Consequently, it cannot be the cost of the raw material that is keeping up the price of boots and shoes.. I have a statement made by the secretary of the Boot and Shoe Workers' Union of Ontario, Mr. O'Dell, of Hamilton, in which he says that the cost of the labour entering into a pair of shoes which retails at $12 is only $1.70. Now, Sir, I maintain that that is not an undue amount to pay for labour ; I believe it is only a fair wage. When we consider further that, according to one manufacturer, 14,000 Canadians engaged in the shoe trade receive an aggregate yearly wage of $10,000,000, this works out at only $715 each. But footwear never cost so much as it does now. Where does the profit go? I maintain that a wage of $715 on the average for the shoe workers in the Dominion is not an excessive wage; and I do not think that any fair-minded man can justly charge labour with being responsible for the high cost of shoes.
Permit me to continue a little further along this line. I have obtained from a very reliable source the cost of the labour entering into the production of a yard of cloth. I might say further that in the south riding of Waterloo we have a number of the finest woollen mills in the Dominion. The figures Which I am going to submit to you with regard to labour are not figures covering one year only, or two years-they are figures covering a period of eight years, so that I think they are fairly correct, and they cover the period in which the cost of woollens was said to be at its very highest. Now, I find this to be the case with respect to the labour entering into the manufacture of a yard of cloth which sells at $2 per yard to the retailer: The labour, represented by the handling, sorting, blending, picking, scouring, carding, gilling, combing, re-gilling, drawing, spinning, twisting, reeling, and so forth, only receives 30 cents, whereas the yard of cloth which that labour produces retails at $2. In other words, for a yard of cloth sold by that firm at $2 per yard the labour cost is only 30 cents. I do not think any of you will say that is an undue charge; and I believe that in this case labour is only receiving a very small part of what it is really worth. You may ask:

The Budget-Mr. W. Elliott
How is it, in view of the fact that labour is getting such a small reward for this work that the cost of clothing is perhaps higher than it has been for years? Now, it takes about 31 yards of cloth to make a suit of clothes, and a little over a dollar, to be accurate $1.12 is paid for the labour which goes into that cloth. No wonder you ask me: " How is it that when we go to buy a suit of clothes manufactured from that cloth, we have to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $45 or $50, when the original cost of that cloth to the retailer was only in the neighbourhood of $7?" I venture to say that we never had a greater need for a good active board of commerce in this country to investigate the great cost of these articles than we have at the present time. That is true not only with regard to the articles which I have cited, but of practically every article which goes into human consumption to-day. There is too great a spread between what we get, what the producer gets and what the consumer pays. Until we get down to the bottom of that, we will not solve the question of the high cost of living. I want to be fair and I say that if the tariff on these articles were wiped out completely it would make very little difference in the cost. I have not had time to go into that statement, but I am satisfied it is perfectly true. The cost is somewhere else, and it is the duty of the Government to find out where the excessive cost of the necessities of life comes in.
I will deal now with the question of the tariff. A good number of elections have been won and lost on the tariff. We find that practically every government, both Liberal and Conservative, has used the tariff as a means of winning elections. In the last campaign our friends to the right said the tariff was the only issue. Well, it did not work out very well, as far as they were concerned. They lost the election, and our friends on the other side of the House won. Now, stripped of all its mystery, very few people thoroughly understand the tariff. We have a plank in the platform of the United Farmers, which is also incorporated in the platform of the Independent Labour party of Canada, which reads:
That the tariff should not be a political football to be kicked about for election purposes, but should be placed in the hands of a qualified and representative commission, whose duty it should be to administer the tariff in a scientific manner, Labor then having an opportunity to protect its interests.
This was taken from the Labour platform, and further on-
That every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before this proposed commission.
Another plank in the platform reads:
That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products, protected by the customs tariff, be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
I believe in that plank, and I think there are very few members in the House of Commons who know enough of the tariff to say definitely whether any industry needs protection or whether it does not. I have great respect for the high calibre of the members of this House, but, nevertheless, in order to state definitely that any industry is in need of protection, we must spend a good deal of time investigating the question, and I believe in the appointment of a commission to investigate it. That commission should be composed of men who were above reproach, and beyond the possibility of any outside influence being brought to hear on them. It would also be a representative commission, composed of a representative of agriculture, and a representative of labour. I would not say that we should have a representative of every industry, because that would be going a ' little too far. With a commission such as this, inquirying into the conditions as we have them to-day in the country, I believe we would get the very best information possible regarding our industries. I do not say that this commission should be independent of Parliament. It should be appointed under Parliament, and only for the purpose of making recommendations to Parliament. Those recommendations would be acted upon, and Parliament would have to assme the responsibility of those recommendations, if they were put into effect. The second clause in this platform, which I consider of great importance, reads:
That every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before this proposed commission.
I believe that if this commission were in operation we would get a very great amount of information which would be valuable to the people of Canada. We would find out a lot of things which would be a great surprise to us. We have been told in the past that a great many of our manufacturers have been making immense sums of money. We have been told that the Dominion Textile people made a profit of 310 per cent in one year. I do not
The Budget-Mr. White

know whether that is true or not. It has been stated on public platforms and never denied, as far as I have heard. It would be the duty of this commission to inquire and find out whether that firm had been making such undue profits in one year or not.
With regard to the woollen industry I have been told-in fact the evidence which I have at the present time bears out the statement-that for a period of ten years the average profits of the woollen industry of Canada have been in the neighbourhood of 5 or 6 per cent. I do not know whether that is true or not, but it would be the duty of the commision to find out, and once they had that knowledge, and once they had all the cards on the table with regard to any particular industry, the commission would be in a position to say whether that industry required any assistance or not in the way of a tariff. However, with regard to any of our industries which are native to Canada, if upon an examination of their statements before the commission it is proven to the commission that they require protection, I would be in favour of giving them protection. We find that other countries are adopting this system. We found out just the other day that the United States made a move in this direction. While I do not believe in following . the lead of United States in every particular, yet it is an indication that the people of other countries are thinking along these lines, and I think if the Government would adopt such a system as a tariff commission, which is one of the planks in our platform, they would receive a good bit of support from this side of the House. The tariff is more or less of a mystery to me, I am free to confess. I suppose I have a fair amount of knowledge upon it, yet I believe the Government is justified in dealing carefully with it. I do not think they would be justified in making any undue reduction, owing to the present unsettled state of this country. I think the action of the Government, while it is not all we desire, is, at least, commendable and goes in the right direction.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Would the hon. member consider the cotton industry as a native industry?


Mr. ELLIOT:: I would not think the cotton industry was a native industry.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I think a repetition of congratulations to the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) is hardly

necessary and somewhat tiresome. I can only say that I admire the Finance Minister for the pluck he has shown in facing a very difficult proposition, and that I wish him many years of the vigour, both of body and mind, which he now enjoys. I could not help thinking, as I heard his budget speech, that another milestone had been passed in the matter of election pledges, promises and arguments. I remember that in the days gone by we have heard of commercial union; we have heard of free trade as they have it in England; we have heard of tariff for revenue only, of reciprocity; and now we have the first outcome of the Liberal tariff platform of 1919 with its solemn pledges and its chart and compass attachment. As to what the final1 outcome will be, I suppose it is a case of, no man knoweth. If we consider the proposed tariff changes by themselves, there is some slight reduction; but if we consider them in connection with the 50 per cent addition to the sales tax, the reduction is so slight as to be almost invisible. Some have said that it is a step in the right direction, but I think such hon. gentlemen are quite satisfied with a very short step. It is rather significant that the budget does not contain any new sources of revenue. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has not been able to tap any fresh source; he has simply added to those which we have had before, and it seems to me that this is quite a compliment to the previous Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and the late government. In the case of these slight tariff reductions, I would point out that Canada is the only nation that I know of which is reducing tariffs. In the last two or three years, the customs tariffs of most countries have been increased, and it might be said that all the world, excepting Canada, is opposed to a reduction of tariffs.
Since coming to this House, I have been very much interested in the speeches of the party to my left, and the Ontario members, who number about one-third of that party, have been strangely silent upon many subjects. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) to-night gave quite a blue picture of the golden West, about the bluest that I have ever heard. We have just listened to the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Elliott), who, I believe, advocated before the election the tariff commission that he has spoken of to-night. He also says that he is in favour of a tariff for revenue. I was just wondering, if a few more of the Ontario members of

The Budget-Mr. White
that party would express their views, whether we would not have just about as cosmopolitan a membership in that party as there is in the Liberal party. It was somewhat to my surprise that he cleared the manufacturers of cloth of any duplicity or any arrangement whereby prices were hoisted to too high a level.
We had before the special Railway Committee a day or two ago the Hon. George Langley who, in giving evidence before that committee, said that the western country from which he came, had lost confidence in a certain commission. We have had the Railway Commission looking after railway matters for some years; and if a certain section of the country loses entire confidence in the Railway Commission, why cannot other sections of the country lose confidence in a tariff commission? The tariff is too intimately connected with our raising of revenue to be entrusted to a commission.
We have heard a great deal about the troubles of hon. gentlemen to the left, and it seems to me that some of those are troubles which no legislation can remedy. They had bad weather conditions during the last two years, and I would point out that no Act of Parliament can command the velocity or the direction of the wind, or the downfall of rain or the time at which it shall come. It seems to me that while climatic conditions may not be ideal, the greatest trouble they have and the greatest drawback to their success is the exorbitant freight rates which they are compelled to pay. We are told that the special Railway Committee will have something of interest and of value to bring before this House when they are ready to report. Probably another reason for some of their troubles is, that dry areas in the southern part of Alberta and Saskatchewan were opened up for farming, when they might better have been left as grazing country and would probably have produced more than they have under cultivation. Although members of that party are opposed to protection in all its forms, or at least some of them are, we have heard from one to-night who is not. Some hon. members have explained that they are not asking for any special protection or special privilege; but they are willing to vote large sums for the promotion of the interest of agriculture, and I do not object to that. They are quite willing to ask for a wheat board, and in the present progress that the wheat board is making, I have my doubts whether it
will be of any use to them. But if that is the regulation they want, I am quite free to say that I am willing to support that measure.
I have looked up the record of importations of farm produce, and I find that, in the year ended March 31, 1921, under nineteen items there was imported into this country the produce of farms to the value of $71,500,000. It seems to me that there is food for thought in those items. For instance, we imported 3,741,000 pounds of butter, of which 2,207,000 pounds was received from the United States. We exported 9,739,000 pounds, nearly 6,000,000 of which went to the United States. I am giving the figures in round numbers. The United States duty is now 6 cents a pound. Under the regulations now before the Senate, I believe it is proposed to raise it to 8 cents. The Canadian duty is 4 cents per pound.
Of eggs in the shell, we imported 5,342,000 dozen, of which 5,201,000 dozen came from the United States. That does not take into consideration eggs in the frozen state. We exported 6,579,000 dozen, of which only 191,000 dozen went to the United States. Eggs were admitted to the United States free. The proposed tariff is 8 cents per dozen. The Canadian duty is 3 cents per dozen.
We have heard a great deal about efforts being made to secure wider markets; and while I would not minimize those efforts, I would say that it behooves us to examine these conditions, to find out the reason why these things exist and to take steps to secure our own markets to ourselves. The home market is the most valuable market we have; it is the most stable, and it is the one that will stick by us in the end.
As to the free trade view of some members of the party to our left I might remind the House that we have experimented somewhat with that policy. During the stress of war, when the necessity for the production of foodstuffs was so great, the government of that day, in order to encourage such production, placed farm tractors on the free list. They did so with the best intentions, by a temporary provision under an Order in Council. Now, in 1919 and 1920 there were imported from the United States tractors to the value of some $20,000,000. The people of Canada paid the duty on those tractors in the form of exchange. They paid to the United States an exchange that averaged 14 per cent during all that.time, and that money
The Budget-Mr. White

went to keep the American factories busy, and to keep open the channels of their trade. When the transaction was completed we had the tractors and the Americans had the cash. Those tractors might have been made in Canada, and we would have had the tractors and the cash as well.


Mr. BIRD:: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of the money Canada has invested in the banks to-day is loaned to industries operating in the United States at the present time?


John Franklin White: 
Mr. KELLNER:: Is the hon. member
aware that the dye industry in Great Britain is agitating for a repeal of that tariff?


John Franklin White: I have not heard of that, but I am aware that the agricultural industry in Great Britain is opposed to the removal of the cattle embargo.
Perhaps the most important announcement in the Budget is that which deals with the duties on articles coming from countries that have a depreciated currency. The minister referred to the tariff which has existed up to the present time as a tariff of 1,000 per cent. I wonder how he figures the present tariff. Take an article that cost 100 marks, with a duty of 30 per cent added. With undepreciated exchange that article would be worth, in round figures, $24. A thirty per cent tariff would mean a duty of $7.20. The previous method of figuring would bring it to $3.60. With the present method of calculating on the depreciated currency, that article, instead of bearing a duty of $3.60 as formerly, would bear a duty of 10 cents. I think, therefore, that the statement that we are going to have free trade with Germany is not wide of the mark. Now, under our immigration regulations we keep out the German and Austrian artisan and labourer. We say that they shall not come here and take the work from our Canadian citizens. Yet, when the products of their labour come to us in the shape of German goods we let them in practically free of duty. The minister gives as a reason for this change that the previous regulation was broken. Is it not a fact that almost all laws on the statute books are broken? But would he advance that as any justification for repealing all laws? The plain duty of the Government, it seems to me, was to amend the regulations which are not satisfactory, to make them stronger and more drastic, thereby giving the Canadian workman and manufacturer some protection from the workmen who produce these foreign goods in countries where the standard of living is low. The abolition of the depreciated currency

Questions
regulations comes at a time when we have a great deal of unemployment, and when many of our factories are running on short time, in common with most other countries. We also have many soldiers who are out of work, some of them marching to Ottawa to put their case before the Government. No doubt the war has unsettled a good many of them, and possibly some were not employable before the war. The putting on of the khaki did not make them saints, but it cannot be denied that the great majority of them would make good if given proper conditions. Now, this very small duty on the German goods is practically no protection, so that almost the only protection we have left is sentiment. Sentiment will keep many of these manufactured goods out of the country, but they will come in in camouflaged form and the people will not know, when they are buying, where the goods were made.
The other day when the militia estimates were under consideration, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), a returned soldier, I believe, attacked them quite successfully. I have been wondering whether he will speak up in protection of his former comrades when this matter of depreciated currency comes up-whether he will do his best to see that the soldiers and the unemployed get justice. Personally, I saw Canada's men march out in the pride of their youth and strength. I saw some of my best friends go with them and I heard afterwards that they had been done to death in the most hideous fashion. I saw some of them come back broken in everything but their spirit, and I saw others return who seemed to be in good health, but whose experiences will mean that they will not live out half their days. I am free to confess that I have not reached that state of grace where I can welcome a would-be autocratic German or the goods which he manufactures. I contend, Sir, that the Government has not done its duty by the Canadian people, who are anxious to maintain their present standards of living, nor has it, in particular, done its duty by the men who sacrificed so much that the liberty we believe in might not perish from the earth.
On motion of Mr. Kyte the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

William Stevens Fielding: With the permission
of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we return to motions in order that
I may make a motion with respect to a change in the personnel of a committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: That the name of Mr. Vien he substituted for that of Mr. Ouimet on the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.06 p.m.
Thursday, June 1, 1922.