1922-05-26

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill (from the Senate), for the relief of Deliah Jane Mills.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 114 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Agnes Flynn Donoghue.- Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 31st of May instant, and on all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the present session the sitttings of the House shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I observed in the press recently a report that the Government had made a settlement of the damage action of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company against the Government for the sum, as the report stated, of $4,500,000. The gist of the report was that the Government had settled without proceeding with the action. May I ask if the report is correct?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Ministei of Marine and Fisheries) :: Yes, the repori is correct. The action was settled for the balance of $1,500,000, that is $100,000 less than the arrangement agreed to in January or December.
(Mr. Lapointe. [


Arthur Meighen: There was no arrangement agreed to in either January or December by the late government. There may have been one in January by this Government; there was none in December.


Ernest Lapointe: There was certainly a settlement; $3,000,000 had been paid, and there was another amount of $1,600,000 to be paid one month later. Of course, if that other installment was not paid, the agreement was null and void. So it was; but the present Government had the matter studied by various counsel, and the opinion was that it was better to effect a settlement. The Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) succeeded in obtaining a reduction of $100,000; the costs were paid by the company, and we are not paying interest on the amount.


Arthur Meighen: I only wish to correct one statement of the minister. The late government made no agreement whatever. The term the minister uses is incorrectly applied. The company made in December a proposal of settlement of $4,600,000, which proposal we declined to accept; but on the understanding that the matter would be held over for the new government either to accept or reject as they saw fit, a sum of $3,000,000 was paid. No agreement or, no recommendation whatever, was made as to the balance; the whole matter was left over for the new administration to deal with. I accept their statement as to what they did.


Mr. FIELDING:: Except the payment of the $3,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: The $3,000,000 was
paid, because that was acknowledged, but there was no agreement as to the balance -none whatever.


William Stevens Fielding: When the right hon. member said that the whole matter was left over for the new Government, I said, "except for the payment of the $3,000,000."


Arthur Meighen: The whole matter was left over. That is precisely what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: May I correct a slight mistake I made in my answer to the right hon. gentleman? It was on November 25 that this arrangement between the late government and the company took place; $3,000,000 was paid on that date, and a period of two months was given-I said one month-to pay the balance. This was one of the first things that this Government had to consider when it took office.

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton



ITALIAN IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Government to a despatch in the Montreal Herald of May 23, stating that more than six hundred Italian immigrants were being landed from a steamer on that date. In the House the other night, I understood that only agricultural labourers were being brought to this country at the present time. Can the Government tell us whether these are agricultural labourers, or whether this new regulation is in force at the present time?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argen-teuil) :: I have no actual knowledge of the number of persons who came in as quoted from the despatch by the hon. member, but I can assure him that whoever came in, came in under the regulations that are now in force.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 23, 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.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) (Resuming) :: 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
16 Marker Western Drill, with single disc attachment, value about $155.
Weight	Duty	Amount of Duty	Deduct Drawback	Net Duty	Domestic 30%	Export 99%	Domestic	ExportBar iron	450 lb.	35c.	$1.58	[DOT]47	1-56	Ml	*02100 lb.	Sheet steel	65 1b.	12}%	.22	*09	*21}	*13	[DOT]00}Pig iron	656 lb.	2-50 NT	.82	[DOT]25	[DOT]81	[DOT]57	[DOT]01
' *			$2.62			1-81	[DOT]03}
16 Marker Western Drill, with the single disc attachment, weighs 1,260 lbs. and the freight to Moosejaw from Hamilton is SI-33§ per 100 lbs., or $16.82, cost of freight delivery, as compared with net duty of $1.81 on material in machine.
10-ft. Horse Rake, value about $55.
-	Weight	Duty	Amount of Duty	Deduct Drawback	Net Duty	Domestic 30%	Export 99%	Domestic	ExportBar iron	350 lb.	35c.	$1.23	[DOT]37	1-22	[DOT]86	[DOT]01100 lb.	Sheet steel	10 1b.	12}%	.03}	[DOT]01	[DOT]03}	[DOT]02}	-00Pig iron	79 lb.	2-50 NT	.10	[DOT]03	[DOT]09}	[DOT]07	[DOT]00}$1.36}	[DOT]95}	[DOT]01}
10-ft. Horse Rake weighs 460 lb. and the freight to Moosejaw from Hamilton is $1.33} per 100 lb., or $6.14, cost of freight delivery, as compared with the net duty of 95}c. on material in machine.
6-ft. Binder with Bundle Carrier and Transport Attachments, value about $240.
WTeight	Duty	Amount of Duty	Deduct Drawback	Net Duty	Domestic 99%	Export 99%	Domestic	ExportBar iron	8001b.	35c.	$2.80	2-77	2-77	[DOT]03	*03100 lb.	Sheet steel	110 lb.	12}%	.38	[DOT]37}	[DOT]37}	*00}	[DOT]00}Pig iron	483 lb.	2-50 NT	.60	[DOT]59}	[DOT]59}	[DOT]00}	[DOT]00}$3.78	[DOT]03}	[DOT]03}
6-ft. Binder weighs 1,560 lb. and the freight to Moosejaw from Hamilton is $1.33} per 100 lb., or $20.83, cost of freight delivery, as compared with net duty of 3}c. on material in machine. If drawback was 30%, the net duty would be $2.65, as compared with freight $20.83.
Sheet Steel is figured at $2.75 per 100 lb.
For the moment I say nothing more about the tariff items, for the very reason I have given. I note my hon. friend's action in connection with alcohol. I congratulate him on the fact that he has been able to arrive at a solution with the help of the trade. When this matter was first before the House last year, we were faced

with a difficulty which had to he met. The nine-dollar rate had to apply, unless there was some method arrived at under which the druggist could get his liquor at the low rate which applied at places where at the cost of the user, the alcohol was followed until it took the form of medicine, and followed by the Government. The then gov-

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
ernment said that they would be very pleased to adopt any regulations which hon. members could show them would protect the revenue, and none were suggested. Since that time I had deputations waiting on me, Which did point out the methods which my hon. friend has since adopted. As a matter of fairness to the chemists, we should do what we could for them, so they would at least be at no disadvantage in connection with their business. But I am sorry to say my hon. friend has overlooked two very important considerations in connection with alcohol which we were considering during the last session of the House. What about the country doctor? The country doctor looks after a great deal of the medicaments used in the country. In many places there are no drug stores at all, and I would have thought the country doctor would not have been selected by my hon. friend as one who ought to have less trust imposed in him than is imposed in the druggist. We also had the question of alcohol to be used for medicinal bathing brought very prominently to our attention. These questions were exactly the same in principle as the druggist's case, and there is no difference at all. I suppose they were merely overlooked by my hon. friend, and when we get down to the resolution we will find that probably he has covered that case. I note with interest his action in connection with sugar beets. I was down in the sugar beet section while the tariff investigation was being held, and a large number of farmers came to us and stated that the farming industry was very very much interested in the production of sugar beets, that there was every opportunity for a very large increasing acreage, and that all they required was a sufficient tariff on sugar beets to enable them to go ahead and make a profit. The only change that I know of that has taken place in the meantime is that these gentlemen down there have exchanged their former representative, Mr. McCoig, for the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). I do not know whether the views of the hon. Minister of Labour are that not only is there no duty required to protect the farmers down there, but that their industry should contribute a 49 cent tax per 100 pounds. It seems to me that the Hon. Mr. Manning Doherty was also very much of the view that for the proper protection of the farms the duty was necessary. Be that as it may, I wonder what has become of that old friend of outs we used to hear so much about, the old complaint and the old cry, that we
exempted the rich and oppressed the poor with a full burden of taxation. What has become of the allegation that all our budgets were rich men's budgets, that the rich man paid nothing and the poor man everything? I wonder what has become of those cries. It all disappears in the simple translation from here to there. The whole thing depends altogether on the angle or the point of view in some minds.
Referring to the sales tax, you remember, Mr. Speaker, what a dreadful thing that was in the minds of hon. members opposite when it was introduced. You remember how it was characterized as an iniquitous scheme evolved by a dreadful government to add to the burden of the poor and enhance the gains and the relative position of the rich. I remember when it was stated that a tax on lumber of SSl/3 per cent less than the tax now suggested was going to stop building and production. But I need not stop at lumber, it is practically the same down the whole line. However, this dreadful thing becomes all right, so long as the burden is made big enough, and there it is.
Regarding luxury taxes, you know, Mr. Speaker, that they have a familiar and yet at the same time a dreadful sound have they not-nuisances that they were. Well, they are back again. I remember what was said about automobiles in connection with luxury taxes. I remember the hon. minister objecting strongly to taxes on automobiles. I remember his saying that an automobile of a value of a thousand dollars or under was not a luxury, but a necessity, and that it ought not to be taxed. Do any of us forget the heart-breaking appeal made by the present Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) for the kid's candy, for the candy that the young man was going to present his sweetheart with, and his description how the dirty hand of the then Minister of Finance bent round her shoulder and extracted just so many candies? But this is all right now; again the whole thing depends on the angle from which one views it.
I wonder if we remember what happened in the House in regard to cheques, notes and overdrafts. There was not so much fuss in connection with cheques. We left the tax on cheques at 2 cents, because we felc that people would suffer great inconvenience if they had to set to work to figure out just what they had to pay in connection with every cheque they wrote or else be liable for a $50 fine. Cheques are things that have to be, and are written out quickly
2178	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
and regularly. But now if you make a mistake in connection with the tax which is .04 per cent on your cheques, you are liable to a $50 fine. We did not impose on cheques a tax in proportion to the amount; we dealt in that way with promissory notes and overdrafts, things which admit of much more time, and upon which, therefore, the amount of the tax can (be much more easily calculated. We imposed a tax of two cents per $100 on promissory notes and overdrafts, and there was great grief in Israel when we imposed that tax. My hon. friends thought that was a dreadful thing. I remember the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Bureau) making a plea for the man who had to make out a note or had an overdraft; but again to-day, as a result of the change in the angle, that two-eent rate, which was then an imposition and an outrage, is a reasonable and proper tax to impose when doubled.
I wonder what was particularly iniquitous about the telegrams that they should be especially picked out. We must have money; my hon. friend requires all the money that he can get. In fact, in view of the estimates and of the way in which some of them have gone through, I am afraid that he requires more money than he can get. But what is the matter with telegrams in particular that the tax on telegrams should be increased 500 per cent? What is the trouble? Of course we do not pick out telegrams for especial attack, because we ourselves own one of the largest telegraph systems; but if there is anything particularly wrong in doing business at a distance as against other kinds of business activities, why is the long distance telephone overlooked? Why are we not getting some revenue from it? Why should there not be, perhaps, a spreading of the revenue on that ground between telegrams and telephones?
But after all, the chief difficulty about the budget is that I am afraid it takes us nowhere, leads us nowhere, settles nothing, but, on the other hand, adds to doubt and uncertainty. My hon. friend pointed to the fact that business is very bad; he thinks it is so bad, for example, that out of business-and business pays very largely income taxes-he can get only a much reduced revenue. Yet the budget is full of little nuisances and pin-pricks, all adding to the cost of doing business, all making business just a little more difficult.
What, after all, is our real trouble, economically? Does not every hon. gentle-

man know that, apart from the absolute necessity of obtaining proper markets for our farm produce, our chief difficulty is the one-sided trade which we have with the United States and which they are determined to make still more one-sided? The year before last, for every dollar's worth of goods that we sold to the United States, we purchased $1.58 worth of United States goods or produce. Last year, although the totals themselves are cut down, for every dollar's worth of goods that we sold to the United States we bought $1.75 worth of their produce. At present $294,000,000 worth of the goods that we sold that country in the year ended March 21, last, are subject to heavy duties, largely prohibitive, and what do we do? We go on and still import breadstuffs, butter, cheese, eggs, lard, meats, vegetables and fruits to an amount of over $60,000,000, the larger proportion of which comes from the United States. Then this budget has to turn around and help the American out just a little, in cases where we buy from the American, by cutting down the duties that we now charge upon his materials coming into this country. The budget seconds the efforts of Mr. Fordney and his associates. We are decreasing in part, although, it is true, not to a large extent, our duties on United States' shipments. Are we, according to this Budget, in such a way that we are to consider ourselves an adjunct of and assistant to the United States Congress?
And what does this budget do for one of the chief evils from which this country has been suffering, namely, unemployment? What is done in the Budget to make it more likely that one extra wheel will turn, or that there will be one job for one other man? Hon. gentlemen will search for that in vain, and after all, so often a small re-adjustment can produce great results. There is no doubt as to the necessity of action. I am wrong

there is a reference made by the minister to this very question, although he does not deal directly with unemployment. The minister said:
We cannot return to pre-war conditions. The workingmen's position has advanced. His standard of living has improved. He is unwilling to go back to pre-war conditions, and nobody should expect him to be content to do so.
Would it not appear to any one that the foregoing is an extraordinary statement to find in the same paper and in the same Budget that exposes these men to the conditions that we know exist among Germany's workmen? Those conditions, we are

The Budget-Mr. Robb
aware, are deplorable. Germany's workmen are often not properly clad, they practically never see meat; and, as we saw, from the Gazette to-day, you can get a chauffeur willing to work for $3 a month. Y et that is the kind of competition to which the workers of this country, so referred to in the speech of my hon. friend, are made subject, as a result of the manner in which the hon. gentleman has dealt with these questions of currency, valuation, etc.
There is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is the question of ordinary political honesty. I have already pointed out that nothing has been said about the income tax; nothing has been said about implementing the pledges which were given in connection therewith; nothing has been done in connection with business profits or anything else; there has not been a word in regard to these things. Now, my hon. friend has my greatest sympathy in the burden which he carries in raising money, but in his efforts to meet that necessity we find merely a hampering of business, a spreading of consumption taxes, while there is not a word on these other questions. I desire to read the platform of the Liberal party in this connection. I am not now referring to what has been mentioned so often, namely, the tariff resolutions. With regard to the question of raising the extra revenues so much required, however, that platform reads:
Be it and it is Hereby Resolved:
1.	That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundest consideration of all patriotic citizens, and the exercise of the severest economy by the Government ;
2.	That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions ;
3.	Taxes on luxuries.
That is the platform; that is the promise. And in the working out of this "fuller life," "larger liberty" and "new freedom," how much regard do we find given to that pledge? Taxes on luxuries! Where are they? There are no such taxes, unless the Government think that they are discharging their pledge in this respect by imposing taxes on candy and on automobiles. We are told that "increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions. What do we hear about that now? We have, instead of that, a tremendously increased sales tax and 500 per
cent increase in telegrams and a lot of other small things that will not amount to a great deal apart from the annoyance they create.
Political honesty is perhaps one of the most important questions, if, indeed, it is not the most important, in the public life of a country, and it should be scrupulously observed. Realizing how essential this is, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), the following resolution in amendment to the motion before the House:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor: The Liberal Party assembled in Convention in August 1919 adopted a resolution which, after reciting its professed purposes, contained the following specific and unqualified pledges:
"That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors ; mining, flour and saw mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net twines, and fishermen's equipments ; cements, and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into same.
"That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
"And the Liberal Party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.'
That such pledges were restated as the policy of the Liberal Party in an official handbook issued just before the general election, namely, in October 1921, under the authority of its leader, Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King.
That candidates contesting on behalf of the Liberal Party in the said election, used widely the promises therein set out as a means of securing support.
That the Liberal Party having been returned to power the budget proposals of the Finance Minister now brought down, constitute, on the part of the Government, an utter failure to implement such pledges by legislation.
That the making of such solemn pledges, the utilization of them to secure support, and their flagrant violation after the attainment of office reveal a disregard of political honour and tend to lower the standard of public life.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: When presenting his sixteenth annual budget, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made a most fervent appeal for economy. Following that appeal I propose this afternoon to economize in the time of the House, so that you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members will not be compelled to add to the expenditure which every additional day this House remains in session incurs upon the people. The Government invite criticism. Indeed, we welcome fair and honest criticism of all measures submitted to Parliament; and so

The Budget-Mr. Robb

soon as the motion before the House is disposed of we shall, in order to legalize the reforms suggested by the Minister of Finance, go into committee, when we hope to have the free and frank advice of every hon. member. Listening to the speech of the Minister of Finance a few days ago, looking into the faces of my hon. friends opposite, and observing that great barometer of public opinion, the press, I asked myself this morning: Is it too much to hope that at last the Canadian people have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder, to work together and advise together with the purpose of restoring to all classes confidence in the future of our country? That hope was somewhat weakened this afternoon by the amendment moved by my hon. friend the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton).
The reforms we are attempting to introduce to-day are reforms long overdue. We have the statement of an hon. gentleman, once a supporter of the Union Government and the Conservative party, made in this House three years ago, that even then these reforms were long overdue. Therefore I had hoped that our hon. friend who had promised reforms so often and delayed them so often would upon this occasion help us in such legislation as would restore confidence and stability throughout every province.
My hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Finance, devoted the greater part of his speech to a criticism of the Government's measures for the reductions we had already promised, and he concluded by moving an amendment condemning us because we have not made greater reductions. In view of this attitude I asked myself: Is it to be the same old game which was started eleven years ago when the party of reform were divided and when Canada allowed to go by -I will not say to lose forever, but at least to delay for a period-those reforms which we had all sought to introduce since the days of Sir Charles Tupper?
My hon. friend in introducing his amendment attacks us for reductions in the tariff, and then complains that those reductions are not sufficient! In doing so he criticises the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), representing that during the last campaign my leader led the people to believe that the policy enunciated in the Liberal platform of 1919 would be introduced literally. Let us examine the facts. I have before me a copy of the proceedings of the National Liberal Convention held
[Mr. Robb. 1
in Ottawa on August 5, 6 and 7, 1919, containing a verbatim report of the speech made by the Prime Minister of to-day when he accepted the leadership of the Liberal party. Let me quote from that speech so that my hon. friends opposite may judge for themselves whether or not the Prime Minister has broken any pledges to the people, or whether on the contrary he has not literally and truly carried out those pledges. I quote from page 199, as follows:
I should be unworthy of any measure of the confidence you have so abundantly bestowed were I not fully conscious of my own lack of parliamentary experience, my own lack of training in public life, my own limitations in a thousand and one directions adequately to meet the obligations of this great duty, this great honour, which you have conferred. I should despair altogether of being able even to attempt to discharge its obligations were it not that I know that one who is called upon to accept the office of leadership must first and foremost be the willing servant of all, and that in seeking in the spirit of service to meet the wishes of those who have chosen him as their leader, he may look for guidance and counsel to the great forces assembled about him	
I shall rely upon the counsel of those who are outstanding in the ranks of the party, the Liberal members of the Senate, the Liberals in the House of Commons, the leaders of the party in the several provinces, the representative men who are gathered together here; and that in this way I shall find a compass which will point the direction that ought to be taken, and will point it aright.
Sir, was not that statement repeated by the Prime Minister during the recent campaign when he visited all the provinces? He then stated that the resolutions adopted in the plaform of 1919 would be the chart directing him in the policy of the party, and that he would be supported and guided by the representatives that were sent to Parliament. That, Sir, is what we are doing to-day. We are going to-day just as fast as the people will allow us to go. And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to remember that that has always been the policy of the Liberal party, and that when in 1911 we attempted to introduce the reforms asked for by the Western provinces we found we were going faster than the people were willing to follow us, and we went down to defeat because there was division where there should have been union. Are we to-day to have a union rf the forces of reform in this Parliament, or are we again to be divided and again have the reforms which we are now seeking to introduce delayed for another decade?
Is this the time for division among our people? Is it not rather the time for union?

The Budget-Mr. Robb
Four years of war with all its attendant extravagance has not only lost to Canada sixty thousand of her bravest men and crippled many other of her soldiers, but it has imposed upon the people an obligation to their fighting men and their dependents which we must not and have no desire to repudiate. But not only has it imposed upon the country that obligation and left us with an immense debt, it has brought extravagant habits. Not only is extravagance rampant in federal affairs, but also in provincial, municipal and private affairs, so that throughout the country there has been a period of extravagance that has contributed very much to the condition that we as a nation find ourselves in to-day.
During the war period fortunes were made and fortunes were lost. Capital was inflated, labour made its own price and selected its own job. But it was a period of intoxication. This, however, is the day after, the day when we must sit down together, we the representatives of the people, and consider what is the best method to restore to our country that confidence which we all desire to see restored.
We have recently had a general election. In that general election there may have been differences of policy, but there was one plank in the policy of all parties, [DOT]-the National Liberal and Conservative party, the Progressive party, and the Liberal party-one plank upon which all were unanimous: we all appealed for economy, urging it as necessary if we were to save ourselves from national bankruptcy. And I think we all preached that we should have wider and larger and better markets for the products of the farm and the factory. We were divided, perhaps, to some extent on the question how these markets could best be obtained. There were those who thought that our market should be in Canada only and that we should pay attention to no others. There were those who had not very much regard for the Canadian market; they were looking only to a market in which they could sell their products. And there were others-those who are represented here today on this side of the House-who believed that in the interests of Canada we should not only help to build up a home market, but should go out and seek other markets for the products of our country. That, Sir, is the policy that we to-day are attempting to introduce to this Parliament. When my hon. friend says that we have
139i
failed to carry out all our promises, he conveniently forgets that not very long after we assumed office, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) went down to Washington and consulted the people there in a friendly way. He said: "Neighbour, we are prepared to trade with you upon a fair basis"; and the reply he received from the representatives of the United States was: "We cannot just now trade with you as you desire, because there is in our Congress a farmers' group who will have no business relations with the farmers of Canada". Under these conditions, Mr. Speaker, was it not well that we should by legislation say to our good friends of the United States: "If you take that attitude, we cannot help it; you are mistress in your own house; but we are mistress in ours, and we propose to introduce such legislation as will encourage trade with those who are willing to trade with us." That is the measure that we bring before you to-day. We do not claim that it is perfect, but we do claim that it is an honest attempt to lignten the burden upon those who can least afford to bear it, and to collect the necessary revenues from those who are best able to pay.
Now, what remedy does my hon. friend the ex-Finance Minister propose? His only remedy is by way of criticism of the Government because we did not further reduce the tariff and practically destroy-


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Where does he find that in the resolution?


James Alexander Robb: The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am sure he will analyze that resolution as he has analyzed other resolutions, to the satisfaction at least of his own party. May I remind him, however, that there is nothing original or new in the resolution presented to-day? Practically the same resolution was presented to this Parliament on the 28th of March last- a resolution embodying the same principles. Now, why is it that we look with longing eyes-and we may frankly admit it-to the great market to the south? Is it not because we know that in that great market there are millions of industrial workers who are dependent upon the products of the farm for the sustenance of life? Among those millions employed in the New England factories are hundreds of thousands of Canadians; if those Canadians were employed in Canadian factories there would
The Budget-Mr. Robb

be no hostile tariff keeping the 'products of Canadian farms away from them. So, I say, Mr. Speaker, having in mind' the attitude of our friends in Washington, the one thing left for u-s and the one thing we should keep in view is to build up our own market and at least to keep something that we can call trade with other countries. But the United States is not the only market. Canada has other markets. Canada has a market in Great Britain. Great Britain buys freely from us, and we offer to her a preference in our tariff, in the hope, we may frankly put it, that Great Britain will offer still greater concessions to the products of Canada. Now, it is sometimes preached that the trade of Canada has been falling.


Mr. CRERAR:: If my hon. friend would permit me a question there: Would he elucidate in what way Great Britain could offer greater concessions to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Well, I have in mind just now that there is an embargo against Canadian cattle. We do not believe in the "big stick." We do not deny that Great Britain has the same right to manage her own affairs that Canada has. But we have reason to hope, and the press dispatches would indicate, that Great Britain may look favourably upon Canadian trade and that some day there may he a better market for Canadian cattle in the United Kingdom.
I was proceeding, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the House that to measure out exports and imports by dollars and cents is not a fair barometer to indicate the actual conditions. In these days of falling values it is not exactly fair to measure the increase or the decrease of exports in dollars and cents. I do not like to detain the House in quoting figures, but with your permission, and for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite and of the country, I should like to place on Hansard a few statistics prepared by the Bureau of Statistics regarding Canada's foreign trade. In 1921 we imported 17,000,000 odd pounds of coffee and chicory for which we paid over $4,000,000, and in 1922 we imported 21,000,000 pounds, which cost us only a little over $3,000,000. In
1921	we imparted 98,000,000 pounds of raw cotton, which cost us $28,500,000, and in
1922	we imported 95,000,000 pounds at a cost of $16,000,000. In 1921 we imported 695,000,000 pounds of raw sugar costing us $76,000,000; in 1922 we imported 864,000,000 pounds, costing us $39,000,000; in other words, we imported 170,000,000

pounds more in 1922 than in 1921, at about half the cost.
Let us turn to the exports. In 1921 we exported 133,000,000 pounds of cheese, for which we were paid $37,000,000. In 1922 we exported practically the same quantity of cheese, but we received only $25,000,000 for it, or $12,000,000 less. The same argument applies to dried codfish and salmon. Coming now to wheat, we find that in 1921 we exported 129,000,000 bushels, for which we received $310,000,000; in 1922 we exported more wheat, 136,000,000 bushels, but we only received $179,000,000. The figures for flour are in the same proportion
What is the conclusion from all this? I am sure we all desire the progress and development of Canada, but if we are to progress and develop, it cannot be a lopsided development. If the factories in eastern Canada are idle and the workmen are unemployed, they are trouble-makers in the towns and cities; they have no money to buy the products of the farms, and the farmer suffers in consequence. If, on the . other hand, the farmer on the prairies has a poor crop, or gets very little for himself and his family for that crop, if he is compelled to pay one-half the value of the crop to the railway for carrying it to market, and the other half to the hired man, he has no money to buy the products of the factory workers in eastern Canada. So I say we are all linked up together, and if we are to have progress and development in this country, it must be a progress and development that will not only help the worker who buys the products of the farm, but the farmer who buys the products of the factory. England was made great by her coal at a time when coal was fairly cheap. Coal in England to-day is not as cheap as it once was, but do you know, Mr. Speaker, that coal in England to-day is cheaper than it is in Canada, and that it is being offered in England to coal vessels on the coast of Nova Scotia? What cheap coal was to England cheap water-power is to Canada. We have great natural resources in this country, developed and undeveloped, and we have opportunities for development, if we only have confidence in our own country. Why should we not as Canadians decide that hereafter we will build tariffs and frame policies to suit Canada, that we will go out and trade with whoever is willing to trade with us on fair terms?-and in passing let me say that I was never afraid to trade with anybody who would trade

The Budget-Mr. Robb
with me. I am not willing, however, to reduce the Canadian tariff to a minimum, while the other fellow keeps his tariff up against our products. It seems to me that in considering the different resolutions in committee, when we shall have the benefit of the advice of all classes and of all groups represented in this Parliament, we might well keep in mind what is best for Canada, and let that be our chart.
My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance a few moments ago in discussing those features of the tariff just presented, and referring more particularly to the value of the German mark, attempted to represent that we were giving greater privileges to Germany than to the Mother Country. He apparently forgot that the Government still retains the right to the Marking Act, and that we still have the dumping clause. He also forgot that Germany cannot sell to Canada unless she is willing to buy from Canada. Germany cannot sell to any nation unless Germany buys, and if there is one country in the world the development of whose export trade depends on buying from other countries, it is Germany. I am not going to discuss the finer details now as they may be discussed later on when we are in committee, but for the information of the House I desire to indicate briefly the business of Canada with Germany. We will not go far back. Let us keep in mind that in 1913 Canada imported from Germany, in round figures, $14,000,000 worth of goods, and in the year of the war, 1914, $14,500,000 worth. We sold to Germany in 1913 only $3,000,000 worth, and in 1914 $4,000,000 worth. Coming to more recent years, we find that in 1921 we exported to Germany $8,000,000 worth of goods, as against $1,500,000 of imports, and in 1922, the last fiscal year, we imported from Germany $2,000,000 worth of goods, and sold to her $4,500,000 worth. Does my hon. friend wish to stop this export trade we have with Germany? Let me just give a few of the articles that we export to Germany. The principal items are asbestos of which we exported in 1922, $537,000 worth; lard, $102,000; nickel, $399,000; oats, $210,000; rye, $531,000; wheat, $1,580,000; wheat flour, $319,000.


Arthur Meighen: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain why it is that Germany particularly requires to buy in order to sell. I would think it would be the other way about.


James Alexander Robb: Germany cannot sell unless she buys, because she has not the raw materials that Canada has, and she must go into the markets of the world to buy her raw materials. It is contended that through the expertness of her workers Germany in the past has led many of the countries of the world in turning raw materials into finished products.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: I am not going to enter upon an argument on that with my hon. friend. I have quoted sufficiently I think to show that it is not a one-sided trade arrangement. The figures show that in the last two years Canada sold more to Germany than Germany sold to us, and my thought would be, if Germany wants more of the products of the prairies, why should we not sell them to her? She cannot buy these products unless she buys them with Canadian dollars, at the Canadian value.


Arthur Meighen: Who objects to that?


James Alexander Robb: If I am to keep my promise to economize time, I have already spoken too long. I appeal again to all members of this House to keep in mind that the Government have made a fair attempt to bring down a budget that will lighten the burden upon those least able to carry it and that will collect the revenues from those best able to pay; that the Government have made, and are making, a fair attempt to look out for wider and larger markets for the products of our country, always keeping in mind that the experience of the world shows that if Canada is to grow and prosper we must get down to such conditions in this country as will enable us to export to all the countries of the world who have money with which to buy our goods, thus bringing back money from those countries to employ additional Canadian labour. Thus, and thus only, can we enlarge and extend the trade of Canada.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin) :: In continuing the debate, which is now fairly well on its way, I desire to make clear in opening my address that whatever commendation I feel I can give the Government in regard to the tariff question-because I purpose confining my remarks solely to that question-I am willing to give it, but I am just as free to offer whatever criticism I can honestly offer; and I desire to have it thoroughly understood that I am speaking entirely for myself, from my own observations of the fiscal policy of this country in years gone by.
The Budget-Mr. Woods

The tariff has had some history. Every hon. member in this House is familiar, at least to a great extent, with the history of the tariff. We look back to 1865, when there was a general tariff of 15 per cent. The Mackenzie government came into office about 1873, and, as I understand it, increased that tariff to about 171 per cent. I think I am correct in my figures; if not, I am open to correction. In the year 1878 the late Sir John A. Macdonald launched his national policy, and the tariff went up along general lines to about 30 per cent. From that time till the present, in every general election held in this country, the tariff question has been fully discussed; both sides have been argued out, and the people have viewed it from both sides to some extent, but in past years a great many of the common people, and especially, I think, the farmers of this country, in the back concessions, did not thoroughly investigate the fiscal policy of the country and the tariff question, but each settled down and was satisfied to support the policy of either of the great political parties, whichever their political leanings would lead them to.
We have three classes of tariff, the general tariff, the British preferential tariff and the intermediate tariff. These have different bearings on different articles to some extent, and the Finance Minister, in the policy that he has launched before the people of this country and before this House has made some slight alterations. We have been looking for a downward revision of the general tariff, for something that would make it a little easier for the poor man to live. It is true we have that downward revision to some extent. The Finance Minister in his Budget has given us a little reduction of the tariff, not very much so far as the general tariff is concerned-something pertaining to agricultural implements and so forth, which, if we have to purchase from a foreign country, undoubtedly will be purchased from the United States. So that we have a little handed out to us; we might call it possibly something of a handout. Of course, a thankful heart is thankful for small mercies, and half a loaf is better than no bread. But the reductions which have been brought before us are more particularly reductions in the preferential tariff. That tariff will apply to those goods coming from Great Britain, and we are glad that there is a slight reduction, even along those lines. But does that cover to any great extent the general commodities

of life? Does it cover to any great extent what the masses of people use
5 p.m. in their homes, what we might term the general commodities that are used by the common people? I have in my hand the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending 31st March, 1921, and I find that the dutiable imports from the United Kingdom amount to $170,135,906, and from the United States $544,010,980. So that the dutiable goods coming in from Great Britain, in comparison with the amounts brought in from the United States, are very little over one-quarter. If nearly 75 per cent of the general commodities of life which are dutiable, and which have added to the customs revenues of Canada come from United States, the people who use those commodities are not going to be benefited to such a wonderful extent with the reduction of the preferential tariff.
While we have those reductions in the [DOT] tariff, we are told that the sales tax is to be increased by fifty per cent. If I, as a green parliamentarian, am right in my judgment, and understand the business of this country to any extent, I understand that a sales tax is an added burden to the consumer. As regards the inland revenue or sales tax or other taxes of that character, when the manufacturer or producer puts his commodity on the market, he will simply add the sales tax to the price, and the cost to the consumer will be thereby increased. That seems to me to be rather unfair to the consuming masses of this country. While this tax will undoubtedly bring in a revenue, yet it seems to be collecting that revenue largely from those who are least, able to pay. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) made reference to the idea of taxing those who are best able to pay, but in my judgment, by increasing the sales tax by fifty per cent, we are adding that much more to the burden of the consuming masses of this country, and I do not look upon them as being the best able to pay. Taxes of that character should be collected largely from those who are best able to pay, and not from the ordinary individual who is least able to pay. Therefore, on the one hand, while we may, by the reduction in the tariff, relieve, to some extent, the burden, on the other, an extra burden is imposed by the increased sales tax. This looks as though we were simply taking the burden off one shoulder and placing it on the other.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the anti-dumping clause. This seems to be

The Budget-Mr. Woods
of some assistance to Canadian manufacturers by increasing the value of their goods. The anti-dumping clause, as I understand it, applies to goods, possibly cheap goods, that are put on the market from a foreign country, and by this clause they are not permitted to be sold at less than cost of manufacture and so forth in the country from which they are exported. I see, from the report of the Manufacturers' Association of their meeting in this city in February last, that they are in favour of a strong anti-dumping regulation that will guard against unseasonable goods being dumped into this country. In some countries in which the seasons are ahead of ours, goods may be carried in stock by manufacturers and wholesalers when the season has practically expired, and this will apply possibly more to ladies' wear than other things. By this anti-dumping clause, manufacturers and wholesalers are prevented from putting such goods on the market unless they are sold at the regular price of production and so forth in the country of origin at the time when the goods were sent over. It appears to me to be unfair to deprive the masses, the common people, of an opportunity of purchasing in the open market. If Canadian merchants can buy to advantage, bring the goods into this country and sell them at a reduced price to the consuming masses, those who wear clothes-and we are all subject to that-it seems to be unfair to protect manufacturers and wholesalers along those lines, instead of giving the common people the benefit of reductions that might take place.
I want to itemize a few articles in connection with the tariff, and if I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected in regard to anything which I may mention. Aluminum, the raw material, ingots, blocks, bars, rods, strips, and so forth, are permitted to come into this country free. Every household uses aluminum ware, which is considered a very good article for household use, and the ladies buy it very extensively; indeed, everyone in this country uses that kind of ware. The manufactured article, however, is protected by a general tariff of 30 per cent and by a preferential tariff to the Old Country of 20 per cent. That seems to be too great a spread. We want to give everyone justice; we want to live and let live; but it seems to be hardily fair when manufacturers are permitted to bring in their raw material free and to manufacture it in this country, and then the manufactured goods are protected by a tariff of from 20 to 30 per cent.
As regards bamboo cane for furniture, the raw material comes in free, but furniture is taxed from 20 to 30 per cent. Raw broom corn for making brooms comes in free, but brooms and whisks are taxed from 15 to 20 per cent. These are articles which are used in every home: the labourers, the poorer classes, and, indeed, all of us, use these articles, and, therefore, are subject to the burden of taxation upon these commodities. Consequently, I consider it hardly fair to the consumer for the manufacturer to have the privilege of bringing in his raw material free to manufacture these goods to be placed in the homes of the people, and then for him to be protected by a high tariff. Steel and steel wire are brought in free, and naills are taxed from 50 to 60 cents per 100 pounds. We hear a great deal about the necessity of building and making accommodation in our great cities for the common people, for the labouring people. Nails are something that go into building construction, yet while the raw material is permitted to come in free, the nails that go into our houses are taxed as I have stated.
We are told about the protection that the farmer gets, and I want now to refer to oats. The farmers are protected by a tariff of 10 cents a bushel on oats. We are not asking for that protection. Corn is shipped into this country free of duty, and I do not know that Canadian farmers have ever raised any protest against the importation of free corn from the United States. That corn is put on the market in this country to compete with the coarse grain that we grow. We have, however, no complaint about its coming in free; we find no fault. We are willing jo buy from other countries and we are Willing to sell; we are willing to stand by open competition and by the world's markets. A tariff, however, of ten cents a bushel is put on oats to protect the farmers of this country. Now, almost every individual, rich or poor, high or low, is a consumer of oatmeal, and the man who manufactures the oats into oatmeal is protected to an extent of 60 cents per 100 pounds. Therefore, while the farmer is given a protection of 10 cents a bushel on oats, the miller is protected to the extent of 60 cents per hundred. Ten cents a buishel would amount to only 30 cents per hundred, or just half the protection afforded the man who produces the oatmeal for human Consumption. There seems to be an injustice in that regard.
Now, as regards clothing: woollen goods, worsted, etc., come in under the British preferential tariff at 30 per cent, and a
The Budget-Mr. Woods

retailer will sell; the less he sells, the smaller his percentage of profit. The high price of goods, therefore, militates against all classes of the community.
In conclusion, I wish to give one striking illustration of the point that I have been trying to make. In the fall of 1920 the manufacturers of agricultural implements increased the retail prices of binders by about 20 per cent. An implement dealer for the Massey-Harris firm in a little town close to where I live and do business, sold fifteen Massey-Harris binders in 1920, before the price went up; in 1921, after the increase, he sold only one. You can see. therefore, that the increase in the price militated against that man in his business. In 1920 he had his percentage of profit on the sale of fifteen binders; in 1921 he had the percentage on only one. So that these conditions affect not only the farmers, but the masses of the people, the consumers oi the country. And that is the result of a protective tariff that makes the rich man richer and the poor man poorer.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, my genial friend the
ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in opening the debate this afternoon, extended his congratulations to our present esteemed Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the succinct budget speech which he delivered on Tuesday last. I wish also to express to the Minister of Finance my sincere appreciation of his long career and of the fact that he has so well set forth in his budget the present conditions of our country and the provision we must make for the future. I recall the fact that when the present Minister of Finance took office with the Liberal Party in 1896, he found the affairs of the country in a similar dilapidated state, but with his vision of the future he was able, during the years that his party were in power, to make of Canada one of the most prosperous countries of the world. That prosperity, continuing from year to year, was felt by the workingman, the fisherman, the lumberman, the school teacher-all classes of wage earners in the country. I felt the other day when he was delivering his speech that with his vision of the future we may now commence to prepare for the enjoyment of a degree of prosperity which will recall the conditions which existed during the former regime of the Liberal party. When the effects of the war have become less burdensome I am confident that conditions 
will be such that every one of us, every Canadian who was at the front as well as all those who contributed to the maintenance of our soldiers, will feel impelled to give credit to the veteran financier of Canada, the present Minister of Finance.
It is evident that the budget speech delivered the other day does not altogether meet with the approval of many hon. members who sit in front of me. Under present conditions it is impossible to bring about a state of prosperity in the course of a few days. If I were to lean unguardedly upon my economic proclivities and tendencies, the budget is not one which I would like to have. But in that budget we see at once the wisdom of the Minister of Finance. We see that he has estimated the true conditions prevailing in Canada and throughout the world, and I am sure that when the conditions following upon the war have disappeared, we shall have a return of that prosperity which we enjoyed in past years. It is my view, however, that in the preparation of the budget, in the statement of the economic conditions under which the country is to be administered in the future, the Minister of Finance, whoever he may be, should always at least keep in sight the free trade beacon, the only light which will guide the ship of state through tortuous channels and along rocky shores to the haven of prosperity, contentment and happiness. But the Minister of Finance has adopted all measures which, according to his judgment and in view of the critical condition of the country, could reasonably be expected. Any revision he has made of the tariff has been downward, according to the principle which I cherish for the betterment of Canada and of the world. If we cannot immediately enjoy the prosperity which we had during the previous years when my hon. friend was minister of finance in the Laurier administration, it is only because conditions throughout the world and the aspirations of nations have changed. In 1911, when my hon. friend proposed a measure destined to bring about the greatest degree of prosperity and happiness on the part of the Canadian people, he was not charged by his opponents with having not well administered the country during the preceding fifteen years, but he was told that he should "leave well enough alone"; that we had been enjoying so much prosperity that it would be dangerous to go further. Owing to circumstances which I do not wish to recall-circumstances which are the occasion of sorrow and regret

The Budget-Mr. Turgeon
on the part of many of our people-the reciprocity pact, proposed by the Liberal party of that day and accepted by the American people in the form of an enactment on their statute book, was rejected by the majority of the people of Canada. At once we saw the industry and commerce of Canada decline in every direction from its prosperity to a state of dilapidation. Today we are faced with the fact that the United States has turned her back on us and refused to put into operation the reciprocity pact of 1911. But it is to the greatest honour of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in my judgment of the conditions of the country and looking to the future, that on taking office, notwithstanding the adverse conditions, he made his way to Washington and again offered to the President of the American republic the means whereby the two Countries could come into mutual agreement and restore the reciprocity pact of 1911, or something equivalent under present conditions. One may think, because that step did not meet with immediate success, that everything has been dost to Canada, but for the fact alone that the step was taken, impelled not only by his consideration of the future happiness of Canada, hut by her future relations with the United States, facing as the two countries do the oriental problem Which makes a mutual understanding highly desirable-for that fact alone he is to he commended to present and future generations, and I personally wish to express my admiration for what he has done. In a satisfactory solution of that problem is bound up the happiness of the western hemisphere and of the great nations of Japan, China, and the Pacific Islands. Great Britain, under the beneficent smile of Providence, and by the power of her love beaming across the seas, has been able to unite her millions of subjects on every shore into one common soul, as was witnessed on the outbreak of war in 1914 when the people of her world-wide empire sprang to the common defence, impelled every one by an invisible power, the love and admiration, of the British Crown which they were bound to save for the maintenance of Christianity and the happiness of the world. Likewise Canada in the near future, with the breadth of her love mingled with the democratic sentiments of the people of the American Republic, will instill in the minds of those oriental people, in their very soul and heart, sentiments of humanity, which alone will be able to bring peace to the world. Patriotism alone is not enough,
patriotism must be fortified by considerations of humanity; and it must be learned and remembered that the word of the scriptures: Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you, applies not alone to individuals, but as between nation and nation. I say that this step taken by the Minister of Finance in going to Washington will certainly Contribute to bringing the people of the United States to a better appreciation of the Canadian people, and it has already been vindicated by the change in public opinion of the people of the United States. Six or eight months ago one would have thought that the Fordney measure, promulgated by those extra-protectionists in the United States, was about to come into force. It passed Congress in a few days, but the Senate has not yet passed it, and day by day more difficulties are being met with by these eXtra-protectionists who inspired the farmers of the United States with the idea that they should keep out the farm products of every other country. The people now find that they have been deceived by this extra-protectionist doctrine, and to-day there are difficulties in the way ef enacting the measure. After all, it may not be adopted, and it may he the pleasure and the happiness of the Minister of Finance before many months, perhaps When we Come back next session, to say that he has been treated differently by the American people, and that he is in a position to propose some trade reflations with the United States which will eliminate from the present budget those extra tariffs of which my hon. friend has complained- and I do not altogether find fault with him for doing so, but we must have the prospect of the future relations between Canada and the United States in mind. Only the day before the Minister of Finance presented his budget, 1 read of an event in New York Which ought to inspire confidence in the heart of every Canadian. On the 22nd of May, the executive committee of the American Bankers' Association, a body which undoubtedly commands respect in the United States and in this and every other country, made a declaration to the people of Canada, which I shall read as it justifies the step the Minister of Finance took some three or four months ago.
We declare our faith in the value of a closer community (of interest between the lUnited States and our great neighbor, Canada. These two countries constitute the greatest geographical union of English-speaking people in the world. There is a natural unity of purpose, unity of political ideals and unity of business interests between the two that should be emphasized rather than obscured by the border
The Budget-Mr. Turgeon

line between them. We bespeak from American business, American banking and American public development of friendship between the two.
Such is the declaration of one of the greatest commercial and financial bodies of the United States with respect to Canada.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When-the House rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was about to discuss the public debt and the question of taxation. The hon. Minister of Finance in his budget statement showed that during the last fiscal year although there was an apparent surplus of $33,125,000, expenses on capital account, cost of loan flotations and demobilization have increased the public debt by $86,417,000. The income tax and business profits tax showed an increase of only $14,000,000 odd, and the Minister of Finance told us that he expects a shortage of $40,000,000 on the income tax for the current year, which will not surprise any of us when we realize the industrial depression through which Canada, in common with the rest of the world, is passing. The estimated revenue for the current year is $332,629,000-a very large amount compared with our revenues in prewar years-with an expenditure of $466,983,000, besides supplementary estimates yet to come, but which no doubt owing to the rigid economy which is being practised by the Government will not add very substantially to this total. If we add to that estimated expenditure the railway deficits to be provided for, we must realize the wisdom of the minister's appeal to the country for the practice of rigid economy.
In common with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, I fear that the people at large, having been so long accustomed to think in millions and billions during and since the war, have not yet appreciated to its full extent the necessity of economy. Perhaps some of our people are inclined to think that the country can continue to shoulder further deficits and obligations without limit, but it is time for them to realize that we are now in a period of transition, and must face the alternative of bankruptcy or prosperity, according to whether we are prepared to restrict ourselves to only absolutely expenditure or to continue to indulge in our war-time extravagance.

As is well known, our chief competitors in the manufacture of farm implements are our friends to the south, and although it may be a subject of complaint on the part of some people that the Minister of Finance has not made a very substantial reduction in the tariff on farm implements from Great Britain, it must be remembered that we can manufacture these implements in sufficient quantities and at as low a price as that at which they can be imported from the Old Country. Perhaps no one in this Parliament is more anxious to have the fullest possible freedom of trade between Canada and the other parts of the Empire. I have always supported the British preference, and I would view with pleasure such an increase in the preference as would eventually lead to perfect freedom of trade with the Mother Country. But this is not practicable under present world conditions, and again we have to admit that the Minister of Finance could not well go much further than he has done in the generous extension that he has made in the British preference. The development of trade with Great Britain would not only reduce the price of many of our commodities, but it would provide return cargoes for our merchant marine, and furthermore increase our railway traffic, which of course would reduce our railway deficits considerably, and it is conceivable that with our railway traffic increased to a sufficient degree our railways would not only be able to meet their expenses of operation but show a surplus.
I sympathize with the farmers of the West if they feel that they are not getting perhaps all that they had expected from this budget, but they must realize that this is only a beginning undertaken under the worst possible industrial and financial conditions in the history of our country, and under the circumstances I am sure they will be prepared to accept this budget as an earnest intent of what the Government will do as conditions improve. As I said this afternoon, the time will soon come when we will be able to promote greater freedom of trade with our neighbours to the south. Already public opinion there is veering around in favour of removing restrictions on trade between the two countries, and I fully believe that eventually the farmers of the West will get every reciprocal advantage which the United iStates can offer them.
The reduction on farm implements may not be regarded as a very large one, but it applies to all the articles needed by the

The Budget-Mr. Turgeon
farmer for the maintenance of himself and his family, and, taken in a general way, I think it will be found that the result of all these small reductions will be a great benefit to the farmer. Many other commodities besides what the farmer may require are either placed on the free list or reduced to a very great extent.
The fishing industry has been well looked after by the Minister of Finance in his budget. This is an industry which has not perhaps received the consideration it merits from the people of Canada. The value of the product of the fisheries is about $60,000,000 annually, and that is of the same economic value to the country as $60,000,000 worth of farm products, because all these products are food for the people. The operations connected with the fisheries help us in the maritime provinces to keep our young people at home. It is therefore greatly to the benefit of the large families which we have in the maritime provinces that this industry should prosper-as it is, of course, a benefit to the country at large. The toiler of the sea deserves just as much consideration from the people as the tiller of the soil, and when the Minister of Finance reduces the taxation on many of the things required by the fishermen he is doing something which our fishermen have been waiting for and which, I am sure, will be approved by the people of Canada generally. The fishermen in the maritime provinces are taking new courage. Their industry has recently been given an impetus by the building of a large number of gasoline boats for the carrying on of their operations. In the harbour of Shippigan there are sixty or sixty-five gasoline boats, each manned by three or four fishermen, engaged in bringing in the product of the sea and thus helping to reduce the cost of living. The minister has effected a reduction in the duty on gasoline required for the boats of the fishermen, and that is a great benefit to them. If there is one man who spontaneously expresses his appreciation of this action on the part of the minister, it is the humble representative of the county of Gloucester, the largest fishing constituency in New Brunswick, second only in the maritime provinces to that of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). The fishermen of Gloucester and of all the maritime provinces, as well as those of the British Columbia coast, who, no doubt, also require encouragement in the development of their industry, will appreciate this reduction. There is no
doubt that in the aggregate the cost of production of the necessities of life and, as a consequence, the cost of living, will be considerably decreased as a result of these provisions of the budget.
The lumber industry has also received consideration at the hands of the minister. I would like to mention also the benefit which will result from the reduction from $9 to $2.40 a gallon on alcohol for medical and surgical treatments. The druggists have had to pay $9 on every gallon of alcohol they used in medicinal preparations, not for the landlords or the millionaires of Toronto or Montreal, but for the masses of the people, for the carrying on of surgical operations and for use in hospitals, both civil and military, in every province. These differences in prices will be of great benefit to the tiller of the soil as well as the toiler of the sea. The farmer of the West will benefit to a greater extent, perhaps, than he has realized. Surgical and hospital treatment is expensive in the prairie provinces and the beneficial effect of this reduction will be very much felt. Every druggist in my own town has called upon me and spoken of the difficulties to which he was subjected owing to the false interpretation by the public of their motive in charging these high prices, and it was my duty to tell them that when the next budget came down I was confident the Minister of Finance would give this matter consideration. I wish now to convey to the minister the thanks of the whole population of the county of Gloucester; and I am sure the people all over the country will have the same feeling.
Some of the farmers of the West may not be satisfied, I know, with the additional sales tax which the minister proposes. But the necessity for this tax has arisen out of war conditions; it was really a tax imposed on the people of Canada to meet the expenses of the war. It will, of course, bear equally on all classes of the people, but let us all as Canadians and as British subjects remember that but for the winning of the war, instead of being happy British subjects to-day, we would be German slaves. Therefore, each and every one of us should bear willingly his share of the taxation necessitated by the war.
I know that some people with different economic views would suggest different sources of taxation. Hon. members who have been here in past parliaments have heard my pronouncements on other sources of taxation. A plank in the Farmers' platform

The Budget

Mr. Turgeon

has been the taxation of land values. I am in favour of that mode of taxation, and I am sorry to say that for the last three or four years I have been alone in this Parliament in developing the idea of the taxatiorr of land values in this country. I had expected last year, and again this afternoon when I saw my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Woods) rise, to hear an appeal for the taxation of land values. If my hon. friend had made such an appeal this afternoon, I would have seconded him in an effort to educate the people of Canada to the benefit of such a mode of taxation. Of course, the Minister of Finance was not in a position to introduce the taxation of land values at the present moment because the people of this country have not been sufficiently educated to accept it, but having given it years of consideration I am convinced it would be a great benefit to this country. If it were only introduced as a special tax for the reduction and elimination of the war debt, we could realize a large amount from it, and it would save to the people of this country an enormous sum in the aggregate in the interest we are now paying on the war debt. We are already paying interest on a debt of two billion dollars, and in fourteen or fifteen years time we shall have paid in interest an amount equal to the whole war debt, and every score of years thereafter we shall go on paying the like amount and succeeding generations after us, unless we start now to reduce the debt. I hope the people will come to realize in another year or two, and the day cannot come too soon for me, that it would be a splendid thing for this country to follow the example of France and impose special taxation to be applied to the reduction and elimination of the war debt. In 1870 France was placed under an immense war debt to Germany and given a number of years in which to pay it off. The people of France imposed special taxes on themselves and paid off in the course of three or four years that whole debt, which in the ordinary course of events would have taken them thirty or forty or fifty years to pay off. I know the time has not yet come in this country, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without suggesting the taxation of land values for the purpose of the reduction and elimination of the war debt, and I appeal more particularly to the Liberal and Progressive members of Parliament, because it has been a plank in the Progressive platform.

We are warned by hon. members on the other side not to follow the convention platform of 1919. Are we in a position to-day to put that platform into effect? We have made a start, and we can do it by degrees, just as the Minister of Finance in 1896 gradually brought the
9 p.m. country to the fifteen years' prosperity of which I spoke this afternoon. I hope that the Minister of Finance will consider every possible means of restoring happiness and contentment tc. the people of Canada, but the happiness and prosperity of a country can never be attained without raising to its greatest possible limit the purchasing power of the nation, and by that I mean the purchasing power of the fisherman, the farmer, the labourer, the professional man and all classes of people. Unfortunately, the first thing we hear of, in trying to bring about that happiness, is the cry: Decrease the wages, decrease the salaries, and then decrease the freight rates. I say that we should commence by increasing production; open up every possible avenue of production and every possible channel of distribution, which is as essential as production itself. The purchasing power of the people is the custodian of industry. Keep the people employed every day in the year, give them a wage corresponding to the cost of living, and you will keep the wheels of industry turning, and the labouring man will be able to buy the products of Canada in preference to imported products.
Before leaving this question of the tariff and taxation, I refer with pleasure to the appeal of the Minister of Finance at the conclusion of his budget speech the other day, for unity and harmony between capital and labour. The principles of humanity which must guide both capital and labour have been so well defined in that book entitled " Industry and Humanity " that I will not attempt to add one word. It is an admirable expose of those principles and should be introduced in every home in Canada and given all possible publicity. It should be read not only by every labourer and capitalist, but by everybody, because the principles contained therein are well enunciated and would appeal to the ordinary intelligence of the people of Canada. If those principles are well applied, a new world of contentment, happiness and prosperity will be created.
The question of railways and the question of immigration go together. We need immigration and we need railways, to as-

The Budget-Mr. Turgeon
sist our immigration, and we must select the immigrants who will settle on the farms, or who will help the farmers already settled in the country. We do not require any additions to the labourers in the city for some time yet, until conditions become normal, because immigration in that direction would only tend to aggravate unemployment. Let the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) follow the policy which he has enunciated in Parliament, and bring only that class of immigrants, and I am sure they will find happiness and prosperity when they come here, and that is the best advertisement we can possibly send to Great Britain or to the Scandinavian people in the future. If we make our immigrants happy and contented at once, and they report their happiness and contentment to their families and neighbours whom they have left, a larger number of people will come to Canada, and that will contribute to the prosperity of our country.
Our railways are in a serious condition owing, perhaps, to the fact that they have deficits, and we must expect those deficits for a certain number of years, although I hope there will soon be a marked decrease in them. The people of Canada today are looking upon government administration of our railway system with apprehension, and those in favour of government operation cannot promise success for some time to come. Some people in Canada represented by, perhaps, men of the higher finance are utterly opposed to government ownership. Only a few railways have succeeded under private ouera-tion. I respect the views and the principles of those who are totally opposed to government operation, as well as the views of those who are in favour of it. During the last fifty years, since I have had some knowledge of railways, I have always believed that a certain mileage of the railroads should be under government operation if, for nothing else, than to afford competition between government lines and privately owned lines, in order that the people may not be oppressed by heavy freight rates imposed by private corporations in control of the roads. I respect and sympathise with the opposition to government operation of a great many of our colleagues on both sides of the House. Meanwhile, whether we favour government operation or private operation, we have to do the best we can in the situation which has been imposed on the Liberal party and upon the country.
I will not find fault with either party on account of the situation to-day. It is known to the people of Canada. But let us consider what we have to do under these circumstances. The Government have decided to give government operation of the Canadian National Railways the fairest kind of a trial. We must give them every possible chance, and do it seriously and honestly, or not at all. If we can make public ownership a success and if we can ameliorate the condition of the people of Canada, we will certainly have rendered a great service. I have great faith in the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy). Members who know me in this Parliament will realize that I speak my convictions, and if I did not have confidence in those ministers, I would say so. The present Minister of Railways is a man of large commercial and financial experience, and his heart and soul are in the business he has undertaken, which is for the benefit of the country, and, perhaps, for his own glory. We can only decrease those deficits from year to year by the selection of men not only of good reputation, but of high intellect in the business world; and men, particularly in the various eastern divisions, possessing railway experience and capacity. These men will ibe able to make a success of government operation of Canadian roads.
Of course, there is one company that is held up before the public as an example by all those who have confidence only in private ownership and operation. It is the great Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That company, no doubt, has deservedly won the admiration of the people of Canada and of the world; but in a sense also, it has been generously treated by the people of Canada, by having been given immense tracts of land which, if they belonged to this Dominion, would be a great asset to us. These grants covered the expense of the first construction of the road. We have been told that the Transcontinental has cost $160,000,000. If we had put in reserve for the payment of the Transcontinental one-half the quantity of land that was given to the Canadian Pacific, we would have realized over $200,000,000, and the Transcontinental would not have cost a dollar of money to the people of Canada, because the land would have covered the cost. Therefore, I say that while Lord Shaugh-r.essy, Mr. Beatty and all their staff may deserve the admiration of the people of Canada, after all, if we grant them all their virtues, possibilities and potentialities, in
The Budget-Mr. Turgeon

the exercise of their qualities and virtues they are only human beings; and if the Canadian Pacific can always find human beings to come, one after another, and manage their railway, the Government, the nation of Canada surely ought to be able to find human beings of equal potentialities and possibilities to manage the Canadian National Railways in such a way as at least to give them a fair trial. These people are not angels dropped down from heaven for the purpose of operating the Canadian Pacific; they have acquired their virtues by the development of their energies. Let the men whom the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) will select, put forth the same energy and effort, and I am sure they will also succeed in a very short time, if not in making a great success of the Canadian Natonal Railways, in at least in giving the people of Canada an equally advantageous service to that of any private corporation.
Many experiments will, of course, have to be made. When the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Baxter), who, I regret, is not in his seat at present, spoke on that subject a few days ago, he advised the Minister of Railways and the members of the board that the minister has to select, to work in close harmony with the Canadian Pacific, and thereby, as he thought, ensure the successful operation of the two roads. I hope and I wish that the members of the board whom the Minister of Railways will select, will be possessed of all the virtues of harmony and co-operation, and they will certainly at times receive advice as regards efficiency of operation, labour and other matters. But I must tell the hon. member tor St. John city and the people of Canada that those same members of the board whom the Minister of Railways will select, will also require to be endowed with a strong power of resistance against the natural cupidity of the private owner. The private owner will look after his interest first of all; that cannot be otherwise. Therefore, while we want co-operation, we want also a certain distance between the two boards, so that each of them may give the best possible service to their enterprise and to the public.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party in 1904 proposed to the people of Canada the construction of the Transcontinental, which was destined, if not diverted from its proper function, to bring about the prosperity of the West more particularly, and also that of the East, and to bring the products of the West
I" Mr. Turgeon.]
from Winnipeg 'by the natural channel to Quebec, the Canadian Pacific opposed that project with all the force they could bring to bear against Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party. I remember also that, when the Conservative party came into power, Canadian Pacific officials were the first to induce the Conservative party to divert traffic from the Transcontinental in order that they might benefit more by that traffic. I have not forgotten, nor shall I ever forget, that it is due to the efforts of Canadian Pacific representatives that the Board of Railway Commissioners refused to give, on grain to be transported from Winnipeg to Quebec and in winter from Winnipeg to St. John, that special preferential tariff under which the Transcontinental could have carried the products of the West from Winnipeg to Quebec, and by which a saving would have been effected of five or six cents on every bushel of grain which the western farmer has had to transport since that time. As a result of this lack of effort to give the lowest possible rate to Canadian railways, whichever they were, 65 per cent of the shipments of grain has gone from Port Arthur across the lakes to American ports, instead of coming by Canadian railways to Quebec, St. John or Halifax. These are facts, and. therefore, I say to the Minister of Railways: Be on your guard; be harmonious, but discreet, and you are sure of getting fair results. We all know-and my hon. friends from the province of Quebec who are listening to me at present know well- what a diversion of traffic there was during the last seven or eight years from the port of Quebec due to the efforts of the present board of directors of the National Railways. They know that if they had had the trade for which that railway was built, without doing any injury to other railways, the city and harbour of Quebec would have been a great haven of prosperity. I have always wondered at the docility of my compatriots of Quebec, for I am sure that if the people of Toronto had been in Quebec during the last ten years, we would have had a revolution, and it would have been to the benefit of the people of Quebec and the people of Canada. I say, therefore, to the Minister of Railways, who is not within reach of my voice at present, but whom I shall have occasion to meet again:	Inspire your officials with
true feelings of patriotism. If he does this and the officials direct their efforts to the proper management of the railways, I am

The Budget-Mr. Turgeon
sure that the deficits could be reduced and in time wiped out.
But I would remind my good friends from the Prairie provinces that the railways cannot be made a succes's without their cooperation. Do not let them imagine that Port Arthur is an ocean port, or that once their grain reaches that port that is the end of their interest in the matter as Canadians. ft is not. They may feel that when their grain gets to Port Arthur it may as well go across the Atlantic through American ports, but this is not the right view for them to take as Canadian citizens who desire to see the country prosper as a whole. I say, let every bushel of grain shipped from the West be so distributed that in summer it may go by way of Montreal and Quebec, and in winter by way of Quebec, St. John and Halifax. If this were done the shippers of the grain would stand to lose nothing, while Canadian shipping would be benefited and the railways, carrying the grain to Canadian ports, would have increased business to that extent, which would naturally go towards the reduction of the deficits. Just consider what -has been lost to Canadian interests by the fact that during the pa'st few years 65 per cent of the grain shipped from the West, passing through Port Arthur, instead of going overseas via eastern Canada has been shipped by way of New York, Baltimore and Boston. In other words, Canadians have helped to build up the shipping business of these American 'ports to the neglect of the home ports. That is not patriotic; and as the railways would have carried all1 that grain, if it had been shipped through the Canadian ports I have mentioned, it is obviously an important Consideration for every true and loyal citizen of this Dominion. Let us all bear in mind the fact that the railroads cannot possibly pay operating expenses, to say nothing of reducing the enormous deficits with which they are burdened, if they have not trade to keep them busy. They are not ornamental; they are not merely to be looked at and admired as we admire this building in which we are assembled to-night. The railways must be moving all the time, and they must have sufficient freight to make their operation profitable.
Now, in regard to the controversy over the question of public ownership, it is contended by those who are opposed to the principle that the operation of railways by governments has proved a failure in Europe as well as in Australia. There are
many reasons for this. For instance, in Germany, which is cited as one example, the railways were practically controlled by the military authorities. During peace time they were obliged to carry troops from place to place, besides mountains of munitions, and all the freight that they carried was of no commercial value at all. They Carried none of the products of industry and therefore could not be expected to pay. The same was largely true of France. These railways were being operated for the sole purpose, or practically so, of transporting munitions of war and other freight that represented no returns. The United States also tried government ownership, which apparently failed there too. They took over the railways during the war because the companies could not carry the burden that accumulated during that time. The government there was determined to make asuccess of its participation in the war and they took over the railways for that purpose. Australia also failed in government ownership and operation of the railways in that country. I might remind the House that the conditions in Australia were 'similar to the conditions that obtained in connection with the Intercolonial Railway at the time of Confederation.
With a small population of some 4,000,000 scattered throughout a vast territory like Canada, surplus was impossible. It was decided at that time that Canada should build the Intercolonial railway as part of the Confederation agreement with the Maritime provinces. It was felt that for 50 years at (least there could be no possibility of a surplus in connection with the operation of this railway. The Intercolonial began its operations under great disadvantages, and according to the Drayton-Acworth report it accumulated deficits amounting to $6,000,000 during the last 28 years prior to the publication of that report. Notwithstanding all the disadvantages under whidh it laboured, however, the fact remains that many ministers, including Mr. Blair, the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham), and the late Conservative Minister of Railways (Mr. Codhrane), were able to show surpluses at different times 'in their respective administrations. And1 I think the fact has been demonstrated that, with proper management, this railway can be sucessfully operated. But while it is true that deficits amounting to $6,000,000 have been incurred, the railway has given excellent service to the people both of Western Canada and of the Eastern pro-

The Budget-Mr. Turgeon

vinces, having taken lumber, coal and fish to the markets of the West, and brought back flour and other products from those provinces to the East.
Operation by the government means meeting all the expenses of operation but not necessarily showing a profit. Under private ownership railways, to be a success, must not only earn their operating charges but a sufficient surplus to pay dividends to their shareholders. Under government ownership and operation we save to the people those dividends which, instead of going into the hands of private individuals, are put back into the railways so that they may be operated with still greater efficiency for the benefit of the people at large.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) in his wisdom has decided to divide the National Railways into three divisions. My hon. friend, the member for St. John (Mr. Baxter), gave credit to the ex-Prime Minister for having enunciated this plan in his public addresses last year. Might I recall. to the House that two or three years ago I, amongst others, endeavoured to impress upon the then Minister of Railways the necessity of dividing the Canadian National Railway system into three divisions with headquarters at Moncton, Montreal or Toronto, and Winnipeg. Last year I repeated my suggestion, but the then Minister of Railways paid no attention to it, and it was not until the exPrime Minister, after having visited nearly the whole Dominion without ever mentioning the idea of establishing a division of the National system with headquarters at Moncton, on his return from Prince Edward Island last October, arriving at Moncton in a wintry atmosphere and meeting a chilled audience, resorted to his ingenuity and declared, "Gentlemen, I will make Moncton the centre of a division;" but still the clapping of hands failed. That was the first word we heard of any such suggestion.


Mr. BUREAU:: An election promise.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes, an election promise made too late, for after the 6th December he could do nothing in the matter. But this is the programme of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, and I say that it is the only possible way in which to make a success of government operation, for by having these divisions the interests of the local shippers can be looked after at the divisional headquarters and difficulties settled at once without any of the delay

which is entailed by having to refer everything to one central point.
I have always been of the opinion that the Intercolonial Railway must remain a government railway, and in that connection I recall an incident which happened in 1909, when the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), in reply to offers that were being made by private interests to buy the Intercolonial Railway at its full cost of construction plus losses of operation up to that time, loudly declared that the Intercolonial Railway was not for sale. I have always admired him for the public-spirited stand which he took on that occasion. And when I say to the present Minister of Railways that I hope he will make a success of our National Railways, I wish to add-and I hope my words will influence not only the minds of the present but of the coming generation-that should unfortunately the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern Railways ultimately have to be returned to private ownership, I sincerely trust that the Intercolonial Railway never will be sold.
Mr. JOHN A. MacKELVIE (Yale) : Mr. Speaker, I have followed the very detailed and exceedingly comprehensive argument of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) with close attention, and while I do not find myself in accord with its general trend, I should like to assure him and also the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that I do very heartily associate myself with the well-deserved appreciation he expressed for the hon. Minister of Finance who has once more presented the budget after so many years of long and faithful service to his country. I wish to assure the hon. Minister of Finance that all the expressions of good-will and appreciation are not of necessity confined to his own side of the House. But while I appreciate greatly the labour entailed in presenting a budget at a juncture such as this when responsibilities are so great and the difficulties so manifest, I must confess that I would be greatly pleased if I could proceed to consider the minister's proposals with anything like the same degree of satisfaction which they evidently afford my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat.
I had not intended to participate in this discussion at such an early stage, but I thought it advisable, indeed imperative that I should take the first opportunity to voice, on behalf of my constituents, what I consider to be a very serious griev-

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
ance on their part as a result of one of the features of the minister's proposals. I shall come to a fuller consideration of this later on, but in the meantime I 'wish to say that when the hon. gentleman removes from the Customs Act a dumping clause which is really effective, a dumping clause which for the first time could he depended on to operate, he is inflicting on the fruit-growing industry of Canada a serious hardship which will menace their future prosperity and advancement.
I must express, however, my satisfaction that in his proposals the hon. minister does not interfere with that specific measure of protection which is now by the tariff given our apple industry. But while with one hand he affords that measure of relief, with the other he wrenches away from us a factor which has been very considerably used during the past year in protecting that great industry. I must of necessity, I suppose, traverse some ground that I have covered in previous addresses in this House when I speak regarding the apple industry of this country. But when I say that in British Columbia this year the export of fruit amounted to some
6.000	cars, in value about $8,000,000; when I say that in my own constituency four out of the five provincial ridings which comprise it are vitally interested in the production of fruit, and that in the Okanagan valley we have an area of some
20.000	acres planted in fruit trees, containing probably well over 1,000,000 apple trees alone; when the whole life of the country is tied up in the success or failure of this great industry, I feel that I would not be fulfilling my responsibility to my constituents did I not voice, with all the force which I possess, a protest against the removal of this very effective measure of protection contained in the dumping clause. Let me first, however, deal in a somewhat more general manner with some of the features of the minister's budget which have struck me in giving it rather hasty consideration.
I wonder just exactly how this budget will appeal to my good friends to my left. So far we have had little indication as to their conception of how it will affect their interests. True, one of their members, the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods), did speak this afternoon in the course of the debate, but so far as I could gather from his remarks, he approached the subject in a rather bewildered state of mind. I remember that he did say or intimate that he considered half a loaf better than
no bread; but that immediately called into my mind another quotation in which reference is made to those who ask for bread and are given a stone. I think, perhaps, that would very fully express the sentiments which must lurk in the minds of most of my friends to my left when they consider the nature of the proposals made to the people of this country by the Liberal party when in opposition-pledges vehemently reiterated throughout the length and breadth of this country during the campaign last autumn-and the manner in which those undertakings have been implemented now that the Liberal party, for the first time in some years, occupy the treasury benches and have an opportunity of carrying them into effect.
In order to make myself clear, and that I may not be thought to be placing the Liberal party in anything approaching a false position, I wish to quote very briefly from that renowned platform evolved at the historic convention of the Liberal party held in this city in 1919. Reference to that platform has, of course, been made on several occasions during the present session as well as during this debate; and no doubt it will be the subject of frequent reference during this discussion. The fundamental principle of the Liberal party with respect to the fiscal policy which they proposed to enact when they attained power is embodied in the following paragraph from the resolution passed at their convention in 1919:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to . . . diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people ;
That, to these ends-.
Mark this:
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour, and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repair parts thereof; rough and partiy dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; .	.	.	. cements and
fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
There was the pledge; there was the platform, followed by as solemn a pronouncement as words could make,- that when returned to power this great Liberal party would implement to the last letter and the last dot every promise announced in this platform. Now, by the budget recently brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance, how much effect is given to those solemn pledges? Are wheat and

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
wheat flour and foodstuffs relieved from all customs taxation? They are not only not made free, but they are left exactly where they were before; and those which have been reduced have been brought down to the magnificent extent of 21 per cent. Am I justified in wondering how a pronouncement of that kind will be received by the members of the Progressive party who sit to my left, and by their constituents who sent them here to represent their desires in this House?
Then, the next paragraph of the resolution says:
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries) as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
How far has that pledge been implemented? How much reduction are you getting on your footwear, on your wearing apparel? Two and one half per cent on your footwear coming from Great Britain and a similar reduction on certain specified articles; but the great majority of the articles coming under this category are left exactly where they were before. I think I gave expression to the opinion when I spoke earlier this session that the hopes of my Progressive friends were doomed to serious disappointment when the fiscal policy of the Government should be disclosed, and I think that those hopes, which I believe I have been tottering steadily all through the course of the session, have now come down with a crash, and-	,
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Well, if that be the measure of relief; if that be the extent to which the great Liberal party are able to implement their pledges and sacred promises, how much dependence can we place upon any present or future announcement that may be made from the same source? Under such circumstances, was not the ex-Finance minister, who moved the amendment, justified in laying before the House this afternoon a resolution which expresses none too forcefully, at no too great length or elaboration, but in plain terms, exactly how honest and decent thinking people of this country should regard such a breach of faith? We are fresh from an election campaign. We all know what happened throughout the length and breath of Canada during the few weeks preceding the election-how on every platform where a

Liberal orator appeared, this handbook of the Liberal party was held up, this platform was again brought before the electors, and these promises were reiterated,- almost shrieked into the ears of an expectant public. An hon. member reminds me that the case of Brantford was an exception; the hon. member who represented the Liberal party there out-Heroded Herod in his advocacy of protection.
Another cardinal point of the policy of the Liberal party announced in their preelection pledges was a fifty per cent reduction in the British preference. How far have they advanced along the line of implementing that pledge? I know that was a pledge very dear to the hearts of my Progressive friends. I know their own platform gives prominence to that feature. Indeed, I think it announces that their objective is complete free trade with Great Britain in the course of a very few years. Once more, then, we see a group which I suppose did rely to some extent upon the solemn pledges that were repeated during the campaign and upon the promises spread broadcast by a great political party in this country-once more we see them doomed to perhaps the most severe disappointment which ever befell a group of expectant people in this country. It is true it is only a repetition of history, and that in 1896 practically the same thing occurred, but a lengthy period has elapsed since then, and the sentiments of the Canadian people have undergone a great change since that time. We have, I believe, as a people begun to think more seriously about political affairs and other matters than we. were prone to do before the war. We have, I think, probably attained to a more exalted opinion of what is due from political parties, what their duties and responsibilities should be, and although subsequent to 1896 pledges were broken that were given prior to that date, and broken brazenly, I have grave doubt if the same apathy and indifference will follow the disclosure of broken pledges by a great party in this year of grace 1922. I think public sentiment will bring to bear now a much closer scrutiny of public affairs than was wont to be the case in those days. Here we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce getting up this afternoon and making an endeavour to reply to the strictures of the ex-Minister of Finance contained in his amendment, and what does he say? He rests his whole case upon one argument, and it is simply this: Oh, he says, it must be remembered that at the convention when that platform was

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
announced and those pledges were given, we had a speech from the gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, and in that speech he did not go as far as the platform, but simply said that he would take the platform as his chart to direct his future political course. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask this question: If the country was to understand that, not the solemn pledges of the party assembled an convention were to guide their future course, but that the guide was to be a speech given at a time when the hon. gentleman's spirits were naturally elated because he had suddenly been lifted to the proud position of leader of a great party, and his words could hardly perhaps have been as well considered as the written declarations of his party, if he at that time did intimate- and I confess it may be read into his utterance as produced this afternoon-that he had some glimmer of a suspicion that it would be rather difficult to follow the course there outlined, and he announced in that speech something approaching a policy to govern his actions and be the guiding star and the motive which would impel the future course of the Liberal party, why was not that speech of the hon. gentleman circulated instead of the handbook containing the platform which was spread broadcast throughout this country and quoted at every political meeting, while the speech remained in obscurity so far as I know? True, the present Prime Minister in a meeting at Toronto, if I mistake not, did give expression to sentiments 10 p.m. somewhat similar to those contained in that speech and say something about a chart and a compass. Well, I have sometimes thought that the compass which guided his party was very peculiarly constructed. I have always regarded a compass as an instrument whose needle points steadily towards the magnetic north, but I venture to say, after considering what has occurred this session, and after giving consideration to the utterances of the Minister of Finance regarding his attitude on reciprocity, and after hearing what fell this afternoon from the lips of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who very frankly announced that reciprocity with the United States was the goal to be aimed at by his party, and that it must sooner or later come into effect-and he intimated that in his opinion it would be rather sooner than later,-I think in view of all these things we would be justified in noting the fact that this compass which guides and directs the course of hon. gentlemen opposite, rather than indicating the true north, has veered round under the influence of some constellation which rises above the Capitol at Washington. I think, Mr. Speaker, that once it sinks into the consciousness of the people of this country that the policy which they denounced so emphatically in 1911, when by an avalanche of votes they swept the reciprocity proposals into what a good many of us thought would be oblivion, when it is known that those proposals are to be brought to the fore and become the prime policy and guiding star of our friends across the way, I believe that the same verdict will, be given even in a still more unmistakable manner than in 1911. For, surely, if it was justifiable then for the people to turn down those proposals, how much more justifiable is it to-day? In those days our financial situation was greatly different from what it is to-day. We did not need to raise from the tariff, for revenue purposes, anything like the sum it is requisite for us to raise in order to meet our requirements to-day. Then we did not have a great railway problem on our hands, and it was not our duty so essentially as it is today to foster and develop by every possible means traffic east and west along that line of communication rather than north and south. More than that, we did not have such a tremendous trade balance against us as we have now, and we were not in so good a position to judge of the effects which an increased adverse trade balance, by importing largely from the United States, would have upon our financial position. So I say, whatever may have been the verdict in 1911, if a man keeps his ear to the ground to-day, as I suppose so astute a politician as the Minister of Finance does, I should greatly wonder if he has not heard already indistinct rumblings that would indicate that any policy such as he cherishes so dearly would not find acceptance with the people of this country.
I was going to say that my principal objection to his budget proposals rested in the elimination from the Customs Act of the amendment passed last year giving us a dumping clause, as it was known, which was really effective. I have in my hand a telegram received only a few moments ago from the Traffic and Credit Men's Association of British Columbia, one of the largest handlers of produce and fruit in British Columbia. It reads as follows:
Press reports state Fielding proposes eliminate cost production amendment to anti-dumping clause on ground that it constitutes an unne-

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
cessary interference with trade. Please wire reply exact position more especially as to whether he raised any objection on principle; also advise full what possible action we can take; also if any alternative protection suggested ; also what is attitude progressives. Very keen interest in matter here. Much depends on your reply.
Naturally enough, knowing the attitude assumed by the Minister of Finance last session when this Parliament enacted that amendment, I gave expression to my view luring the campaign last autumn that if the Liberal party came to power they would not keep that measure of protection on the statute book. I was ridiculed by my opponent, a Liberal gentleman, who thought he had the confidence of the party in that respect, and he said that it was wildly absurd to think that any interference with the customs tariff or the dumping clause would be for one moment contemplated by the party which he represented, if they attained power. The election came on, and that gentleman was not successful in obtaining a seat, but his apprehensions and the apprehensions of his party, and of every board of trade, every commercial organization, every fruit shipping concern, practically every city council in the whole length and breadth of the Okanagan and adjoining valleys, were raised to a pitch of excitement over the dumping clause. The result was that a deputation was sent to Ottawa by the associated boards of trade of that valley, headed by my opponent and another gentleman, Mr. Cossitt, of Vernon, president of the Yale Liberal Association. That deputation interviewed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), and possibly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). They stayed here a few days, and on reaching home announced to the press that, after interviewing the Government at Ottawa, they had the assurance that the dumping clause would not be interfered with. Do you wonder at the British Columbia Traffic Association asking me in despair, "What will we do about it"? I will be compelled to say "I do not know." I can make the protest and will present to the Minister of Finance a plea in as strong language as I am capable of presenting, that if he wishes to do anything to injure an industry in which about forty million dollars are involved in the way of investment, and in which a great number of men, women and children are employed, an industry which exported goods to the value of $8,000,000 from that valley to other parts of Canada and abroad this year, 
and if he wishes to handicap their operation and make it more difficult-and goodness knows it is difficult enough to pursue these operations in the Okanagan and other sections of that province-then let him maintain his resolution to do away with the dumping clause. If, on the other hand, he has any desire, as I believe he has, to build up that industry and to give the people there some prospect of success in their endeavours, I plead with him not to maintain his resolution. I am not asking this as a matter of politics, for politically it would be a personal advantage to me to have this provision maintained as it has been announced in the budget, but I would a hundredfold rather throw away any political advantage that would come to me than to see the future of this great industry jeopardized, as it will undoubtedly be, by the proposal contained in the Finance Minister's budget.
I may say to my friends to my left that the success of this business has been very largely built up along lines of co-operation, which, I believe, they consider the proper means of conducting public affairs, as far as possible. The large bulk of the fruit is shipped by co-operative associations grouped together and selling their stuff through the agency of one central consignment association called the Okanagan United Growers, and no greater blow can be inflicted upon the spirit of co-operation than to maintain the proposal of the Finance Minister to abolish that clause in the Customs Act. A dumping clause in the Customs Act, I think, was introduced by the present Minister of Finance away back about 1903 or 1904, and for years we tried to make it effective, but without avail. There were a dozen ways of camouflaging the situation. Goods were sent in on consignment, goods were invoiced improperly, and in a score of ways we found that our efforts were rendered futile, and that we might as well give up any hope of relief from the old dumping clause. Pressure was brought to bear upon the previous government to give us a dumping clause that would really act, and, as a result, in the Customs Act of last year a clause was inserted, the provisions of which, briefly, were that, instead of basing the consideration of the cost of an article upon the marketing price in the place of production, it should be based upon the cost of production where it originated and the customs officer in any locality in Canada was given this privilege; if goods were sent in

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
to be sold at a ridiculously low price in competition with home grown products, the customs officer could immediately ascertain what the cost of that product was at point of shipment, add the freight to that charge to bring it to the point where it was offered for sale, and then he was authorized to put on an extra customs impost, to bring it up to a reasonable selling price
The Finance Minister seems to labour under the misapprehension that it was a very difficult act to enforce, and that the poor customs officer was subjected to all kinds of hardships in ascertaining the selling price. I do not know how it would operate in all commodities, but, as far as it affects the fruit industry, it was a matter of the most absolute simplicity to arrive at the cost of production at the point of origination. We invoked that act at least twice last year, one time when the prairie markets were flooded with pears at a dollar a box. We knew the cost of production in Washington, where the pears originated, within a fraction of a cent. There was no difficulty in ascertaining that. The Credit Association of Washington had figures published week by week which were available to us. I believe they cost $1.96 to produce, without taking into consideration the freight charges. We immediately invoked the dumping clause in the Customs Act, and they were compelled to put these goods on the market at a reasonable price. Of course, a good many of our prairie farmers who think they would receive cheaper food in the way of fruit, if this clause were eliminated, are viewing the matter from a mistaken point of view To the south of British Columbia lie two great fruit producing states, Washington and Oregon They always have a surplus. Their production has exceeded the markets of the country. Their object is to sell their prime extra choice fruit at good prices, and they succeed. In order to do that, they have to get rid of their fancy or choice varieties, grades 2 and 3. They ship those to our prairie markets, and those second and third grade varieties set the price for our No. 1 on the prairie market, because they are acceptable to the average buyer, and we have to put down our No. 1 fruit in competition with their grades 2 and 3. We do not object to that very much, but object to having the market slaughtered by apples being sent there, as they were in 1912, 1913 and 1914, and offered at 40 cents a box, when it cost more than two and a half times that amount to produce them.


Mr. EVANS:: We did not get any of those on the prairie.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: I have seen apples offered at Calgary at 40 cents a box. Once our fruit growers are driven to desperation and throw up the sponge, as they will have to do if too many hardships are inflicted upon them, they may be ruined. If they tear up their orchards and try to go into some other branch of agriculture, it will take years because they cannot Change their business without a sacrifice of a great deal of capital and a considerable amount of time. Once that happens and the markets of the prairies are controlled by the American fruit grower, I venture to say there will be no more cheap fruit. We do not ask a protection that has the effect of raising the cost of food on the prairies. The history of the business shows that protection has not had that effect. I will give the House a very convincing example. The cost of Washington and Oregon apples in Regina, or in Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Brandon, or any of the prairie cities last year or this year has been just the same to a cent as to points directly across the line in the two Dakotas. I go further than that and say this: Although the duty on apples was the only duty affected by the change in 1916, when that duty was raised from 11 1-3 cents a box to 30 cents a box, the price of apples did not advance in anything like the same proportion as the price of plums, cherries, pears and other fruits, which were not subjected to an increase in protective duty. In spite of the increase in protective duty, the difficulties of the business have increased in a greater ratio. There is a continual fight against insect pests. Farmers have to spray their orchards at all seasons of the year; they have to fertilize, they have to prune and gather the brush, and they have to irrigate at an expenditure of $10, $12, $15 or even $17 an acre. Any person from the prairies who thinks the British Columbia farmer is making an undue profit from the product of his toil, is certainly much mistaken. I, therefore, feel justified in once more placing the case before the attention of the Government and asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he cannot make inquiries in an endeavour to reach a solution which will give to those people the protection which I believe they are amply justified in asking.
I do not care to enlarge very much tonight on the general aspect of the tariff. I cannot fail to note, en passant, though, that the party which was pledged to re-

The Budget

Mr. MacKelvie
trencbment, the party which talks of the tremendous extravagance of the past administration and that told the masses of the tremendous burden of taxation which was placed upon them, have again failed very signally in showing any real disposition, in fact, any remote disposition, to bring down taxation by the very apparent and available means of reducing expenditure. What i's the situation? In some fifty enumerated articles we get a reduction of 21 per cent, and in one or two articles a reduction of 5 per cent in the duty, a reduction that will possibly amount to about $1,000,000 for the current year. On the other hand, we have a sales tax which last year brought in $60,000,000, and it is proposed to increase that sales tax by 50 per cent. What relief is afforded to those masses of the people who were subjected to such horrible taxation, if we are to believe the statements of the present Government while they were in opposition? The masses get $1,000,000 taken off the customs tariff; they get $30,000,000 added on to the sales tax. In other words, the masses have to pay $29,000,000 more this year than they were called upon to pay under the preceding government. Has there been any indication, I ask my hon. friends who sit to my left, of any desire, on the part of any party in this House except the group which sits around me, to effect any reduction, by a policyof retrenchment, in the burden of taxation which rests so heavily upon the people of this country? I leave that question with them. If it has been evident to them, it has not been evident to me.


Mr. GARDINER:: What about the militia estimates?


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I am glad the hon. gentleman mentioned the militia estimates. This great country of Canada with a budget this year of about $466,000,000, has effected, in the Department of Militia and in the Department of Naval Service, a little bit of-what shall I call it?-I cannot call it retrenchment. There has been cut off, anyhow, a million or two, with what results and effects? The present Government have absolutely ruined both services, and I have, in justification for that statement, the expressed pronouncement of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) when he first brought down his estimate to this House. He told us then, on the advice of responsible officers of his department-and he mentioned the name of one of them, a man held in high esteem

throughout Canada-that the irreducible minimum had been reached in the estimates presented to the House

if those are not his exact words, that is the effect of them-and that under no circumstances could the militia be kept up in anything approaching an efficient manner if any further reduction were made. Then we had the pitiable exhibition of the same hon. gentleman coming to this House a few evenings later, and with a bludgeon held over his head, being compelled to swallow his words. My hon. friend to my left says: "What about the militia?" It happened to be my privilege to-day, while I was passing up Elgin street, to see the cadets of Ottawa training, and the sight was an inspiring one. Yet what heart will be in those cadets from now on, what prospects of continuing that splendid organization will they have, when they know the attitude taken by the Minister of Militia and the present Government towards the magnificent services they are giving to the state and themselves? A man has to approach this matter from the grounds of both personal observation and experience, and from both grounds, I can say that we should not interfere with this cadet organization. When I was a boy, I did not have the advantages which boys have to-day in that respect; but I have always considered myself fortunate to have been able to enter what was called the Grammar School Cadets of St. John, N.B. We had to provide our own uniforms, to do the whole thing ourselves. We were fortunate enough to have the instruction of a retired sergeant-major of the Imperial army who had served through the Indian Mutiny. He was rather a martinet; but he succeeded in instilling into us principles of precision and decision, and he gave us a healthy respect for discipline. This worked inestimable advantages upon the physique of all the boys who attended that school. A few years afterwards I found myself in Calgary, when the NorthWest Rebellion of 1885 broke out. There was a time when the sparsely-settled population of the praires was in danger of being annihilated by the Indians and by those who rose under the banner of Riel, and naturally enough everybody flocked to the standard raised then to bring together a group of men to defend their homes. The little experience which I had acquired as a boy in St. John stood me in wonderfully good stead there, and I have always since then, as I said before, considered that it was very fortunate for

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
me that I was subjected to that training in my boyhood days. Yet this is one of the things which the Minister of Militia- I do not believe in his heart he feels like doing this-is compelled to brush aside as a matter of small importance to the people of this country, and as my hon. friend to my left says: "We have a reduction in the militia estimates."
I pointed out in this House the other day what an intolerable injustice was effected upon the Naval Department by the contemplated action of the minister. We have a military college at Esquimalt, and I know a number of boys in my constituency who have received training there with a view to entering the navy as a career. They have been there one, two, three years, and now that opportunity is taken away from them. They must give up their career, although their parents have been put to a heavy expense in launching them upon it. Yet I could not elicit from the minister the slightest degree of consciousness that he or his Government was under any responsibilty for this action. Nevertheless, when I speak of retrenchment all that is suggested to the mind of my hon. friend to my left is that we have cut down the militia estimates, and at a time such as this. I suppose some of us read today the speech delivered in the British House of Commons by that great Imperial statesman, Mr. Lloyd George. I suppose we appreciate the difficulty that confronted him at Genoa, and that most of us were glad-I was intensely glad myself-that once more he came out triumphant with his enemies at home and that, because of the underlying truth and sincerity of every word that he uttered, he was able to swing the House of Commons to a position to which he had so often brought them before. Once more triumph perched upon his banner. If there is one man in this world who has had the responsibilities of conducting the great war particularly heavily on his shoulders in the last few years, it is surely the Prime Minister of Great Britain. And yet to-day he is assuming an attitude which I believe carries with it, perhaps, on the part of the civilized world, more appreciation than even his magnificent efforts as war prime minister evoked. He can now be truly termed an apostle of peace. And it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that in this country of ours, guarded and protected during these years of strife by the British navy, which alone kept us from being overwhelmed by the German invader-


William Stevens Fielding: Except the Japanese.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Well, the Japanese
did something on the Pacific coast, but no one will contend that they kept the North Sea free. I was about to say, that it ill becomes us, who have received such protection at the hands of the British navy, to say that, notwithstanding the fact that we are spending more than $50,000,000 more than the Government did last year, we cannot afford a paltry million or two for the army and navy. And this is the Government that was going to retrench. I suppose that on the Pacific coast we have reason to congratulate ourselves, though the situation is no longer as it was. The Anglo-Japanese alliance has been broadened into a four-power alliance, and we can call if necessary upon France and the United States to protect our coast if aggression were now to offer. But this is unnecessary. We can all sleep in security, resting our heads on our pillows at night in the proud consciousness that sweeping up and down the coasts, protecting us from any invader, are the two trawlers so kindly provided by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham).
Now, not content with tampering with the clause in the Customs Act which gives protection to the fruit industry, we now have the spectacle of a finance minister coming before the House and declaring that the time has again arrived when the inestimable privilege may be enjoyed by the Canadian people of trading freely with the Germans. It is obvious that with the depreciation of the German mark, nominally in times before the war worth 23 cents, and now worth about one-third of a Canadian cent, if you allow goods to come in under valuations of that kind, no customs tariff would afford protection. But we did overcome that difficulty last year when we inserted a clause that gave us that protection by stabilizing the currency at 50 per cent of its value. Now our factories have to be subjected to this competition. Men seeking employment here will have to compete with the German labourer, who, as we were told this afternoon, is willing to work for $3 a month, of our money. I wonder if there are no sentimental reasons that can appeal to this House in this connection. I do not think I am a man who cherishes implacable hatreds; I do not believe that in my constitution there is in any great degree a spirit of vindictiveness; but I can well remember-indeed, Sir, I do not think I am ever likely to

The Budget-Mr. MacKelvie
forget it-that during the war period men and women from one coast to the other in this country denounced German atrocities and brutalities and vowed that never again would they trade with a brutal nation of that kind. I wonder if we are not justified in departing just a little from the cold commercial aspect of the question and giving some slight consideration to the senti * nental view of this matter. There are men and women in this country, of whom I am free to confess that I am one, who are nov inclined to forget that the blood of countless innocent babes and women, and murdered hospital nurses and wounded soldiers who were killed in hospitals, if it does not c-ry for vengeance at our hands, has at least a justifiable claim to remembrance. And i would rather be in the position of a government that tried to exclude a reasonable amount of German goods from coming to this country, than be one to throw down every possible barrier and allow our country to be flooded by the products of people who were our enemies a few years ago and whose ideals are yet very far, I think, from approximating our own.
Well, we come now to the amendment that has been offered. I have said that I oppose this budget primarily because of the injustice it inflicts on the fruit growing industry, in removing a dumping clause which was really effective; and yet I can also sincerely stand behind the resolution moved by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) this afternoon, not, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) indicated, in an effort to obscure the issue, because the party opposite are pursuing a course which I consider objectionable or wrong. It is too late to-day for me to inform the House that I am a protectionist. Protection is one of the fundamentals of my political creed, and I am proud to say that I belong to a party whose political compass has never deviated from the pole in that direction during the whole period of its history. For over half a century we have had a Liberal-Conservative party in Canada, sometimes in power and sometimes out of power. But whether occupying the treasury benches or sitting to the left of the Speaker, they have ever and always maintained, on this important question, an attitude which never left them open to the reproach that they had deserted their flag for one moment. It is not because I am anxious that the party opposite should do what we say they have not done, it is just exactly because of what the resolution

expresses, that I believe they should be censured. Surely the time has arrived, as I said before, when thinking people demand from a great party some policy or pronouncement behind which there is sincerity. But take this document of theirs, this famous declaration of the National (invention, and you see that the ruthless fingers of expediency have gripped it and torn its pages off one by one, scattering them to the four winds of heaven until they litter the ground along with other historical scraps of paper which we have heard so much about during the last few years. In view of this, I feel amply justified in giving my support to the amendment proposed this afternoon.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona) :: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not feel like making a long speech, but 1 do want	to express my views
upon certain aspects of the budget that has been presented to the House. I have had a bitter disappointment in the budget. We in Alberta have not been asking for free trade at once; we have known that it was not advisable, that perhaps it was not even possible for us to at once enter on a free trade policy. However, we have had fn the backs of our heads, and we have yet, the idea that we want to get a whole lot taken off the tariff and the burdens of our people thus lightened just as soon as possible. Our disappointment is in the slightness of the reduction. It is so small that it would make very little difference in the expense of our living or in the expense of operating our farms. Indeed, in my judgment, it is really not any reduction at all, for if I figure it correctly, our expense will be more instead of less when the sales tax is taken into account. We hoped for a greater reduction. The Liberal sentiment in Alberta has been very strong for years, the Progressive sentiment has been stronger, towards tariff reduction, and about the first thing I would have said to me by a Liberal if I undertook to talk politics to him in the last few years would be, "We have got to have the tariff reduced."
As I have said, we have not been looking for very much-and certainly we have not got very much of a reduction. Last fall, if I might approach the subject, the Liberals tried very hard to get even one seat in Alberta for a cabinet minister. This was an earnest, honest effort on the part of some of the Liberals in that province. But I believe they will have to try a good deal

The Budget-Mr. Warner
harder next time unless they show greater tariff reductions in their next budget. These are prophecies only. I do not like to talk politics, but it looks to me as if the Liberals by this budget had not gone very far towards strengthening themselves in the West.
I have found two articles on which there is a 5 per cent reduction of duty, and only two; all the rest less, mostly two and a half per cent. I find that the British preference on collars and cuffs is increased 5 per cent. Now, the Alberta farmer wants to dress just as well as he can afford to, but one man told me in the last campaign that he had not worn a stiff collar and cuffs for six years. Now then, this 5 per cent off his collars and cuffs is not going to do him much good. I myself have worn them a little oftener than that, but I do not know whether I and others are going to be able to continue to do so unless we have a little better tariff treatment.
There is also, I find, a 5 per cent reduction in the duty on dairy utensils. I had quite a time here a few days ago telling you people how hard it was to carry on the dairy business. I was out against oleomargarine; I am yet, and I would like to see the dairy business get a fair Chance to make good. Our Minister of Finance made a strong appeal for oleomargarine. I suppose he has a tender spot in his heart, and is trying to give us something back as consolation for the hard knocks that he tried to give the dairy business in that speech. Now he is giving our dairy men a 5 per cent reduction in the duty on their dairy equipment, but I think it will be a good, long time before he can convince our dairy men that that is the proper way or sufficient to enable them to compete With oleomargarine.
The Minister of Finance also made a number of remarks regarding the lack of the need of protection of the people regarding the consumption of oleomargarine. We have been protecting the people of this country a long time. As far as I am concerned-I am speaking for myself individually-I know that we have been protecting certain people long enough, and that the farmer and the dairy man deserve a little more protection and a little more consideration than they are getting out of this budget. We have protected the people against certain things, and we have made it compulsory that their children shall go to school. But there is not very much duty taken off the wearing apparel that those
children have to wear in the cold country that we live in. Wool and hides are almost given away in the West at the present time. It is very hard to sell them, and in any case you cannot sell them at a price that is anywhere near the cost of production, and we do not hope to under present conditions. But the duties on woollen goods and shoes are not reduced at all', and the only concession, if I understand aright, is a 2i per cent increase in the British preference. We have a right, I think, to expect a reduction of the duty on woollen and leather goods and other clothing so necessary in our cold climate.
Now, as I said before, I believe that the country must provide the money to run the government. At the same time I do not hear any proposal to increase the income tax. We have seen great fortunes built up during the war, and these we are hardly touching with our income tax. When anyone has an income of from $50,000 to $100,000 a year, it seems to me that we can hit him up a little harder and let off the man who is paying all he can stand and more too for his living and is operating his farm at a loss. I think it would be no hardship to get more revenue from the income tax. It may be said that the farmers are not paying the income tax. Well, I want to tell the House that we would be mighty glad to be in a position to pay the income tax once more. I believe it would be more just and more reasonable to reduce the cost of living to the poor people of this country and to take more by way of income tax and some other lines of taxation which would have somewhat the same effect-that of placing the taxation where the people are able to bear it. It has been said to me that we must allow capital sufficient encouragement to induce it to go into business. I grant that; but if the capital gets all the encouragement and the man who needs the manufactured goods cannot buy them, what will happen then? What is happening now? That is just what is the matter with our country at the present time; the people who should buy these goods have lost their purchasing power and what we must do is enable these people to get their purchasing power back again. We are not asking for anything that we think it is unfair for us to have, but we certainly have been paying these tariff duties long enough, and we feel that there could have been more reduction, not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of the whole of Canada. When

The Budget-Mr. Warner
I came here-and I feel the same yet-I wanted to do everything that was possible to secure good government. I want to encourage the Government in every way that I can, but I want to see this Government consider the people who are unable to buy rather than the people who, perhaps, are not in need of employing their money. We want to see that money employed, but as in the case of our railroads, we want our people to get a chance to .get back on their feet. You cannot do business with people who are not able to buy, and the Government must give consideration to the needs of those people who are the purchasers of all the manufactured goods in the production of which capital is employed.
As far as the British preference is concerned, on the agricultural implements it amounts to little or nothing. Most of the agricultural implements that we buy are made in the United States or at home. Practically all our machinery is made on this side of the water and the British preference does not apply to them. The budget proposes a slight reduction in the duties on farm machinery, but when you put that into a wagon that costs over $100 or a reaper that costs from $280 to $300, you get very little benefit from it. I think the Government might well have gone further in that line and have made up the difference by getting an additional revenue from some of the sources that I have mentioned-from people who are better able to bear it than those from whom it is now proposed to take the money in the form of sales tax. This sales tax is a thing which I confess I do not altogether understand. I do not know just to what extent the sales tax will neutralize the reduction in the tariff, but in my judgment-and it is the opinion of others with whom I have talked on the subject-it will more than neutralize the tariff reductions and will make things cost more instead of less. If that is the case, there is only one saving clause in that feature of it: the treasury, if this tax is collected, will get it instead of the manufacturer. It goes where we want it to go if we have to pay the tax. The hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) this afternoon pointed out that on automobiles made in this country the manufacturer gets an extra price on account of the tariff-from which is deducted, of course, the small amount of sales tax. On the contrary, when we import an automobile, the duty on it goes to the treasury, and we pay the sales tax in addition. Automobiles are not now considered only a luxury; I believe the people

generally look upon them as a necessity. In the case of a farmer who lives twenty miles from town, the automobile has moved him up within five or six miles of town, when you measure the speed of the automobile against the speed of a team in making that distance. The farmers use as few teams as they can; they use their automobile to go to town except when there is heavy hauling to do. The farmer, therefore, feels that he is almost compelled to have an automobile, and the additional sales tax will certainly make the automobile cost him more. In fact, the increase will more than offset the other reductions of which he will obtain the benefit. However, it is unnecessary for me to dwell on this subject; I desire only to make a sort of general survey of the Finance Minister's proposals. I hope that the Government will see fit to do more than is proposed in the present budget toward reducing the cost of living to the farmers and causing them once more to feel that they are going to get a square deal at the hands of the Government.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109 (from the Senate), for the relief of D'Eyncourt Marshall Ostrom.- Mr. Church.
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Herbert Stanley Campbell. 

Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 112 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert James Gwen.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 113 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gibson Mackie Tod.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 115 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Thompson.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 116 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daniel Calvin Bell.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 117 (from the Senate), for the relief of Stanley Davidson Morning.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 118 (from the Senate), for the relief of Johnston Nixon.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 119 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Andrew Hawkins.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Malone.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Wickson.-Mr. Maclean (York).

Immigration

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 94 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Daly.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 95 (from the Senate), for the lelief of Wrae Elizabeth Snider.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 96 (from the Senate), for the relief of Oliver Kelly.

Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of Vera Hamlin.-Mr. Ryekman.
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Drewery.-Mr. Stewart (.Hamilton).
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Kate Holmes.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ernest Hull.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of Leslie George Dewsbury.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Douglas Stewart.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 104 (from the Senate), for the relief of Helen Garrett.-Mr. Ryekman.
Bill No. 105 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Leslie Smith.-Mr. Ryck-man.
Bill No. 68, to incorporate the Frontier University, and recommending that the title be changed to "An Act to incorporate The Frontier College."-Mr. McMaster.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
Monday, May 29, 1922.	.