1922-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122 respecting Immigration.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. NEILL:: This is a mild and modest bill. It is non-contentious and I think it should receive the support of every hon. member. It provides that immigrants coming to Canada shall first apply for permission to do so; they shall write from the country of their origin asking for that permission and stating their qualifications, and they can be accepted or rejected at the discretion of the Government. There is a provision in this exempting people of British birth. Primarily it is intended to do away with the injustice, of which we have had evidence even so recently as during the present session, where immigrants coming to Canada from a distance are rejected at the point of arrival. Sometimes families are broken up by reason of one of their members being found undesirable and being deported. This causes great hardship and expense to immigrants, and such an undesirable condition would be obviated by the bill which I now introduce, because intending immigrants would have to state their nationality, their ages, their resources, and the facts regarding their health. The bill requires that these facts shall be stated in a letter of application, and the immigrants can be accepted or rejected as the government sees fit. That is the primary object; but incidentally- quite incidentally-I think it would solve the problem in connection with oriental immigration in the West. There is no mention of Orientals, or Japanese, or exclusion, but the exclusion of these people is secured by the simple method I have stated. I shall not detain the House on the subject at this stage; it can be discussed on the second reading. I would, however, strongly commend the matter to the serious attention of the House and of the Government. I believe that the proposed bill provides a simple and unassailable form of dealing with the Asiatic and oriental problem in the West.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) :: The press has recently referred to overtures that have been made by the government of the United States to the Canadian government looking to the completion of the St. Lawrence canal. Have such representations been made to this Government? If so, will the Prime Minister state what they are and what attitude the Government is taking in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A communication has been received, through the British Ambassador, from the Secretary of State of the United States intimating that the United States government is prepared to consider, with the Canadian government, the matter of entering into a treaty with regard to the St. Lawrence waterways project. The Government has replied to the effect that the present is not an opportune moment to take the matter up, that there has not been
Immigration

sufficient time to consider the report that has been presented, and that for the time being considering the magnitude of the project and of the expenditure involved the matter should be allowed to remain in abeyance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the Government intend to table the request which the Government of the United States has made regarding the treaty, and the reply thereto of this Government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to bring down the correspondence.



WRANGEL ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: The Washington Times
states that the United States government has decided that Wrangel island is properly the property of Russia and that it should be held in trust until conditions in Russia have become settled. Has this question been drawn to the attention of the Government, and, if so, is any action contemplated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is now for the first time drawn to the attention of the Government by the remarks of my hon. friend.



IMMIGRATION OF ARTISANS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg Centre):: I beg to call the attention of the Government to the following despatch, dated from London, May 26:
Many British Artisans preparing to make their Homes in Canada.
Relaxation of Dominion's Immigration Regulations Results in Increase of Men Coming Who are Out of Johs in Britain
London, May 26,-(Montreal Gazette Cable) -A considerable increase in the movement of British artisans to Canada is expected as a result of the relaxation of the Dominion's Immigration regulations. The orders-in-council having arrived from Canada, the Dominion Immigration Offices here issued copies of the modified regulations to the steamship agencies to-day. They show that cabled reports to the British press were incorrect and that the ihanges are infinitely more far-reaching than reported. The removal of all occupational restrictions for British subjects is regarded here as the most important change of all. In the past, the immigration of the artisan class was allowed only where such labour was unobtainable in Canada. Now any workman may enter if he has enough funds to sustain himself until he secures employment. With industrial conditions what they are in Great Britain, it is thought

that many will avail themselves of the opportunity of seeking to better their condition by going to Canada.
In view of the fact that we have such a large volume of unemployment in Canada, may I ask if there is any protection for the artisans in this country?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :: It is true that the money qualification of $250 formerly exacted has been removed, but notwithstanding that fact care is being exercised by the officials of the Immigration Department to impress upon intending immigrants to Canada who are looking for immediate employment that no work in the artisan classes is available, but that there is abundant room for agricultural labourers, household' workers, and others who are able to purchase land or have sufficient means to support themselves in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The fact is, then, that the protection hitherto afforded the artisans of this country is removed; am I right in that?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
understand what particular protection my hon. friend refers to. The regulation requiring an immigrant to possess $250 no longer obtains, but full information is given intending immigrants who expect to secure immediate employment on arrival that they are in a sense in the restricted classes. If, however, they have sufficient means to maintain themselves, there is no bar to their coming in.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make
a correction in an answer to a question by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) with regard to the enjoyment of certain rights by Canadians in Japan, which question and answer will be found in Han- [DOT] sard of May 5th at pages 1513 and 1514.
The answer relates to the right of Canadian labourers to pursue their callings in Japan. In the last paragraph of answer No. 2 it is stated .that:
Foreign labourers may not pursue their callings in Japan outside the limits of the former foreign settlements or the "mixed residence" areas without the express permission of the administrative authorities.

Immigration
I am informed by Mr. Ohta, the Japanese Consul General in Ottawa, that this answer is bound to lead to a misconception. The Japanese Imperial Ordinance No. 352, dated the 28th July, 1899, provides that all aliens, regardless of the fact that some of them are not entitled by treaty or customary practice to freedom of residence in Japan, may reside, move or pursue their callings in any place outside the former foreign settlements or the "mixed residence" areas.
The Japanese Government, mainly in order to ameliorate the restrictions that had been put upon Chinese labourers, promulgated the above Ordinance with a proviso that alien labourers coming from countries having no commercial treaty with Japan or not entitled by customary practice to do so, may not pursue their callings outside the limits of the former foreign settlements or the "mixed residence" areas without the permission of the administrative authorities. It is needless to say, therefore, so Mr. Ohta informs me, that Canadian citizens, irrespective of their calling -labourer or non-labourer-stand outside the scope of this ordinance and are fully entitled to engage in business, etc., in any place within Japanese territory in common with the nationals of the most favoured nation.	[DOT]
In connection with the matter of land holding by aliens in Japan I am further informed by Mr. Ohta, who in these matters is advised and instructed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Tokio, that there is provided in the Japanese Civil Code a title of lease of movable and immovable property (besides the superficies and emphyteusis mentioned in No. 2 of the same answer) which all aliens alike with Japanese subjects can obtain for a period of not longer than twenty years; and further that the lease and emphyteusis (the term of the latter is from twenty to fifty years) can be renewed and the superficies can be created for any number of years by contract, tending practically to obliterate the difference from the ownership of land.
Consequently it is maintained by the Japanese Government that foreign residents in Japan are not subject to the least inconvenience in the leasing and holding of land, nor do they complain of the restrictions which still exist with respect to land ownership by an individual alien and which the Japanese Go vernment hopes soon to remove.
I felt, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the answer which was given on the 5th instant I should at once direct the attention of the House to this correction as soon as it was brought to my notice.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles William Murtagh.-Mr. Stevens.
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).

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

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the Government, or any member thereof, agreed with the Government of the Province of New Brunswick, or any member thereof, to take over -from the Province of New Brunswick, all provincial wharves in tidal waters?
2.	If so, will such agreement apply to provincial wharves in the River Saint John and the tributaries thereof?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1.	No.	*
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIBS
Mr. LEGER:: 1.	What quantity of railway ties were purchased by the Canadian National Railways from the first of September, 1921, to the thirty-first of March, 1922?
2.	What quantity was purchased from each province of the Dominion?
3.	What are the names of parties from whom said ties were purchased, and the quantity in
each case?
4.	What was the price paid per hundred in each province?
5.	On what date were the contracts given?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	4,554,653 ties.
2.	Nova Scotia, 150,430; Prince Edward Island, 2,000; New Brunswick, 677,280; Quebec, 551,731; Ontario, 1,180,900; Minnesota, 123,000, ties purchased in Minnesota are included so as to account for the total amount of ties purchased for the railway company, these ties were for use on the company's United States mileage; Manitoba, 95,729; Saskatchewan, 55,000; Alberta, 478,000; British Columbia, 1,240,583.
Questions

3.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Ties Purchased from October 1st, 1921 to March 31st, 1922
Date	No.	NameNov. 3...	1	J. Veillet Bros	Nov. 8....	2	M. Anderlang	Nov. 12..	3	E. W. Bloomfield	Nov. 19...	4	G. E. Baldly	Nov. 8....	5	P. Brunell	Nov. 7 -	6	Win. Copp	Nov. 1....	1	Dominion Lumber Co., Ltd	Nov. 3. .	8	G. E. Farlinger	Nov. 26....	9	Fort Garry Lumber Co	Nov. 4.. ..	10	H. Galbraith	Nov. 4.. . .	11	Olaf Hanson	Nov. 14....	12	E. Henroth	13	Nov. 19....	14	L. A. Johnson	Nov. 14....	15	David Jennings	Nov. 12....	16	Kleanza Co., Ltd	Nov. 8....	17	Olie Hultkrans, August S. Bloom & Carl Person	Nov. 9....	18	John D. McArthur	Nov. 10... .	19	J. H. Mathieu	Oct. 28....	20	C. E. Fleming Tie & Lumber Co., Ltd	Oct. 28....	21	The Harris Tie & Timber Co., Ltd.Oct. 28....	22	Poupore Lumber Co	Oct, 31	23	Nov. 7. ..	24	F. L. May	Oct. 29....	25	J. J. McKeown	Nov. 7....	26	A. Alcorn, Ltd	Nov. 15....	27	W. H. Bell	Nov. 3. ..	28	J. S. Penny	Nov. 23....	29	J. W. Campbell	Nov. 21. ..	30	Ernest Smedley	Nov. 26... .	31	S. McLean	Nov. 10....	32	Robt. McCaffrev	Nov. 8 ...	33	N. McPhee & Co	Nov. 26....	34	National Tie & Timber Co., Ltd... .Nov. 2 ...	35	New Ontario Contracting Co., Ltd..Nov. 10. ..	36	Joseph Pauli	
B. F. Peters	Nov. 1	37	Nov. 9....	38	The Prince Rupert Logging Co., Ltd.Nov. 26. ..	39	P. T. Roberts, Ltd	Nov. 10... .	40	F. Schilling & Sons	Nov. 26....	41	Angus Shaw	Nov. 26....	42	John Stirrett & Sons, Ltd	Nov. 26....	43	James Robinson	Nov. 26....	44	R. Sperling	Nov. 5	45	Webster & Black	Nov. 8. ..	46	Murdock Wedden	Nov. 14... .	47	W. J. Weise	Nov. 2....	48	R. B. Herron & Co	Nov. 1....	49	D. & J. Ritchie & Co	Nov. 9... .	50	The Anglo-Canadian Tie & TimberOct. 31....	51	A. E. Fetterly	Oct. 31....	52	Marshay Lbr. Co., Ltd	Nov. 1.. .	53	International Land & Lumber Co-Nov. 1. . .	54	Clifford Supply Co	Oct. 31....	55	C. P. Blanchard	Nov. 26....	56	C. Desrochers	Nov. 2....	57	J. A. Boulay	Nov. 4... .	58	J. A. Turcotte	Nov. 4....	59	John H. Crandall	Nov. 18....	60	W. H. Duffy & Sons, Ltd	Nov. 1...	61	A. J. Reid & Sons	Nov. 25....	62	John Ferguson & Sons, Ltd	Oct. 31....	63	Kent Lumber Co., Ltd	Oct. 30. ..	64	John F. Kingston	
Address
Quantity
St. Tite, P.Q	
Fort George, B.C..
Vancouver, B.C____
Birch River, Man.. Burns Lake, B.C... Prince George, B.C Edmonton, Alta... Sioux Lookout, Ont
Winnipeg, Man	
Winnipeg, Man	
Prince Rupert, B.C Prince George, B.C
Avola, B.C	
McBride, B.C	
Giscome, B.C	
Esk, B.C	
75.000
10.000
13.000
10.000
5.000
75.000
20.000 200,000
50.000
25.000 250,000
5.000 4,500
40.000
50.000
20.000
Burns Lake, B.C.. Winnipeg, Man.... Fort Frances, Ont
10,000
250,000
75,000
Ottawa, Ont	
Ottawa, Ont	
Ottawa, Ont	
Iron Junction, Minn.
Hulatt, B.C	
Port Arthur, Ont
[Stage Direction]
Blackville, N.B...
Edmonton, Alta-
Vancouver, B.C....
Vanderhoof, B.C.... Vanderhoof, B.C-
Fort Fraser, B.C___
Prince George, B.C. Spruce Grove, Alta.
Winnipeg, Man	
Port Arthur, Ont___
Chinook Cove, B.C
Kedgwick, N.B	
Prince Rupert, B.C.
Winnipeg, Man	
Chinook Cove, B.C Fort Frances, Ont... Port Arthur, Ont...
Millerton, N.B....
Warroad, Minn	
Fraser Lake, B.C...
Newcastle, N.B....
Engen, B.C	
Tionaga, Ont	
Newcastle, .NB....
125.000
100.000 100,000
75.000
5.000
25.000
58.000
25.000
25.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
5.000
25.000
50.000
50.000
1.000
10.000
75.000
16.000
3.000
50.000
75.000 100,000
25.000
5.000
10.000 10,000
75.000
50.000
Stackpool, Ont	
Gravenhurst, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
St. Felicien, P.Q	
Three Rivers, P.Q	
Truro, N.S	
Senneterre, P. O., Nottaway Station,
P.Q	
Sayabec, P.Q	
Amos, P.Q	
Moncton, N.B	
Hillsboro, N.B	
Shubenacadia. N.S	
Newcastle, N.B	
Moncton, N.B	
Newcastle, N.B	
25.000
5.000
40.000
75.000
75.000
10.000
10,000
10,000
140,000
25.000
5.000
15.000
20.000
50.000
25.000

Questions
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-Continued
Ties Purchased from October 1st, 1921 to March 31st, 1922
Date	No.	NameNov. 4....	65	W. S. Loggie & Co., Ltd	Nov. 4. .. .	66	Lvnch & Former	Nov. 1... .	67	John Maloney Estate	Oct. 29....	68	W. J. Scott	Nov. 24	69	J. F. Steeves	Nov. 4... .	70	Wm. Sullivan	Dec. 1....	71	Frank Allingham	Dec. 3...	72	H. P. McIntyre	Nov. 15. . .	73	Barrett. Timber Co	Nov. 5....	74	H. Boulay	75	Dec. 10....	76	George Sydney	Dec . 10 . . .	77	L. N. Huart	Nov. 30... .	78	B. B. Keddy	Dec. 5....	79	H. I,. Leedle	Dec. 1	80	Frank Lewis	Nov. 21... .	81	R. L. Mudie	Dec. 1 .	82	F. II. Sumner	Dec. 1.	83	Thos. Montgomery	Dec. 1.. . .	84	Newton Turner	Dec. 3 .. ..	85	Western I,umber Co., Ltd	Nov. 26.. . .	86	F. Gilliland, J. Devauld & J. WSackner	Dec. 6....	87	C. A. Garten	Nov. 26....	88	Wheller & Olson	Dec. 13....	89	McPherson & Quigley	Dec. 2... .	90	James Matchett	Dec. 5... .	91	A. Soucy	Nov. 5...	92	.1. C. H. (J. Simpson	Dec. 12....	93	John J. Smith & Sons	94	Dec. 10...	95	Hett & Sibbald	Dec. 17....	96	R. T. Henry	Dec. 12....	97	Dec. 9.. .	98	Wm. Featherly	Dec. 20...	99	Lausophe Nault	Dec. 12	100	Northern Cons'n. Co., Ltd	Dec. 1. ..	101	P. P. Elliott	Dec. 1	102	Jos. Mongeon	Dec. 16...	103	C. Carlstrom	Dec. 19. . .	104	A. F. Newman	Dec. 21....	105	S. Swanson	Dec. 12	106	V. L. Williams	Dec. 20. . .	107	Wood & Flock	Dec. 30...	108	Pembroke Timber Tie & Pulp Co.Limited	Dec. 28 ..	109	Jess G. Edwards	Dec. 29. . .	no	W. J. Holmes	Nov. 1....	111	Todd Bros	Dec. 29 .	112	F. M. Dalton	Jan. 9. . ..	113	Fred Stevens	Jan. 9 .	114	A. J. Buchanan	Dec. 26 . .	115	H. E. Kimball	Jan. 3 .	116	George Ovasko	Dec. 30	117	Burnt Mtn. Lbr. Co., Ltd	Dec. 23 . .	118	Phoenix Lbr. Co., Ltd	Jan. 14....	119	E. Buchner	Jan. 25 .	120	Cedar Prod's. Co., Ltd	Jan. 28 . . .	121	Thos. Standing	Jan. 25 .	122	Emil Lidstrom	Feb. 13..	123	H. W. Keyes	Feb. 15..	124	Martin Bros	Dec. 17...	125	Lunenburg Milling Co	Dec. 17	127	0. M. Bent	Dec. 17.. ..	128	J. M. Bruhm & Oikles, Ltd	Oct. 27..	131	Robert McPherson	Dec. 7 .	132	J. D. Walker	Nov. 25 .	133	Alph C. Roy	Dec. 2 .	134	Calixte Lavoie	Feb. 21....	135	Twin Falls, Lbr. Co	Address	QuantityChatham, N.B	15,000St. Quentin, N.B	25,000Newcastle, N.B	25,000Fredericton, N.B	100,000Moncton, N.B	10,000South Nelson, N.B	25,000Vavenby, B.C	1.000Chinook Cove, B.C	1,500Swift Creek, B.C	25,000Kedgwick, N.B	10,000Lake Isle, Alta	3,000Louis Creek, B.C'	1,000Levis, P.Q	25,000South Bulkley, P.O., B.C	2,500Mount Olie, B.C	700Palling, B.C	1,000Chinook Cove, B.C	1,5005,000Birch Island, B.C	500Vanderhoof, B.C	5,000Stratheona, Alta	25,000Vanderhoof, B.C	15,000Vavenby, B.C	1,000Newlands. ICC	1,000Edmonton, Alta	120.000Curventon, N.B	15,000Val Soucy, Alta	10,000Winnipeg, Man	50,000Chinook Cove, B.C	2,000Loggieville, N.B	25,000Prince Albert , Sask	50,000Tawatinaw, Alta	5,000Mount Olie, B.C'	1,000Palling, B.C	1,000Daveluyville, P.Q	10,000Vancouver, B.C	200,000Winnipeg, Man	40,000Camperville, Man	6,000Chinook Cove, B.C	1,000Fraser Lake, B.C	1,500100,000Prince George, B.C	2^500Port Arthur, Ont.	10,000Bagshot, Ont	10,000Dome Creek, B.C	800Winnipeg, Man	33,000Winnipeg, Man	50,000McMurphv, B.C 	7,000Fort George, B.C	1,000Fort George, B.C	1.000Prince George, B.C	500Fort George, B.C	1,000Edmonton, Alta	20,000Winnipeg, Man	125,000Hurdville, Ont	1,100Amherst, N.S	50,000Willow River, B.C	1,000GiSord, B.C	10,000Ranier, Minn	8,000Duluth, Minn	15,000Bridgewater, N.S	25,000Bridgewater, N.S	10,000Blockhouse, N.S	10,000100Rex ton, N.B	2,000Ruthier Ville, P.Q	300St. Cyrille de Wendover, P.Q	1,000McDougall Mills, Ont	50,000
Questions
[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-Concluded
Ties Purchased from October 1st, 1921 to March 31st, 1922
Date	No.	NameDec. -.. ..	136	D. W. Await	Jan. 16....	137	Eldred Best	Dec. 20	138	C. D. Cormier	Nov. 30...	139	Lawrence Doucett	Nov. 5.	141	East'n. Lands Dept. (Britton)	Jan. 12.	142	Eppinger & Russell	Feb. 9... .	143	Flemming & Gibson	Feb. 15...	144	Robert Gass	Jan. 9.. .	145	J. D. Irving, Ltd	P'eb. 8....	146	M. S. Johnson	Nov. 25...	147	Kennedy Bros	Dec. 3	148	D. H. Kennedy	Dec. 21.	149	King Bros	Jan. 16....	150	Williard King	Feb. 22.. .	151	Johnny Lepage	Jan. 16..	152	J. H. Livingston	Dec. 17...	153	Maitland Lbr. Co	Dec. 19 .	154	Malcolm Martin	Jan. 19	155	It. N. Martin	Nov. 23...	156	Wesley Mathews	Jan. 17....	157	Lucien Melanson	Jan. 16. .	158	J. L. Mereier	Dec. 17....	159	Lewis Miller & Co., Ltd	Nov. 14	160	Bennet Morton	Jan. 10....	161	J. S. Munro	Jan. 30...	162	J. W. McBaine	Nov. 17... .	163	Frank McAskill	Nov. 23...	164	C. A. McCabe	Feb. 22...	165	John J. McCormick	Nov. 22 ..	166	John D. McDonald	Dec. 17 .	167	Parker McDonald	Jan. 9. . .	168	Robert McDonald	Dec. 1.. .	169	H. A. Mclntvre	Nov. 29....	170	John E. Mclver	Jan. 24. . .	171	Garnet McKay	Dec. 31	172	A. McKenzie	Nov. 23...	173	K. M. McKenzie	Dec. 31.	174	Allan McLean	Nov. 28...	175	John D. McLean	Dec. 3...	176	Hugh McLeod	Jan. 17	177	J. McNeill	Mar. 15	178	Chemong Mill	Jan. 25...	179	M. A. Me Ritchie	Nov. 28... .	180	Dan. Nicholson	Nov. 22... .	181	William O'Brien	182	Dec. 17..	183	E. G. Payne	Dec. 20...	184	John Pelletier	Dec. 21	185	J. A. Pelletier	Dec. 2....	186	Philippe Pitre	Dec. 31...	187	Maynard Smith	Nov. 23... .	188	Wilbur Somers	Dec. 17....	189	John Turner	Feb. 25...	190	A. Veilleux	Jan. 28 . .	191	John Burton	Jan. 25....	192	Pierre Belanger	Nov. 17....	193	A. Leblue	Mar. 6 ...	194	W. CL Cochrane	Dec. 2 ..	195	H. Oliver	Mar. 20....	196	Canadian Cedar & Lumber Company, Limited	Mar. 3...	197	Estate Arthur Buchanan	April 8. . .	198	A. S. Day	Nov. 18 ....	199	Kurt Felsmann	April 20...	200	Alphonse Chandonnet	April 12....	201	Mayo Lumber Co	Address	QuantityBrookfield, N.S	1,000Saltsprings, N.S	500St. Paul, N.B	2,000Tourgeon, P.O., Glouc. Co., N.B....	1,000Foleyet, Ont	50,000New York, U.S.A	2,000Juniper, N.B	2,000Shubenacadia, N.S	3,000Buctouche, N.B	2,000Upper Leitches Creek, N.S	300West Alba, N.S	600Estmere, N.S	1,000Oxford, N.S	2,000Oxford, N.S	2,000Blue River, Que	800Wentworth, N.S	2,000Liverpool, N.S	15,000Orangedale, N.S	200Alba Inverness Co., N.S	500Penobsquis, Kings Co., N.B	2,000Monk Carmel, Kent Co., JN.B	800Manseau, Que	1,000Ingram Port, N.S	8,400New Germany, N.S	2,500Wood burn, N.S	2,000Meadowville, N.S	880Gleanora, C. B., N.S	300River Philip, N.S	2,500Upper Leitches Creek, C.B	300Scotch Lake, N.S	3,00010,000Ashfield, N.S	400River Dennys Station, N.S	600Gillis Cove, N.S 	350Millsville, N.S	2,000Orangedale E., N.S	500River Dennis, N.S	500Ashfield, N.S	400Orangedale, N.S	800West Bay Road, N.S	1,000Telkwa, B.C	3,000Chemong, Sask	5,000Orangedale, N.S	300West Alba. C.B	500Upper Derby, N.B	2,000Lac Baker, N.B	1,000Hemford, N.S	5,000Robertville, Gloucester Co., N.B.	2,000Sayabec, Que	2,000Salmon Lake, Matane Co., Que	400West Bathurst, N.B	480Halcomb, N.B	2,000West Northfield, N.S	10,000Kapuskasing, Ont	285Miworth, Prince George, B.C	800Sayabec, P.Q	431Pine River, Man	1,029Sudbury, Ont	50,000Winnipeg, Man	2,000Winnipeg, Man	1,700c/o S. Mcllwain, Caprbol, Ont	400Encombe, B.C	7,000Parry Sound, Ont	115Fortierville, P.Q	800Duncan, B.C	283 4,554,653
[Stage Direction]
Questions
4.	The prices paid for ties in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec (except along the Transcontinental line), Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, for ties purchased in these provinces in small quantities the price was: $60 per 100 for No. 1 ties; $50 per 100 for No. 2 ties, and $30 per 100 for No. 3 ties. In large quantities prices were $70 for 100 for No. 1 ties, $60 per 100 for No. 2 ties, and $35 per 100 for No. 3 ties. In the Province of Quebec, along the Transcontinental railway the prices paid were: $55 per 100 for No. 1 ties, $45 per 100 for No. 2 ties, and $25 per 100 for No. 3 ties. In the Province of British Columbia the prices paid for small quantities of ties were: $50 per 100 for No. 1 ties, $40 per 100 for No. 2 ties, and $25 per 100 for No. 3 ties. In large quantities the prices paid were: $60 per 100 for No. 1 ties, $50 per 100 for No. 2 ties, and $30 per 100 for No. 3 ties.
5.	Answered by No. 3.

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Are any mails carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which could be carried by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, how much do the contracts amount to?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1 and 2. Not where the Canadian National Railways meet the requirements of the postal service equally as well.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-WATER SUPPLY

['1.\t$32,500 each.\n2\tand 3. No information.\nQuestions']
Mr. FAFARD:: What price is paid by the Canadian National Railway for water supplied at St. Pierre station and Ste. Anne Lapocatiere station?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: St. Pierre,
$1,440 per annum; Ste. Anne Lapocatiere, $1,000 per annum. The railway was notified in January last that the rate at Ste. Anne Lapocatiere would be increased to $2,400 per annum; this is considered excessive and the matter is at present under negotiation with the authorities at that point.



Mr. JONES:: 1.	What quantity of coal, if any, was imported from the United States by and for the use of the Canadian National Railways, during each of the months of January, February, March and April, 1922?
2.	What were the prices paid for such coal?
3.	Are any contracts or agreements for the purchase of United States coal by the Canadian National Railways for use on its lines still in existence?
4.	If so, with whom have such contracts been made, what quantities are contracted for, and when are deliveries to be made?
5.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to continue the policy of purchasing coal mined in the United States for use on its lines?


Hon Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	January, Nil; February, 14,963 tons; March, 9,643 tons; April, 1,457 tons. This coal is all for use in the Province of Ontario.
2.	F.O.B. cars mine $1.95 per ton; Ry. and Ferry rate to Cobourg, $2.81 per ton; total $4.76 per ton.
3.	One contract only is in existence.
4.	The Canadian National management has a contract with the Youghioheny & Ohio Coal Co., Cleveland, expiring December 31, 1923, for approximately 1,000,000 tons per annum. This tonnage covers Railway Company requirements for western and northern Ontario and lines Winnipeg and east, and basis of price per ton including duty is substantially lower per ton than Canadian coal can be obtained within the area referred to.
5.	Preference is given Canadian coal and more Canadian than American is always bought by the management, but where American coal, including duty, can be delivered at certain Canadian points more cheaply than Canadian coal the management state, they will continue to buy to best advantage.


STEEL COLONIST CARS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What was the price of the all steel colonist cars, numbered 7328, 7329 and 7330, purchased from the Canada Car Company by the Canadian Northern Railway Company in the year 1919?
2. What price would be charged by the Canada Car Company for an all steel Parlour Chair Car of the same size as the above-mentioned colonist cars?
3. What price would be charged by the Pullman Company for an all steel Parlour Chair Car of the same size as the said colonist cars?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	$32,500 each.
2	and 3. No information.
Questions



W. P. BROTHERTON-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Was W. P. Brotherton awarded a contract by the Post Office Department for the conveyance of mails between Gascons, County of Bonaventure, Quebec, and the A. Q. and W. Railway station, to expire on June 30th, 1926?
2.	Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to terminate this contract on the third day of July, 1922?
3.	If so, does the public interest require that this contract be terminated?
4.	In the estimation of the Postmaster General, why does the public interest demand that this contract be cancelled?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3	and 4. Under the Post Office Act, mail contracts involving an annual expenditure of less than $200 may be entered into without inviting public tenders, provided no higher rate be paid for the services to be performed than is ordinarily paid for services of a like nature under contracts made after public advertisement; and as such authority was acted on to award the contract in question to Mr. W. P. Brotherton at the rate of $150 per year, in the first instance, the same authority is relied upon to terminate it in the public interest.



MR. JOHN J. FORAN

Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	When was Mr. John J. Foran appointed to the Civil Service, and at what salary?
2.	When was he promoted, to what position, and at what increase?
3.	How many changes have taken place in his classification, at what dates and what increase did he receive on each occasion?
4.	What is the amount of back-pay received by him as a result of the above mentioned changes in classification?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	May 1, 1913, at $1,000 per annum.
2.	Answered by No. 3.
3.	Two changes: June 1, 1920, Lithographic Expert, increase $420 per annum; August 1,	1920, Supervisor of Lithographic Purchases, increase $180 per annum.
4.	$278.33.



ARMED CRUISERS ON DETROIT RIVER

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the State Government of Michigan is placing gun boats and armed cruisers on the Detroit River?
2.	If so, what action does the Government propose to take to protect and ensure the safety of the thousands of Canadians and the many Canadian ships lawfully using this River?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



ONTARIO-FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What Federal cash subsidy has been paid to the Government of the Province of Ontario during the years 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?
2.	What Federal check is there to see that this subsidy is spent in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Fiscal years 1918-19, $2,396,378.88'
1919-20,	$2,396,378.88;	1920-21,	$2,396,-
378.88; 1921-22, $2,396,378.88.
2.	The subsidy is paid by the Dominion Government in accordance with the terms of the British North America Act. Responsibility for the expenditure of the money rests with the government of the province.



CANADIAN PACIFIC-COAL LANDS

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company transferred, or caused to be transferred, to the Government, the fifty thousand acres of coal lands, referred to in the C.rowsnest Pass Subsidy Act of 1897?
2.	If so, when was the said acreage transferred?
3.	Does the Government now own the whole or any part of said coal lands?
4.	If not, when, to whom and for what consideration were the said lands transferred?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Transferred on the 14th September, 1905, and certificate of title issued 27th November following.
3.	The whole.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: May 19-Having reference to the question appearing on page 1972 of Hansard which reads as follows:-
"Has the Government received application from W. W. B. Mclnnes to be appointed Immigration Commissioner with Headquarters at Canton"
and the answer to this as follows:
"No formal application received."
1.	Has the Government received any informal application, verbal or in writing from the said W. W. B. Mclnnes or other persons, to be appointed to represent the Immigration Department in China for the purpose of dealing with Chinese Immigration to Canada, or for a like purpose?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the department to make any such appointment?

Questions


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	Mr. W. W. B. Mclnnes has discussed the matter with the minister, but the minister is not convinced that there is any necessity for such an appointment.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



RAILWAY COMMISSION-CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Was there a temporary appointment made to replace Chief Traffic Officer Hardwell, on the Railway Commission?
2.	If so, what is the name of the appointee, what is his salary, where did he reside, and was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Hon Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	No temporary appointment to replace Chief Traffic Officer Hardwell on the Railway Commission has been made.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



L'ASSOMPTION LIGHT KEEPERS

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the light keepers in the County of l'Assomption who were dismissed from the service from the 21st of September, 1911, to January 1922?
2.	Who recommended these dismissals?
3.	What are the names and addresses of those appointed to replace the above-mentioned lightkeepers?
4.	Who recommended their appointment?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	None. Prior to 1914, however, a light was maintained at lie a la Bague and the keeper thereof, Louis Dubois, was dismissed for political partisanship as a result of an investigation held on representations made by Mr. Jos. Morin, K.C., of Montreal, supported by a petition from certain electors of Repentigny parish. Mr. Eloi Thouin, of Repentigny, was appointed to replace him on recommendation of Mr. Morin, K.C. On the discontinuance of this light in 1914, Mr. Thouin was transferred to the keepership of the back light of the range at lie Lebel.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



IMMIGRATION-ENTRY REGULATIONS

Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	Have immigrants entering Canada in 1922 complied with the entry regulations?
2.	How many immigrants have entered to date?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1. So far as the official records of the Department of Immigration and Colonization are concerned, immigrants entering Canada in 1922 have complied with the immigration regulations.
2. British, 4,528; United States, 8,019; other countries, 4,227; total, 16,774.



CANTEEN FUNDS

Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	What is the amount of undistributed canteen funds?
2.	Who holds this amount and by what authority?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$1,632,943.65.
2.	Department of Finance; Order in Council P.C. 3144 of 18th December, 1920.



BLACKFOOT INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: 1.	How much, if any, of the pasture land belonging to the Blackfoot Indian Reserve at Gleichen, Alberta, is rented?
2.	To whom is it rented?
3.	For what term?
4.	What is the rental paid per annum?
5.	When the present term expires will the land be again rented?
6.	If so, will it be by public auction or what other method?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	29,926 acres.
2,	3 and 4:-
Lessee	Area Acres	Annual Rental	TermMessrs.McHugh Bros..	20,000	S3,000 00	5 years from 1stCharles McKinnon	
Walter Steiner & George	1,630	815 00	5 years from 6 June,1918.T. Jones	4,001	1,600 40	2 years from 22 May, 1921.Charles McKinnon	1,630	326 00	2 years from 6E. Douglas	2,560	512 00	2 years from 17 July, 1921.G. C. Poulin	105	21 00	1 year from 1st Sept., 1921.
5. Yes.
6.	By public competition:



TARIFF INQUIRY 1920-1921

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total cost of the tariff inquiry carried on by Sir Henry Drayton, Honourable Doctor Tolmie and Honourable Senator Robertson in the years 1920-1921?
2.	Has a report of this Tariff Commission been published?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to have the report published?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1. $17,153.39.
2 and 3. A verbatim record was taken of the proceedings at the various sittings. It is not the intention to publish this.
Questions



SYDNEY INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. MARTELL:: 1.	Who is the Medical attendant to the Indians on the Reservation at Sydney, Nova
Scotia?
2.	How many persons, including women and children, are on the said reservation?
3.	How many Indians, including women and children, have been treated by the Medical attendant since 1918?
4.	Did the Medical attendant have an assistant since 1918 in treating and operating upon said Indians?
5.	What diseases were such Indians treated for?
6.	Where were they treated?
7.	What operations, if any, were performed since 1918, who operated and who assisted?
8.	What did each operation cost and how was the money divided as between regular Doctor and his assistant?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	C. J. Sparrow, M.D.
2.	137 according to last census taken.
3.	No record of general medical attendance.
4.	Yes.
5.	Diseases requiring general medical attendance.
6.	Treated in their homes. Operations performed in the following hospitals: 1 in City of Sydney Hospital; 10 in Glace Bay General Hospital; 1 in St. Joseph's Hospital, Glace Bay; 2 in Ross Memorial Hospital, Sydney.
7.	Operations performed since 1918: Appendicitis, 7; peritonitis, 2; tubercular abscess, 1; tubercular femur, 1; removal ovarian cyst, 1; facial tumor, 1; abscess, 1; total, 14.
8.	Operations cost as follows: Appendicitis, 1, $75 to Dr. W. H. Rice; appendicitis, 0, $450 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; peritonitis, 2, $150 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; tubercular abscess, $50 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; tubercular femur, $50 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; abscess, $50 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; removal ovarian cyst, $75 to Dr. E. O. McDonald; facial tumor, $25 to Dr. W. J. Egan.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 26, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. 
Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the House this afternoon in discussing the budget; I wish shortly to direct the attention of hon. members, if I can, to the situation prevailing in Canada with which the Government has to contend at the moment. Let me first, however, congratulate my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the long and valuable service which he has been able to render to the people of Canada, both as Minister of Finance, and, for a short time, as critic of the measures offered by the government in office. His career might well, I think, be the envy of all parliamentarians. Perhaps not many will live to sit in Parliament during sixteen sessions, much less to deliver sixteen budget speeches. Perhaps none of us will have the opportunity of being identified so long with the public life of Canada or of attaining the experience that my hon. friend must bring to matters of national finance.
One cannot very well discuss present conditions in Canada without looking backward. But in dealing with this matter I wish to approach it in no critical mood; I simply wish to trace some of the principal events which have occurred in the political life of Canada since the introduction of what was known in our young days as the National Policy. The introduction of that policy had the effect of concentrating industry in the larger centres of eastern Canada; it had a tendency to bring about the establishment in urban centres-in Toronto, Montreal, Brantford, and a few centres of that character-the manufacturing industry which had formerly been centred in the smaller towns and villages of Ontario and of eastern Canada generally. I remember very well that in 1890 I was engaged in agriculture in the old province of Ontario. It has been said that during the past year we have been passing through the most critical period, so far as agriculture is concerned, that Canada has seen in its history. My recollection is that during the years from 1892 until at least 1895, we had a much more serious condition of affairs, so far as agricultural pursuits were concerned, than has prevailed even in recent times. Not only that, similar conditions prevailed in our industrial life. I lived in the county of Simcoe in those days, and I will remember meeting a mechanic who had travelled all the way from St. John, New Brunswick, to that part of Ontario without securing employment. The conditions were said to be so severe that

The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
we might never recover from them, and it was affirmed that the policy that had been pursued by the government was not in the best interests of Canada; that a protectionist policy had brought about those conditions. Mr. Speaker, although I have been an ardent Liberal all my life, I do not think I would be (prepared to blame the fiscal policy of the government of the day for all the difficulties experienced at that time. But that it had something to do with them, I think we will all agree. In 1896, you will remember, Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power and the Liberal party took office. Although some changes in the matter of fiscal policy did take place-changes, for instance, affecting the exportation of our cattle-they were criticized by hon. gentlemen then in opposition from much the same point of view that the present fiscal policy has been criticized: on the ground that the changes were not sufficient to bring about the desired result. I do not intend to enter into the matter in detail, but it has been frequently stated that the period from 1896 to 1911 was one of the most prosperous periods that Canada has enjoyed since Confederation, nor am I going to claim that that was wholly due to the policy of the government of the day. Anyone who studies the matter closely will agree that there are cycles in the history of every country in which prosperity seems to reach the highest pinnacle and is then succeeded by a period of depression. Notwithstanding the efforts that may be put forth by governments, we do have periods of extreme deflation. At best, all the government is able to do is by legislation, in as large a sense as possible, to afford relief, in those places where it seems to be necessary from the effects that may result upon trade or upon the business of the country.
In 1911 a change of government took place. I think every hon. member who comes from western Canada will agree that at least from our viewpoint a serious mistake was made when reciprocity was rejected by the people of Canada. Be that as it may, that was the decision of the people. Those who have been in public life for any considerable length of time know that changes take place, men step in and out by the will of the people; so that no one need quarrel with their decision. But as I remember conditions in 1914 just prior to the outbreak of the war, we had in western Canada a serious situation. There was a great deal of unemployment-and I think that was true also of eastern Canada. Then the war broke out and the whole force of Canada was thrown into the war effort; political questions were, for the moment, lost sight of, and we joined hand in hand in the determination to win. Naturally this has imposed a tremendous obligation upon Canada. During all these years there have been growing up, mainly in the eastern part of Canada, but gradually extending westward, strong manufacturing organizations. And alongside of that development the plains of western Canada have been settled by farmers, little towns have grown up, and small industries have been established; but in the main the business of the people of western Canada, and indeed of the people of all Canada, is that of agriculture.
During this period some reduction in the tariff took place-I am speaking now of the period from 1911 forward-but not any very serious changes. There was a slight reduction in the tariff on farm implements, more particularly those most used on the farms. I see my hon. friends smiling. I want to be absolutely fair about this thing, so that we shall arrive at a proper understanding. There was, I say, a slight reduction in the tariff on farm implements, and in order to help the Greater Production campaign put on by the late government, tractors were put upon the free list. This, no doubt, had some effect in assisting agriculture, since any reducton in the tariff upon the implements of production, no matter of what kind, is bound to afford some relief. On the other hand, during the war period this country assumed tremendous obligations. Our public debt increased from $336,000,000 until in 1921 it stood at $2,427,296,789. This tremendous obligation was incurred through the prosecution of the war, and this public debt is an overhead charge that must be taken into account in considering tariff changes. Not only that; just before the close of the war every endeavour of the Canadian people in all lines and in every artery was directed towards the production of war material, and of war material alone, and in consequence, at the end of the war, we found our stocks for home consumption very much depleted. I well remember discussing these matters with the premiers of the western provinces on the day the armistice was signed, and the one thing we had in mind then was the securing of employment, the re-establishing of the men who would be returning from overseas, which we anticipated would be somewhat early. We did not anticipate that for two or three years there would

The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
be a period of inflation in manufacturing and business generally. The drop that we expected to occur after the signing of the armistice when we had to absorb all these men, did not come. On the contrary, the manufacturers of this country found their plants working at full speed in order to make up for the depletion that had taken place in stocks for ordinary home consumption during the war. We. passed through two or three years of this period, and it was perhaps our period of greatest prosperity, for two years at least. Speaking of western Canada more particularly, m 1920 the farmer who had a crop never had a bigger one, and never got a better price for it. Unfortunately for western Canada, in many areas there was no crop at all and had not been for a number of years. A great portion of our difficulty arises from the fact that our farming industry has been patchy for the last three or four years.
Then what happened? In 1921, the increased activity in manufacturing that had followed the signing of the armistice came to a sudden stop; business was at a standstill, and manufacturers and merchants found their warehouses and shops filled with goods, with no one to buy them. The farmers who reaped a crop in 1921 had great difficulty in disposing of it, they found that the crop, which had been raised at an enormous cost had dropped back to pre-war prices. So, almost overnight, foliowing the period of inflation, manufacturers, merchants and farmers, in fact the whole people of Canada, found themselves in an embarrassing situation. The manufacturers were forced to stop producing, and the farmers were unable to meet their obligations. These difficulties continued for a year or two. One of the reasons for these difficulties, so far as agriculture is concerned, is that we were not favoured with good crops. If I may cite the experience on my own farm, I made more money in the years prior to the war than I did during the war period. That was largely because, except in one or two years of the war period, we were not favoured with weather conditions that enabled us to reap a full crop. The conditions I have described applied from one end of Canada to the other, and to-day we find ourselves taking stock. The agriculturists complain that conditions are such as have never before prevailed m Canada. I take issue with that. I say that we did in 1892 have similar conditions, and in my opinion they were even worse, 
but we recovered, and we had similar conditions in the industrial world from 1892 to 1894, but we also recovered from that.
I agree with one thing that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) said, that we need' a larger spirit of optimism in connection with these matters than perhaps we admit upon all occasions. In addition to the great public debt with which the people of Canada find themselves saddled to-day, another obligation has fallen upon our shoulders. The great privately-owned railway system that in the days of our prosperity we fondly hoped we should require in its entirety, has practically all become the property of the government. Railways were built in all parts of Canada, and there was duplication to some extent, and to-day we find ourselves with these roads on our hands. I am not finding fault particularly with the position in which we find ourselves with respect to the national railways, but I say that there can be no question that the railway problem adds to the responsibilities of government and to the difficulties in carrying on public affairs, inasmuch as these utilities are not self-sustaining but year after year are faced with a deficit upon operation, in addition to their fixed charges. While the policy has been pursued of relegating to the future the charges that accrue from year to year upon our railways, I question if the people of Canada can continue that policy very much longer. I think many of us who are interested in the public operation of these utilities will agree that there must be a time when the fixed charges upon them must cease; that we cannot keep on piling up deficits in operation and adding fixed charges to the capitalization of these corporations. Very shortly, if not indeed at once the revenues of Canada will have to be drawn upon to take care of deficits in operation as well as the fixed charges, or else the overcapitalization upon the railways will be such that it will be utterly impossible at any time, under any circumstances, for these railways to meet their obligations. The $466,938,359 of ordinary expenditure, shown by the Minister of Finance, for this year would look like a fairly respectable burden for a population of less than nine millions of people to meet. In addition there is an overhead upon our railways of some seventy-two million odd dollars, accounted for by interest charges and expected deficits in operation.
Very little criticism, except of a captious character so far as I can learn, has been

The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
offered of the budget presented last week. In some quarters the contention has been made that there is no real tariff reduction. Indeed, I think, that is the criticism offered by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton)-that the tariff reduction made is not worth while, is not effective, and that it is more than wiped out by increased taxation. The basis of the criticism offered by the hon. gentleman rests upon the policy adopted by the Liberal Convention in this city in 1919, upon which occasion it was definitely set out that the aim of the Liberals of Canada, practically, was that there should be no duty upon the implements of production. I have not the resolution then adopted at present before me, but at all events that is what it meant. The accusation is made that the Liberal party won the last election upon the terms of that resolution. On the other hand the Minister of Finance cited a resolution moved by him at the last session of parliament which, he claimed, set out the situation as it existed at that time. We must admit that a situation has arisen, not only in Canada but in the United States as well, that we cannot help but take note of it. In 1919 we had a reasonable assurance that the reciprocity agreement negotiated in 1911 might be accepted by the United States in part if not in full, but to-day that hope has disappeared; the Fordney Bill introduced at Washington places upon imports of natural products from Canada into the United States tariff restrictions that were unheard of in the past. We have in Canada to-day a difficult situation as regards the agricultural and manufacturing industries; and I believe this is the time when the government should move slowly and carefully in the direction of removing duties on any articles instead of advancing with any rapidity. My hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. Warner), speaking the other night said that it would be a very difficult thing for the Minister of Interior to go back and secure a seat in the province of Alberta. Perhaps it would; I did not secure a seat in that province at the last election. When the opportunity comes I shall endeavour to secure one; but until that time does come I will have to abide the consequences; I have always been willing to accept the results of any political warfare. I have little or no disagreement with my hon. friend from Strathcona, or any of my hon. friends sitting opposite. That, I think, is not the spirit in which we can secure what is necessary to revive agricultural and business interests in Canada. Rather we should all get together in this connection if that be at all possible. When it came to the question of selecting articles upon which tariff reductions should be made I think the Minister of Finance exercised due care in trying, so far as it was humanly possible, to avoid the disturbance of business and agricultural interests. That policy undoubtedly does not meet with the approval of many of my hon. friends. Perhaps it does not go as far as even I should be willing to go in this matter, but I am convinced of this fact: That it would be unwise to be too drastic at this time when there is hope-and in my opinion a very great hope-for the revival of the agricultural industry; when perhaps there is the prospect of a better system of marketing our wheat; and when more attention is being paid to the securing of markets abroad, which, I think, is one of the important things this government must undertake and pursue to the fullest possible extent. When these things are accomplished, as they must be accomplished -because it is an utter impossibility that we can thrive agriculturally in Western Canada, or indeed that business can be carried on successfully in Eastern Canada with the high freight rates prevailing to-day; and, of course, we have the assertion of the railway companies that they cannot operate with insufficient freight rates-then we can look with hope to the future.
I am not going to discuss the freight rate question at any length because it is at present before a special committee and a report will shortly be forthcoming from that committee. But let me say that this is, in my opinion, one of the very great factors in connection with the revival of our trade in Canada. It is of great importance that we should have a reduction in freight rates and better marketing facilities; these will help us in a much larger degree than any attempt at the moment to deal drastically with the tariff. The government is being criticized very severely because of the tariff reductions it has already made. For the life of me I cannot understand why that should be so, except that people get into the habit of living under a protection, and we may be sure that they will raise a commotion when you touch them at any quarter. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that to-day we are largely shut out from the United States

The Budget-Mr. C. Stewart
markets by the tariff wall erected by the Fordney tariff. But it must be borne in mind that we have not been slow in notifying the United States government that, as soon as they are ready to do business with us in connection with tariff reductions or interchange of trade, this Government is ready to deal with them. Therefore, all that I desire to say this afternoon is that, having in mind the condition in which we find agriculture and other business to-day, and the commercial relationships that exist throughout Canada, it seems to me that this Government was well advised to move cautiously with respect to tariff reductions.
We have been criticised with respect to the new taxation. I have tried briefly to show you the obligations of the people of Canada and to bring to your attention the fact that we cannot continue to postpone payment from the revenues of Canada of the losses accruing annually on the railways of the country, and, that sooner or later, we must take care that they shall grow no larger, if we are to make a success of this enterprise. Having these things in mind, we must, of necessity, have a much greater revenue than that obtained in the past, and, in order to secure that revenue, the policy of the Government has been, as far as possible, to avoid placing upon any industry or business an undue burden of taxation. I think it is a safe axiom with respect to taxation, that you must tax the people who can best afford to pay, and tax industry where it can best afford to be taxed. I think there is a comparative unanimity of feeling with respect to the sales tax, which, perhaps, we have made a little more severe; and it may be contended in some measure by our friends in the Opposition that we should have taxed luxuries to a far greater extent than we have. That may very well be a matter for consideration. One of my hon. friends, in discussing this matter the Dther day, mentioned the fact that the income tax was not sufficiently severe in so far as large incomes were concerned. It is not as severe, Mr. Speaker, as the income tax of Great Britain, one will admit, but that it is a fairly stiff tax on incomes of large dimensions, no one will deny. The question whether the individual who is in receipt of a smaller income should not be given some consideration is a matter, perhaps, which might very well be considered at some future time. It is an extremely easy matter to 
4	p.m. suggest the placing of taxatior upon luxuries, and I agree wit! the suggestion that it is an easy mattei to suggest that the taxation should be heavier on the larger incomes. There may be something to be said about that. On the whole, the income tax and taxation of that character seem to be fairly well adjusted. I am not saying there should not be a readjustment. There will, of necessity, require to be a readjustment. The one object we have had in view in placing taxes upon business has been to avoid taxing the basic industries. If we have not succeeded in that-[DOT] and undoubtedly many hon. members will disagree with us on that point-on the whole, I think it has met with a very favourable reception by the people of Canada, and I trust it will meet out our expectations, and that we will not be adding to the public debt of Canada, what, in my opinion at all events, rightfully should have been charged to the revenue account annually. I feel that the effort of the hon. Minister of Finance will not perhaps satisfy my hon. friends of the official Opposition in that it goes too far, and, my hon. friends of the Progressive element in that it does not go far enough; but the Government, having in mind all the conditions that prevailed in Canada, felt that this effort in reduction of the tariff, as well as in the raising of revenue, would meet with fairly generous approval throughout the whole of Canada.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon will be words of congratulation and appreciation of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who has been permitted to introduce his sixteenth budget in a Canadian parliament. Those of us from Western Canada have a very warm spot in our hearts for the hon. Minister of Finance. We remember that in 1911, through his efforts, an arrangement was entered into with the United States for reciprocal trade in natural products. We remember also that, in endeavouring to give effect to that arrangement, he and his party went down to defeat, but not through any fault of the electors of the province from which I come, because we returned to this parliament ninety per cent of our representatives as supporters of reciprocity with the United States. I also wish to congratulate the hon. minister on his courage in placing before this House and the country the true financial position of Canada. It is not a nice thing to review, and I am sure the minister himself must have felt the task a

The Budget-Mr. J. F. Johnston
very heavy one, having regard to the budgets that he had been privileged to present to this House in years gone by. In those days our revenues were buoyant, and he was able to tell the country that we had a surplus, instead of a deficit. But on this occasion he told the House that the income of Canada for the last year was fifty-three millions some 'hundred thousand dollars odd less than the year previous. He also informed us that the estimated revenue for the incoming year was $134,000,000 less than his estimated expenditure-not a very nice picture to present to any body of people. Nevertheless, it is a fact, and he stated it to the House. He also informed the House that, during the last year, we added eighty-six and a half millions to the national debt of the country-something for my horn, friends to the right of me to contemplate. We were told that during the period that has elapsed since the cessation of hostilities Great Britain has paid off some five hundred million pounds of her war debt while we continued to add to ours. My hon. friends to the right are always ready to take the credit for everything that was done during the war; I hope they are just as ready to shoulder the responsibility for this condition of affairs. The fact remains, nevertheless, that by reason of our participation in the war there has been added to the national debt over $2,000,000,000, while during the last decade our population has increased very slightly. The result is that the citizens of Canada have shouldered a very heavy obligation in the way of increased taxation. While I do not like being retrospective, I cannot refrain from saying that in my opinion the heavy taxes imposed upon the people at the present time could, to some degree at least, have been avoided had former governments, during the war particularly, taxed wealth where they had a chance to do so. I have no criticism for the immediate predecessor (Sir Henry Drayton) of the Minister of Finance. As a matter of fact, I think he did what he could. But the Minister of Finance who held office during the war lost a real chance, in my opinion, to tax war wealth during that period. The profiteers have escaped and taken to cover, and we are now faced with the responsibility of raising huge sums, when our people are little able to bear heavy taxation, and at a time when we have great unemployment in the country. During the election campaign we Progressives contended that this was a time when the most stringent economy should be practised in Canada, and that contention has been amply borne out by the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) as presented to Parliament a few days ago.
I come now to a very brief review of the reductions in the tariff and the increase in the sales tax. I wish to say to the Minister of Finance and the Government that the reductions in the customs tariff are good in so far as they go; but the great trouble is that they do not go far enough. While I am sure we all appreciated the splendid effort of the minister in presenting his budget, I could not help thinking, while he was repeating the reductions, nearly all of which were 21 per cent, that one might very well suppose himself out in the countryside at an auction sale where the auctioneer was experiencing great difficulty in getting the bidders to go above a very low minimum, because it was 21 per cent, and 21 per cent, and again 21 per cent, all the way through. I could have hoped, for the sake of variety at least, that the minister had departed somewhat from this even tenor and taken an upward trend. I am sorry that these reductions are not greater, because I believe that if they were we should have a materially increased production in the country. In the matter of tariffs, it strikes me that we Canadians are very much in the position of a man stuck in the mire trying to pull himself out by his shoestrings; he might work very assiduously, but the only result would be that he would bury himself further, and finally be engulfed. If we are to increase production and put this country in that position which is rightly hers, we shall not do so by conceding 21 per cent reductions on the necessities of life and on the implements of production that are needed by those people who, in my opinion, are the real wealth producers of Canada.
Now, as regards the increase in the sales tax, I can only describe this as bad; I cannot view it from any other standpoint. And in imposing this increase of fifty per cent in this tax the minister, in effect, takes away with one hand what he gives with the other. It is true that the revenue derived from the imposition of this increase in the sales tax will, or at least should, all find its way into the public treasury, while under the customs duties only about one dollar in three or four finds its way there. Having regard to that fact I favour the sales tax as against the customs tariff. But this tax is imposed at a time when our people are least able to bear it; it takes from the people not in proportion to their
2222	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. J. F. Johnston
ability to pay but in proportion to their purchase of goods. It takes from the poor man with a family of between five and ten children and a salary of $1,000, equally as it takes from the man with the income of $50,000 or from the millionaire. No one can gainsay that. Under the imposition of the new taxes, we have not attempted, in this budget, to tax wealth, or to exact from it any heavier taxes. Why, then, should we at this time impose this fifty per cent increase upon the workers of the land? Let us view this matter in relation to immigration into, and emigration from, this country. There is no such tax levied in the United States; there is no general sales tax. If such a tax had been imposed in that country last year the government would have received $850,000.000. So that there is some inducement for our labouring classes, under the circumstances, to go to the United States. It is obvious that we are placing our people in a much worse position than the labourers of the United States are in. I sincerely hope that the Government do not view the sales tax as a permanent fixture in our scheme of taxation.
In connection with the income tax assessment, we give some regard, in the matter of exemptions, to the man with the small salary. Under that act we grant that it takes $2,000 for a married man to live, and we accordingly exempt him up to that amount. We also give him $200 exemption on every dependent child. Under the sales tax, however, there is absolutely no exemption. In the United States, on the other hand, they assum.. that it takes $2,500 for a man and wife to live, and they give an exemption for dependent children up to $400. We give no exemption to any classes under the sales tax, so that the man with a salary of $500 or $1,000 is in just the same position, in this regard, as the man with the income of $50,000.
So far my remarks might be termed critical; but I have always endeavoured, when I have found it necessary to criticise or tear down anything, to offer something in its place. I shall therefore try to give what seems to me to be the solution of our problems. I think these might very well be classified under three heads: First, immigration; second, increased production; and third, wider and better markets.
Now, in regard to immigration, what is the situation? We find that during the last decade we have lost over 1,250,000 of our people. We have in Canada to-day a

population of 8,725,000. Had we held the immigrants that came to our shores during the past decade we should have had, with the natural increase in population, 11,000,000 people in the country to-day. It seems to me that we might be very well employed, when considering immigration matters, in giving some thought to this fact, and in trying to find out why we are losing our people. Is it good business for Canada to continue spending money in bringing people into this country by the front door while the51' are going oue by way of the back door? And yet that is what has been happening. No one will deny, Mr. Speaker, that we have a country capable of sustaining many times our present population. All are agreed on that. And what w;e should attempt to solve is the ques+ion why we cannot hold the people that we do get. I have my own opinion about this, and it is briefly stated. Before .we can hope to hold our population we must of necessity change the economic conditions under which these people have to labour. I have stated in this House before that you never find people running away from a good thing; and they are not going to leave Canada if Canada gives them an opportunity to make good. I could recite many unsatisfactory conditions as they exist, but I am not here to decry the country that we all love so well, nor to paint conditions as they exist to-day in western Canada in a blacker hue than has already been done. None of us want to do that. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if western Canada is to be given any redress, plain words must be spoken in this Parliament. I submit, then, that if we are to solve our immigration problem we must remove the obstacles that prevent our people undertaking the development of our natural resources, or that hinder those already engaged in that development.
In regard to increased production, according to a recent survey, we have ill western Canada within fifteen miles of existing lines of railway some 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 acres of arable land. Last year we produced about 300,000,000 bushels of wheat. Our average yield per acre is 34 bushels. If we bring this 25,000,000 acres of vacant land under cultivation we would have a return of 350,000,000 bushels of wheat, or 16 per cent more than our total yield last year. Now, in solving our immigration problem we would, in a large degree, solve our railway problem, for the increase in our population would lead to
222J

The Budget-Mr. J. F. Johnston
the increase in our wheat production, which in turn would help our railways. Railways exist on freight and passenger traffic- mainly the former. If we can give our railways 16 per cent more wheat to haul, and the like amount of incoming freight, we will have gone a long way toward solving that problem. And there is no disputing the fact that it is an urgent problem, because we all know that our National Railways were operated at a deficit of $72,000,000 this year, a slight improvement over the preceding year when the deficit was $2,500,000 more. These matters are fundamental and should have the earnest consideration of the Government.
As to wider markets, I would revert to the attempt made by my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in 1911, and I wish to congratulate and to thank him for making another endeavour a few months ago to effect a better trade arrangement with the United States. My right hon. friend who leads the official Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and those associated with him, during their term of office put through certain trade agreements with France and the British West Indies. It may surprise my right hon. friend to know that during the late campaign I gave to him and his party every credit for widening Canada's markets to that extent. But, if it was good business for Canada to enter into trade agreements with France and the British West Indies, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be much better business for us to make every endeavour to arrange a trade agreement with the United States. Last year our exports to the United States amounted to $542,322,000, with imports to the value of $856,176,000; to France $27,000,000 and $19,000,000 respectively; to the British West Indies $16,000,000 and $24,000,000 respectively. A comparison of these figures will show that we did more business with the United States in two weeks than we did with the British West Indies in the whole fifty-two weeks; and that we did more business with the United States in three weeks than we did with France during the whole year. So, I repeat, if it is good business to effect trade agreements with France and the British West Indies, it follows that it is much better business to enter into a trade agreement with the United States. But, although my hon. friends to the right negotiated those trade agreements with France and the British West Indies, yet they are opposed to closer trade relations with the
United States. Their attitude is very hard to understand. In view of the fact that wider markets are so essential to the development of our country.
In connection with the question of better markets, I wish to mention a matter that has been engaging the attention of one of our standing committees for some weeks, and will very shortly be brought before this House in a definite way. For that reason I propose only to mention it; I refer to the Wheat Board. Despite anything that has been said, I feel that the farmers of western Canada are entitled to some kind of selling agency to handle their wheat crop. And I wish to dispel the erroneous idea that has gotten into the minds of the people of eastern Canada that as a result of the formation of such a board flour and wheat products will cost more to our Canadian consumers than would otherwise be the case. That is an absolutely wrong impression, Mr. Speaker. In the marketing of our wheat I have always felt that we as producers have been our worst enemies November 1 is settlement day in. western Canada; when the banks, the implement manufacturing firms, and so on, are looking to the farmer to settle his accounts. The result is that the wheat is rushed onto the market and sold whether or not there is a real demand for it. Last year the United States, knowing the conditions in Britain and Europe, rushed their exportable surplus onto the market early, with the result that when the Canadian western wheat became available, the demand for wheat on the other side had been, for the time being, supplied. Our wheat was forced on the market; the producers being driven to sell by their creditors, with the result that the market was glutted and great depression in prices ensued. That is all that the western producer is asking for-an agency to step in there, take control of that wheat, supply the market when there is a demand and hold the wheat off the market when there is no demand. I believe it will result in benefit to the producer as well as to every class of people in this country if the [producer is enabled to get what his commodity will bring on the open market. That is all we are asking. The western wheat producer is not asking for protection or for special privilege.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to a brief consideration of the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). The hon. member and those associated with him are condemning
2224	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. J. F. Johnston
the Government for not doing something which he and those associated with him would not themselves do. They are condemning the Government through this amendment for not doing what he and all the supporters of his party said during the last campaign would bring blue ruin to Canada if it were put into effect. He is condemning the Government for committing a great sin against the political morality of this country; yet he and those behind this motion are not, so far as I can see, doing anything else than carrying out a little political manoeuvering for party advantage. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position clear. I criticise the Government from a wholly different angle-because they have not given effect to their platform as it has been quoted in the amendment before the House. Now, I am going to read that part of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, because it appeals to me. If one goes to a restaurant and is presented with a good menu, he is apt to go back there again; and this, to me, is a very good menu. I am going to read this declaration of policy in order that it may be incorporated in the few remarks which I am making, and also to bring it again to the attention of the Government. It says:
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 is a good bill of fare, Mr, Speaker. I subscribe to every word of it, and I criticise the Government, not that I would have expected them to go the whole road this session, but that they have not gone further than they have. I had looked with every confidence to the Government to bring down a progressive policy at this time. To say that I am disappointed is putting it mildly, because I believe that if we as a people are ever going to get out of the woods, so to speak, we shall have to right-about-face on this policy of ours. We have been endeavouring for over forty years to make something of this country under a protective policy; we see where we have landed, and I am sorry that the Government have not given us a lead in

the other direction. I can only hope that before another session the Government will have considered the matter and will come to Parliament with a much different statement from that with which we have been greeted this year.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question there? He states that he would not expect the Government to go the whole road of that resolution this session. Did not he himself vote in favour of the same resolution as proposed by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the year before, expressing his willingness in that way to " go the whole road " then?


John Frederick Johnston: Well, I do not know whether my right hon. friend refers to the motion of the hon. member for Brome moved last year or the motion moved some sessions ago.


Arthur Meighen: The session before this
resolution was passed the hon. member voted in favour of a motion requesting the government of the day to " go the whole road " then.


John Frederick Johnston: The year before this resolution was passed?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON	(Last Mountain) :
Does my right hon. friend refer to a motion of the hon. member for Brome on the address?


Arthur Meighen: It was either on the address or on the budget.


John Frederick Johnston: Well, I have to inform my hon. friend that he is entirely wrong; I did not support that.


Arthur Meighen: On the budget, I think it was.


John Frederick Johnston: I did not support the motion of the hon. member for Brome on the address in the spring session of 1919, if that is what my right hon. friend refers to. However, in conclusion, I wish to say that I have always stood for a united Canada; but I think it my duty to warn this Government that if it is thought that western Canada can be tied indefinitely to a high protective policy, those who hold that view had better revise it. I hope that some weight may be given to my words upon

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
this matter. As I stated, I have always stood for a united Canada, and believe that a policy can be evolved that will be fair to all classes of our people and will tend to a development in this country that is so greatly needed at the present time.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) :: Mr. Speaker, the annual national accounting was looked forward to with greater interest than usual this year, because most people in Canada knew that the times were abnormal and that all was not well with the country, but I think a good many did r.ot realize to the full the seriousness of the situation. I think even some members of the House even now, including the hon. exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) do not fully realize the gravity of present conditions.
Let us consider for a moment just what are the present conditions. To begin with, the net debt of Canada is $2,428,000,000, and that does not include the railway bond guarantees of $300,000,000 odd. If these were included, the net debt would be two and three-quarter billions, and the gross debt over three billions of dollars. We have the revenues decreasing, and the national debt increasing at the rate of about $90,000,000 a year. These figures are so large that the ordinary person cannot comprehend them; I know I cannot. Perhaps we can understand the situation a little better by looking at it from another point of view. The interest alone (last year was $140,000,000, or an amount equal to the total expenditure on all accounts-consolidated fund, capital account, and all other accounts-in the years immediately preceding the war. If we add to the interest, the thirty-six or thirty-seven million dollars for soldiers' pensions, and other commitments incurred on account of the soldiers' civil re-establishment, we have nearly $200,000,000, or an amount twice as large as the expenditure on consolidated fund in the years immediately preceding the war. These obligations have to be met before we have a dollar for civil government, for transportation, for public works, and for the thousand and one other things necessary to carry on the public business of the country. That is the situation.
How are we to raise the enormous sums that must be provided? This year the estimated expenditure as already submitted to Parliament amounts, in round figures, to $469,000,000, with the Supplementary Estimates still to come, and which will probably bring the figure up to $500,000,000, after all
the economies that have been practicable have been made. Where is the money to come from? Just from two sources-further taxation and from borrowing, or from both. We are running into debt at the rate of eighty or ninety million dollars per year. Can that go on indefinitely? Everybody knows it cannot. A nation can run into bankruptcy just the same as an individual. We also owe in the United States, according to an article I read in the Financial Post a short time ago, on federal, provincial, municipal, and industrial account, something like seven or eight hundred million dollars, and that is expected to amount to one 'billion dollars in the near future.
Can greater economies be effected? Economy can be carried too far. There is a policy that scattereth yet increaseth, and there is a policy that withholdet'h but tend-eth to poverty. Transportation by land and water must be provided for; the public works of the country must be provided for; for if these things are starved, the industrial life of the nation is injured or destroyed and the sources of revenue are dried up. Therefore, economy can be carried too far. Can taxation be carried too far? Yes, because if you tax an individual or a company to the point of taking all the profits, and leave the individual or the company to take all1 the risks and all the losses, you drive capital out of business. Individuals or companies will not take all the risk unless they have a reasonable expectation of making a fair profit. If the government steps in and by taxation takes all the profits, it dries up the sources of revenue, and the country is injured greatly.
Can borrowing go on indefinitely? I do not think so. We are borrowing money now to pay part of the interest on what we owe. What be'comes of the mortgagee when he finds himself in that position? The end is not far off. I heard the ex-Minister of Finance state the other day that if future loans are needed-and they will be needed this year-they should be raised in Canada, rather than in a foreign country. That depends upon circumstances, in my judgment. If there is not a surplus of liquid capital in the country over and above what is necessary for the commercial and industrial life of the nation, over and above what the small borrower who cannot borrow outside the country is legitimately entitled to borrow-the man who wants to mortgage his farm, the village or town that wants to raise money on bonds, and numerous other .small borrowers who must borrow in the home market if they borrow at all-

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
if there is not a surplus over and above what is required for these purposes, to raise a loan in this country would (be to drive these borrowers out of business and dry up the sources of revenue. So, the government cannot borrow in the home market without regard to all the existing conditions; it must leave liquid capital enough in that market to carry on the industrial and commercial life of the nation, enough liquid capital for the small borrower who cannot obtain money elsewhere. The Government can go outside; but could our commitments abroad be made larger with safety to the nation? A few weeks ago when the Minister of Finance announced in this House that he had placed a loan of $100,000,000 in New York at a very favourable rate of interest there was considerable applause in the chamber. I did not applaud. Not that I was not pleased to know that Canada could borrow abroad at a fairly good rate of interest; but I felt sad that we were obliged to do so, sad that we were obliged to put a mortgage for another $100,000,000 on the old homeland; for that was really what we were doing. If we were borrowing and the money was used for purposes which would provide for the interest and a sinking fund it would be all right; but that $100,000,000 went to pay a debt already incurred and we are borrowing now to pay the interest on what we owe, or at all events borrowing to meet the ordinary expenditure of the country. That, in my judgment, cannot continue or certain results will follow. I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite-some of them at all events- would throw a fit at the mention of the word "annexation", but would the word "absorption" be more palatable or more agreeable to them? I will be quite frank in connection with this matter. I would not be afraid of the commercial results of such a policy, but I do not want the political results that would follow. Our political institutions, in my judgment, are far preferable to those of our neighbours; and it would be a sad ending, not only to ourselves, but perhaps to the world- to the English-speaking world at all events

if we could not maintain our political institutions. But hon. gentlemen who, a few weeks ago, clamoured for the expenditure of millions of dollars on non-productive services-on the army and navy; Who clamoured for the expenditure of millions of dollars in preparation for another war, were, in my opinion, taking the first step toward the extinction 
of our national life, though they look at it from another standpoint altogether.
I listened to, and I read very carefully, the speech delivered by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I do not think it was worthy of him. In that speech, from beginning to end, I found no helpful thought nor suggestion. My hon. friend seemed to think that no responsibility rests upon him and the other members of parliament who, as has been stated by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) were in office when this enormous debt was piled up upon the country. In that speech, from beginning to end, I could not find a suggestion where a new market for one dollar's worth of Canadian products could be discovered;
I could not find a suggestion as to where one additional acre of land could be put under tillage in Canada; I could not find a suggestion as to where one man, who is not now getting it, might receive employment; I could not find a suggestion where the revenues might be increased or greater economy practised. What was to be found in the hon. member's speech? Criticism of a petty character ending with a resolution which has been so very well described by my hon. friend from Last Mountain and so accurately designated by the Montreal Gazette, the sanest paper supporting the Opposition which I read. The characterization of the Montreal Gazette is worth quoting. It says:
The amendment recalls the couplet:
"You shall and you shan't,
You will and you won't;
You'll be damned if you do,
And you'll be damned if you don't."
The amendment has been truly named by the hon. member who has just taken his seat as a cheap political manoeuvre, and an attempt to embarrass the Progressives and to condemn the Government for not doing something which the Opposition themselves hold would be ruinous to the country if it were done. Such is the ex-Finance Minister's conception of his duty to Canada under these trying and difficult circumstances. The amendment was seconded by the leader of the Opposition. In its nature that amendment resembles the handiwork of the leader of the Opposition more than it does that of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance, because the latter's style of speech is good natured, wherein he differs fundamentally from his leader who seems to have a grouch against the world.
Some of the members of the Progressive party who have spoken have made sug-

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
gestions, notably the hon. member for Stratheona (Mr. Warner). Let me say here that many of these hon. gentlemen appear to consider it to be their duty to help with the administration of the country and to make suggestions from time to time with that object in view. Perhaps the suggestions are not always the best that could be devised; but if a man is doing the best he can to discharge his duty to the country in the position in which he finds himself placed, such conduct will be far more effective than indulgence in petty criticism or the introduction of embarrassing resolutions. My hon. friend from Stratheona, I think, seemed to favour an increase in the income taxation. I have already alluded to that subject and, for the reason which I gave, I think it can be carried too far. I have taken a little trouble to look into the income taxation in Canada as compared with that of the United States, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and I find it follows very closely the income taxation of the United States, where, I presume, the conditions are very much like our own. We do not follow closely the income taxation of Great Britain; Australia and New Zealand follow it to a greater extent than we do. Wherein does our system differ from that of Great Britain? Our income taxation is smaller on small incomes. The amount that we take for government purposes on small, medium and fairly large incomes is much smaller than that which is collected in Great Britain. On the other hand, in the case of large and very large incomes, we collect a much larger sum than is levied in Great Britain. We follow closely the United States tax. Perhaps it would not be out of place if I gave the House some figures on this matter of income taxation. To begin with, we exempt married men with incomes up to $2,000. The exemption in Great Britain is $1,000. On an income of $3,000 the income tax would be:
Canada	 $ 40 00
United States	
40	00Great Britain	
450	00Australia	
121	91New Zealand	
158	26
Then take an income of $5,000, the income tax would be:
Canada	$ 126 00
United States	
120	00 (plus 5 per	cent)Great Britain	
937	68Australia	
291	70New Zealand	
489	62
As the tax in United States is $120, plus 5 per cent on the tax, the amount is exactly
the same as in Canada. The man with the small income in Canada pays a very much smaller tax than in Great Britain, Australia or New Zealand.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the hon. member give me the tax on an income of $50,000?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I will come to that. On an income of $10,000, the income taxes are as follows:
Canada	$ 619 50
United States.. ..	590 00 .(.plus the 5 per cent)
Great Britain.. .. 3,208 00
Australia	 965 00 (some odd cents)
New Zealand.. .. 1,776 00
Then I come to the $20,000 income and the income taxes are as follows :
Canada	$2,889
United States	 1,990	(plus	5	per	cent)
Great Britain	 7,150
Australia	 2,945
New Zealand	 5^648
Then on an income of $50,000 the taxes are:
Canada	$ 9,049
United States .. ..	9,190 (plus the 5 per cent)
Great Britain .. .. 23,593
Australia	16,645
New Zealand	18,581
The taxes on a $100,000 income are:
Canada	$32,749
United States .. .. 31,190 (plus the 5 per cent) Great Britain .. .. 50,375
Australia	 37,691
New Zealand .. .. 37,366
When we reach the $200,000 income our tax is almost equal to Great Britain, and they come pretty close together. 5 p.m. At $210,000 I think we are exactly together. On incomes of $210,000 the taxes are:
Canada	$104,989
United States	 99,990
Great Britain	 105,788
Australia	 79 140
New Zealand	 78,457
Now we come to the very large incomes. After the figures I have just mentioned we pass Great. Britain. Our taxation and the taxation of the United States are much higher, and Great Britain becomes correspondingly lower. On incomes of $500,000 the taxes would be:
Canada	$318,349
United States	 303,190
Great Britain	 2621493


Mr. BROWN:: Has the hon. gentleman any information as to the number of persons who are paying taxes on these very large incomes, such as $500,000?



The Budget-Mr. Hughes


James Joseph Hughes: No. In the United States and in Great Britain it would be a fairly large number.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it a practical question in Canada?


James Joseph Hughes: The exceedingly large
incomes are heavily taxed in Canada and comparatively lightly taxed in Great Britain.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the tax on these incomes yielding a revenue? Are there enough of them?


James Joseph Hughes: I suppose so, because
'.here are a great many wealthy people iving in the Old Country.


John Livingstone Brown: But in Canada?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not think we have 30 many wealthy here in Canada, but the point I am making is that we tax more lightly the small and moderate incomes in Canada than they do in Great Britain, and we tax more heavily the very large incomes.


Alan Webster Neill: Do we have death duties in Canada, similar to those in Great Britain?


James Joseph Hughes: I am making a comparison of the income taxation in the different countries.
Mr. ME1GHEN: I think the hon. member is in error in some of his figures, and I only mention it because it should appear in Hansard correctly. I am under a wrong impression if the hon. member is correct. Does the 5 per cent super tax exist in the United States? I do not think it does. As the hon. member gave the figures, he intimated he was giving the tax without the 5 per cent.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, it is a 5 per cent tax on the tax in United States.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is in error. Our tax is 5 per cent ahead of their tax,


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member is entitled to his opinion.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact.


James Joseph Hughes: It can easily be verified. I come now to the sales tax, which, I think, our Progressive friends will say is very bad. However, there are some features about it that they would commend. One feature is the fact that every penny so collected goes into the treasury. Another
(Mr. Hughes.]
commendable feature is that the extra amount raised under this proposed tax will not cost one extra cent to collect. It is simple and inexpensive and all goes into the treasury. That is a good feature of taxation. It may, it is true, bear more hardly on the man in moderate circumstances, or on the poor man with a large family, because his purchases will be larger in proportion to his means than the wealthy man's. But is there any system of taxation in the world that is perfect? There is not. Now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) found himself in this position. He had an estimated revenue of $332,000,000, and he had to provide for an expenditure of perhaps $500,000,000. The actual expenditure last year was $496,000,000. He had. to close up the gap somehow. How was it to be done? We must have in this country, no matter what political party is in power-it would be necessary if the Progressives were in power-a customs taxation that will give the largest revenue possible. And after that we shall have all the taxes we can pay. The customs revenue now produces only about one-fifth of the total taxation. Where is the other four-fifths to come from? About two-fifths, I believe, is provided by the excise tax, the revenue from the post office, the inland revenue tax, the income tax, and so forth. And there is still two-fifths to be accounted for. Hon. gentlemen will therefore see the difficulties of the situation and the burdens and responsibilites that rest on the shoulders of any man who is at present, or who may be for many years to come, charged with the management of the finances of Canada. There are avenues of information open to the Minister of Finance and his officials that are closed to the ordinary citizen; and if we have a minister in whose integrity and honesty we have confidence, and of whose ability we are assured, we must trust him to a very large extent. There is no getting away from that.
The men who were in office when these enormous debts were incurred, and who now criticise the Minister of Finance for not doing better, seem to forget their responsibilities very quickly. I know that extravagance and waste are the concomitants of all wars. But there were expenditures during the late war that were premeditated extravagance, and I make this charge against the late government, that at all events they did very little to curtail those expenditures. They did not do all that they could have done, and every man in Canada knows that who is prepared to admit the facts.

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
For the condition in which we find ourselves to-day thgse men, I say, are responsible, to a large extent at any rate.
The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston), I might here remark in passing, said that there was no sales tax in the United States, but I see that a very influential body of financial men who met in New York quite recently were considering the advisability and the necessity of introducing such a tax there. They say that it cannot be done without. Some contend that it is the best kind of tax. I will not go so far as to say that, but I have advocated that tax in this House and I support it now for the reasons I have given. It is necessary in the exigencies of the situation. Where was the minister to turn to make up the loss of revenue from the income tax and the business profits tax? He has estimated that while these sources of revenue gave us some $100,000,000 last year, this year he will do very well if they bring in $60,000,000. The business men of Canada know that their profits have largely disappeared; and incomes have fallen. So that we cannot get from these sources the revenue we got last year, and the difference must be made up. I personally disapprove of borrowing, if it can possibly be avoided; and the revenue must be raised. I have already stated that we cannot economise beyond a certain point; if we do, we destroy the sources of revenue. The public business of the country must be carried on. Canada must develop or die. We are an undeveloped country, unlike Great Britain, France or the European countries that are fully developed. We have important public works to maintain and further works are required for the proper carrying on of the national business. These must be provided or we suffer the consequences. We must have a larger population, and in order to secure more people we must develop our railways. Now, in my judgment, it is the duty of those hon. gentlemen who object to the sales tax and other forms of taxation to suggest something better. How is the money to be raised?
A few days ago, speaking in this Chamber, the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) twitted me a little and said that when certain things were taking place in the Parliament of Canada I was back in Prince Edward Island. I do not know what the right hon. gentleman meant by the word "back". It is quite true that from 1917 to 1922 I was not a member of this House, but a good majority of the electors of King's County,
Prince Edward Island, in the exercise of their constitutional rights, declared at that time that I ought to be a member of the House. The leader of the Opposition and those associated with him, however, in the blackest political crime ever committed in Canada or in any other Englishspeaking country, took care that I should not be a member of the House of Commons, and to make sure of this the constitutional rights of the people of King's County were violated. I say it is a political crime of the first magnitude to strike at the very foundation of the constitution. Sir, our constitution is based on the free, honest expression of the electors at the polls. Take that away and you take everything. The right hon. gentleman therefore knew why I was not a member of this House. And I wonder at his imprudence in reminding me of the fact. But apparently he is not sorry for the part that he and others that I can name took on that occasion. For myself, I would rather a thousand times have remained in Prince Edward Island than do what the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him did; I would rather remain in Prince Edward Island during the rest of my natural life than stand where he stands to-day. That is the reason.
_ Now, Mr. Speaker, I have presented the views that in my opinion should receive consideration from hon. members under present conditions, and having done so I feel that I have discharged the duty I owe to my country and to myself.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton) :: Mr. Speaker, as a new member I feel that I must join with those who have already expressed their appreciation of the manner in which the budget was presented by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). As to the substance of it, I may have views somewhat different from those held by some hon. members who have preceded me. Being as it were still a novice in this House, in rising to criticize the budget of such an experienced parliamentarian as the hon. Minister of Finance-who in the course of his public life has presented many budgets- I speak with some degree of trepidation; but I realize that it is my duty to express my views regarding the fiscal policy of this country, and I know that you will agree with me, Sir, when I say that in this budget is wrapp rd up our trade and fiscal policy. I have often heard it said of people who do not succeed well in business, although they and their employees and family seem to work very hard, that "there
2230	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fansher '
is something wrong with the management". And I sometimes think that although we are a very industrious people we have not made the progress that we should have made in the decades that have passed since the inception of our so-called National Policy. Although I do not intend to lay all- the blame on our fiscal policy, I am thoroughly convinced that in a large measure that policy is responsible for conditions as we find them to-day. Of course, we all realize that prosperity cannot follow destruction, and we must make full allowance for the derangement of trade caused by the Great War. But I do claim that the fiscal policy we have pursued for the last thirty or forty years has caused an unequal balance in the development of industry. Right here I want to say that there is a growing demand for a change in our tariff policy. Indeed, there was already a growing demand for such a change prior to 1911, and although at that time there seemed to be a verdict rendered against tariff revision and better trade relations with the United States, yet I venture to say that had that issue been considered on its merits alone it would have had the overwhelming support of the electors.
In times past our tariff policy has not had that fair consideration at the hands of the electorate which it should have had, for always there have been injected into the issue other issues which were not relevant at all and which were introduced to obscure the real issue before the people This demand for tariff revision was still insistent after 1911, and even Sir Thomas White stated that such revision was long overdue. The country at large looked forward to the day when there should be a downward revision, but the Great War intervened, and domestic issues were laid aside in order that we might concentrate our efforts on the common purpose of bringing the war to a successful conclusion.
Shortly after the armistice it was considered advisable to have a revision of the tariff, and with that end in view we remember the appointment of a commission of which the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was chairman. That commission went all over the Dominion taking evidence in regard to the tariff, and I wish that we had before us some of the information contained in the verbatim records of the hearings, for I am sure it would be very instructive to us. For instance, I recall a meeting in one of our Ontario cities at which a certain individual engaged
[Mr. Fansher. 1
in the manufacture of gloves was very urgent that the protection to his industry- 35 per cent-be maintained. The chairman asked the manufacturer where he procured his raw material, and he answered that his leather came from Brazil, his buttons from Concord, N.H., and certain other components from Italy and Turkey; in a word, all his raw material originated outside Canada. Yet he was asking that his protection of 35 per cent be maintained. The one and only thing that originated in Canada in connection with his gloves was the 'buttonhole.
Now, in contrast with a policy of that sort, I was pleased when it was stated in the budget speech that we should endeavour to encourage the inherent native industries of this country. In that regard I am heartily in accord with the sentiments expressed in the budget. But so far as the items of tariff reduction are concerned, I cannot see that much advance has been made in that direction. It is true that a reduction is made in the British preferential tariff; and with that I am thoroughly in accord. It is a policy which the Progressive party have always stood for, and which, in fact, is one of the planks in our platform. There has also been a slight reduction in the duties on agricultural implements-very slight, however, and offset, perhaps, largely by the sales tax. I admit that the Government have made some progress in the matter of the reduction of duties on agricultural implements, and I realize that if similar reductions were made yearly, in the course of five years a number of agricultural implements would be on the free list. But as I say, the sales tax largely takes away that apparent reduction. However, perhaps the sales tax is to be preferred to customs duties. The sales tax has one point in its favour: most of it is paid into the treasury of the country, whereas the customs tariff gives by way of protection two or three dollars in order to get one. In that respect I think the sales tax has some advantage over a customs tariff.
I want to deal briefly with some of the things which have been included in former budgets and might well, in my opinion, have been continued or revived in the budget of this year. An item which has been dealt with in previous budgets, for instance, and has been revived in this budget is the increased duty on automobiles. Those who were in this House a year ago will remember that the business profits

The Budget-Mr. Fansher
tax was dropped last year-a tax which did not become effective until after a certain percentage of profit on the money invested had been made. The investor was given a reasonable profit on his money, and certain percentages were collected by way of taxation as the profits grew. That tax brought in, during the five years that it was in operation, about $180,000,000; and there are some arrears to collect which may bring the total up to $200,000,000. When this tax was done away with last year, the sales tax was increased. I notice that no reference is made this year to the business profits tax or to its revival. It is said that this tax is now largely collected by the income tax. That may be true in some degree, but it is not wholly the case. The sales tax, as was pointed out to-day, is collected from the individual even if he has made no profit, even if he has sustained a loss of 10 or 15 per cent or more. On the other hand, as I have said, the business profits tax was not collected until after a reasonable profit had been made. In that connection I think there should have been a continuance of the business profits tax rather than an increase in the sales tax.
Now, in speaking on this budget I do not wish to be narrow in the views which I express. I believe that our national existence depends largely on our fiscal and trade policy. These must be such as to develop the inherent national resources of our country. We have had it made plain to us since this debate was opened that we have a large debt which, both as individuals and as a nation, we are in honour bound to discharge. I was somewhat surprised at the comment of the hon. member for King's, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) when he said that the only way to meet this deficit, the only way to discharge our debt, was by taxation.


James Joseph Hughes: Taxation or borrowing, I said.


Burt Wendell Fansher: Taxation or borrowing. If that is the only method we can employ, we shall fall short of discharging our debt. How are debts paid? I am a farmer and I am going to give an illustration from the farm. If a farmer has debts to discharge he must apply himself to the digging out of that soil something that he can put on the markets of the world with a view to producing a return with which he can discharge his debt. His investment is in the soil; he must get the return on his investment. He must use the best business
powers that he possesses; he must sell in the best market that he can obtain; he must economize, and with the amount that he receives in excess of the cost of production and shipment to the markets of the world, he discharges his debt. The same is true of a nation; we shall never get out of debt by simply developing those industries which are not native, not inherent to this country-industries which derive their raw material largely from outside of this country, as well as a good many of the things necessary in the process of converting those raw products into finished products that are of value. For instance, we import steel and iron ore from outside of Canada, and we import the coal with which to convert it into the finished article. At the same time we have in this country raw materials which might well be developed within our own borders, thus resulting in the development of our own country rather than of other countries the industries of which draw their raw materials from sources outside of Canada.
For the last twenty years we have followed a system of assistance to certain privileged industries, running all the way from 5 to 10, 15, 25 and 35 per cent. We have certain industries to-day which have a protection of 35 per cent. Now, when an industry is protected to the extent of 20 or 30 per cent, it is evident that some one must do the assisting.	Twentyfive per cent to an assisted industry must come from somewhere. It comes from the consumer; and 25 from and 25 to means a discrepancy of 50 per cent. We have industries that represent a discrepancy of as much as 70 per cent, as in the case of textiles and shoes, and we think it is unjust. How can the natural resources inherent to this country be developed and the people who are developing them prosper when they have to pay toll to other industries to that extent? It may be said that I am citing an extreme case. That may be so, but we find the average duty on all articles imported into this country to be about 21 per cent.	,
In this connection I should just like to refer to the announcement in the House the other day, which was greeted with applause, that a loan of $100,000,000 had been effected in New York at 5 per cent. That was a good return for the money, yet we have industries whose average protection is four times the return for the money. A concern that invests its money in these privileged industries has not only the percentage that the investment will draw, but


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I listened with some interest this afternoon to the remarks of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston). The hon. member being the Whip of the Progressive party, I presume that he speaks with some authority, and to a great extent, reflects the feeling of that party on this important question. I wonder how the hon. member will vote when the House divides on the amendment which has been moved? I venture to say that he will vote with the Government.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Have patience.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have wondered
many times why the hon. gentleman was
sitting on this side of the chamber at all; also why some others of the hon. members to my left are sitting where they now sit, and included in that number I would mention the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Soon after the general elections we were told that he was going to enter the present cabinet. I have been wondering why he did not do so instead of taking a seat on this side of the House. It is also worthy of note that the hon. member for Marquette refused to become the leader of the official Opposition; and this also has been a subject of wonder to me. I think possibly the explanation is that my hon. friend did not like the methods, nor did his colleagues like the methods, which were adopted by the Liberal party to get into office. What other explanation is there when we find that whenever there is a possibility of the Government being defeated the hon. member for Marquette comes to its assistance; and he can always count on the Progressive party giving the Government sufficient support to retain it in office.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Good sense.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was the hon. member in the House during the last parliament when the Crowsnest pass agreement came up for discussion?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, I was in the House at that time, as were some of the Progressive party including the hon. member for Marquette, and so far as my memory goes that hon. gentleman did not then do anything to support the stand which the Progressive party are now taking on that question.
The hon. member for Last Mountain said the tariff reductions were all right so far as they went, but they did not go far enough. I presume the hon. members who sit behind him entertain the same feeling- the tariff reductions are all right but they do not go far enough. Then my hon. friend proceeded to speak for western Canada. He said that western Canada was practically solid in its demand for a reduced tariff. I think the hon. member went even further and indulged in a veiled threat as to what would happen if reciprocity were not brought into effect. When my hon. friend presumes to speak for western Canada I think he is going pretty far; and I would advise the members of the Progressive party that beyond the Prairie provinces there is a very large and a very important province with great

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
natural resources; I refer to British Columbia. I think all the British Columbia members, irrespective of their political tendencies, would be inclined, if they had the courage to do so, to stand up and take issue with my hon. friend from Last Mountain on that question. I do not think that even among the Liberals there is one hon. gentleman who would have the hardihood to stand up here and support the bringing into effect of the 1911 Reciprocity pact; I would challenge any of them to do so.
Now British Columbia, as I have said, is an important province. When the hon. member for Last Mountain speaks about united action I take it that he would not advocate the adoption of an entirely selfish policy and the forcing on the rest of Canada of the wishes of the particular sections represented by his party and himself, and yet that is exactly what he is trying to do. British Columbia does not want reciprocity; I think I am safe in making that statement. The fertile portions of that province are too close to the international boundary for them to want reciprocity with the United States. They are absolutely opposed to it. I do not believe that during the last election any candidate of the Liberal party, or of any other party in British Columbia, had the courage to stand up before the electors and say that he favoured the 1911 Reciprocity pact. If that is so, and if reciprocity would not be a good thing for British Columbia, I submit it is only right and proper for this House to take into consideration that aspect of the case. As a matter of fact, British Columbia has done very well under the old Conservative policy. Last year the output of wealth from British Columbia amounted to the following very large sums:
Agriculture-$75,000,000 :
Livestock	 8,000,000
Dairy Products	 4,250,000
Apples, Peaches	 10,000,000
Small Fruits	 1,325,000
Hay, Wheat, Potatoes, etc.. 51,425,000
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Garland McQuarrie: When the House rose at six o'clock I was quoting certain figures relating to the production of British Columbia in certain respects. I shall now give the rest of the figures:
[Mi McQuarrie.]
	$ 3,155,140
Silver	 1,611,152
Copper	 4,127,312
Lead	 1,754,400
Zinc	 1,723,000
Coal	 11,432,644
Lumber	(estimated) .. ..	68,432,077
Pulp and Paper	 8,500,000
The fisheries returns are incomplete. The figures are:
Salmon	 $5,500,000
Halibut	 4,000,000
The manufactured products total $225,000,000, and the bank clearings, $1,000,000,000. The British Columbia resources have only been scratched. The manufacturing industry in that province is in its infancy. The question therefore naturally presents itself as to how reciprocity would affect British Columbia. I think I can say without hesitation that agriculture would be absolutely killed. This fact is admitted by farmers who formerly worked on the prairies, when they come to British Columbia-they admit that their ideas have undergone an entire change. I had supporting me during the last campaign a number of men who had formerly been farmers in the Prairie provinces. They did everything they could to elect me and they admitted that their views had completely changed, and that what they had thought was good for Canada when they lived on the prairies was absolutely wrong when applied to British Columbia.
I would suggest to the member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) and also his leader that they do a little travelling, come to British Columbia and inquire of the farmers there regarding agricultural conditions. I invited the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) previous to last election to come to British Columbia, but he did not do so. I suppose he realized the reception that would have been accorded him; he no doubt surmised what would have been told him had he gone there. So far as the farming industry is concerned, the people of British Columbia do not want reciprocity; and I am safe in saying that free trade would kill our manufacturing industry. Now, we look forward to a great future in British Columbia for our manufactories, and there is no reason why we should not, considering the vast extent of our natural resources.
The hon. member for Last Mountain, I fancy, will have to consider other places besides the Prairie provinces. He will have to take into account not only British Columbia, but other parts of Canada as

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
well. And who will say that other parts of Canada desire reciprocity any more than British Columbia does? I have heard it said that the province of Quebec is averse to free trade. So that the hon. member and others who hold views similar to his will have to reckon with the rest of Canada and turn for a moment from the contemplation of their own selfish interests and consider what will benefit the country as a whole. I stand, as my hon. friend does, for a united Canada; but you will never get a united Canada by thinking exclusively of one section. It is a right and proper thing, of course, that the farmers should be considered. The farmers represent one of the greatest industries in the country, and they deserve and should have every consideration. But we must bear in mind that there are other interests as well that require consideration at our hands. There is the manufacturing industry, for instance. There is possibly as much money invested in manufacturing in Canada as there is in farming, if not more; and there are almost as many men employed in the factories as there are engaged in farming.


Mr. EVANS:: What consideration would the hon, member give the farming population?


William Garland McQuarrie: They should get
every consideration, I take it. Now, I say to my hon. friend from Last Mountain that the manufacturers will also have to be considered. If you have free trade what is going to happen to the manufacturers of Canada? I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that, taken generally, the manufacturers would not be able to carry on under free trade, and the branches of United States concerns that are operating in Canada at the present time and employing so many men would immediately withdraw from the Canadian field altogether. If our manufacturers were seriously affected it would simply mean that a large number of workmen in Canada would be thrown out of employment.
The hon. member for Last Mountain said that three things were needed in Canada, the first of which, in his view, was immigration. Well, no doubt it is important that we have immigration, provided we have the right kind. I am not going to enter into the discussion of that subject now, or say anything about orientals, but it is exceedingly important that we get the right kind of people in Canada. The hon. member says that immigration will solve
the railway problem. Well, that is what the railways say, too. The Canadian Pacific Railway and other transportation companies think of nothing else but bringing more people into the country because they believe they can make money thereby. They advocate taking down the bars and letting everyone come in so as to build up the country. They want this in order that they may be able to pay dividends. That is all very well; but you have to think about the people who are here now. We must give them the first consideration. We have marching down to Ottawa now what is known as the McDonald Army of unemployed,,-returned men who are coming from Toronto to lay their claims before the Government for employment. What are we going to do for them? Our first consideration should be for the returned men; we must take care of them. In other parts of Canada there are returned men who are apparently in destitute circumstances. Last year in Vancouver one of the returned soldiers' clubs provided 3,000 men with clothing. This year there are as many more asking for clothing, and at the present time that association has advertisements in the newspapers asking that people who have winter clothing and other garments that they are now casting off should turn them over to the association in order that they may be given to those who are in need. Those are things to be taken into consideration. We ought first to provide employment for the men already in Canada before we think about bringing in others.
The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) has intimated that he does not like the amendment; indeed, he suggests that it is a piece of " political trickery." That will be his reason, I presume, for voting against the amendment, because really he criticises the Government for not carrying out their pre-election tariff pledges. In his opinion the Government are entirely wrong in disregarding those pledges, and therefore the budget is unsatisfactory. At the same time he is going to vote against the amendment because it is a piece of " political trickery." Well, I do not think anyone would question the honour or integrity of either the mover or seconder of this amendment. Even during the campaign, when occasionally some rather bitter expressions were heard, so far as I am aware no charges of dishonourable conduct were levelled against the leader of the Opposition.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
Let us examine the amendment and see if there is anything wrong with it. Does it contain any misstatement of fact? I suppose the hon. member for Last Mountain would have pointed out any such misstatement if he could, and his failure to do so may be taken as conclusive evidence that the terms of the amendment are correct. Therefore I submit that the amendment is a true statement of fact. The amendment recites part of the Liberal platform. I do not think any hon. member will take exception to the correctness of that recital. Then it is said that the Liberal party incorporated this platform in the official handbook which it issued. I do not suppose that will be denied, because the handbook speaks for itself. It is further stated that during the campaign the pledges contained in the platform were repeated on the hustings. I do not suppose that is disputed. It might have been added that in British Columbia, for instance, the Liberal candidates sent representatives around " on the side " to tell the people not to believe that the Liberal party was going to carry out its pledges, and to promise that there would be no free trade, no reciprocity, and no tariff reductions to any great extent. In confirmation of this those representatives said to the people in effect: You remember 1896? The Liberal party then made the same kind of promises, but when it came into power it forgot all about them. In any event I do not think that the accuracy of that part of the amendment can be disputed. The next paragraph is to the effect that the Liberal party having been returned to power does not carry out these pledges. Well, the hon. member for Last Mountain has criticized the Government for its failure to redeem these pledges. That statement, then, cannot be disputed. The last paragraph of the amendment states:
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.
If my hon. friend does not accept the accuracy of that statement, but, on the contrary, condemns this resolution as a piece of " political trickery ", then I wonder what are the standards of political honour of himself and of those who think as he does. I realize that all the hon. members who sit around him do not share his views, that there are members of his party who do think that our standard of political honour should be maintained. But my hon. friend

and those who agree with him in regard to this amendment say in effect: You should not call attention to little things such as broken political pledges or false pretenses; that is " political trickery ".


John Frederick Johnston: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish to misquote me. I did not use the word " trickery ".


William Garland McQuarrie: You withdraw the
word?


John Frederick Johnston: I
withdraw nothing. I did not use the word.


William Garland McQuarrie: You would not make such a statement?


John Frederick Johnston: I did not use the word; that is all.


William Garland McQuarrie: I apologize to the
hon. member. I forget his exact words, but I think the effect of them is just as I have stated. The only other question is: What is the moral code of the Liberal party? Well, we have had certain examples of it out in British Columbia. We have a Liberal government in power there, and it went into office on the strength of certain promises which were made to the electorate. I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of January 12, 1922. The Vancouver Sun, I might explain, is a Liberal paper and supports this administration. The editorial is headed, " Say it with flowers ", and is in these words:
John Oliver took over the Premiership of British Columbia on the death of hon. H. C. Brewster, and at a time when the provincial Liberal party had been placed in control of the British Columbia government as a result of a purity campaign waged by the Liberals.
No more stentorious apostle of purity ever went from one end of a province to another and waged vocal war on government by caucus, control of government, patronage by political gangsters, and collection of campaign funds in exchange for special privileges, than John Oliver.
It was all hypocrisy, for as soon as he got into party control, Mr. Oliver installed a system of oil-tight government by caucus and adopted bodily all the Conservative political evils he had so loudly denounced.
Political gangsters, who came to the Liberal government, were given unrestricted scope, subject only to coming through with campaign funds at election time. John Oliver has not neglected or omitted any political infamy likely to bring the Liberal party into disrepute, and that party has been brought into such disrepute by him and by the actions he has openly condoned, that the only possible first step towards a Liberal resurrection is to cut loose from John Oliver. This is the primary duty of the Liberal meeting on the 23rd instant.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Of course, in
the debate on the address or on the budget a considerable degree of latitude is allowed to hon. members, but I fail to see what connection there is between Mr. Oliver, premier of British Columbia, and the present amendment If the hon. member has any connecting link between the two, he should do well to bring it out at once. I do not think it is fair that the premier of British Columbia should be subject to attacks when he has nothing to do with the present amendment.


William Garland McQuarrie: I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to supply the missing link. If you will permit me to read the rest of this article I will show that it is quite relevant at the present time. (Reading):
This is the primary duty of the Liberal meeting on the 23rd instant.


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: In quoting the article from the Vancouver Sun my hon. friend would lead the House to believe that that newspaper was a supporter of the Liberal party in the provincial legislature. I think he should correct that, because it is well known that the Vancouver Sun is not a supporter of the provincial government.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Dominion Parliament, to the government in control of federal affairs. I will admit, as the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) has pointed out, that the Vancouver Sun does not support the provincial Liberal party. Through disgust at the practices and doings of that party from time to time, it has renounced the support which it formerly gave to it. (Reading) :
Gracefully but firmly John Oliver must be deposed and another leader selected. Address of grief at parting and banquet might be possible, but it will be better to just hand him a bouquet and let him go. Say it with flowers; and there will be no boomerang of public distrust,
Unless John Oliver is got rid of immediately, provincial Liberalism will be consumed utterly in the flame of public indignation,-which was hot before and is now at white heat under the abuses of the liquor traffic. Electors voted for government control of the liquor traffic, but John Oliver has handed political control to his gangsters who are degrading the province and actually rendering life unsafe.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has failed to produce the missing link. An attack on Mr. Oliver is not justifiable, is not relevant to the amendment, and I would ask the hon. member to kindly come back to the amendment.


William Garland McQuarrie: Very well, Mr. Speaker; I submit to your ruling. I would like to say also that as a result of some of the articles which this paper published, a libel action was instituted by the proprietor of the Vancouver World, which is now a Liberal organ, against the Vancouver Sun; the statements made in the Vancouver Sun were justified and the action taken by the Vancouver World was dismissed. Now, what was the statement that was made? The statement was that the provincial goverrfment had purchased from the president of the Provincial Liberal Association a warehouse site in the city of Vancouver at a price of something like ?58,000 more than it was really worth, and that afterwards this same gentleman bought out the Vancouver World, which had been a Conservative organ, and had changed it over into a straight, out-and-cut Liberal organ, which it is to-day. Now, what I am coming to-I promised, Mr. Speaker, to supply the missing link-was this: the hon. Prime Minister knew all about these happenings. Great publicity was given to everything in connection with these various scandals-and there were others. The Prime Minister knew all about them. .After the election, the Vancouver Liberals-who, of course, felt very badly because all the seats in Vancouver hac gone Conservative-wired the Prime Minister and congratulated him upon his being returned to office. The Prime Minister replied, comforting them in their defeat in Vancouver by saying that he quite appreciated the fact that conditions in Vancouver had been most unpropitious. Now, they have been very unpropitious, of course; and as a result of all these disclosures the then Attorney General of British Columbia had to resign-one of the ministers without portfolio-	, i


John Warwick King: If I may interrupt, I think it unfair that the hon. gentleman should make a statement of that kind. The Attorney General of British Columbia did not resign on any charges made by the Opposition, and that is well known to my hon. friend, who comes from British Columbia.


William Garland McQuarrie: My statement is that he did resign; the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) cannot contradict me in that. The Hon. Mrs. Ralph Smith resigned from the Cabinet-


Mr. FIELDING:: As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that you have al-
2238	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
ready given your ruling that the hon. gentleman should desist from discussing the affairs of the provincial government.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that he would produce the missing link, but he has failed to do so. I do not think it is fair that provincial ministers of the Crown should be subject to attacks in this House of Commons where they cannot defend themselves and more especially when the matter is not relevant to the amendment or to the main motion before the House. As I said a moment ago, in the debate on the address and in the budget debate, a certain degree of latitude is extended to the speakers. But hon. members must not abuse the privilege. In the present instance I think the hon. member has gone a little beyond the question, and that he should at once resume his speech and address himself to the subject before the House. British Columbia provincial politics have nothing to do with the question under debate.


Arthur Meighen: In that relation I do not wish to make any comment at all; we need to be fair at all times, aside wholly from the ruling. But I submit that on motion to go into supply the rule as to relevancy to the motion does not apply, nor does the interposition of an amendment make it apply.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit there is a wide discretion given, but in the statement that the rule of relevancy does not apply I do not concur for a moment. Thp rule of relevancy must apply at all times.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Give us the missing link now.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was just coming to that missing link.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: The missing
gink.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Prime Minister here knew about all these things, and what did he do? He took into his Cabinet a member of the Cabinet of the Hon. John Oliver, and he now sits here as Minister of Public Works. There you have the missing link. I have not one word to say against the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) I think he is a good man.
I want it to be distinctly understood that I am not criticising him in any way. Far from it; I admire his sagacity and political sense. He got out just at the right mo-' ment. After all the disclosures, he would no longer remain in that company.


John Warwick King: I think I should be allowed to correct an impression the hon. member may have given. Within the last two years the Oliver government has appealed to the people of British Columbia three times, and has been sustained on ah three occasions.


William Garland McQuarrie: How do they do it? They went up to Revelstoke-a small place on the railway-and the member for Revelstoke was made Minister of Public Works. Naturally the people of Revelstoke thought they were going to have everything fixed up, so they voted for him. Then up in the north they put in the Attorney-General because they wanted a lot of things up there, and down in Nelson they promised the people a road which they have been wanting for many years, a road that it will be impossible to build, but they said. "You put in our man, and we will give you this road." They absolutely bribed the electors of that country. I do not like to go too far. There are a lot of other things I could say in this connection but I will let things go just as they are as to this particular matter.
It has been argued here to-day that the reason why the Government has not carried out its pledges is because of the great national debt. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has expatiated on that theme to-day to quite an extent, and one of the members supporting the Government from Prince Edward Island has said that the national debt was so great that he really could not comprehend it. I wonder if he comprehended the extent of the national debt during the election campaign. Surely he must have known then the national debt was large. Surely he has not discovered it only since he came to Ottawa; his intelligence must be brighter than that. So we can come to the conclusion that, they knew during the election campaign that the national debt of Canada was very large, and knowing that, why did hon. gentlemen on the other side go on repeating their pledges during the campaign? The national debt of Canada is large, Of course it is, and something must be done; we all agree with that. The only question is, how is the money to be raised? I submit that if you take off the tariff duty and ruin the farmers in various parts of this country, ruin our manufacturers, and put hundreds of thousands of men out of employment, you are not going to pay off the national debt in that way. I submit that the amendment before the House is a proper one, and if the facts are as

The Budget*-Mr. Milne
therein stated, it is only right that such an amendment should be brought before the House.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I should just like to correct a wrong impression which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has given, namely, that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) did not go to British Columbia during the campaign because he was not wanted there, or something to that effect. I venture to say that not a man in eastern Canada to-day would receive a warmer welcome in British Columbia than the hon. member for Marquette, because although some people there may differ with him in politics, they respect him as a straightforward man, just as he is respected in this House on both sides.


Mr. ROBERT MILNE (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations, and if I wander from the subject I hope you will be good enough to draw my attention to it. I have listened very patiently in the House to try and get the broadest viewpoint possible, and I find that there is something sadly wrong with our fair Dominion. I do not know how to express it better than by saying that we have a sick country. Now what is the trouble with our country? As I believe, it is this: Our trade seems to be sluggish. We do not seem to have a sufficient amount of trade to make times prosperous. Our factories seem to have stopped running, for some reason or other. We seem to have a discontented people generally, and on top of all that we have a large number of unemployed throughout the country.
I have spoken of Canada as a sick country, but I want to say that she has a wonderful constitution. Her constitution is made up of her natural resources, including agriculture. From my observation in the past I would say that her constitution has been sapped for years, and is still being sapped, and if it were not an exceptionally good constitution we would have been bankrupt before to-day. The people have realized that things have not been going just as they should, and they have been employing different doctors at different times. We had Doctor Conservative for a while, and Doctor Liberal for a while, and still the patient did not seem to improve. I do not know just what the trouble is, but it looks to me as though we did not have the right medicine. Both the doctors have been applying practically the sams treatment, and still the patient continues to go down. To my mind, we need a new kind of medicine. I do not know exactly what is wrong with the old one, unless it is that one of its ingredients, the fiscal policy, has become too old and has spoiled, poisoning the other ingredients. We cannot expect the Dominion to get better as long as we administer the same kind of medicine. We need a new fiscal policy it seems to me; and I would suggest that if we adopt a sound fiscal policy and in connection with it introduce economy-a concentrated solution of economy-and administered it in large doses we may entertain the hope of improving the conditions in this Dominion.
I have been somewhat disappointed in the amendment which has been moved by hon. gentlemen to my right. Not being familiar with parliamentary procedure, I had supposed that when an amendment was introduced it was for the purpose of offering a better solution for the existing difficulties than was contained in	the
motion.	But the amendment does not
appear to be of that character. At least it does not have that look to the ordinary man from the wayside, if I may use the expression. Yesterday I overheard some old parliamentarians talking on the subject and they declared that the amendment was not a sound one either from the point of view of the statesman or from the point of view of the politician. Personally, I cannot see that the amendment contains any suggestions for improvement. And yet I think there is considerable room for raising the standard of political morals which, in the past, has been such that the confidence of the people has been undermined to a large extent. I claim that if a higher standard of morals had been inaugurated long ago the people would not have lost confidence in the public administration to the extent they have done. It is a very unfortunate thing that so many of our citizens throughout the Dominion have such little faith in either of the two oldtime political parties. In fact sometimes it would almost seem as if they had not faith in the Progressive party. To such an extent does this loss of faith exist that a large proportion of the people will not take the trouble to cast their votes at election time. Undoubtedly there is a change coming; when one wrong-doer accuses another it is an evidence that he is in a rather tight corner, and we may look for a confession from the accuser soon.
The Budget-Mr. Milne

Economy has been talked of here, but actions, not words, are needed. Economy should be practised not only under the federal government, but it should be given effect to all along the line. We should expect economy from our provincial and our municipal governments, and the individual citizen should practise dt also. Perhaps the nearer we get to the individual the greater extravagance we find; but that does not alter the fact that we must have economy in high places as well as in low places. To use a homely expression the federal government should take the bit in its teeth and press forward along the path of economy. The members of the House without exception should go to the country and preach economy from every rostrum they can find-economy not only for the next year, but for many years to come. Only by adopting a policy of that kind can we bring Canada back to where she should be.
As I listened to the budget, and later read it over and reflected upon it, I could not help wondering what our tariff policy was based upon. They tell us that the tariff is needed for the purpose of raising money; but; in my reading I have become more bewildered than ever in the endeavour to find out what the real basis of our fiscal policy is and how the rates imposed against goods coming into the country were arrived at. I have a few examples under my hand which may illustrate my point without an undue amount of talking. We find that yarn, composed wholly or in part of wool, pays a 30 per cent duty; and that yarn spun from mohair and alpaca is admitted free of duty. Now, for the life of me I cannot see why such fabrics as mohair and alpaca should not pay a duty when the ordinary every day wool, such as our people are compelled to use, has to pay one. We find that glass cut for the use of manufacturers for photographic purposes comes in free of duty; whereas common window glass is taxed. We go on down the list and we find that flannels, plain, not fancy, pay 35 per cent, and shirts and drawers 35 per cent. A little further down the list we see that raw silk and silk from the cocoon imported for the manufacture of silk underwear is admitted free of duty. We further find that in the reductions that have been made there is a 5 per cent reduction on collars and cuffs, and a 21 per cent reduction on shirts. I wonder, Sir, if the collars and cuffs are for the benefit of the new agri-
cultural immigrants that are expected to arrive in Canada?
Let me, in a word or two, show the unfairness of the tariff as between the manufacturer and the farmer. Now, I have no grudge against the manufacturer, absolutely none. What I stand for, and what the country expects, is fair play; but we find that the farmer in getting machinery to produce real wealth-and production from the soil is the creation of wealth-has to pay an average tax of about 15 per cent on his machinery, while he has to sell his products in the open markets of the world. The manufacturer, on the other hand, in a great many cases gets his raw material free of duty. For example rattan for furniture and baby carriages comes in free. It is the same with raw rubber; and when a manufacturer turns out his finished product it is protected at a figure in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent. I ask you, is it fair that one industry should get its raw materials free of duty and be protected on its finished product, whilst the other pays a duty on the implements it uses in producing real wealth and has to sell its products on the open market?
Now I have a few observations to make about the sales tax. I am not going to worry you with a lot of figures, but I will give you a concrete example, and for the purposes of my illustration I will take hon. members of the house. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) who sits beside me states that he has seven children so that his family, reckoning his wife and himself, numbers nine. I have only one child and so in my home there are but three persons. I understand that the Prime Minister is unmarried, therefore there is only one person to represent his home. I ask you, is it fair that the hon. member for Swift Current should pay nine times as much in taxation as the Prime Minister does?


Mr. McMASTER:: Tax the bachelors.


Robert Milne: Is it fair that the hon. member for Swift Current should pay three times as much taxation as I am paying? I will readily concede that he is doing more for his country than I am and yet he has to pay three times as much in taxation as I have to pay. I put it to you whether such a system of taxation is fair.
Referring to the farmer, I always have to look after him, although I do not pretend to seek any special favour .for him. I obtained my figures from the re-

The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Milne
turns made for income tax from a farm containing 317 acres under cultivation. In that return I find that the farmer has made actual purchases in connection with his farm operation-his binder twine, lubricating oil, small repairs and so on-to the amount of $544, which would be termed general expense. He paid a sales tax on that amount. I look down the list, and I find that he has fourteen months' board charged for hired men. I assume that $10 a month would not perhaps be too much to add for the actual groceries purchased for the hired men. That would mean that, in order to maintain his hired help, he would have to spend $140 in actual purchases. A little further down on the list I find an item of $4,506 for farm machinery, and that did not include his automobile. We are allowed a depreciation of 10 per cent. I think most people who make a study of the situation will admit that this is a fair depreciation. If the machinery depreciates to that extent, he would actually have to invest each year $450 to keep his machinery up to standard. That makes a total actual investment, which the farmer would have to make on that farm in order to maintain it, of $1,131.60. He pays a sale tax on those purchases of, I believe, 41 per cent. That means that he would have to spend $51.92 on the actual necessities to carry on farming operations. That does not include any purchases for his own living or pleasure or anything like that, but that amount is actually paid in order to carry on his work on the farm.
Let us compare a business man, or an office man who has a salary of from three to six, or eight to ten thousand a year, with the farmer to whom I have referred. The business man goes to his office. He has his lead pencils, pens and stationery supplied. Which of the two men pays the more? Is it fair that the man who is actually creating the wealth from the soil should have to pay this tax of $50 for the privilege of farming? I am taking the average farmer. The average man who is at any kind of office work, clerical or otherwise, does not require the same investment and gets off practically free of the sales tax. Is that a fair method? Is this tariff a fair way of raising money or of taxing people?
They tell us at every turn that we must have money, and that if we increase the income tax to raise money we are going to drive people away. Surely there is not a man in our Dominion who would leave the country if we increased his
sales tax in order to remove the tax from some of the bare necessities of life. Personally, for the sake of the poorer people in our country, I should like to see a budget brought down saying that we are going to allow the women and children of this country to buy coarse woolen clothes without a tax, so that they can keep warm, and that we are going to allow them to have all the oatmeal, prunes, rice and so on, that they require without paying a tax. If we take off this tax, I may be asked, where are we going to get the money to make up the loss? Surely, there is not a citizen in this Dominion who is receiving a salary of over $2,000 who would not be willing to pay a little more from his income, in order to be of assistance to those poor people.
The question has been asked "why don't you get after the farmers and get more money out of them by the income tax?" I am not going to ask favors for the farmers. If the farmers are eligible for taxation, if tfiey are making enough money to be taxed, I say "go after them and take it out of them." We do not want any special privilege-absolutely none. But from my observation through the country in the East and through the prairies, the most prosperous districts I have seen turn out to be golf links or bowling greens. You ask where the money is to come from. Tell me where the money is and I will tell you where to go for it. There is absolutely no use in trying to bleed a stone. You say the sales tax is an invisible tax and people do not know anything about it. There is no question in the world that every five cents added to the cost of a pair of shoes is a burden to our poor people, and they can only stand so mu'ch. The money has to be raised, and we have to go where it is in order to get it.
I said in the opening that agriculture and our natural products were the foundation of our Dominion. I say-and I was convinced of it before I came here, and I have heard it a great many times since- that agriculture and our natural products are the mainstay of our country. We might as well try to put the weather vane on the top of this tower before it is finished as to try to stimulate our artificial industries before we solve the diffi-
9	p.m. culties that beset our natural industries. I say that the tariff is not a fair one. I want a tariff that will deal with and tax all classes of people and industries of the country in a fair way, and that is according to their ability to pay. I stand for the principle of a fair tax for all classes.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: The budget seems to me to be simply one more demonstration that there is no essential difference between the two old parties. Perhaps, if we look at the matter from the historical standpoint, we should hardly expect that there would be any great difference between the two. We remember that the old Conservative party arose originally as the political expression of the landed proprietors of Great Britain. Later on the Liberal party arose as the political expression of the rising trading classes of the towns, and still later, after the industrial developments, of the manufacturing class of Great Britain. And naturally there arose a conflict of interests between these two groups. The one, the agricultural proprietors, stood in those days for protection; they wished to be protected against the importation of free goods, especially wheat, from the outside. On the other hand, the trading classes wished to be enabled to go into all the world and trade freely, and that was the origin of the free trade policy of the Liberal party of Great Britain.
Here in this country the situation has been entirely different; and to a very considerable extent these old terms, " Liberal " and " Conservative, " have designated simply, as has been well recognized, two political groups which were not fundamentally different in .policy. It is quite true that the Liberal party has followed, more or less the traditions of the older Liberal party of Great Britain. And there are a few very honourable exceptions, of those who are still very firmly convinced that the Liberal principles are absolutely correct, and who try to do the impossible thing, of holding to those principles in an age when the original conditions that produced them have entirely passed away. But we find that it has happened several times in this country that when a Liberal government has succeeded a Conservative administration it was almost inevitably driven to adopt similar fiscal policies. In the past the great masses of the people were very largely without political expression. Of course, up until a hundred years ago in the Old Land, it was an unheard of thing that the ordinary rank and file of workers should have even a vote. The first man who attempted to propagate the idea that the ordinary people should have the franchise was haled before the courts and charged with sedition. Gradually the common people obtained the vote, but it was
	|
very slowly that they began to have any opportunity of giving expression to the needs of the rank and file. For a long time they could elect either Liberals or Conservatives, and that was all. In Canada it has been pretty nearly the same. It was only within the last few years that, for the first time, we had, among the agricultural workers in Canada, a certain number of people who understood that the agricultural interests were entirely different from those of the business classes, whether those classes called themselves Liberals or Conservatives. It is in even more recent years that the Labour people, who form a very considerable part of the population of this country, have begun to understand that it is necessary that they too should give political expression to their views, and to realize that their policies are entirely different from those of the business classes which are represented more or less by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
From our standpoint, as Labour people, it seems as if the budget which has been presented to Parliament places the financial interests of the country before those of the common people. I do not intend to enter upon any detailed criticism of the budget, but I want to emphasize the view that the sales tax is inherently vicious in principle. I fancy that the thoroughgoing members of the old Liberal school will agree with me that any tax levied in this way, which falls very largely on the consumers, is essentially vicious in principle. Now, we have 'had it stated within very recent days by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that we are to have an immigration policy which will bring in large numbers of children from the Old Land. Personally I cannot approve of a policy which contemplates introducing into this country children gathered up more or less from the streets of the cities of the Old Country. I would suggest that we take a lesson from our farmer friends, who are very much more careful about the selection of their seed grain and their stock than we are about the selection of our human stock. But we are bringing in these children from the orphan homes of the Old Land, and at the selfsame time are continuing a policy that makes it impossible for a great many people in this country even to hope to have homes of their own where they can bring up their families.
Reference was made by the last speaker (Mr. Milne) to the fact that this tax bears most heavily on those who are trying to

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
rear families. Some of us know what it is to buy boots and clothing for children and to provide a family with the ordinary necessaries of life. It is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in the cities, for the ordinary labouring men, who compose a very large proportion of the population, to provide even the barest necessities. I am speaking not merely of those men that work with their hands. I think, as well, of the clerks in the shops and offices, and I think of our own civil servants, many of whom to-day are obtaining smaller wages than the amount which the Department of Labour says is essential for the maintenance of even a minimum standard of living. Some of our civil servants are receiving a smaller remuneration even than the amount paid in my own city of Winnipeg to those who are assisted by the relief department of the city. And yet, with that condition prevailing in this country, we are adding taxes that will have to be paid by these people who are drawing such meagre wages and who to-day are finding it the greatest struggle to make both ends meet. I suppose this fiscal policy is but a part of the whole policy of the present administration. There is nothing here that in any sense will provide for releasing the energies of the people and thus guarding against the unemployment that is so rampant. Rather, we have a reversal to the old policies with which we have been familiar for a great many years. It would seem very much as if the present administration were attempting to carry out the policy which the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway announced about a year ago when he said that it was absolutely essential that we should have a larger immigration to this country for two reasons:	First, that we
should have people who would help bear the burden of taxation; second, people who would help feed the railroads.
Now, that appears to be the policy of the present administration. They are bringing in people to help us bear our taxes-not a very kind policy for the immigrants-and to help feed the railroads. Surely that has been one of our policies for a great many years. The administration seems to be bankrupt in ideas and incapable of formulating any new policy that will really meet the situation with which we in Canada, in common with the people in many other countries, find ourselves confronted at tLfi present time.
There are no real economic changes proposed so far as I can see. It simply means that we are going to continue a principle which has been followed for a good many years, namely, that of drifting and financing by fresh borrowings. In our ordinary private business affairs if we have to borrow money to meet even the interest charges on sums already owing we think ourselves in a bad way; yet that is precisely what we as a nation have been doing for some years. There is a painting in the Canadian National Gallery by George Ag-new Reid, called "Mortgaging the Homestead." Some of us remember how in our earlier days it was considered to be one of the most serious steps that any family could take when it had to mortgage the old homestead. But I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that is precisely what we are doing as a nation: we are mortgaging the old home which our forefathers left to us.
Unfortunately we are mortgaging our home to no small extent to outsiders. Two years ago the Mining and Engineering Record gave the following figures with regard to the ownership of some of our great industries:
Americans control 95 per cent of the mining investments in Canada; 100 per cent of the pulp and paper investments in western Canada; 75 per cent of the lumher industries, and 75 per cent of the fisheries.
A few years ago all these industries belonged to Canada; to-day from 75 to 90 per cent of them are in the hands of foreign capitalists. On January 28, 1920, one of our western papers, the Winnipeg Free Press, stung by the fact that it could not obtain paper from an American company on terms which it thought equitable, printed the following editorial:
If there is money in it for the capitalist, ship our coal out of Canada to the highest bidder and let the Canadian people freeze; ship out our lumber and leave the people houseless; ship out our pulp and paper and leave them without newspapers, and so on all down the line. The fact that in all these cases the products are primarily the property of the people themselves would make no difference to the Gazette. On with the business of exploitation! The sacred system by which millionaires are turned overnight into multi-millionaires must not he tampered with.
The particular phrase to which I should like to call the attention of hon. members is that, "the products are primarily the property of the people." Yet they have been sacrificed in the interests of a comparatively small group. Let me quote from a publication recently issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The article

2244	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. 1 Voodsworth
is headed, "Canada as a field for British branch industries," and it contains the following:
A significant feature of post-war development in Canada is the part played by the United States. The United States for many years past has entered into the development of Canadian resources, supplying both capital and labour and establishing industries on the Canadian side of the border. The nickle and asbestos production of Canada is largely in the hands of American companies. Many of her timber products and a proportion of pulp and paper production are also American. There are in all over six hundred United (States branch factories or subsidiaries in the Dominion, among which may be cited the International Nickel Company Limited, the Montreal Locomotive Works, Limited, the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company Limited, the International Harvester Company, Limited, the Canadian General Electric Company, Limited, subsidiaries of the International Paper Company, the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, General Motors, Limited, and the Stude'baker Corporation of Canada. Canada owes much to American initiative, capital and immigration.
There we have a statement as to how gradually American capital is coming^ in and gaining control of our great industries. The same is true with regard to stocks and bonds. Let me quote from the same publication:
Stocks, bonds and other securities held by incorporated and joint stock companies engaged in the manufacturing industries of Canada in 1918: Par values: total owned in Canada, $945,443,658; in Great Britain, $153,757,825 ; in the United States, $554,943,177 ; total in other countries, $17,221,322.
That is 34 per cent of all these stocks, bonds and securities are owned in the United States. Appended to this statement in this note:
When the compilation of 1920 figures is complete it may be found that the 34 per cent shown in the first table as the proportion held by United States capitalists in Canadian industries has increased to nearly 50 per cent, and that the British percentage has increased little or not at all.
One other quotation in this same connection, which goes into detail in regard to the ownership of the stocks and bonds of our industries. I shall quote only the percentages of these stocks and bonds owned by United States capitalists; they are as follows:
Lumber, 27 per cent; pulp and paper, 24 per cent: agricultural implements, 31 per cent; meat packing, 41 per cent; rubber, 50 per cent; patent or proprietary medicines, 86 per cent; automobiles, 61 per cent; car construction, 59 per cent; artificial abrasives, 99 per cent; automobile accessories, 93 per cent; brass and copper castings, 44 per cent, and so on all down the line.
We may say that we own, or that Great Britain owns this country, but I submit,

Mr Speaker, that if our natural resources are owned by great American companies, and our stocks and bonds by American syndicates, our ownership is a very empty possession. I may claim to own a house, but if that house is mortgaged for almost its entire value, my ownership is a very empty thing indeed. A good many of us are reduced to the position where we have to turn over the greater part of our income to the men who hold the mortgages; and it would seem as if in Canada we are rapidly coming to that position where we have to turn over a very considerable amount of our national income to people who live outside of this country. The latest loan placed would seem to be no exception to this rule. We had to negotiate a loan of $100,000,000 on the other side of the line, which simply means that we shall continue to pay interest across the way. If a Canadian should manage to acquire some part of that loan, as long as he remains in Canada he is taxed, but if he establishes a residence in the United States he will, apparently, be free from taxation. That is a point which I hope will be discussed when we come to that particular item.
But I would suggest that not all the mortgages are held outside of Canada. There has been in the past few years a remarkable shifting of the wealth of this country from a large group to a comparatively small group. I wonder if I may be permitted very briefly to run through some of the outstanding stages in the history of this country by which our lands and publie resources have been gradually alienated. We remember that when our forefathers came to Canada and carved out for themselves homes here, the whole of this land was owned by the Crown. Possibly we might make exception and admit that there were certain trading rights conceded to the Hudson's Bay Company and that to that extent a private organization had a sort of mortgage on the country. But on the whole, all our resources were publicly owned; and had our policy been a true one, those resources and the organizations which have been built up upon them would still remain in the hands of the public. But what have we done? In the first place, the earlier fur traders exploited the Indians and out of the money they made were able to acquire other natural resources in this country. We all remember the earlier ecclesiastical and feudal grants which were made. It may seem unneces-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
sary to review past history, but when we come to study some of the older cities in this country, we find that the present landlords are the successors of those who acquired lands in this way from the Crown in the early days. This was under the French regime. Then, under British rule, there came the granting of huge tracts of land. Lord Dufferin stated that in Ontario almost one-half of the lands then surveyed had been given away. In Quebec over half the lands were given away, and so with the other older provinces. It is not my purpose to enter into a discussion of the alienation of lands as clergy reserves and under the administration of the Family Compact, and, later, the giving of huge blocks of land in the settlement of the Hudson's Bay Company's claims. Why do I recall this past history? Because I would like to show, if I could, that the earlier fortunes of Canada were gained out of the fur trade, out of the grants of Crown lands to the pioneer settlers, and that in this way these resources which ought to have been held in trust for the whole of the people have been secured by a very few of the people.
Then, after that earlier pioneer period, our railway systems began to develop, and we have again the building up of huge fortunes. It would be a comparatively easy thing to enumerate the shareholders or directors or promoters of these earlier railway companies; in a very great number of instances the men who are prominent in our industrial and financial affairs of to-day are descendants of the men who made their fortunes by securing lands and other resources from this country without giving the community any equivalent. I am going to venture to quote a paragraph from David Mills which, illustrates the reckless way in which our franchises were given away in those early days:
"Corruption taints the majority of railway enterprises from their inception to completion," wrote David Mills, a member of the Dominion Parliament, and later Dominion Minister of the Interior. "Charters are sought, not infrequently, for the purposes of speculation. Sometimes they are used to blackmail existing railway lines. However much a railway road is needed, a charter is seldom obtained without difficulty, and stock is bestowed for parliamentary support. The names of wellknown railway men are sought to give credit to the projected enterprise, a number of shares are tendered them for their 'eminent services', and they are seldom declined.
"When a railway scheme is finally launched, it finds a large number of friends-engineers and professional contractors, the owners of rolling mills, and the builders of cars and loeo-
143i
motives. The getters of land grants, and the traders in railway stocks, all come to its aid, and it may be, experience its bounty. These constitute the grand army of a private railway enterprise.
"Besides these, there is a numerous band of camp followers, who expect in a variety of ways 'to reap where they have not sown', but about whose special services nothing need be said. It is this numerous host of allies and followers which ' can kill or keep alive ' a railway project, and because they have this power, must be paid, that add to the cost of every rival railway undertaking." In his article Mills but stated a further well-known faot when he wrote: " In order to pay interest upon bonds or dividends upon stocks, a road is allowed to deteriorate. Then come accidents, in which scores of passengers are mangled or scalded."
That was the beginning of our railway enterprise; thus we had built these earlier lines which were afterwards incorporated into the great transcontinental systems. I do not need to read at length from tlhe Drayton-Acworth report, but you will remember the immense sums which were given to the privately owned roads. We have been almost staggered during recent weeks in hearing about the enormous amounts which it will be necessary for us to raise in order to carry on our publicly owned railroads. We must not forget the way in which these huge debts were incurred; we must not forget the enormous grants which have been made by this country right along to construct our railroads. The total public assistance direct or indirect, to the Canadian Northern amounted, according to the Drayton-Acworth report, to $298,253,263. To the Canadian Pacific there were enormous grants, as well as to the Grand Trunk and to the Grand Trunk Pacific-and land grants as well. The people of Canada through their government have provided or guaranteed the payment of sums totalling $968,451,737-almost a billion dollars, and upon these huge sums we are asked to-day to pay interest. You may say: Very well; this is past history; we have to start from the beginning. But we cannot start from the beginning; we have no right to start from the beginning. If you really want to go to the beginning, you have to go back to the time when this country was free. In Great Britain you remember there came at one period of her history the enclosure of the common lands, one of the most outrageous proceedings in the history of any country-when certain descendants of the feudal lords who had previously recognized certain responsibilities respecting the rights of their peasant population undertook to fence these lands which had been regarded as common lands
2246	COMMONS
The Budget

Mr. Woodsworth
and to appropriate them and their revenue for their own purposes. We have had in Canada, this new, young country of ours, a much more outrageous proceeding than that of the alienation of the common lands cf Great Britain. We have had "the alienation of millions upon millions of acres of land and of the most valuable natural resources of this country, so that to-day the greater part of these are in the hands of private individuals, and now we are told that the public has no claim upon them. I need not go into the more recent alienation of our public resources. During the last few years I have been living more or less in British Columbia, and any one who knows the conditions there knows how recklessly our natural resources of timber and mines have been forfeited in that province, so that to-day the people practically have no control either of the better agricultural districts or of the mining or timbering properties.
We find here, referring again to the pamphlet which I have already quoted, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, a note with regard to the expansion of industry in this country:
The day of the manufacturer had dawned, and in 1912 the future of Canadian industry was looming large. The growth of the domestic market demanded expansion of domestic manufactures, but this expansion went further and made itself felt in greatly increased export.
Here again the people in Canada and their welfare was sacrificed in the interest of the larger manufacturers who were benefiting by these exports. The document proceeds:
The era of large business had begun and merger succeeded merger, with resultant increase in production. Industrial capital increased rapidly, from $445,000,000 in 1900 it rose to $1,247,000,000 in 1910 ; to nearly $2,000,000,000 in 1915, and to $2,787,000,000 in 1917.
Let me ask where did all this great amount of money come from? It came out of the primary producers of this country. There was no other place from which it could come; matters were so arranged that the greater part of this property was acquired by a few individuals. We find that instead of the numbers of establishments increasing, they decreased proportionately. In 1900 there were some 14,650 firms that produced a product valued at $481,053,375. By 1915 there were hardly a thousand more firms, but the value of the product had increased to $1,381,547,225.
We all know without my entering into a discussion of it how in connection with these mergers which have been going on in

recent years, there has been considerable of the process which is commonly known as watering stock. We all know how in recent years enormous fortunes have been made out of the rise in real estate values, and we know that these values, which are essentially community values, have gone into the hands of comparatively small groups, and that these enhanced values and this over-capitalization remains a perpetual mortgage on the productive industries of the country.
I can go on to show how gradually our financial organizations have been concentrated. Take, for instance, the banks. According to the statement issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, we had 18 banks having total assets of $3,091,500,000. I suppose there are only 17 of these banks to-day, but they have these enormous assets. Next in financial importance to the chartered banks are the trust companies, of which there are about 25, either independent in operation or affiliated with one or other of the chartered banks. Their operations do not conflict with legitimate banking as they are almost wholly confined to trusteeship and the management of estates. Few of us perhaps except the financiers themselves realize just how far the banks really control the industrial concerns of the country to-day. As an illustration of this, let me take the grain trade in which a good many members of this House are more or less directly interested. I quote a paragraph from the report of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange for this past year, 1921:	[DOT]
Owing to the immense volume of grain marketed, and to the fact that practically all of the business is done on credit, banks have a primary interest in the system of marketing. Not many grain merchants or companies have sufficient capital of their own with which to do a large volume of business.
Let me say in passing that this throws a very important light on the real reason why the farmers of this country are asking for a wheat board. To continue:
All of them have to borrow large sums of money from the banks, or have large lines of credit, to enable them to do business. It is not generally realized that from the moment the farmer sells his wagon-load of wheat, or gets an advance upon it, the wheat is virtually owned by the banks. Indeed, one might go further and say that from the moment the farmer parts with his wheat at the local shipping point, the banks become the owners of it, and the banks remain the owners of it until it is eaten as bread by the consumers. Elevator companies, track buyers, commission merchants, shippers, exporters, mills and bakers are financed by banks, and in their relation to the

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
grain they are not much more than the agents of the banks that finance them.
That is the point that we must consider here. The capital of this country has become very highly centralized, and this high degree of centralization gives the financial institutions practically the control not only of the commercial and industrial enterprise of this country, but indirectly, of the very life of the labour people of this country.
Now let me go on to the later forms by which the people of this country have been exploited. I come to the war itself. We all know that some fortunes were made even during the South African war, but when we come to the Great War, there was never a more magnificent opportunity for the profiteer. It is not my purpose tonight to say anything with regard to the war contracts scandals* I think that they are fresh in the memory of any man who has ever attended a political meeting during the last few years in this country. We know the huge fortunes which were made during the war time. We know from the revelations which were given to this country by the Committee on the High Cost of Living how certain individuals and corporations were enabled to profiteer even during the time that their fellow citizens were laying down their lives in France. We know that these fortunes were made. Some of them, perhaps, have been sacrificed since; others of them are still held, and there has been no effort made by the incoming government, so far as I can see, to recover from the profiteers that blood money which they laid up during the time of the war. That has been -a great disappointment to some of us, because we recognize the opportunities that were granted to the incoming administration. What happened during the war? The administration of that time made it comparatively easy for men to make large sums. Professor O. D. Skelton, of the Department of Economics at Queen's University, is responsible for the statement made towards the close of the war:
In the four years of war Canada has met only 6 per cent of the direct principal cost of the war out of surplus revenue, as against 20 per cent met by the United Kingdom, while the United States has met the extraordinary proportion of 44 per cent the first year.
Then as to the incidence of taxation, Profesor Skelton shows that in the United Kingdom 81 per cent of the taxes were paid on property and income, and only 19 per cent on consumption. What was the condition in Canada? In 1913-14, nothing in the form of taxation on property and
income; 100 per cent paid out of consumption. In 1914-15 nothing paid on property and income; 100 per cent out of consumption. In 1915-16, 1 per cent on property and income; 99 per cent on consumption. In
1916-	17, 8 per cent on property and income; 92 per cent on consumption. In
1917-	18, 11 per cent on property and income and 89 per cent on consumption. Great Britain is said to be a conservative country owing to the fact that she has such a considerable part of her population who are property owners and who have large fixed incomes; and yet in Great Britain, 81 per cent of the taxes were taken out of property and income, while in Canada, and that only in the last year of the war, 11 per cent of the taxes came out of property and income.
How did we do our war financing? We borrowed and we borrowed more instead of paying as we went as we might have done-for it is a well known truth of economics that we as a nation produce every year almost as much as we consume-we went through the financial jugglery, known as "borrowing". The food, and clothing and ammunition which was needed during the war was produced during the war. The high financing which we did at that time was, after all, a matter of book-keeping by which a comparatively limited group of people obtained a strangle hold on the rest of the country. I think I may obtain confirmation of my statement on this point from a pamphlet issued by the right hon. Sir Thomas White, Minister of Finance from 1911 to 1919 entitled "The Story of Canada's War Finance". I quote two short paragraphs:
This view overlooks the fact that our War Loans were really subscribed by the public from the savings made during the War itself. There is real truth in the statement that was made frequently by economists that nations pay for Wars as they go along. Productive enterprise is, of necessity, greatly stimulated. This, coupled with the constantly increasing rise in wages and in the prices of commodities, produces an enormous amount of credit, or money so called, which finds its way into the pockets and the savings accounts of the public. This money is available for subscriptions to government loans. On the other side of the national account is the vastly increased public debt representing the money expended for the equipment of the nation's forces, the food consumed by them during the course of the War, and the immense amount of ammunition used in the field. The burden of the debt created is passed on to future generations as a legacy and reminder of the waste of war.
And again:
From the national standpoint, it is of the utmost advantage that so large a proportion of
2248	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
our War Debt is held by the Canadian people themselves. I hesitate to think ot what our position would be if we had borrowed, and were still owing', externally, even half the amount of our war debt. We should be kept in economic servitude through adverse exchange for a generation to come.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on this passage which I believe is sound economics. Sir Thomas confesses that nations pay for wars as they go along. He confesses that our war loans were really subscribed by the public from the savings made during the war itself. Now, here is the situation which we have to face: We were told that the whole of this people ought to throw itself into the great war. We were told in those days that there ought to be equality of sacrifice. - Certain men went over to the front and lost their lives. Others went and gave the very best of their livei. Others stayed at home and put forth their best endeavours for the national welfare at that time; and on the other hand a small proportion of the population stayed at home and made hay while the sun shone-they coined money while their brothers sacrificed. The money that was "made" and put into war loans was made out of the war itself-let that sink into the minds of the people of this country-and we to-day have the right to say whether those people shall, or shall not, retain their ill-gotten gains. I think of some of the men who have returned from the front broken in health, broken in fortune. I think of several hundred of them who are reported to be marching on Ottawa at the present time in the hope that they will be able to present their case to this House. Have these men no claim upon the resources of this country? By the very budget that has been presented to us at this time those men, every time they buy a pair of shoes, or a coat, or a shirt to wear and every time they attempt to support any dependents that they may have, are asked to contribute still further to that war. And where does their money go? The greater part of their money, paid through taxes, goes to the very people who profiteered at the time they were fighting in France. I for one cannot conceive that the returned men across this country are going to tolerate that condition of things very much longer. Sir Thomas White says that it is a splendid thing that this money is not owed to people outside of Canada- that it is owed to the people in Canada. From my standpoint-and I think I can speak for a very large number of the common people of this country,-it does not make very much difference whether 
the money is held by some great corporations in this country or outside, or by wealthy people in this country or outside, the fact is that the poorer people of Canada are compelled to pay interest on these war loans to others who have not, up to the present, been required to make anything like an equality of sacrifice.
In an article published on April 1st in Maclean's Magazine the writer, Mr. John A. Stevenson, calls attention to the enormous burdens which we have placed upon our shoulders in this country, not merely by the federal taxation, but by this taxation, supplemented by provincial and municipal taxation. He has estimated that the federal taxation amounts to $435,000,000, the provincial taxation to $90,000,000, the municipal taxation to $350,000,000, a total of $875,000,000. That means that we have a taxation burden in this country of $100 per head, or, taking a family of five, which is not a very high average, we have a taxation burden of $500 per family. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have to face in the near future the ultimate and final solution of these huge debts which we have accumulated. Personally, I can see nothing for it but repudiation or a capital levy. Some people do not like that word "repudiation." In the case of those who own large fortunes which were made during the war, I take it that it would be a highly just thing to repudiate. It would simply be the country taking back what the country ought never to have given away or allowed to be taken away. We do not call it repudiation when a man has stolen a large amount and the state comes along and takes it back. I recognize of course the practical difficulty that a certain amount of this money has shifted from one person to another, and that we cannot very well, in all cases at least, lay our hands on the war profiteers, but we can place our hands on those who, to-day, have the ability to give, and a just system of taxation surely ought to be placed on ability to pay. In Great Britain they are already advocating a capital levy. That simply means an extension of the present principle of taxation. It has long been recognized as the right of the state to step in and tax. The income tax is a recognition that the state may take a certain percentage of the income. We have heard a good deal in Canada about what splendid people the labour people in Great Britain are, and how constructive they are in their policies. Let me remind hon. members that in the draft programme prepared several

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
years ago for the British Labour party it was suggested that the income tax should begin at 1 shilling in the pound and rise to 19 shillings in the pound. This afternoon some figures were quoted that showed that in the case of very large incomes the taxation already amounted to almost half the income. Great Britain-Conservative old Great Britain, as we sometimes call that country-has gone a great deal further than we have in taxing large incomes. We have gone a very small distance in succession dues, in inheritance tax. Why should we allow large fortunes to be passed on by one individual to his heirs? We all recognize the responsibility of a man to provide as well as he may for his immediate dependents, and arrangements could very well be made by which dependents could be provided for up to a certain amount, but I think it is generally conceded that it is no kindness to the heirs to leave them huge fortunes. As far as the public is concerned, since the individual does not pass on the food and clothing to his children, it simply means that, in some way, he passes on to his children the right to collect food and clothing and other necessities and comforts of life from the rest of the community. That is, he passes on to his children a mortgage which the rest of the community has to pay. We shall at some time have to recognize that no man has the right to mortgage a generation as yet unborn. That is precisely what we are doing in allowing huge fortunes to be passed on, as we have done and are doing.
Before passing away from the war loans, I desire to point out another inherent evil of the system. We have been depending on certain standards of value which are not constant. While the war was on and the people obtained their loans, a hundred dollars represented, we will say, 50 bushels of wheat. A hundred dollars to-day, we will say, represents 100 bushels of wheat. This simply means that not only are those war loans free of taxation, but they have to be paid twice over. Is that a proposition which we are willing to accept for ourselves and our children? Sooner or later we must recognize that we are coming almost to a standstill in our industrial enterprises. Our railroads and our banks claim the right to their dividends. People engaged in industries say they cannot get along without their profits. On the other hand, we have an ever increas-
10	p.m. ing number of people on the very verge of starvation. Unless we can in some way alter the system, or introduce another system in its place, we are going to see tens of thousands of our fellow-citizens going down and under. I submit that the Government exists to provide for the needs of the people, and when it comes to a choice between profits and property rights on one hand and human welfare on the other, there should be no hesitation whatever in saying that we are going to place the human welfare consideration first, and let property rights and financial interests fare as best they may. That is the only position we can consistently take. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in closing his remarks the other day made reference to labour and he said:
If labour at times seems to be unreasonable, let us not forget that in the days that have gone, too often the workingman, so called, did not receive a fair share of the wealth which his labour created; too often he saw his employer grow rich and prosperous while the workingman had little more than an existence. There has been a happy change in this respect.
I would like to ask, on behalf of the working man, when this change came about. At the present moment, with nearly 200,000 men out of work, and with some millions, presumably, of dependents involved in this unemployment, is the working man to-day getting much more than a mere subsistence? I speak not merely on behalf of <the manual workers, but on behalf of others who are receiving wages, and the lower paid salaried men. Are they getting much more than a mere subsistence? They cannot get anything else, unless we make fundamental economic changes. The Minister of Finance goes on to say:
But he has duties to perform. Labour has come to a sense of its power. Has it come to a sense of the responsibility and duty which should always accompany power?
Has Labour come to a sense of its power? Well, so long as there are two representatives in this House out of 235 members, I do not think it can be contended that Labour has come to a sense of its political power. When it does there will be a different kind of budget, I can promise you that. When we consider that Labour, of hand and brain, in shop and in office, composes a great proportion of the population of the country, we must recognize that it has not come to a sense of political power; and when we consider the state of labour organizations from coast to coast we cannot very well say that Labour has come into economic power. Rather the position has already come about which was referred to

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
by Sir Thomas White. He said that if we owed these huge sums to people outside of the Dominion we should be kept in economic servitude for a generation to come. I submit that even although we owe the money to people in Canada the great majority of the people in this country are still subject to what can properly be termed "economic servitude." That is the thing we have to face. There is no use expressing pious wishes that Capital and Labour should get together unless we also say on what basis they are to do so. If the Minister of Finance says that they must come together on the basis of dividends for the railroads, of interest and dividends for the banks, and of big profits for the manufacturing concerns, while the labouring men of the country are on the verge of starvation, then I say Labour and Capital can never come together. I do not like to personify Capital, because it is so impersonal a thing, while the labourer is a creature of flesh and blood. But if those who represent Capital, on the one hand, and the labouring classes, on the other, are to get together with a view to solving the labour and social problems of the country, we must first of all see to it that there are certain minimum standards involving proper conditions of livelihood for every man and woman and child in the country. And until every man, woman and child is so provided for we ought not to talk further about profits and dividends. Before we can get our labour and social problems solved the great mass of the people must have, what they have not to-day, a real voice in the control of their own affairs and of the affairs of the country. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that any government, Liberal or 'Conservative, is going to be able to carry on very much longer in this country and put forward budgets such as that which has been presented by the present administration.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead) :: If the concluding remarks of the last speaker, Mr. Woodsworth, were true, it would indeed be a gloomy day in Canada. But the debate, so far as it has gone, seems to me to reflect a spirit of optimism. We know that an appalling debt has been piled up, particularly during the war period, and as stated by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) in his lucid remarks this afternoon, we must be taxed to the limit to discharge that debt. The worst feature of the situation is that the debt is growing, and I presume that this is what is creating 
a feeling of despondency on the part of certain hon. members. But the debate is not marked by the same acrimonious spirit that formerly prevailed, and censure is not indulged into so great an extent as was the case in years gone by. The situation calls for the serious thought of everyone, and there is not so great a tendency to indulge in political fighting. No one charges the late government with misconduct, and I will go no further than to say that they made serious mistakes. They certainly made a grave blunder in lending money to European countries that were not solvent; and they made a mistake in allowing the Food Control Board to continue the embargo on sugar, with the result that the people suffered to the extent of some $30,000,000; because the consumers had to pay in the long run. We have had the distinction for more than twenty-five years of having cheaper sugar in Canada than in the United States, and all these things count in the problem of retaining population. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) complains that we have not held the immigrants that have come into the country in the past decade. Well, the best way of holding not only immigrants, but the people who are already in the country, is to make the country a cheap place to live in, and if the Food Control Board had lifted the embargo on sugar eighteen or twenty months ago, an enormous quantity of refined sugar would have gone to the United States at 17 to 20 cents per pound, and when it was all gone we would have started on the level and sugar would have been as cheap here as in the United States. Another great mistake the government made was in taking over the railways, an action which even newspapers that always supported the Conservative party condemned. However, we have the railways on our hands now and we must give them a trial. But I see the cloud lifting on the horizon. I notice that there is a 10 per cent reduction being made in the freight rates in the United States as from the first of July, and from four to six millions will be saved in the pay list, beginning from the same date. We have imitated the United States in many ways that were not advisable, but I hope we shall be able to follow their example in this regard. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie), whose remarks I have been reading in Hansard, says that the Liberal party has not consistently adhered to any principle. Let us see what we have done. We promised the people of the country during the election that econo-

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
mies would be practised in every possible direction; and I said in my own constituency that if the party I supported were returned to power and should spend one dime where the preceding government spent a dollar, I would	condemn
them.	Now the Opposition on the
25th day of April and on every day succeeding, when the militia estimates were brought into the House, beat the drums and put up various speakers in order to have those estimates increased. One of their speakers was the late mayor of Toronto (Mr Church), who had a good deal to say about the navy.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after the great Disarmament Conference in Washington the United States reduced their naval and military establishments by many thousands of men and stopped construction of several great super dreadnaughts. General Bliss of the United States army, said that if we had another war that approached the last in expenditure of money and loss of lives the united churches of the world would be to blame. Some,one asked him why did he not so advise the President and Congress. He replied, "It is absolutely useless. Public sentiment must be aroused or nothing will be done to prevent another war. All the military men are keen on military training, and they are supported by the profiteers, who are great in number and possessed of vast wealth." Senator Lodge and other prominent public men of the United States have all declared that war is simply slaughter and destruction. Hon. members who favour a big navy and a strong militia force appear to imagine that there is an enemy behind every tree. Therefore, they say, "We must keep up a great war machine." They are absolutely wrong.
What does Canada want a navy for? The only useful purpose that a navy could serve, it seems to me, would be to destroy the icebergs that float down into the traffic lanes of the Atlantic. If by some invention our navy could perform that great service much valuable property and many precious lives would be saved. The United States are our friends, and they have the Monroe Doctrine. Let us remember that. We do not wish to be cowardly, but we do know that no nation upon the face of the earth would dare question the Monroe Doctrine. The United States would not let any nation invade Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: There is a smile on the faces of my friends opposite. I hate to
make any comparison between Canada and the United States, but suppose our neighbours should take umbrage and invade this country? In spite of everything we could do, it seems to me they would cut us into about three divisions, and they could do so without making any great effort or spending very much time about it. Some hon. members of the Opposition may say, "The member for Stanstead is a pussyfooted, sissified fellow." I want to tell them that there is not a man in this House who would use cold steel and cold lead quicker than I would to put down riots or rebellion after the Riot Act had been read and ignored. But we do not need a great army for police purposes. There is no better army or constabulary in any country than a happy, contented people. I do not believe in the great labour piasses of Canada depending on somebody else. I believe in their using their own ingenuity and industry and becoming honie-builders, if it means only a little ten by twelve house on a small piece of land. Those are the people who will uphold law and order, and in this great country there is nobody so poor but should be able to own a piece of land in our rural districts.
It has been said that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. We believe it. For the first decade of this century Canada's career was great and glorious, but then the war came and she got a blow in the solar plexus that paralyzed her. She is rapidly recovering, however, and if we only buckle down and do things this great Dominion will soon regain her former prosperity. It seems to me that we are now in a position somewhat analogous to that of the United States at the end of the Civil War. The people of that country allowed their military machine to go to pieces and set to work to develop their natural resources, and in two decades many of her veterans were wealthy men. We have to follow their example-get to work and develop our natural resources. We should be able to find employment for all our people, and as soon as we get them employed I would empty our gaols and penitentiaries, for I would not feed a single able-bodied prisoner while there was work for him to do in helping develop this great Dominion. As a Canadian I am optimistic. We have wonderful resources. Take our great waterways-the St. Lawrence system, the Great Lakes-and consider their potentialities. Think of the possibilities of the immense resources of which the Assiniboia and Saskatchewan rivers, flowing to the

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
foothills of the Rockies, are the centre. But these resources cannot be developed in a day; in three or four decades, when the century is half gone, Canada may have a population of fifty millions, while the United States will certainly have two hundred and fifty million people. We have to do big things in this country; we are a vigorous people and we must have an optimistic outlook. It seems to me that we can have a great waterway system from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes to the foothills of the Rockies-to the province of Alberta at least; and in my opinion nothing would more surely cement the different provinces together; nothing would make their union more certain.
These geographical differences bring me to this thought, in passing: there has been some difference of opinion on the question of oleomargarine. When I went recently to my constituency I was asked how it was that the farmers in the House voted in favour of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, while others who were not farmers voted against it. Well, it is a question of geographical differences. It may happen that some of our hon. friends are not dairymen; and perhaps that is why we differ on these subjects. It is a matter of one taking one point of view, and one another.
The ex-Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) has criticised the present Minister of Finance with respect to promises. Now, it was stated by a prominent member of the Conservative party-I myself heard him say it many years ago-that elections were not won by prayers. But I would remind my hon. friends of the Opposition that Sir John Macdonald had always proclaimed his policy as protection and reciprocity in natural products. That policy was proclaimed up and down the country from 1878; I myself heard it enunciated. And I hay say that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier had not been defeated in 1911 we would not to-day be worrying about the small population of Canada. In September, 1911, large numbers of persons had located lands in the West and were prepared to invest their capital in this country in the event of reciprocity being adopted. But when the result of the election became known they packed their bags and returned to the United States without making any further investments-and I say that they had been cautious enough not to invest very much before the result of the election became known. The ex-Minister of Fin-
[Mr Baldwin.]
ance, therefore, in censuring the present Minister of Finance has charged the members of the Liberal party with doing something of which his own party is guilty.
In connection with the criticisms of the ex-Minister of Finance, I may point out that it was he who, when Sir Thomas White found it necessary to retire, took the burden of the portfolio of finance upon his shoulders; and when he came to the House with his taxation proposals, there were more criticisms of his budget from his own side of the House than there were from any other quarter. It can easily be seen that the present minister is not in any such unfortunate position. The ex-Minister of Finance, on the occasion to which I referred, tinkered with his schedules and changed them from time to time until he got them into some kind of shape. I know that in the present budget no one is unfairly dealt with, but I am sure that the minister will be pleased to correct anything that is pointed out to him in that line.
There is but one way for Canada to develop, and that is to impress the sons and daughters of this country with the fact that it is a fine place to live in and that their prospects here are better than they would be in the United States. When young men ask me for advice on this subject I tell them that there are ten or fifteen chances in Canada to one in the United States, for them to be successful. I tell them that if they go to the United States they stand a chance of being servants only, whereas if they stay in Canada they can be their own masters and be amply repaid for their efforts.
The old province of	Quebec, the
greatest province of the greatest dominion on earth, was at one time deeply in debt, and it succeeded in getting out of that debt not by ousting one government and putting in another, but by the administration of affairs on a sound business basis. The result is that we are developing our great resources; we are making the forces of nature the servants of mankind. We are developing our waterways; we are bringing factories into this country from the United States and are making goods for export to all parts of the world.
Water power development will make us independent of the United States for coal. In developing the deep waterway from Montreal, we would probably not need to go to ocean depth, but we could go to the depth of the Welland canal, and if we have not the whole control of the St. Lawrence

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
route, we certainly have the whole control of the Welland canal. If this water power is developed, we shall be able to electrify all the railways of Canada, at least so far as Quebec and Ontario are concerned, and have power to supply all our industrial concerns. I know at present of a company that is waiting to come to Canada with fifteen million pounds sterling. They have a factory farther west in Ontario and they are waiting for this power development on the St. Lawrence before opening up a large plant for the manufacture of electrical transmission machinery of every kind from the wheel to the whistle. Let me assure the people of Montreal that I would not advocate any policy that would injure any part of our great country, but I could not imagine that two or three or four hundred million of money could be expended within twenty-five miles of the island of Montreal without practically all of it being spent in and around that city and when the work was completed the population of Montreal would be increased by a million, I believe, and all along the line of development there would be great industrial enterprises.
The benefits of the work would be reflected in every part of the country. My county is 130 miles away from where this great development would take place, but I believe its benefits would be reflected in all the eastern townships as well as in the West. The coal of Alberta would come down that system of waterways and canals to the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the products of the coal and iron mines of Cape Breton would likewise go up that waterway. I go further and say this, although it is somewhat of an accusation against the Opposition: When the powers that were in Newfoundland came to Ottawa to enter Confederation they were turned down through haggling over a paltry sum. The Hon. Mackenzie Bowell was then Prime Minister. Let Canada force her way along and show that she is great-and if you want to know her greatness just go into the United States and see what they think about it; they say, "You do not comprehend yourself. You do not value your country. You do not see your country as we see it"-and then when this work is consummated and we get into closer union with the whole British West Indies, I believe that Newfoundland will enter Confederation. We have to make this a century of great development, and we must not wait for the end of the century before we start.
Now I come to the tariff. Some people seem to be very scared over the budget proposals, but so far as I am concerned,
I am optimistic. Suppose the United States do own sixty per cent of the world's gold, and that they do not want to trade with us. It seems to me when we look around our Empire with nearly five hundred millions of people, and then at our allies in the late war, we need not fear if the United States want to fence themselves in with a high tariff. Let them do it, and we will see who will {be the winner.
1 will guarantee that the United States will not put up any tariff so that they cannot trade with the rest of the world, and that it will come down as soon as they see Canada can stand on her own feet. Very soon we shall be able to go to the Old Country again and negotiate loans to develop our country.
We want to teach our boys and girls that we have something to do in this country besides being Boy Scouts and Girl Guides and Cadets. In olden times the boys and girls were used, and used well, and they made mighty good men and women through helping their fathers and mothers, and learning how to do things. We want them to learn to live within their means, and if they want something, to earn it. Then you get them started right. The great trouble with the country to-day is that we are aping to a large extent that great and rich country, the United States. I do not wish to say anything against the United States, but they know that we are aping the fashions of foolishness, and are forgetting to work and be prudent.
I listened with great interest during the first three weeks of this session to those who call themselves the Progressive party in this House, and I must say that I admire their fair-mindedness, honesty of purpose, and willingness to try and build up this country. As I have said it is geographical differences that separate us, and we must not forget it. It seemed to me to-day that the hori. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) rather accentuated those differences. I hope he did not mean to. Perhaps I misunderstood him. However, it is ii fact that when that group of manufacturers came to Ottawa in 1877 and asked Hon. Alexander Mackenzie to give them a higher tariff, and he refused, they went down to the Russell Hotel bar, and Sir John Macdonald was there, and in a spirit of joviality said, " Elect me, boys, and I will give you what you want."


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon. member agrees that we cannot get a budget that will hit everybody alike. Will the hon. member not agree with me that it will be better to hit at the chap who has all the money rather than the poor devil that has not any?


Willis Keith Baldwin: I do not quite catch the question.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow RiverThe hon. member referred to the fact that we could not get a budget suitable to all people.-An equalized budget.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: In that case would the hon. member not prefer to have a budget brought in to tax the riefi and not the poor?


Willis Keith Baldwin: That is very
good. Of course, the people in this world are not all philanthropists. Your heart may be right and mine may be right, but it is fair to say that the rich have built up philanthropic institutions. They have built homes for old people, hospitals for crippled children and supported schools and churches. Of course, the money must come from them for the sick. I would like to see unanimity of purpose in our Parliament. People speak of the separation of capital and labour. Capital is just accumulated labour. Everything we use, eat and wear is created by labour, and it is wrong to say anything against labour. The late Minister of Interior told us last year, when he was making his speech, what the different members had said. He said the member for Stanstead would allow anybody to come into the country that was law abiding and willing to work, and he was quite right. I even go further and say that I never saw in my life a dishonest, disreputable, thieving person who would stick continuously to work which he was asked to do. It is the same old doctrine "Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do." If people look at it properly, there should be no disrespect whatever for the labourer who is willing to work. I would let everybody into this country who is able and willing to work. If the people in British Columbia do not want to associate with the yellow people, that is their business and no concern of mine.
It is conceded by all that this is a great country. We have a railway system that is larger than our population warrants, and it is absolutely necessary that more people shall come to the country. We must therefore be united in improvBiig conditions in
The Budget-Mr. Lewis

Canada so that this country may be advertised abroad as a desirable place for intending immigrants to settle in. We may fight politically, but to the outside world we must present a united front.


Mr. LEWIS:: I desire to speak upon
the budget, Mr. Speaker, but the hour is rather late; and when we consider that the House will sit on Wednesday evening it seems to me to be setting a bad precedent to continue this debate to 12 o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my
hon. friend wish to adjourn the debate?


Arthur John Lewis: I should like to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By all means.
On motion of Mr. Lewis the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King. The House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, May 30, 1922.