1923-05-15

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 167 (from the Senate), for the relief of Christina Julia Hamilton.-Mr. Simpson.
Bill No. 168 (from the Senate), for the relief of Smith Kain -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Malcolm Mushett.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Francis Rafferty.-Mr. Irvine.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think I owe my right

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and the House an apology for having given an incorrect answer to a question that was asked me yesterday. My right hon. friend asked me if the government had extended by order in council the operation of the Wheat Board Act, and I replied, "not yet." I had in mind another matter. The answer should have been, that the extension was granted by order in council on the 7th day of April.



CROWSNEST PASS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Has the government yet taken action with respect to the Crowsnest pass or so-called Crowsnest pass agreement extension? It will be remembered that there was power to order an extension of the temporary arrangement, or so-called temporary arrangement, for one year. Has action been taken to do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the matter I had
in mind when I replied, "Not yet," to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: When is it the intention of the government to take that step, or does the government intend to do so? It is clear that it had better be done now if it is going to be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration. I will give my right hon. friend a reply later.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 14, 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 Mr. Robert Forke.
Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the debate on the budget has proceeded, T should like to associate myself with the cheerful sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork). It came quite refreshingly after what we had been treated to for some hours before; it came like a refreshing western breeze, full of hope and inspiration. It was as though one had been reading in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and had turned from that to the glad songs of Isaiah, the prince-poet of Israel.
I should also like to associate myself in the complimentary remarks that he made to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that not only hon. members on this side of the House, but every hon. member of this House, and, in fact, the countiy at large must thoroughly appreciate the great service that the Minister of Finance has rendered to Canada. A record of forty-one years of life devoted unselfishly, honestly, faithfully and patriotically to the service of his country is a record that is very seldom equalled in any civilized country in the world. Net only has his native province every reason to be proud of him, but the great Domin'c n from ocean to ocean has reason to be proud of and grateful for his services.
I am one of those who believe that in this particular budget that he has brought down now, he has rendered his country a great and signal service. I was pleased with it. Although it has been criticized by some hon. members opposite, it possesses many features that must commend themselves to the country generally. In the first place, there is no great disturbance of business; there is no attempt to do something spectacular. His position has been termed "standing pat", and some hon. gentlemen opposite find fault with the expression that the hon. gentleman used of "tariff stability". In my opinion, the very thing that we wanted in this country was tariff stability, and I am bold to believe hon. gentlemen misunderstood the way in which the word "stability" is applied. Stability as applied to a ship does not mean that it will not progress; that it will not change its position; but it means that it is not easily upset. Every time before a Dominion general election, there has been a feeling of anxiety throughout the business world of Canada, and to a somewhat less extent there has been a feeling of anxiety every time a budget has been brought down in this House by the Minister of Finance. But on this occasion a general feeling of confidence was established throughout the country. The people found in the budget speech many things for their general advantage, some things that were to the particular advantage of the farmers and people generally engaged in agriculture, and others particularly advantageous, perhaps, to the commercial and manufacturing industries of rur country.
I do not intend to take up the items of this budget in detail, but speaking in general of it, I think we may say that it is one that has given satisfaction in many regards, partly in the increase in the British preference which I thp'ight was what

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
was wanted by our hon. friends opposite, and the removal of certain taxes whose removal must be beneficial to those engaged in that industry, such as the sales tax on wool, the sales tax on drain tiles, the sales tax on furs, besides the removal of the excise tax on beet-sugar and the reduction of the excise tax on wines. While these items may not appeal to hon. gentlemen who live on the prairies, surely those who have to sell wool, those who have to purchase drain tiles, those farmers who have furs to sell, those persons who raise grapes for the purpose of making wine, or, as in the case of western Ontario where the industry is carried on to quite an extent, those who grow a great deal of beetroot for sugar making, should all certainly feel that something has been done in the way of helping along their respective industries. I regret therefore that there was no word of appreciation, not so much as a syllable, from hon. gentlemen opposite. I had hoped that they would feel some appreciation and would at least recognize that this much had been done, and if there was anything else that they wanted they might have mentioned it. Alas, however, not one word of appreciation comes from them for what has been done for them in these instances.
Had I not been so well pleased with the budget on hearing its presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I think that the criticism of it that was made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) would have given me some confidence in it. We all know that hon. gentleman's power and his knowledge of budget questions; we know that he has had an intimate association with the labours of a finance minister, having filled that important position himself. We know him also to be a man of great acumen and penetration. So, when we consider these qualities and reflect on the little objection which the hon. gentleman could find to the budget, we must come to the conclusion, I think, that the minister's statement was a pretty perfect production. The hon. gentleman's criticism rather tended towards the French treaty; in the latter part of his address he seemed to make a very strong point of the treaty and to repeat the arguments that were made at the time the treaty was before the House, to the effect that it reduced the taxes on luxuries and goods used by the wealthier class. That I took to be his argument when the treaty was under discussion, and it was repeated. But as I stated before in this Chamber when the treaty was being

considered, the satin, the silks, the cords, the braids, the twists, and all these articles that come in cheaper under the French treaty are the raw material of the dressmaker, the milliner, the tailor and the costume-maker, of all who make garments in our country for our people, whether they are rich or poor. Consequently, I pointed out, it was a relief to lighten the tax on the raw material of the garment makers, because the reduction helped those industries and helped to cheapen the clothes of everyone. Again, the hon. gentleman stated that brandy and champagne were luxuries. In the part of the country I come from, I beg to say that brandy and champagne are not luxuries; nor, Sir, is sparkling Burgundy a luxury. On the contrary, these things are classed with blue pills, calomel, salts, and various kinds of similar matters that must be prescribed as medicine by doctors. So that they are not only necessaries, but necessaries for the sick, and if these goods are lightened in any way by the French treaty the reduction is beneficial to those who suffer the afflictions of sickness under the hand of Providence. Now, I should not like it to be thought, *when I say that these things are not luxuries, that they are articles of common, daily consumption, in Ontario at least. But certainly Mr. Speaker, when one who can analyze this budget as thoroughly as did the member for West York finds so little in it to criticize, the effect must be to inspire greater confidence in all the friends of the Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman's criticisms seemed like some heavy 12-inch howitzer, but the emplacement did not seem to be exactly accurate, the elevation was not precise, nor was the training direct. So that the little soixante-quinze seemed to get away.
In the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) I was much interested, particularly in the lengthy price list that was produced of Eaton's goods, as well as the comparison that was made-which was very instructive-with the goods of Sears-Roebuck, of Chicago. But, Sir, would it not be considered by Wanamaker, by Montgomery-Ward, by Seigel, Cooper, and by other large stores on the other side, a matter of partiality that only Sears-Roebuck should have the advantage of the great advertisement which was given that firm in the placing upon Hansard and the dissemination all over the country, of their price list? I feel sure there was a great deal in the hon. gentleman's argument; but without having the actual goods before me, and just taking the statement in one catalogue that a shirt is worth so much and

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
another statement in another catalogue that a shirt is worth something else, I would want to be quite assured that it was identically the same kind of shirt before I began to compare prices. This is another exemplification of the old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
We have heard recently of a number of young men who went over to the United States, induced to go there by the high wages on account of the boom. Those young men are now coming back because of the high cost of living on the other side. The member for Selkirk endeavoured to show that the cost of living was lower in the United States than it is here and that it was cheaper to live across the line than in Canada. Well, the Mayor of Brantford recently made the statement that many of the young men who had left that city and gone to Detroit and other American cities were coming back because the cost of living was so much greater in the United States than in Canada. There was another part of the hon. gentleman's speech that I could not help noting.
He stated that because the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) had nailed his protection colours to the mast, the two parties that were opposed to him at the last election received 2,120,000 votes whereas the right hon. gentleman got only some 900,000. I believe that was his statement. I could not help wondering, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member made the remark, what the hon. member for Grenville was thinking; and it seemed to me, by a kind of telepathy, I suppose, that I could hear with my mind's eye, if I may use that Hibernianism, the reflections that were going on in the right hon. gentleman's mind. He was saying: Did I not try to cultivate you with 5 per cent of a reduction off the duty on cultivators? Did I not try to reap the harvest of your affection by throwing 5 per cent off binders? Did I not try to draw you to my way of thinking by making tractors absolutely free? Did I not try to bind you to my affection by leaving binder twine free on the list? And what was the answer? I am sure that the right hon. gentleman's reply to his own soliloquy must have been that ingratitude was "more strong than traitors' arms." There was no response from these gentlemen-no response whatever. And now when the question is brought up again we are reminded that duties were thrown off at that time to please the Progressive party. Duties have been relaxed now to please them. But nothing seems to please them, they do not appear to be delighted with anything. But is it a matter really to be sorry for? Because, knowing them personally and individually, I
can say they are mostly cheerful, healthy, happy men; but as a party, I should like to see them appreciate those things that are done for them.
Last night we had a very long address that, as far as I could make out, was on the subject of capital and-I won't say labour, but on the subject of capital and no capital. Now, capital is one of the most important considerations of this country and is something that needs to be understood by those that talk about it. When a man rises in this House and tells us what the wealth of this country consists of, and goes over our farms, farm buildings and live stock, our mines and forests, he must not lose sight of this fact, that so far as these represent the wealth of the country, they also represent the hard work and the savings of our people. If you follow that out you will find that the capital in our banks and our insurance companies represents the thrift and the savings and the self-denial of somebody or it would not be there. Therefore I say that when a gentleman rises in this House and suggests that we should make a levy upon capital to pay the national debt, I think he either does not understand what capital means or he does not understand the genius of the Canadian people; because it is contrary to our institutions, it is contrary to the whole spirit of our people to make a levy upon capital to pay the national debt. Why, think of it! These seventeen banks that seem to irk him so much and to grieve him because of their existence-indeed, he looks upon them as some big monopoly apparently-actually represent in many cases the property of widows and orphans.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Gawtress Raymond: I do not understand whether the objection is to the banks or to the widows and orphans. What I mean to say is this, that if they will examine the stocks of these banks and the stocks and bonds of our insurance companies they will find that they represent, as I say, the savings and the thrift of somebody. For instance, if a man dies and leaves an amount of money, what is done with it? It is put into seme sound investment for his family, and that investment constitutes the capital upon which the member (Mr. Woodsworth) who was speaking last night said he would like to make a levy to pay our national debt.
I do not understand a great deal that is said and written nowadays about capital and labour, how can we get money for nothing, and how the purchasing power of people can be increased without the people working and
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

saving. It may be my stupidity, Mr. Speaker, it may be the old-fashioned way in which I was brought up, but I think what a man does not earn by his hands and save, that he cannot have by enactment of parliament. There is no sense in spending money and calling it purchasing power and then throwing it back on to the general aggregation of the wealth of the country. Why, what are the mines and the forests that he spoke of?-and I doubt his figures in regard to these when he said they were only worth $1,200,000,000, because the forests of Quebec alone, according to a report of the government of that province, are worth $600,000,000; I believe our forests and mines are worth many times what he said they are worth. But what good are they ? How can you coin them, how can you issue paper against them? They are worth nothing until they are developed-they are worth nothing until the gold, silver, copper and iron are brought to the surface, until the trees are cut down and sawn up into lumber or converted into pulp and paper. And what does develop these natural resources? The capital of the country. And this capital, I repeat, represents the thrift and savings of the people. If >rou can point to so many billion dollars' worth of farms and farm buildings, to several hundred million dollars' worth of live stock, it is because the farmers have worked and earned and saved money; it represents their capital; and if you have mining corporations or milling corporations functioning, it is because somebody has saved the money for their purposes, and that money constitutes capital.
The idea of having ary hard feeling against capital or against capitalists, or making laws against capital or capitalists 1 Such legislation would be the wreck and ruin of any country. We have seen it done in Russia. We have seen war made upon capital in that country by gentlemen who hold something of the same kind of views that the Socialists profess. I must here admit that I cannot distinguish very clearly between a Communist, a Socialist, an Anareh'st, and an out-and-out Bolshevist; there may be a difference, but I fail to see it I think that anyone who understands this country realizes that it is necessary to have capital if we want to develop our resources, that while those natural resources are there under the ground they are of no value, and that it is only by capital that we can hope to develop them.
Now, the logical consequence of that is that we must have laws that make property safe, we must have laws that respect the rights of the people. We must not counten-

ance anyone who should change the basic principle of our jurisprudence, because if we do we shall have trouble. While we have, as I say, the gross example in front of us of Russia at the present time, we should proceed with due caution. We know what they did in Russia. They first destroyed their ruler, then they destroyed their parliament, then they destroyed their banks and merchant citizens and murdered them for their money, and finally they destroyed the farmers and took their wheat away from them.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: These are facts. They may be uncomfortable to certain hon. gentlemen, but the farmers of this country should be mighty glad that we have-I won't say no Bolshevists, but so few.
Passing for a moment to the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance, I think we should realize that one of the greatest difficulties he has is to produce the money necessary to run the country. There are many things doubtless that we all would like to see done that he has not been able to do. But I do not think we should for a moment suppose that he has not seen them, I do not think we should imagine they have not come under his consideration and received the due exercise of his careful judgment. However, when such a general benefit to the country is offered as a reduction of the duty on sugar I should have thought it would have helped to sweeten the public generally-I won't say particularly hon. gentlemen opposite, but I should hope they would appreciate it because it is something that affects us all. For myself, I would have thought that had it been possible the Finance Minister would have abolished another tax that I feel sure has been brought to his attention, and being one of an important nature he will, I am sure, exercise his due judgment upon it. I refer to the removal of the war tax stamp from letters. It is something, I think, we should all be very glad to see removed. It is something, I feel sure, the hon. minister will remove as soon as it is possible to do so. It is something that, no doubt, can be removed by order in council, and I hope that later in the year it will be possible to remove this tax, because at the present time we are sending letters to Great Britain and to our sister nations within the commonwealth on which we are obliged to pay twice the postage that the citizens of the the United States have to pay on their letters. Where their postage has been two cents on letters forwarded to those places ours has been

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
four. I hope the time will come when ours will be reduced to a figure at least as low as that which prevails in the United States; and I feel sure that this would have been done had it not been for the unfortunate and regrettable illness of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy). But we ought to remember that if the United States at the present time is leading us in the matter of low postage rates there was a time, in 1897, when Canada led the world by establishing penny Imperial postage. I say I hope the time will come, Mr. Speaker, when it will be possible again to send letters all over the British dominions at the rate of two cents.
There is a suggestion I would make to my friends the Progressives-and 1 would emphasize the word "friends," for notmuy thinks more of them than I do; and 1 know they will take my suggestion as I mean it. They seem to concentrate their whole attention on that poor item of our national programme, the tariff. On every question that comes up in the House, whether the French treaty or immigration or anything else, my hon. friends always manage to work around to the tariff, obsessed as they are with the idea of free trade. I would say this to them: that there are other questions well worth their consideration; other questions ten times more important to them than the tariff question. If they will consider the question of transportation and what it means to them coming and going, taking supplies to them and bringing their products away, why, the tariff, as a matter of supreme importance, will disappear; it will become a relatively small thing in their minds. The farmers of the West produced last year something like 400 million bushels of wheat and something like 1,000 million bushels of other grains. If they could only save 10 per cent on that by improving the transportation system, the whole amount involved in the tariff system would be equalized by the amount thus saved on the transportation of their goods. I say the matter is well worth their consideration. The tariff is not the only thing. But it is true that in developing these railways, in developing a transportation system and making it a success, it is necessary to have a tariff system; tariff system and transportation system and immigration policy must go hand in hand in the development of this country. It is not necessary to reiterate this; it has been referred to several times in the House. But I would respectfully urge my hon. friends to look at some other questions besides merely the matter of tariff.
Now, what do my hon. friends propose instead of the tariff? What do they suggest as
a means of raising the revenue that would be lost? They propose an additional revenue by way of income tax, a tax upon unearned income. But if they will examine the figures in the Income Tax department they will see how heavily the income tax already presses upon that part of our population which is included within our towns and cities-it does not press so heavily upon those in the country. I think my hon. friends would see that it would be impossible by any system of increasing the income tax-a tax which is imposed by the Dominion government, in Ontario by the municipalities, and in Manitoba, I believe, by the province-to attain their object. Then, they suggest an increase of certain duties on luxuries. Why, the people who would be buying the luxuries are the very people whose incomes they [DOT] rould reduce by increasing the income tax. The plan they propose, therefore, to make up the money that the tariff now provides would not be at all adequate; a fair consideration of it shows that.
But I would ask my hon. friends, how do they like the other substitute, the one proposed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). Among the suggestions he made, one, I think, was a levy upon real estate, upon the land. The whole tariff could very easily be made up by a levy upon real estate, a tax upon the land, but the reason it is not done is that such a tax is thought to be not quite fair to the farmers. Yet that is proposed by a gentleman who associates himself with my hon. friends and who finds that he is able generally to vote with them on their tariff policies and their resolutions. The tariff question is net, I think, rightly understood by some of those who undertake to discuss it.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: Let me give hon. members my point of view, and they will see whether that applies to my discussion of it. The tariff is very often discussed merely as a question of political economy, discussed by people who take a theoretical view of things. Most of us are aware that on the basis of mere theory free trade can be argued very successfully, especially upon the presumption that every other country is a free trade country. But as a theory, simply as a theory, it is a dead, cold thing; it is the stillborn child of parents who suffered from academic anaemia. As a theory, free trade is something that never could take its place in the comity of nations to do its part for Canada. When we speak of the free interchange of natural products between Canada and the

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
United States, then we are dealing with something which, if consummated, would somewhat change the aspect of affairs. But we are situated beside a great country, a country of many times our population, with large well organized and well established factories; a country with a high protective tariff against us. What, then, can we hope to do with free trade? We have heard hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the United States is a free trade country, but when they say that it is evident they have not tried to sell any wheat there; if they had, they would have found a duty of 35 cents a bushel staring them in the face; they have evidently not tried to sell any cattle there. They have not tried to sell woollen garments there, because they would find on woollen goods an absolutely prohibitory duty. And the same applies to cutlery and many other articles. Situated as we are, therefore, we cannot hope to succeed if we have free trade while the United States maintains its present tariff policy.
I do not look upon the tariff purely as a question of political economy that can be argued on a theoretical basis. I regard it from another point of view entirely. It may be a wrong point of view, but I can look back over the history of Canada and I can see that my contention of what the tariff question really involves is amply borne out. As long ago as 1805, 118 years ago, there was a similar discussion going on in Montreal and throughout Canada, which was a small country then. It was considered that the town interests were separated in some way from the country interests, and the question of duties came up. One of the sentiments expressed on the occasion of a great banquet in that time was: "Here is to our agricultural and commercial interests; may they work harmoniously together and both realize their advantages and responsibilities." I think the same sentiment is necessary to-day. But from that time down to the present the tariff question has always been raised in Canada. Some people think it is a new thing, but there have been tariffs practically ever since Canada has been a country. If to cease to have this tariff means-as it does mean-to surrender our market, to give up our commercial weapon of negotiation; if it means to lay our country commercially helpless at the foot of a rival, I say it is contrary, Mr. Speaker, to the spirit and nature of the Canadian people. That is my argument; the tariff is not a question of theory, and it never can be made a question of theory. It is a study in natural psychology. And I would ask you to look at these Canadian people and 
see what they are, see where they came from and the spirit of independence that they brought with them. You can go from one end of the country to the other. You can begin with those sturdy men who came from Scotland because they stood by the cause of the Jacobites and would never surrender, and who came over to Nova Scotia and that part of eastern Canada. You can take those people to whom I am, I suppose, by race more nearly related, so I will not say anything about them except that 't is said that the totem of their tribe is the bull dog on the flag and their motto "What we have we'll hold." No surrender has always been their motto. Or you can take those people who inhabit the western part of the country, and you have there a people of a strong, free, independent disposition, whose motto never could be surrender. If you take the people of the old historic province of Quebec why, Sir, the first military governor described them as the best and bravest people in the world-a man of an alien race, a man who belonged to the army that had been successful at the seige, Murray. That was his description of them, and there is nothing in their history from that day to this but carries out his words of that people-the best and bravest people in the world. Now, do you tell me that a people who have that blood of freedom flowing in their veins are going to surrender their market, throw down their boundaries and barriers and lay themselves helpless at the feet of a wealthy rival to the south of us? It is not to be thought of. It puts me in mind of the battle of St. Julien. If you want to see the concentrated essence of the Canadian people I would remind you of the post that was held by a Brantford boy. He got word during the hea' and struggle of that battle when men were falling thickly around him, "Hold the position at any cost"; and he sent back this answer, "We will hold the position till Hell freezes over." I quote that now because it is typical of the spirit of the Canadian people, and come before them in any way you like, bring down your tariff propositions in any way you please, with the duty off this or the duty oft that, but when it is a proposition to throw our markets at the feet of any commercial rival, I tell you what, gentlemen, you will never find it meet the approval of the Canadian people.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: 
Mr. PUTNAM:: Would the hon. gentleman indicate what his conception is of the "proper
encouragement" to be given?


Robert James Manion: The Budget-Mr. Manion
ance in my section of New Ontario, and I
advocated this step to the minister.
Then, Sir, in regard to boots for cripples. It is a small duty it is true, but it is something that will be greatly appreciated by those who are affected. In this connection I have never been	able to see why we
should not take off the duties on all appliances for cripples in this country. I do not know why those cripples, who are handicapped before the world to begin with, should not have, at least, the benefit of any remission of taxation which may possibly be given to them. I say this very feelingly, because in the past summer a carpenter in my city, who has a little boy paralyzed from the waist down, found it necessary to buy a wheel chair to send that little lad to school. He told me that he had to pay a duty of $30 on the chair. I took the matter up with the Deputy Minister of Customs and asked if there was not some way by which this could be remedied, but he told me that according to the law, it could not be remedied. It is time, at least as regards cripples, that we should do everything we can to lessen their difficulties in life. That is one of the ways in which it can be done, and the Minister of Finance shoidd extend this legislation as regards cripples' appliances and should carry it out completely.
There is another matter which I wish to lay before the Minister of Finance; unfortunately he is not in the House at present, but I hope the matter will be drawn to his attention. According to my understanding of the budget -and I hope I am wrong-after August 1, the sales tax will not be permitted to be passed on by large dealers. I say 1 hope I am wrong, in certain connections at least, and the following is one of them. The other day I had a letter from a large lumber dealer in Ontario, in which letter he pointed out that he had made large contracts amounting to millions of dollars, under the law as it was before the present budget was brought in. He claims that under this new legislation, if he is not permitted to pass on the six per cent sales tax, he will not be able to continue, that this will put him out of business. It would be at least fair to have the Minister of Finance bring in a resolution to protect men of that kind who have made contracts in good faith under the law as it was.
The fifth point to which I wish to refer and which is, I believe, necessary to build up this country, is that we should have a little less pessimism in Canada than we have had in the past. It is true that conditions in Canada have not been good. It is true that

all of us, not only the farmers on the land, but citizens in the cities, have been up against a very difficult proposition. But I do not think it is necessary for a man in trouble to stand on the housetops and tell his troubles to the whole world. It is true that a foolish optimism is sometimes worse than pessimism, but we have reason for being fairly optimistic in this Canada of ours, and I am going to take the liberty of dealing for five minutes, not with the dreams but with the actual accomplishments of this country.
1.	As a wheat growing country, Canada stands third amongst the nations of the world. In wheat export, she stands first. Our total field crops amount to $1,000,000,000.
2.	As regards our gold output, Canada stood second amongst the nations last year, with one-fifth of the world's production, Ontario surpassing even California.
3.	Canada has the second-largest coal deposits in the world, and it is only a matter of time until our transporta.'ion difficulties are removed so that, at least, we may supply all our own fuel.
4.	Canada stands third in production of silver in the world. Last year we produced 21,000,000 ounces, being surpassed by only the United States and Mexico.
5.	Canada produces over 90 per cent of the cobalt produced in the world, 80 per cent of the nickel, and 80 per cent of the asbestos.
6.	Canada possesses 18,000,000 horse-power of potential riches in waterfalls, and only one-sixth of that has been developed.
7.	In pulp, paper and forest products, our exports last year amounted to $200,000,000 worth, or nearly as much as our exports of wheat.
8.	Finally, we have millions cf acres of fertile land, fisheries on all sides, iron ore to the extent of hundreds of millions of tons, because of which there is no doubt the day will come, in the not very distant future, when Canada will be one of the largest iron-producing countries of the world; and we have a vigorous, virile people.
These are only a few brief facts showing why this country may feel optimistic, and it might be well for us to forget, to a certain extent, some of the pessimism that we have been displaying too freely in Canada.
In addition to that, the other day I read a .statement bv Doctor O. 1(7 Baker, an agricultural economist of the United States Department of Agriculture, in which he said that there is practically no more potentially agricultural land left unutilized in the United States, that does not involve unprofitable

The Budget-Mr. Manion
expense for reclamation and clearing. He pointed out that in the United States there is a movement to limit production. According to a foreign agricultural economist, in the great grain belt of southeastern Europe, the peasant [DOT] proprietor is lessening production. Therefore grain growers of Canada and Canadians generally may look to the future with a little more optimism. It is true that conditions in the West are not good, but the rest of the country has also been hard hit. There has been a great deal of hardship, not only on the prairie farms of the West, but in the cities and towns. A short time ago we had a discussion in this House as regards mortgages on the farms of Canada. To have a mortgage, one must at least possess something to mortgage, and a large proportion of the people in the cities and towns have nothing that they can mortgage. Even as regards those of them who have homes, seventy-five per cent have mortgages on them. It is true that we must do all we can to aid the West, and it is the desire of every one in this country to do so. Some arrangements must be made for longer credit. Apparently, from the evidence given before the Banking and Commerce committee, longer credits than the banks can give and at interest rates better than the farmers can get at the present time, are necessary on the western prairies. Transportation must be looked into, and as far as we can we must lessen transportation costs. Any unfairness in the grain trade must be removed.
But there are some lessons of history which the people of Canada cannot forget in dealing with questions of this kind, and one of those lessons is this, that the United States, under a protective tariff, has become an immense, powerful, highly developed nation, probably the most highly developed industrial nation in the world to-day. Canada and the United States resemble each other more closely than any other two countries in the world. We are like the United States in people, in area, in resources, in thought, in nearly every way in which it is possible to resemble the United States. Therefore, it would be worth while remembering that Canada can profit by the lessons which she can learn from the United States.
The absurd claim has been made that the United States has been built up under a free trade policy. I use the word "absurd" advisedly, because if the United States is a free trade country, so is Germany, with her sixty-five or seventy million people and her different kingdoms with no tariffs in between. So is France; so is Austria; so is Canada; so are
all those other countries. Russia with a larger area, would be a free trade country also. Free trade and protection refer to international trade, not to internal or home trade. A country which collects twenty to thirty per cent, or even more, upon the vast proportion of her imports, is certainly anything but a free trade country, and that is what the United States does. The following are some of the duties collected by the United States on some of its imports. I will name only ten lines of goods:
Cotton clothing, 30 per cent ad valorem.
Wollen goods, 25 to 40 per cent ad valorem.
Carpets. 20 to 50 per cent ad valorem.
Automobiles below, $2,000, 30 per cent ad valorem.
And those are the automobiles that the farmer and small dealers require.
Cutlery, 25 to 55 per cent ad valorem.
Oil cloth, 20 to 30 per cent ad valorem.
Kitchen utensils, 25 per cent ad valorem.
Wool blankets, 25 per cent ad valorem.
Agricultural products-the Fordney tariff.
In 1920, practically fifty per cent of all imports into the United States were dutiable. Under such conditions, the United States is certainly a protectionist country.
How has protection affected the United States? If hon. members will investigate any of the industries of that country, they will find that they have gone ahead by leaps and bounds. I am going to place on Hansard five of the United States industries.
In 1890, the tinplate industry in the United States was practically non existent; yet by 1920, thirty years later, they produced 3,000,000,000 pounds, and the imports which they had previously obtained from Wales were practically wiped out.
In 1890, the United States produced 4,000,000 long tons of steel. In 1920 they produced
42,000,000 long tons.
In 1890, the United States produced $480,000,000 worth in the manufacture of iron and steel. In 1920, they produced $3,600,000,000 worth, or nearly eight times as much.
The total manufactured products of the United States in 1890 amounted to $10,000000,000 worth, and in 1920 to $60,000,000,000 worth.
The value of the products of their farms in 1890 amounted to $3,000,000,000 worth, and in 1920 to $22,000,000,000 worth. This is probably of more interest to the farmers. These figures which I have given cover a short period of thirty years. Probably there is not a man sitting in this House who was not in existence when the first facts which I have given were occurring, and to-day the figures that I have quoted reveal that all these lines have gone up six, seven or eight times. In the case of

The Budget-Mr. Manion

dozens of other industries, anyone who cares to look up the Statistical Abstract of the United States will find that the same thing is true in regard to every one of them. It is true that the United States is practically selfsupporting because of the high production of all lines of goods in that country. But that is to my mind just another argument favourable to a moderate protective tariff. It is also true that free trade might temporarily assist the farmers of the West; but in my opinion, and as was pointed out by the hon. member who took his seat a few minutes ago, it would ruin to a great extent the industrial cities of the East. And those cities would not suffer alone; the farmers who live in the vicinity of every such industrial centre would be affected as well. Would it be wise for the West to be benefited through the ruin of the East? I would ask another question also, and I would have it clearly understood that I do so out of no disrespect whatever; I ask the question with the greatest deference to hon. gentlemen from the West. All the countries of the world with the exception of Great Britain have been and are protectionist, and England has adopted the protective principle in certain directions recently. But even though England did adopt free trade in 1840, the fact that no other country has adopted it, the fact that all the nations of the world have considered it a poor policy, compels this question: Are we to draw the inference that those people in the West of Canada who advocate free trade have inherited all tne wisdom of the ages, notwithstanding that they are alone in this matter?


Mr. FORKE:: Does my hon. friend imagine that the world has been governed by the maximum of wisdom during the last fifty years, when he considers the condition in which it is at the present tiime?


Robert James Manion: Perhaps it has not been as well governed as it might have been, but I was referring to the tariff.


Robert Forke: If the hon. gentleman followed my remarks yesterday he must hav" seen that I was contending that the tariff is the great bone of contention and the cause of ill-feeling, hatred, envy and jealousy, and in short is responsible for the condition cf the world to-day. I contend that the condition of the world at the present time has to a certain extent at least been caused by high tariff walls.


Robert James Manion: That is a matter of opinion. I think, personally, that the condition

of the world to-day is due mainly to the fact that the German Kaiser undertook to conquer it. That is my own idea.


Robert Forke: Yes, under high tariff walls.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend wishes
to debate that question I can take it up with him. As a matter of fact the German Kaiser, under a high tariff wall, was conquering the world, and if he had exercised any sense he would have sat tight and conquered it commercially. Indeed, he was gradually encroaching upon England's commerce before the war. I have already on several occasions cited figures to prove that before the war Germany was outdistancing England in very many lines of commerce. She had gained upon England in many directions. For example, the basic industry of all countries is the production of iron and steel, and Germany had surpassed England in thirty years to a considerable extent in this industry. Germany, with her protective tariff, was surpassing England under a free trade policy; and there are very many serious-thinking Britishers who thought that England had been suffering to such an extent that it would be necessary for her to fall back upon the protective principle. I believe, too, that the time will come when she will adopt protection in many lines. There is this to be remembered about Great Britain. Great Britain is a small piece of land, 120,000 square miles in extent, which could be placed in about half the area of northern Ontario. England cannot produce raw materials on a large scale as can the United States or Canada. She must have free trade in raw materials and also to a certain degree in foodstuffs. Therefore what is good for England is not necessarily good for a country thirty or forty times its size, as Canada is.


Robert Forke: But you told us that England would quit free trade.


Robert James Manion: And she has done so in
some respects. My hon. friend is a farmer. Would he tell me what he thinks of the protection given to industries in the United Kingdom now under the Key Industry Act.


Robert Forke: The protection which is
enjoyed by the industries in Great Britain at the present time is protection that is given to key industries. That is a little different from straight protection.


Robert James Manion: It is protection to the
extent of thirty or forty per cent, and is intended to keep out the products of Germany and all other European countries.


Robert Forke: Some protection has been
given in England to a few key industries.

The Budget-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what the cattle embargo was? Was it a precaution against disease or was it not rather direct protection for the cattle raisers of Great Britain?


Robert Forke: I think it was protection, all right.


Robert James Manion: Then the hon. member admits that protection is given at least to many industries in the United Kingdom. I could recount many of the industries in Great Britain and show that the protective policy is being rapidly adopted in regard to a number of them. I do not think that Great Britain will ever go back to an absolute protective policy for the reasons that I have already given. The country is so small in area that she cannot produce on a large scale the raw materials that she needs for her manufacturers and the food that is required for her people. She must therefore of necessity resort to free trade to some extent. But the argument in regard to Great Britain, in view of these considerations, does not by any means apply to a country that is thirty or forty times her size, with immense natural resources awaiting development. Such a vast country could not adopt a free trade policy for reasons that would hold good in a country like Great Britain.


Mr. MORRISON:: The hon. member stated a moment ago that the wisdom of this nation did not all lie in the West, and he added that the West had no right to ruin the East. I would ask him this question: Has the East any right to ruin the West by exorbitant taxation through the customs tariff?


Robert James Manion: I absolutely agree with my hon. friend that the East has no right to ruin the West; nor do I think that our tariff has been so high as to do anything of the kind. But I do not think, on the other hand, that the East should suffer in order that the West might be advantaged.


John Morrison: The West is suffering by reason of the oppression and short-sightedness of eastern capitalists who refuse to consider or to listen to statements made by western people, who, they declare, are mis-repre-senting the facts. But the hon. gentleman, I think, himself indicated a little while ago that he recognized the fact that the West was in a bad condition. Does he propose any remedy?


Robert James Manion: I am proposing a number of remedies. I admit that the West is suffering
to a great extent, but I submit at the same time that if we consider all the facts we must realize that there is not only one cause; there are some ten or twelve causes, two or three of which I have pointed out in regard to world conditions. I do not suggest for a moment that the East has any right to benefit at the expense of the West, but I repeat, I do not believe that the East has any more right to suffer in order that the West may be benefited. I take this attitude, however, that we should have a tariff sufficient to protect the industries of the country, and when I say so I am quite prepared to concede that the tariff has to be revised from time to time. And I was going on to deal with that a little later. I want hon. gentlemen to be assured that when I made the remark I did a few moments ago about wisdom, what I said was said in perfect deference to my hon. friends from the West. I certainly did not mean to stir up a hornets' nest around me, and I sincerely hope that my good friends have not taken offence.


Robert Forke: You are very good-natured, Doctor.
Mr. MANION [DOT] It must be obvious, however, to anyone who looks at the question dispassionately, as I have done, for I am neither a farmer nor a manufacturer, that the vast balance of opinion of the world today is favourable to protection; and that is proven by the number cf countries who have a protective policy, as well as by the further fact that Great Britain, the sole free trader, is adopting the protective principle in regard to many industries.


Mr. EVANS:: If we have such vast resources, why do the manufacturers require that everything they need in the way of raw material shall be on the free list?
Mr. MANION' I do not know that the manufacturers want that, but I think that these materials should be on the free list so far as we can place them there. The manufacturer has to compete with other manufacturers in the world, and if he has to pay a very high duty on the raw materials he uses he cannot carry on that competition successfully.


John Evans: Does my hen. friend not concede the same argument in favour of the farmer?
Mr. MANION- Yes, and as a matter of fact we have put most of the farmers' raw materials on the free list. Many agricultural
The Budget-Mr. Manion

implements are on the free list, and others enjoy a very much lower rate than many of the machines used by manufacturers. Now, I was going on to point out the necessity for periodical revisions of the tariff. I am not one of those who think that the tariff is going to stand as the laws of the Medes and Persians; I admit that it must be changed from time to time. I believe that the tariff needs revision periodically; and I have expressed the opinion on two or three occasions, which I still hold, that we should have an advisory tariff commission who wdll devote all their time to the study of just such questions as have been brought up by my hon. friends to my left. I certainly think that we need a proper tariff protection for our industries; but it is my own private opinion that if an industry can get along under competition with industries of the United States with 20 per cent protection, there is no reason why it should have 35 or 40 per cent. I believe therefore that a proper advisory tariff commission who would devote their whole time and attention to the o.uestions that relate to the tariff would do a great deal to bring about tha( condition which would probably be satisfactory to the West and at the same time meet the undoubted necessities of the East.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken, I think, a little longer than I intended. But there are a few more observations which I feel I ought to submit for the consideration of the House before I conclude. I wish to point out one thing to my hon. friends to the left-the United Kingdom produces a vast amount of revenue under a free trade tariff. I remember during the last general election it was said there was no such tiling as a free trade tariff. England has a very heavy free trade tariff and in 1919-20 she produced something like $750,000,000 of customs revenue, more than the United States, by the way, produced under its protectionist tariff. But the difference is this that under a free trade system the tariff is put upon the necessaries of life altogether.


Mr. WARNER:: In connection with an advisory committee, would the hon. gentleman be willing that whoever wanted tariff protection of his business should come before the committee and give reasons therefor?


Robert James Manion: Certainly. That would be the duty of an advisory tariff committee, to study the question at all times and to advise not only the government but this House through its parliamentary committees.


Daniel Webster Warner: We agree with that; that is all we ask.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to hear it. Usually my hon. friends to the left ask for free trade. That is the difference. However, I wanted to point out that the taxes under a free trade system are to a great extent placed upon the necessaries of life. Out of this $750,000,000, $200,000,000 was upon sugar and $600,000,000 was upon sugar, tea and tobacco, and as not only a very large percentage of the men but also a large number of the women of the British Isles smoke, tobacco might be looked upon as one of the necessaries of life,


An hon. MEMBER:: A luxury.


Robert James Manion: And sugar and tea are necessaries. To get away from that for the moment. I should like to know what it is that free trade is supposed to do that would justify its adoption by Canada. Under free trade what has happened in the United Kingdom? To-day they have a million and half unemployed. While conditions have been bad in Canada, they have been infinitely worse under free trade in Great Britain. And not only are there these unemployed, but they have been asked to emigrate. The reason that conditions are so bad there is because the United Kingdom is dependent for its prosperity upon the buying. power of its neighbours altogether, and has thrown away its bargaining or negotiating power which it had under the protective tariff system, and which the United States and Canada respectively retain under their protective tariff systems to-day.
Frank H. Simons, one of the cleverest writers in the United States, has made this statement:
It is certain that unless England does get back her trade which she had before the war she will have to cut her population by ten million.
Very recently I was reading the memoirs of the late Earl of Dunraven, an Irishman who lived in Ireland during the great famine of 1846 and subsequently, in which he states that the population of Ireland was reduced from eight million to four million, due entirely to the loss of the agricultural interests because of free trade having been introduced in Great Britain.
I have made the following statement before in this House, it has never yet been successfully contradicted and I make it again now, that there are now in England and were before the war more extremes of poverty and riches, more pauperism, more unemployment, and greater emigration in search of better conditions than will be found in Canada, the United States, France, Germany, and these

The Budget-Mr. Manion
are all protective countries. Not only that, Sir, but agriculture has been practically ruined in the United Kingdom under free trade. Great Britain grows less grain than France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria-I could name half a dozen other countries-so much less that there is no comparison. France with an area not much greater than the United Kingdom grew in the year before the war 300,000,000 bushels of wheat as against Great Britain's fiftjr or sixty million bushels. France, because she is protectionist, and Germany for the same reason, were growing most of their own foodstuffs. There is a lower percentage of agriculturists on the land in Great Britain, than in France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, the United States or Canada.
Schooling, one of the best statisticians in the United Kingdom, says:
In 1851 in England and Wales the agricultural labourers per 1,000 of population numbered 106, while in 1901, fifty years after the introduction of free trade, that number had dwindled down to 30; in other words, a reduction of 70 per cent.


Daniel Webster Warner: Is not that because the English people feel they can make better use of their land for stock raising purposes?


Robert James Manion: France imports practically none of her food; England imports from 75 to 80 per cent of hers. France, Germany, and the other European countries succeed in producing not only their grain but practically all their other foodstuffs, while England is absolutely dependent on outside countries for her food supplies. I shall quote a statement by Lloyd George from an article of his which appeared in the Montreal Star of April 21, less than a month ago. He says:
America, in spite of its gigantic manufacturing and distributing industries, still retains 60 per cent of its population on the land. The same proportion of French and Italian population is agricultural. Barely 10 per cent of British workers are engaged in cultivating the soil.
Now, I wish to get back for a few moments to the present budget and the attitude of the Minister of Finance at different times during the last two or three years. In the first place in 1919 he adopted the attitude of the Liberal platform, which was virtually free trade in many different commodities. Last year in his budget speech he stated what my hon. friend from Brandon has already referred to, that this budget was only a beginning, that it was going in the right direction and we could hope for more. This year he brings down his budget and states:	"This is a moderate tariff and you cannot expect it to go any lower than it is at the present time." In passing I may say that it is practically, though
not entirely, the same tariff which has been in force since John A. Macdonald introduced the National Policy in 1878, and I doubt if anyone in this country wants a higher tariff *-anyway I do not know anyone who does. As I thought of the variations of attitude of the Minister of Finance I was struck with the fact that though he has passed more than the allotted span of "three score years and ten" he still retains all his youthful agility as a tariff acrobat. This permits him to chant loudly his favourite hymn "Onward, Free-trade Soldiers." while at the same time performing that very difficult acrobatic act of beating the low-tariff drum with his hands, marching forward to the music with his feet, yet consistently rolling his head in the opposite direction. There is no doubt, sir, that this has been very entertaining to the House, and in a sense also to the minister himself, but it has not been inspiring of confidence to those wishing to invest capital in this country, and there is no question that investments of various kinds have been delayed and in some cases prevented by the fact that those who wish to build up our industries were hesitant because of the uncertainty of the tariff. It is true that the Minister of Finance in introducing his latest budget gave us an assurance of tariff stability, and I congratulate him upon that. We need tariff stability. In addition to that I think we also need in a general way the same type of policy so far as our tariff is concerned which has obtained in the United States for the last sixty years-the policy of a moderate tariff, scientifically revised from time to time, a tariff high enough to equalize competition, but not so high as to give unfair advantages to the industries concerned.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the amendment moved by my hon. friends to the left. Last year we moved an amendment condemning the Liberal party for repudiating its platform of 1919, and my hon. friends to the left, to a great extent, did not find it wise to support that amendment, though I notice in theirs now they incorporate practically the same condemnation. But I have noticed another strange thing about the amendment-I do not know that it is very strange either-and that is that it is carefully worded so there is no chance of our supporting it. It is in direct support of a free trade policy, so there is no possibility of members in this corner of the House voting for it.


Mr. BANCROFT:: It did not require much care in drafting.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps not. But last
year, when we were not very careful how ive

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
voted against the government, I noticed there was great care displayed by my hon. friends in voting the other way. And I may say, by the way, that in regard to very many votes it has been the same. I am not accusing my hon. friend himself of that, but many of his friends have shown a very strong attitude of guardianship over the acts of the government.
In closing, I may say that as this amendment contains a very strong avowal of the principle of free trade, naturally the members in this eorner of the House cannot-much to their regret-support it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is the usual thing sior hon. members to discuss any subject they may feel constrained to deal with on the occasion of the debate on the budget. I am going to take advantage of that opportunity, and then, before I sit down, dweli for a short time upon the budget itself. But before taking up any of the themes I have in mind, just for fear I should forget it, I wish to refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) and my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Manion).
I have not before me the figures of the old tariff of Sir John Macdonald, but it is my recollection that that tariff was very high on farm implements. It ran as high on many articles, particularly on threshing machines, as 35 per cent. I think Sir George Foster was credited with giving the greatest reduction of any finance minister, in 1894, because there had been a tremendous agitation throughout the country against the high duties of that day.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will not forget to give us credit for making a further reduction of 5 per cent, against the protest of the hon. member for Brantford.


William Richard Motherwell: I am coming to that; but I am sure my hon. friends opposite will not expect me to take up too much of my time extolling reductions made by them. But I wanted to correct the statement made by my hon. friend-inadvertently, I am sure- that the tariff of to-day on agricultural implements is almost, as high as that of the tariff of Sir John A. Macdonald.


Robert James Manion: May I correct the hon. minister? I am sure he will allow me. I did not discuss the tariff on agricultural implements at all in that connection. I stated that the tariff was practically

and I emphasized the word "practically"-the same as the

tariff of the past. I did not have in. mind any particular details such as the duty on agricultural implements.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you. I am very glad to be corrected, but I am afraid that even with the correction my hon. friend's statement is a long way from the facts. However, we will let that go.
There are only one or two of the statements of the hon. member for Brandon that I should like to refer to, because they have already been taken up by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). 1 always like to have my department criticized; I think it is good for any public man to be subject to constructive criticism. I have often complained in the smaller provincial sphere in the WTest that I got very littie criticism, so that I am glad to get it here. My hon. friend referred to the increase in the number of officials in the various departments, including my own. Well, that is so; I hope never to be identified with a department of agriculture, in a young country like Ganada, the staff of which remains stationary or goes back. I do not know of any provincial department of agriculture, or, indeed, any federal department dealing with similar matters, that has not continued to go forward and give a larger service to the country each year. The same applies to many other departments.
My hon. friend has suggested that economies might be effected by various brunches within the departments themselves by paring down the estimates before they come here. If my hon. friend ever has the duty devolving upon him, which he may, of bringing down estimates, he will find that they are pared several times before they come into this House.


Robert Forke: With my hou. friend's permission, I would like just to state that I made estimates for twenty years for muncipal purposes.


William Richard Motherwell: That may be so, but what I want to point out is that the paring down is carried out in spite of ourselves. The items go before the heads of the various branches and before the deputy, and they are frequently cut before they get to council, and after they get to council they have to run the most terrific gauntlet of all-every minister knows that, so that when the item gets here it is pretty well shaved down. That method of practising economy is actually indulged in, I can assure my hon. friend, to the limit.
My hon. friend very properly described the stream of wealth flowing down here from the West. Last fall I took advantage of an oppor-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
tunity to run down to Montreal and get for the first time a bird's-eye view of that great harbour. Ninety vessels were either loading or unloading there, in some cases two spouting at the same berth; in one case a vessel was spouting across another vessel which lay between it and the berth.
I could not help feeling a sense of pride in the fact that the prairies, notwithstanding the disabilities they have had to labour under, are able practically to choke the avenues of commerce with their products right from Montreal back to Fort William. But my hon. friend's suggestion is that this stream of wealth may be dried up unless certain reforms are instituted in this House. Well now, I have heard statements like that made thirty years ago, at a time when I was more disposed to indulge in bluffs of that nature than I am now. I do not know whether my hon. friend meant that seriously or not. It reminds me of the statement made last year before the Agricultural committee by both Mr. Maharg and Mr. Wood in which they graphically described what was going to happen to the country if they did not immediately get a wheat board. Well, they got the necessary legislation for a wheat board, but it did not come- -and the next harvest was the largest we ever reaped. That shows that it is not safe to prophesy until after the event. I am sure my hon. friend does not mean that as a threat or even as a warning. But if it means anything it must mean that the people out there will cease to cultivate their farms, or will strike out into some other branch of agriculture, as indeed, they are actually doing in some cases. But the development of the country never stops. It may slow up during one year, but in no case has it ever ceased. The people are surely not going to abandon their farms; they will not, out of vexation of spirit, cease to produce crops; that would be positive madness. What are they going to do with their product if they do not send it out to the market? I think that is an idle statement; it is unworthy of my hon. friend, and I as a western man wish to dissociate myself from any such thought. The fact is that this stream of wealth is bound to become larger as the years go by, because not one-half the acreage of the West has yet been brought under subjection by the hand of man. So much for that matter. Perhaps it was hardly -worth referring to, but there has been so much of that kind of talk indulged in that I could not let the statement go by without some reference to it. I have had correspondence from various parts of the United States asking if the western prairies are likely to go back to the Indian and the roving Buffalo, if there are any. I have had to correct that impression on more than one occasion, and I want to voice the correction through this parliament. So far as we can make an estimate, there is no going back; there is to be a constant going forward, in spite of the difficulties that have beset us in recent years-and to these I shall refer later.
I was the subject of another remark, apparently, with respect to an incidental reference I made to not carrying around cattle space in my vest pocket. When my hon. friend gets better acquainted with my eccentricities of speech he will not feel so much offended when I make a remark of that nature. Here were the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Forke: I would like to ask the hon.
member if he saw the description of his vest pocket in the Manitoba Free Press?


William Richard Motherwell: I certainly did, and it was very cleverly gotten up. I am going to refer to that

not to the description, but to certain other articles in the Free Press. The circumstances were these: Here was a business which after suspension for a period of thirty years had been suddenly restored. A good many of the applicants for space did not apply as soon as they might have. Anyway, after the space was all gone the tail-enders began to send in their applications. They evidently thought that space would be awaiting their pleasure, not at Portland, because we did not ship from there, but, say, at St. John, and they would be calling me up from here and there wanting to know where that space was. That is what provoked the remark that no matter where I went I would be found by long distance telephone or telegram or some other means of communication by some applicant for space who was too late in making known his requirements for shipping stockers overseas. I take this opportunity of suggesting that all who want, space in the next, rush in August and September put in their applications early and avoid the rush that is bound to occur when the ship owners themselves do not know what the requirements will be. They must know within a reasonable time in advance if we are going to have space to take care of the requirements of the shipping public.
I want to say just a word in connection with the Free Press, a journal which is very capably conducted, though not particularly accurately conducted. If it were as accurate in its statements as it is clever in some of its news editorials *:hat are displayed on its front page we would have nothing but nice things to say about it, but some of its statements, as I notice from my correspondence have caused some anxiety in the West regarding

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
an alleged dereliction of duty, not so much on the part of myself-I let that go; I look upon references to myself as first-class advertising-but on the part of my department. If we are negligent we certainly deserve the reprimands that the Free Press has been giving to us in its front page news editorials for the last two or three weeks. But what are the facts? In this connection I wish to give due credit to my predecessor, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). Before this government came into power at all steps were taken by the Department of Agriculture in anticipation of the embargo being removed. As a matter of fact everybody knew since the pledge was given by the British government in 1917, that there were nine chances out of ten that sooner or later the embargo was bound to come off, and come off in our time. Consequently in the year 1921, the last year of the life of the old government, steps were taken by the Dominion Department of Agriculture to get in touch with the National Railway Board with a view to seeing if any of the Canadian Merchant Marine boats, which were then under the administration of that board, could be converted into cattle boats, and here is a summary of the reply. The letter itself is too long for me to read, but it can be made available to any membei of the House on request. This is a summary of the reply given by the Canadian National Railway Board to the Department of Agriculture in 1921:
Not practical to use vessels at present in service for carrying cattle. Two vessels under construction at Halifax that could be equipped for carrying cattle. This would be a start.
These two vessels were converted into cattle boats, and I shall refer to them later. The reason I take this matter up now is because on several occasions there have been intimations of a more or less insinuating character made with respect to this matter. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) came out frankly and intimated gross negligence on the part of the Department of Agriculture with respect to this matter. I bring it up now to correct the mis-statements that are constantly being made by the Winnipeg Free Press, and I take this opportunity to put all and sundry right in this matter. I cannot guarantee that they will stay right, but I have nothing to do with that.
Here is another letter from the Canadian National Railway management, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture by Mr. R. B. Teakle under date of April 7, 1921:
tMr. Motherwell.]
Smaller ships not at all suitable for carrying cattle. Could carry about 138 head on main deck of big ships, but it is not worth while when the expense connected therewith are considered.
The full contents of this letter can be made available on request. Later on I wrote to Sir Henry Thornton and I have here his reply under date of March 15, 1923. That was before any shipments of cattle were available from Canada to the Old Country. I will give the sum and substance of Sir Henry Thornton's letter: .
Steamers not suitable cattle carriers. Necessary to conform to British regulations. Extensive repairs would be necessary. Approximate cost $32,000 per ship. From October to May deck of ship liable to be flooded, during storms.
These were the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which then and prior to our coming into power were under the administration of the railway board. The decks of these mercantile boats of ours are very close to the water's edge, probably six feet above it, and during the storms that are bound to come in the months mentioned the decks would be so swept by the billows that frequently animals and the fixtures on the deck would be swept overboard.
Here is a memorandum prepared by my deputy in connection with this same matter:
It has been contended that smaller boats were not suitable for the cattle t<rade. This is demonstrated by the serious loss of cattle from the Canadian Commander in October, 1921, when she lost 57 head from a load of 288 cattle.
There is no encouragement to shipping cattle under those circumstances. Imagine the insurance you would have to pay when it became known that these boats were liable to lose that proportion of cattle, 57 out of 288 head. I have not figured out the percentage, but it is a very serious loss.
We were not satisfied with that and efforts were made later on to see if some sheltered deck system could not be devised to prevent this untoward loss of cattle being swept overboard during a storm, but the result has been as I have intimated. When you consider the loss and the risk, it was not a practical proposition to convert these boats into cattle boats.
That is the result of the correspondence that was had by the department before I was minister. Efforts were made subsequently with the results that I have intimated. Not only that, but we have sought other sources of relief in this respect. I have got in touch with a New York firm who had under their control a fleet of three tramp steamers that could carry two thousand cattle each. We

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
also got in touch with other firms, with seven other steamers, all of which laid down this condition, that if they were to come and take part in the cattle trade of Canada at the fixed freight rate they were prepared to adopt, it would have to be on the condition that the Canadian government in return would guarantee them a full load every time they went across the Atlantic during the entire year. You know, Mr. Speaker, what that would result in. During the slack seasons of the year half the space would be empty, and consequently such a guarantee was impossible. What I wish to emphasize, however, is that these avenues of relief were canvassed and found to be impracticable. Well now, in view of the fact that there was never at any time over two or three hundred cattle for which space was demanded and could not be supplied, were we justified in going any further in anticipating a shortage than taking the measures I have referred to?
It is true that a number of gentlemen who are buying cattle in the West, when they got out in that broad and breezy western land and came in touch with enterprising newspaper men-well it is amazing what stories they were able to spread abroad on the western breezes. The result was that there grew up a fictitious demand for space, which had two effects. One was to run up the rates, because the moment ship owners or anybody else find a demand for their commodity the natural result is for them to raise the price of that commodity, and that is what happened in this case. Our good friends of the Winnipeg Free Press made the most of these circumstances. They made the case twice as bad as it was, but of course, that is not very bad from that source; but to read stories of that kind without hearing a proper explanation of the facts is certainly discouraging to the man who raises cattle. When the embargo was taken off we are told that the rate per head was $15. That is not correct. It was $25, but that is neither here nor there. There was a time when it was $15. That was in last December or January, but shipments had to be made from Portland and the law does not permit us to ship through that port so that it was of no effect as far as we are concerned-as a matter of benefit to us it might as well not have existed at all. It was intimated in the case of a number of steamers that had not very much to do that they were going to try and operate from Portland, for instance, at $15. They might have been prepared to do that rather than remain idle, but
they knew perfectly well that they could not get Canadian cattle for stockers because the British law distinctly stipulated that they must go from Canadian ports. Consequently we can count that offer out. It never was available for Canadian cattle during last year or since shortly after the outbreak of the war. In the second or third year of the war what was the first price that was advertised for Canadian stockers? It was $20. Afterwards there was a rate of $22.50 largely as a result of the optimistic talk that was indulged in by some of the buyers back on the prairies with respect to the likely requirements of space. Unfortunately those requirements did not develop to the extent that a great many people thought. I have in mind one gentleman whose name I will not mention. I had an interview with him and from his conversation I should judge he would make a first class westerner. He was feeling optimistic and said he thought he should want 2,000 spaces. We were naturally very desirous that these buyers from the Old Country should have their requirements filled in toto if possible at this end. So we got in touch with some of the brokers in Montreal and we managed to rustle, by various means, over 1,400 spaces. That fact was communicated to the gentleman in question and then we found that he only wanted 400, so that the balance of the spaces available was going begging. These are the facts in connection with this matter. I do not want to read too many documents for it is not very interesting. All I want to do is to lay facts before the House showing that we were not derelict in our duty in this respect. I am proud to know that there were a sufficient number of high quality export cattle in Canada at that time to fill two or three hundred spaces. I would rather have conditions that way than that accommodation should go begging. It will mean a lot for the development of this trade when the requirements of the country are known and appreciated by the shipping fraternity, and when the farmers of the West, in fact the farmers throughout Canada, know what the removal of the British embargo is going to mean to them with respect to their stockers.
Now, what further did we do? We do not want to be boastful at all but since this matter has been referred to so frequently it is well that the facts should be known. You know in politics you have to be sufficiently suspicious to keep your eye on the ball and be on your guard against those who are trying to put their hooks into you. A great many people in this country resented the delay

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
which took place in the removal of the embargo and clamoured for the application of the shillelah, or a black thorn in the absence of a shillelah, because the British authorities did not make haste and have this embargo removed. That is not the way to get the British or anybody else to come across. This was essentially a matter for the British themselves to take action. Now, I would like to give credit, in connection with this matter, to all to whom credit is due. I remember saying, when we were discussing this matter last year that if we had the good fortune to get the embargo removed I was prepared to divide the credit for it. I have done that elsewhere in any public statements I have made and I do it here now. Every public man, every public body-whether on this side of the Atlantic or on the other-that co-operated in getting this embargo removed is entitled to a full share of credit. But when I say that I do not want anybody to swipe the credit that is properly coming to this government. One of my experiences on coming down here to take office in the government was to find that if you adopt any goo< i measure somebody steals the credit for :t before you get up next morning. The Crowsnest pass matter is an example of that.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Mo.-se Jaw election.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the Moose Ja.v election if you like. If my hon. friend is satisfied with the result in Moose Jaw I am equally satisfied. If my hon. friend is satisfied with the circumstances which created the vacancy resulting in that election I am not going to express any dissent. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the new member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Hopkins). I was a colleague of his for many years in the early days of the Grain Growers' Association before the evil spirit of politics came upon that noble band of heroes and workers.
Now, I have a newspaper editorial which I desire to quote. I do not accept it as being necessarily authoritative, but the Gazette is a very responsible and a very well edited paper. The editorial refers to the report of the proceedings of a certain number of shipping authorities who convened in Great Britain some two or three years ago on the question of the Atlantic freight rates. This question of the freight rates on the Atlantic is not a new question, it is a very old and very typical one, and I am sure the House will agree it is not a very easy matter to deal with. This year I had the opportunity of 
discussing the difference between railway rates and water rates, and my attention was diawn to the fact that while it was comparatively easy to control railway 5 p.m. rates it was quite another question to control rates on the Atlantic ocean. The moment you begin to put restrictions on water rates the vessels concerned can fly away to the seven seas and leave you without any cargo carriers. That remark aLo applies to rates on inland waters, although not to the same extent. Well, there was a body of men in the Old Country representing the various interests concerned. The British representatives were appointed by the Lloyd George government and the conference was fairly well participated in by many countries including Canada. The representative of Canada was Sir George Perley who at that time was our High Commissioner. I am not going to O.K. this document because I do not know enough about the conditions of Atlantic shipping to give my approval to it but it set me thinking a great deal and I will submit to the House the findings arrived at. I was not able to obtain a complete copy of this report in any of the departments and therefore I must give credit to the Montreal Gazette for semiring a copy of it somewhere and giving its readers the benefit. This is the part I desire to quote:
It appears now to be a universal condition of the larger industries in all progressive countries that there should be a high degree of organization among the chief companies, firms, or other units, and this condition is especially marked in industries which have to dea'l with transport. The necessity for such organization obtains clearly in the case of liner services. They have to provide for the distribution all over the world of heterogeneous classes of goods, the circulation of which to an ever-increasing extent constitutes an essential part of the-world's economy. The requirements for this part of commerce are in marked contrast to those of bulk cargo in general, where large quantities of the same kind of goods have to be carried at irregular intervals. The ships which cater for this trade are in the main separate units, but the liner service requires fleets of ships operating in unison and consequently large caipital resources and a carefully perfected central organization.
It is clear that competition between individual liners or lines in the same trade would be quite incompatible with stability of rates-
Speaking for myself I do not like that expression very well. However, I did not use it; that is the expression contained in the report. Let me continue:
and that the trade would in fact tend to return to the disturbed conditions which prevailed before the introduction of the conference system, or to those characteristic of the tramp market. The shippers might for a time secure the benefit of low-cut rates, but there would inevitably be a strong tendency to abandon regularity in sailings, and there would be no guarantee, such as obtains at present, of any general progress in

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
the type of vessel plying and the nature of the facili- ence in the cost of exporting Canadian flour ties afforded. We consider, therefore, that the con- [DOT] u, National Railways, and Merchant
ference system must be accepted as a necessary concomitant of modern commerce.
What is the conference system? It is a conference amongst all those who have fleets upon the Atlantic as respects, not only time of sailing, but the charges in connection with their service. I wonder, would the First Minister consider that a combination inimical to the interests of the people that they are endeavouring to serve, or would it be one of those combinations to which the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) referred the other day, that might be one of benefit to all? I do not know enough about the matter to say which is the case. I only say that that is the condition of affairs that exists. These are the bodies that made this report. The Canadian government that preceded . us and, I presume, this government also, as long as we make no protest, are parties to this arrangement. I do not know of any better arrangement that I could formulate offhand. What other plan would the Canadian National Railways adopt in the administration of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? Either they have to work with this conference, or those vessels have to become tramp steamers. What kind of service would they give to their system of railways as tramp steamers? Tramp steamers do not run regularly like a regular line of ships; they are here to-day and somewhere else to-morrow, wherever they can get a cargo. The Merchant Marine have to join the North Atlantic Conference, to work in unison with it or to establish a line of steamers of then-own. I do not know which they should do. I know I was not in Ottawa for two months until I began to dig into this question.


Robert Forke: Might I inquire of the minister if it gives him any particular pleasure to see Canadian boats carrying American flour four cents a pound cheaper than Canadian flour?


William Richard Motherwell: That does not give me any pleasure at all.


Robert Forke: Must that continue?


William Richard Motherwell: That has been
partially corrected lately. I think it was the second month after I came to Ottawa that the Millers' Association drew my attention to the very question to which my hon. friend refers, that is, not so much the difference between the rates for hauling flour, but rather the differ-
Marine and, not necessarily a particular line of boats, but any line belonging to the Atlantic Conference. I took the matter up with Mr. Graham Bell, Deputy Minister of Railways, with the idea of inquiring why this Merchant Marine of ours could not run its own show'. The impression that the public has is that it could do so, and my information was that it would be very nice, first, if we had boats that were capable of running our own show. These boats were constructed primarily for war purposes. I have no criticism to make as regards that; I do not want anybody to think I am blaming the government under which those boats were built. They were, I think, properly constructed primarily for war purposes, and secondly for commercial purposes. When they were put in service for commercial purposes, we found that they were, .n the first place, not fit at all for cattle boats and, in the second place, not fitted very well for what'is called parcel cargo. Moreover, they have not the speed to compete successfully with the average liner on the Atlantic. That is my information. We on the prairies are brought up far from the sea, and I do not claim to be an authority on these matters. I wanted, however, to know why the Canadian Government Merchant Marine could not run their own show. That was the explanation I received, and it seems rational. What are we going to do about the matter? Could we not take a crack at running our own show and see how it would work out? I was told that the way this had worked out in the past, was that they were eight or nine or ten million dollars in the hole, a deficit which the people of Canada had to contribute to. I was also informed that if they had gone on to the ocean, run their own show and accepted rates that some people in Canada thought should be in force, the deficits would have been only that much greater.
I do not know how much this was being put over on me, an innocent man from the interior of this country; but it was pointed out to me that a line of -boats of that description could not successfully compete on the Atlantic with properly constructed boats. You were sure to get cargoes going east, because the Canadian National Railways would supply them; but the moment you began to hunt in Great Britain for a cargo to come back with, you would have the entire North Atlantic Conference to compete with, and you would have no cargo. I do not know whether
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

that sort of thing is done down by the sea in this country. I hope it is not, but I feel that is exactly what vvould happen. I made further inquiries to find out if there would be any danger to the actual safety of the boats themselves. I was told, no; but there would be such competition and combinations put up against that independent line of steamers, that they would come back empty, and that the deficits would be greater than ever. What are you going to do against competition of that kind? Those boats are very important as regards carrying freight for our Canadian National Railways, and if you put them on an independent basis where they would be carrying cargo only one way they would invariably come back empty.
1 hat is my information and I can see why it should be so. We think we have competition m this country; we think we have cutthroat methods, but this is not all confined to Canada. It you go abroad, you will get it in all its purity, in all its genuineness, and that is what you have to do with these liners. There is no speed to them. You might as well put an old plug of a plough horse on a race track as regards speed. But these boats are essential factors in connection with the administration of the Canadian National railway system, notwithstanding these disabilities, notwithstanding the fact that they cannot be converted into proper cargo boats.


Mr. DUFF:: No, they are not


William Richard Motherwell: I am giving the House my authority. I do not want to be reflecting on the official opposition which is up against it badly enough these days without my poking any more at it.


Robert Forke: The opposition seems to be from the other side.


William Richard Motherwell: The opposition was pretty well taken care of this afternoon by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr Rav-mond).
Mr. E1ANS: Will the hon. gentleman say what our Merchant Marine is good for?


Mr. MARTELL:: Good for nothing.


William Richard Motherwell: 
William Duff: Presbyterian.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes; they fear God and keep out of debt as much as they can, and there may be some connection between the two. There is a lesson to be learned in western Canada from the attitude of the farmers of the East towards debt. I can recall my own youthful days, which is some time ago, when we looked upon debt as something to be utterly abhorred and avoided to the last. We thought that only in dire extremity, when one was in the last ditch, was it at at all excusable to get into debt, and then only as moderately as possible. Instead of amortizing debt from now to eternity we always tried to keep out of it. And that is
the reason why debt is not crucifying the people in the Maritime provinces. It is true that they are having tight times in some respects, but at least half of the people there are free from debt, and very few of the other half are overwhelmed with obligations, the simple reason being that they have never got into debt; they have played safe. Instead of running to the bank every now and then or hunting up the mortgage company and quarrelling with them because they would not give more, these people went to mother earth, dug the soil, improved the quality of their live stock and dairy products and thus obtained greater revenue from that source. And, withal, they kept their heads. Sometimes we in the West look down on the people of the East and call them stick-in-the-muds, slow and effete. I think, however, that we might to advantage acquire some degree of their caution, at least so far as the matter of debt is concerned. I have often wondered, if we struck the balance between the advantages and the disadvantages of mortgages as a means of developing agriculture, where the the difference would lie. I do not know. However, let us proceed with a consideration of agricultural conditions throughout the country, first in the Maritime provinces.
There is specialized farming in Prince Edward Island, at least to some extent; there is the raising of foxes in addition to specialization in certified seed potatoes, both of them very profitable industries. In New Brunswick there is a considerable area represented I understand by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), that specializes in commercial potatoes. They have special equipment; their land is in shape; and their efforts during the war years were well rewarded. Now, however, the war is over and they are faced with a tremendous tariff in the United States, so that the potato growers in that part of the Dominion are in hard circumstances. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is always the way; the man who engages in specialized farming of any kind, even dairying, will sooner or later find the same thing befalls his industry. Possibly dairying and. hog-growing which go together, constitute the safest line; there is the least amount of disease associated with them and the least liability to collapse. But specialized farming, whether it be potato growing in New Brunswick, fruit growing in the beautiful Niagara peninsula, or in the Annapolis valley, or specialized fruit growing in British Columbia, all run infinitely more risks than are encountered in diversified farming. That doctrine is as old as the hills, and yet a great

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
many of us are so slow to appreciate it. I suppose we can be excused for reluctantly admitting it. Anyone who ever got the imperial feeling that comes to a man on a threshing machine, who sees the stream of golden grain running into the waggon box, and afterwards takes it to the elevator and gets his cheque, will agree that it is no wonder that people specialize. There is a sufficient modicum of the gambling instinct in most of us to succumb to such a temptation. I have never been a gold miner myself but I can imagine a man digging and prospecting for twenty years in the hope of turning up something, until he is finally bankrupt. But we must play a safe game in agriculture. If we do, we shall be able to obtain a living and build ourselves comfortable homes and provide something for old age.	Let
every man do this, so that he may be his own household king, beholden to no man. And that is what is really worth while. So much for the Maritime provinces. I regret that I cannot spend more time dealing with their conditions. They form an interesting part of the country and this summer I hope to make another itinerary and have it carried out. Then I shall be able to speak at first hand.
I had an opportunity of visiting the experimental farms in Quebec last year, and some of my friends described my references thereto as a travelogue. I suppose I know in a vague way what that is, but I had an interesting time, whether you call it a travelogue or any kind of "logue". Agriculture in Quebec presents an interesting study. I do not think any province has made the same development in agriculture during the last twenty years. It may be said that Quebec has had further to go, that its agriculture was primitive twenty years ago, and therefore those responsible for the affairs of state had the opportunity of their lives. I am not ^oing to discuss that feature. All I know is that in co-operative dairying I am safe in saying that no other province has made the same progress during the last ten years, in fact in co-operative marketing generally. Our estimates were scarcely through the House where some doubting Thomases were wondering whether anyone would take advantage of the cold storage subsidies, when we had two applications from co-operative societies in the neighbourhood of Montreal and Quebec cities-not the Harbour Cold Storage concern that I referred to the other day, but real co-operative societies run by farmers. They have been asked if they will be able to comply with our conditions and so earn these subsidies. Co-operation is

the spirit of the age. I am not one of those who think that middlemen are a bunch of grafters or parasites; not at all. I think a certain class of middlemen are necessary, otherwise we must give the same service ourselves. During the present hard times we have been compelled in many places to adopt co-operation and dispense with some of the services of the middlemen in order that business may be conducted at a profit. But, remember, we are merely doing the service that in former years had been relegated by custom to middlemen.
A good part of eastern Quebec has a climate not exactly like that of the Canadian West, but sufficiently similar to make it difficult to grow fodder corn. The result is that few silos have been constructed. A considerable portion of that interesting province has been denuded of its trees, and farmers are endeavouring to till a reluctant soil that will scarcely grow a crop. It is in such sections of Quebec that you find hard times. We had a man before the Agricultural committee from Ste. Anne's. There are some beautiful spots around there, and also some very hard-looking sections which should never have been brought under cultivation. That witness told us a rueful story, as if the conditions in his locality were representative of those obtaining throughout his province. The substance of his lamentations was this:	I am on poor land and I cannot
borrow any money. He wanted what are known as additional credit facilities. I asked him if he had not sufficient credit facilities from mortgage companies and the like. He replied that these companies would not lend him any money or only very little. Upon further inquiry I found he was actually, trying to eke out an existence on land that should have been left as forest. But there is a certain amount of intermediate quality land between these splendid valleys and the absolutely poor land where the farmers get along pretty well. But if they knew they could grow first-class ensilage by cultivating sunflowers-something which will flourish in a much colder climate than Quebec-their profits would be increased to a very great extent. Such ensilage can be kept over from year to year for provision against drouth. It is not necessary to build an upright silo. If a farmer is too poor to undertake such an outlay he can build a silo in the ground. A hundred years ago or more we find that in the north of Ireland and other parts of Europe the farmers put ensilage in a hole in the ground-sometimes brewers' grain, anything in fact that they wanted to keep in a semi-acid condition. So a man does not need to have much capital to construct a silo for his dairy stock. The use of a silo will encourage him to go into a much

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
more profitable form of dairying. In other words, to be profitable to the maximum dairying should be all the year around, not merely during the summer. I can recall my own boyhood days, when we stopped milking the cows and the milk factories closed we used to think it a day of rejoicing, for to lads of fourteen years of age the work was laborious and the hours very long. Well, the moment that the cows went on winter rations so many farmers put them through on such low maintenance rations that in the spring they were skin poor. That is not right. Those are the conditions under which dairying largely failed in Ontario years ago. Naturally there is a tendency if you are not getting anything from the cow to feed her very sparingly. Of course, this is a great mistake.
I hardly know what to say about agriculture in Ontario. You will travel over many seas and in many lands, Mr. Speaker, before you will find a better country than old Ontario. I do not think it necessary to spend very much time in describing farming conditions in Ontario.	As to suggesting improved methods, I would hesitate long before venturing to do so. Possibly one reason why they have not very many experimental farms in Ontario is that they do not need them. But even in Ontario I venture to say the farmers are only waking up to two or three things that we should have been alive to twenty or thirty years ago. Of course, we all think of living when we should be thinking of dying. In the western Ontario peninsula there has been a tremendous hazard in the growing of fruit. The government that preceded us, in one of its moments of enterprise and progress, built a pre-cooling plant at Grimsby. That has proved to be a wonderful transforming institution in the fruit district of the Niagara peninsula. If they could get one or two more such institutions it would simply revolutionize fruit-growing by enabling them to pick their fruit from the tree and rush it into cold storage. Last year that institution was kept open day and night for weeks to the great advantage of the local fruit growers.
We are falling behind in our dairy exports. Reports from the Motherland indicate that our competitors in the Antipodes are getting away ahead of us. They have adopted modern methods in the manufacture of their butter and cheese; we have not; that is all there is to it. It does not follow that we are inferior or incompetent in these matters, because it was a Canadian in the person of Mr. Ruddick, our present dairy commissioner, who organized the New Zealand dairy industry. There is a
Canadian to-day in charge down there. Well, if a Canadian can do it in New Zealand, why cannot a Canadian do it here? They have many disadvantages, on the other hand they have many advantages too. Two of our representatives have just returned from a visit to New Zealand and Australia. I havp not yet received their reports, but I have had a preliminary report from Mr. Ruddick. He has also given certain statements to the press and certain evidence before the Agricultural committee with respect to our dairying requirements. In effect he says that if we are to keep pace with our brothers in the Antipodes we must modernize our methods. We have antiquated cheese factories in this country. They are too small to give a proper turnover, to give a profit either to the farmer or to the maker of cheese; too small to enable the turning out of a large volume of uniform quality. The cheese is graded too soon, taken out of the factory too soon, not cooled properly, not ripened properly; and the result is that it cannot compete with the first-class article that is put on the market of Great Britain by our competitors. We shall have to speed up if we are to avoid falling further back. For twenty-five years we were the topnotchers on the British market in the matter of cheese. We are second now, and unless we watch out we shall soon be third. We never were first in butter that I know of; we were, I think, third for a time. I do not know where we are now; I do not know where we shall be three years from now if we do not take warning and get our dairying on a better basis. That is all I will venture to say at this time until I get the report of the commissioners who journeyed to New Zealand and saw what was the last word in this connection. Well, I do not know that it is, in fact, the last word; it is like the tariff-there is no finality; even death is not final. And there is no finality about dairying. But the investigations being made have to do with the last word in dairying so far as its application to Canada is concerned. I hope, therefore, that I shall have the sympathy and support of the dairymen of eastern Canada, who have been exceedingly tolerant of a western man who is not supposed to know anything about dairying. I hope we shall have their co-operation in putting the dairying of Ontario and Quebec on a better basis so that we may be where we ought to be so far as the British market is concerned, at the top of the list-where we were before, where we should be again and may be again if we only will. But I want to warn you that you will have to submit to even more restrictions than

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
you do submit to now. There was a great howdy-do when Hon. Manning Doherty introduced last spring for the first time the policy of buying milk on the basis of quality and butter fat content. Just think of it: after fifty years only now waking up to the necessity of paying according to the quality of the goods you get. Why, you might as well make a flat rate for horses as have a flat rate for milk. The same may be said in regard to the cream, because in all these things we have fallen behind. Mr. Doherty is to be congratulated for taking the initiative in this matter, because as a rule the man who breaks the ice in this direction in an old province is going to get rapped oyer the knuckles for it. Mr. Doherty was sufficiently near this election to make it a little dangerous for him; I was sufficiently far from the election to make it comparatively safe for me to introduce this principle of grading. People would come into my office and tell me what was going to happen to me if they were not permitted to carry on their dairy boards as they had been carried on for the last forty years and to make cheese and grade it just as they pleased. Well, nothing happened; there has been no upheaval. .The new grading system came into effect on the first of April and on succeeding days we woke up and found things just about as they were, except that our butter and cheese were going over with the government grade stamped on each package.
Mr.. WARNER: May I ask the hon. gentleman which province took the most prizes in last year's butter market?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it was the province of Alberta. I am just coming to the breezy West now; I cannot afford to spend any more time on Ontario. Now we have to go through that great area of rocks and mountains and plains west of the lakes-[DOT] and I will deal with the three prairies as one country. They are to a large extent the same so far as this subject is concerned, though it is true that in some other respects they are quite different. In the matter of dairying Alberta takes the lead both as to quantity and as to quality and prizes. Of course it is an easy matter for a man who is an adept at it, and who specializes in assembling cream from the best patrons, to make a high quality of butter. The western provinces have come to the front, but not because the dairymen there are better than those in the East; they are not; they are far more primitive dairymen than the eastern dairymen are. They have more primitive surroundings; they have poorer live stock; they have not as good barns; they have not had as much experience

as the eastern man, having been at it a shorter time. Yet, because they have adopted proper methods, their butter commands five shillings a hundred more than any eastern butter that goes on the British market. I am sure my eastern friends will not object to our saying that; we have not much to boast of there, you know, outside of our wheat. I tell you that our country out there, notwithstanding the long winter, can be profitably turned to dairying. The adoption of new and improved methods, the paying for milk and cream on the basis of quality, enables the butter makers to turn out a first-class article. The chain of cold storages that has been established in that country enables us to take care of the butter until such time as we wish to ship it to the Old Land. Some hon. gentlemen have spoken disparagingly of co-operative activities, but it was the co-operative creameries of Regina that sold and shipped overseas more than sixty carloads of high-class butter last year-the record shipment from Canada to the markets of Great Britain.
There is not so much disparagement of diversified farming by our Progressive friends this year, and I will give them credit for it. There was last year; they are learning, like the rest of us. There was a good deal of tee-heeing and poking of fun at dairying and diversified farming. Some of our friends across the way are good at telling humourous stories. There was one very funny one that we all laughed at; it was the experience of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. McConica), whom we are glad to see in his seat again, in connection with sheep growing;
I am sure you will all recall it. Our western country has up to quite recently been a purely grain growing country except in some parts of Manitoba, where they have been diversifying for many years; we have been specializing in the growing of grain. There have been men who have grown wealthy in that business. The fact is that you either grow wealthy fairly quickly or you go broke even more quickly-one of the two. If you are a good manager; if you are young and healthy and vigorous and can get up betimes in the morning and will go to bed while you can; if you have the capacity of getting work out of men; if either you or some of your boys know how to run a gasoline engine or some other kind of power machine to supplement your farm labour at times, and if you are a regular nigger driver, why, you can hold the pace for ten or fifteen years and you may become independently wealthy. Some have done it in less than that. But that is a pretty hard life, Mr. Speaker; it is no wonder some of those

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
who follow it have to go to California or British Columbia. I know of one gentleman whose case just comes to my mind now. I know his experience from the year one so far as the West is concerned. He was in my employ at a dollar a day for a week, and at the end of the week I got to my last dollar and had to dismiss him. But that is how he started out; and to-day he is worth I do not know how much. I know he has $30,000 worth of Canadian bonds; I know he has a good many Canadian Pacific Railway stocks; in fact, he is in the plutocratic class now. He also has shares in one of the local banks. And he did not make it all by working his family day and night, either, because he has not got any family. His name is Elmer Shaw, if anyone wants to look the gentleman up.	_
We have had a series of varying experiences in agriculture in western Canada; it has been a case of make or break. When that country was settled first there was a great *rush of immigrants. That was the case in the early days of the construction of the Canadian Pacific, at the time I went there myself, .and it occurred also later on, in the early days of the present century, when people were coming from all quarters of the globe to take up land in this El Dorado. Naturally a great many people came in who proved to be misfits; the attraction of a homestead for $10 was very great indeed. The thirst for land is strong in the breast of the average individual, and we still have land to gratify that thirst, but in the coming of people from all quarters of the globe, from all climes and all directions, including the republic to the south and eastern Canada, you are bound to have men who have failed in other countries and are desirous of trying their luck once more on this new land and having a farm for ten dollars. Unfortunately the same methods they puisued which caused their failure elsewhere would be very apt to occasion their failure in the West also.
I am not one of those who disparage inexperienced settlers. I know men who went out there who did not know anything about agriculture except that they knew that they	did not	know anything	about
it-and believe me that is the start; when you know that you do not know anything about agriculture, then you are ready to learn at the feet of anybody whom you think does know, but if you go there thinking you know it all the chances are that you will meet with disaster before you learn the peculiar requirements of prairie agriculture. A number of these people have hung on. I know a number of them who through all 176



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
these years have been just one lap ahead of the sheriff. In times like these when money is tight, and these facilities we are talking about for borrowing money are not multiplied by two, these people are squeezed pretty hard. They borrowed all the money they could get and went into one hole to get out of the previous one. Instead of improving their methods they wanted to improve their opportunities for borrowing, and then they quarrelled with the mortgage company because they could not get still more.	*
We will have to assume a different attitude towards debt, Mr. Speaker, before we get our stride properly on the prairies again. I can recall the time especially during and before the war, when some of us took a certain amount of pride in actually boasting about borrowing every dollar we could get on our land, and then going abroad and spending it like a lord, investing it in this and that possibly not connected with the farm and then expecting the farm to carry that obligation and help wipe it out. That is not fair. Very few debts contracted in the West have been spent on agriculture, and I say that advisedly.
I think I am safe in saying that three out of four first mortgages are for the purpose of consolidating store bills and dead horses and such like, with not one dollar invested in any productive enterprise that will help pay back the loan. That was the condition. We rushed in there pell-mell, enthused with the possibilities of the development of that country We thought the thing would never end. We sowed to the wind and are to-day reaping the whirlwind. This condition of affairs, aggravated by the war, has occasioned many, many tragedies on the prairies. There is no question about it. It is something that would make your heart bleed, Mr. Speaker. But what are you going to do about it? Men who lend money must have security.
I have in mind another instance, and there is nothing that could be morp tragic than what I am going to describe. Both of these parties were labourers of my own at the time they were married. They started out for themselves with nothing but the prospect of getting a . home for themselves and $45, and that was not in cash. They had a three-year old filly, and they got a chattel mortgage on the filly for $45, more than what they paid for it, and made the first payment on a quarter section of Canadian Pacific Railway land. They added to that by one means and another till they had five quarter sections, all on time except the initial payment. They bought machinery on time, and horses on time.

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
[Stage Direction]
I will not tell you how they got them or stood off their creditors, I do not know; I could not do it and succeed. After twenty-four years of that kind of experience, growing magnificent crops, if you like, and raising a family of twelve, they are finally crowded out on to the street by the mortgage company. If you did not know the history of that, Mr. Speaker, you would think it was something terrible. It is something terrible if you do not know the circumstances. But under the circumstances nothing else could befall them. The only wonder is that it did not happen long ago. There is no country in the world except the Canadian West which would have stood such abuse of farm and credit, and where this couple could have lasted for twenty-four years. I might say that the neighbours helped that couple for years and are helping them yet. Some friends in Alberta wrote to the First Minister, and the First Minister passed the letter over to me. It is a great place down here to pass the buck, you know, Mr. Speaker. I got a letter describing the case, and I told the First Minister that there was nothing else for it. I knew the couple exceedingly well. Some of the boys and girls were capable of working out, and I advised them to work for their neighbours. Hundreds of men who would make first-class labourers, are only fourth, or fifth-class managers for themselves. It takes a long time to find it out. My advice to such would be to let the shoemaker stick to his last, let the man perform that service he is best fitted for. If he cannot make a living managing his own affairs, if he is a faithful labourer and gives proper service, he may soon find himself in better circumstances than his employer.
Mr. KNOX:: Does the minister mention that type as representative of the farmers of the West?
Mr. MOTHERWEI.L: Which one? I have tried to describe two, the two extremes-the (man who was a bounder and was turned oa the street after twenty-four years, and the man who was a good manager, a mechanic, who knew how to get labour out of his men, got up betimes in the morning, took care of his business and became wealthy. It just shows, Mr. Speaker, how much depends on the individual. It has been said, though this is extreme, of course, that some men would make a living in the Sahara desert while others would starve in the Garden of Eden.


Andrew Knox: Does the minister mean to represent the man who did not go into debt as being prosperous to-day?


William Richard Motherwell: Debt is a good thing sometimes. It is like fire. Fire is good as long as you are the boss, but when fire becomes your boss, then look out. Debt is a good thing, I suppose, as long as you are master. It is a good servant but a mighty bad master. If we have to go into debt let us go into it just as little as possible, and just to the extent that we think we can get out of it in reasonable time.


Andrew Knox: I am afraid the minister did not catch my point. Does he mean to say that agriculture in the West to-day, in the case of the men who keep clear of debt, is prospering?


William Richard Motherwell: I say that the men who keRt out of debt or went into debt only very moderately are in safe circumstances to-day, and there are less failures among these than among any other class of people. I say that advisedly.


Andrew Knox: Are they prosperous to-day?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they are prosperous to-day. The fact that they are out of debt is a good indication of that. I sav further, I would like to sound a note of warning right now. I do not think the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) exactly voiced my sentiments.


Mr. GOULD:: I would like to ask the minister how he reconciles his statement about farmers keeping out of debt with the statement that was made in the Agricultural committee that for all the municipalities of Saskatchewan this year the records show an average unpaid tax of $37 per quarter section.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend will wait for a minute or two until I get to that point I will be very glad to deal with it; it is the very next item on my notes. I would like to sound a note of warning with respect to this amortization of debt, this funding of debt. One of the reasons why the man with little debt, or only sufficient debt to be controllable, is better off than the man with a big burden and heavy interest charges is this: All the time he has the consciousness of being a landed proprietor; he is sitting under his own fig tree, the dwelling he occupies is his own, and even if he has a little debt that home is not endangered. Therefore I say that the man in that condition is better off

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
than the man who is so burdened down with debt' he does not know whether his home belongs to him or whether the mortgage company owns it-there is no question about that. And the idea of asking a man to undertake an amortization of debt which is to run for thirty years 1 Why, if he is thirty years old he will be a man of my age before he knows the sweet joy of being the sole proprietor of that land. I say that is paralyzing to his efforts to make a success of that farm, yet it is exactly one of the mistakes we are making. Instead of pleading before our committees for more facilities to borrow money we should turn our attention to digging wealth out of the soil and buying better live stock.
Now I will deal with the question asked by my hon. friend the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould).


Mr. SPEAKER:: Seeing that the hon. member is about to take up a new branch of the subject we had better call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: 
William Richard Motherwell: I had forgotten exactly what it was.


Oliver Robert Gould: I made refer ence to evidence given before the Agricultural committee, that there was an average tax debt this year of $37 per quarter section on every quarter section in Saskatchewan, a debt that was recorded on municipal lands.


William Richard Motherwell: Does that mean bonded indebtedness?
Mr. GOULD- No, average tax.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
Mr. MOTHERWELL- I have a bigger tax than that on my land.
Mr. GOULD- This is an unpaid tax on
each quarter section.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not doubt that either. If my hon. friend is familiar-and I am sure he is-with collecting municipal taxes, he knows that if things are bad, it is not the municipality or the government that is paid first. I do not think my hon. friend wants to make a case against any party. He wants to get at the facts as I do, and I want to get between these two extremes that we have heard of during the session.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was trying to establish the point that people who own land will not permit arrears of $37 per quarter section of land on an average throughout the whole province, if agricultural conditions warrant their paying it.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know if that is correct. Possibly evidence of that nature was given before the Agricultural committee; but I am going to read to the House a statement made in the budget debate in the Saskatchewan assembly by the premier of that province. I think we can take the premier of that province as a reliable authority. I must confess that since leaving provincial politics, I have not kept close tab on municipal debts. There are some municipalities that have no bonded debt at all; I happen to be fortunate enough to live in one myself. That municipality has never had any bonded debt unless perhaps it has incurred one within the last two years, for during that time I have not been there to know. If, however, the same reeve is in office who has been there for many years, then I venture to say there is no such debt yet. But with regard to the rest of the bonded debt, $40 or $37, on current taxes overdue, the situation is getting better every day in every way. I have a communication here from the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, Hon. Mr. Hamilton, to this effect:
Replying to your wire of the 14th instant, I am enclosing herewith .typed copy of Premier Dunning's budget speech. The printed copies have not yet come to hand.
This is the letter accompanying the budget speech which he forwarded to me, but he gives certain information personally in addition.
In October last a campaign was inaugurated for ,he selling of Saskatchewan bonds for the Farm Loans Board, and to date an amount of $902,300 has been received. Of this amount $300,000 was subscribed iby the Hail Commission, and the rest practically all by farmers.

I have no records for the other provinces, but I think that Manitoba's situation is somewhat better than the condition in Saskatchewan municipally, while the situation in Alberta may possibly be somewhat worse. As I say however, I have not the facts before me, and that is merely my assumption. It will be noted that over $900,000 worth of Saskatchewan bonds were sold last year so that the Farm Loans Board might have these funds from the farmers and be able to re-loan the money to less fortunate farmers. That is their scheme. Out of that $900,000, $300,000 worth was purchased by the Hail Insurance Commission. Where did that commission get the money? They got it through the premiums from the farmers; they had that much to the good this year and invested it in Saskatchewan farm loan bonds. This is the information that comes to me from the Hon. Mr. Hamilton. He then refers me to page 27 of the budget speech of Premier Dunning wherein he says will be found reference to the sale of Saskatchewan debentures. I will not go into that phase of the situation. I do not know whether the information given me is correct, but I do know Mr. Hamilton to be a responsible man. Of course, it will be a difficult matter to get at the real facts in regard to the average overdue taxes in the municipalities of Saskatchewan, for the reason that the returns are not all in. However, I will accept my hon. friend's statement as to the amount on the average that is overdue. Again, I do not know that this statement is correct, but I will accept it any way for the purposes of this debate. Now let me turn to Premier Dunning's statement, which is rather voluminous. He said in part:
It is not possible to say truthfully on this occasion that our economic problems are solved, that we are a very prosperous people or a very prosperous province. But I think the conclusion the House will reach, after hearing the information which I have to present on this occasion, will be that at least we have passed the low point; and, to use the phrase that is often used, we have scraped bottom and are now on the improvement so far as economic conditions of our people are concerned and the financial position of the province and its municipalities.
I am sure that this must be regarded as pleasant information. Mr. Dunning states, "We have touched bottom, we have turned the comer, we are going to be able we hope, with the experience of the past before us, to make the grade."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Glad to hear it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether my hon. friends are rejoicing at the possibility of their being able to put a differ-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
ent construction on the phrase I have used, "touching bottom," from the meaning that Premier Dunning intends it to convey. I do not know whether it is the bottomless pit that hon. gentlemen have in mind, but apparently the worse construction is the one they entertain. Would it not be better to take that better meaning, "Whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," and so on? I think it would be better for hon. gentlemen to take that more favourable construction when referring to their own country; I do not see what pleasure they can take in fouling their own nests.


Mr. SALES:: What we want is the truth.


William Richard Motherwell: If hon. gentlemen
can take any fun out of this I am loath to deny them the pleasure. All I desire to do is to give the information to the House. Let me continue the quotation:
This probably is largely due to the way in which Nature or Providence treated us in 1922 as compared with the previous year.
Surely Providence plays a part in our harvests and in our lives.
It is also due to the fact that our people during 1921 learned the stern hard lesson of the necessity for economy and thrift in all their dealings and work.
Premier Dunning attributes the good result to economy and thrift plus a good crop, which enabled them to turn the corner. The people learnt the lesson that was taught by the perfect orgy of extravagance in connection with borrowing which had been indulged in. Most of us have been guilty of such extravagance, Mr. Speaker. I confess that I too have been bitten by the bug of extravagance. Some of us, however, kept our businesses very reasonably in hand and when the fatal day of deflation came we were able to recover our balance without disaster, while others went with such impetus that they toppled over the precipice, with the result that everything is gone except the howl.
Our wheat acreage in 1922 decreased as compared with 1921 by over one million acres, but in spite of that the yield of wheat increased from 14.8 per acre to 20.25, or giving total figures from 201,000,000 bushels to 251,000,000 bushels in 1922, an increased production of over 50,000,000 bushels of wheat.
The province that can produce 250,000,000 bushels of the best wheat in the world surely should not feel too hard up. Surely some of it must accrue to the people after it has passed through the various avenues to the markets of the world.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister give it as his opinion that the men who grew this
wheat were able to sell it for more than cost of production?


William Richard Motherwell: The last time I
operated my farm was in the year 1921, and if I had attended to it myself instead of gallivanting around the country preparing for the election of that year I would have made it pay. As it was I did dot make it pay, because I was not there to superintend and manage the farm myself; and I do not think that any man can make a farm pay unless he stays on the job. Now, to come to the matter of price.
The average net price to the farmer for the 1922 crop will be 85 cents per bushel, or 10 cents per bushel more than 1921.
That was the estimate made more than three months ago, in the month of March. The price has gone up 10 or 15 cents a bushel; at least that 85 cents will have increased to 90 cents by the time the figures are all in. So much for the statement of Premier Dunning. Now, there is not much money in exclusive wheat growing; there is no question about that; neither would there be much money in any business in which the by-products were not utilized. How much money would there be in any industry in Canada if the byproducts were dissipated in the way they are on many wheat farms on which there is no live stock?


George Gibson Coote: Before the minister leaves
Premier Dunning's statement would he mind reading the premier's expression of opinion in regard to that late budget just brought down?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I think I can give it to my hon. friend. I have not got it here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I will give it to my hon. friend. I wired Premier Dunning this morning and I will give my hon. friend to-morrow a copy of my telegram. The concluding paragraph of Mr. Dunning's speech is something like this- by the way, would my hon. friend read Henry Wise Wood's expression of opinion on the budget?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I have to apologize to my hon. friend the Premier of Saskatchewan. I do not want to make such invidious comparisons of that nature. The last paragraph of Premier Dunning's speech was something like this:
We might take this budget and that of last year as moderate indications of a desire on the part of the

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
government to carry out their tariff pledges of 1919. But no western Liberal will take the ground that these should be the final word in the redemption of the tariff pledges given at the national convention of 1919.


An hon. MEMBER:: No stability.


William Richard Motherwell: That was the substance of his speech, and I can say yes to that. And who said it was the last word?


Robert Forke: The Minister of Finance.


William Richard Motherwell: Nobody said it was the last word. I was very sorry to hear the terms mentioned by the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke). I am sure he did not mean that "finality" and "stability" were synonymous terms; and yet one might infer as much from the way in which he used them in his address yesterday. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said distinctly there was no finality, that what parliament did today it might undo to-morrow. I think the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) gave a very apt illustration of it. We have had stability during the last two years, but not necessarily finality. I do not think we can have finality in anything.


Mr. HOCKEN:: What is the hon. gentleman's definition of stability?


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot improve on the definition given by the hon. member for Brantford.


John Morrison: That was political
agility.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
can supply his own interpretation.


George Gibson Coote: Does the hon. minister mean by stability that we have been on the bottom for the last two years that he referred to a little while ago?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I decline to constitute myself the interpretation clause of the act. I want to produce some further evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the condition of agriculture-not from myself at all for I have not been an active farmer during the last two years except very casually. Learning something from the press of what we might expect this session, we sent out last January a questionnaire, prepared by my deputy and myself, to some hundred correspondents throughout the three prairie provinces. It is too voluminous to deal with in detail; I am only going to take the two last questions which are really the essential ones. The first is:
Is mixed farming, that is, raising beef cattle, dairying, pork production and poultry keeping, making any progress in your district ?

The other question is:
Have you any suggestions to offer as to .the best line for farmers to follow in your district in order to make a greater success of their operations?
A great many of these correspondents are practical farmers; some of them are operators at illustration stations and have a little advantage in that way because they are probably in advance of the average farmer in experimentation and keeping their eyes on the results therefrom. I have summarized the answers under three colums, headed Yes, Some and No.
The first question, as to whether they are going into mixed farming or not, is I believe the most important, because after all that is the solution of many of the difficulties of our western farmers. From the province of Manitoba every answer to that question is yes. So they are on the right track to improve their condition. Answers were received from the city of Winnipeg, Brandon, central Manitoba, Treesbamk, Morden, Fort Garry, Dauphin, Lake Winnipeg to Manitoba, Manitoba (Live Stock Branch) and Arthur.
From the province of Saskatchewan sixty-five per cent of the answers were to the effect that the writers were going gradually into mixed farming. These answers were received from Meota, Scott, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, Ogema, Lloydminster, S. E. Saskatchewan, Tugaska, Avonlea, Indian Head-I have often said that when Indian Head started to go into mixed farming nearly every other place would be thinking of following its example, because that is one of the earliest successful wheat areas of Saskatchewan-Regina, Moose Jaw, Prince Albert and Radville. Six say they are going some into it, namely, North Portal, Riverhurst, Saskatoon, Davidson and Pambrun. Forty-one per cent say no, they are not going into mixed farming. I hope they are mistaken in their answers. These negative replies came from Wood Mountain, Kindersley and Qu'Appelle. I do not quite understand what part of Qu'Appelle unless it is the village in the valley, for it cannot be Qu'Appelle Station, this having always been a diversified district.
From Alberta we received replies that the tendency is to go into mixed farming. These answers came from the following districts: North Alberta, Edmonton, Lacombe, Lacombe (Reed), Calgary District, Alberta, Alberta and Peace River, Grassy Lake, Pincher Creek, Oka-toks, Calgary (Bain), Red Deer, and Alberta (Cormie).
Nine districts say they are going into mixed farming some, and four districts answer in the

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
negative. These latter are Wainwright-by the way, from what I saw when I was there last year it would appear that they were not going into mixed farming. The fact that the great buffalo herd, of which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has charge, is stationed at Wainwright would go to show that it is an excellent live stock country.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the minister imply that Wainwright is not a mixed farming country?


William Richard Motherwell: I should think it was to some extent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It certainly is.


William Richard Motherwell: But the report here says that they are not going much into mixed farming.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The report is wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: In answer to the other question. Have you any suggestions as to the best line for farmers to follow in your district in order to make a greater success of their operations? We heard from Manitoba pretty much to the same effect as in reply to the first question; 95 per cent advocate mixed and diversified farming. Here are some of the individual answers. One says:
Cattle-better sires and better market conditions- dairying-increase live stock, more alfalfa, sunflowers, fodder corn etc., hogs, poultry, smaller farms and winter feeding of beef cattle, cut down expenses and work more.
I do not suppose any one in this House is in need of that advice-each works hard when on the farm. In the case of Saskatchewan 95 per cent of the correspondents give the same advice:
Dairying and hog raising-better business methods- smaller farms-more corn-smaller farms, worked better.
These are all good suggestions. They also write:
Cut down costs-too far from the railway to farm-more summer fallow-improved market conditions- farm better

keep better cows, etc -
Now here is one answer, Mr. Speaker, that is rather unusual. This correspondent says: "Pray for rain." Now, this may be more effective and less expensive than introducing a second Hatfield the rainmaker. I commend it to the attention of my hon. friends. Then, in Albenta, "mixed farming," "better live stock"-you would think it was the same man who wrote all of this. These questions come from all over the country, and surely what everybody says in this respect must have some element of truth in it. "Dual purpose cattle; better quality of poultry." A number of them stress the necessity for improved live
stock. It seems to me that no one is doing his best on a farm who insists on Keeping scrub beef cattle, low-grade cows, razorback hogs, and dunghill hens. There is no virtue in live stock unless it will more than pay for the cost of keeping it. I do not think, however, that it is necessary to develop this phase of the question. Here is a practically unanimous verdict as to how we may better ourselves as a result of the effort of the individual. Later in my remarks I will come to some of the larger public questions and refer to the manner in which the individual can be helped in some measure by the state. But now I am dealing with those phases of agriculture in which the man himself is largely the dominant factor. There is no doubt that in 30 or 85 per cent of the cases the success of the man on the land depends upon his own individuality.
A gentleman whose name I have forgotten was passing through Ottawa in January, and we were discussing these things. He estimated that the farmers had 100,000,000 bushels of grain in their possession or in transit or at the terminals at that time, subject to no obligation. I thought the estimate was pretty high and I wired Mr. Snow of the Grain Commission, who replied that on the last of January there were 75,000,000 bushels of unsold wheat, with obligations attached to some of it that was at Fort William. However, over half of it was in the farmers' granary with no obligations against it. I do not think many of the men who held wheat in their granaries until the first of February mortgaged it, although I believe they can do so if they desire. My point is this: A country that can carry over from harvest time until the first of February 75,090,000 bushels of wheat, worth slightly over $1 a bushel, or $75,000,000, cannot be in a very bad condition. I have no doubt that this estimate of the Grain Commission is correct; as e matter of fact I think it is low. As I say, the obligations against this wheat were comparatively small. There would be, of course, whatever payment they would get in advance, whatever drafts might be attached to the bills of lading. And I may say that since the rapid deflation of wheat in 1920, considerably more care has been exercised in attaching drafts to bills of lading.


Oliver Robert Gould: Would the minister not suggest that out of that 75,000,000 bushels, provision must be made for seed as well as for advances made on the grain?


William Richard Motherwell: No; allowance was made for that. It was the estimate made of what had to go forward.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
Now, we have some figures with regard to other matters besides grain. We cannot live by grain alone or by growing it. There are too many plant diseases, too many insect pests. The way to develop insect pests is to grow the one kind of plant food for them all the time; if you do that you will soon be visited by some kind of fungus or destructive insect. That is the condition we are in now. The fungus pest is continuing its depredations; the wheat stem sawfly has become more prevalent. Then, there are the grasshoppers. We never heard of grasshoppers in Saskatchewan until a few years ago and they have been a terrible scourge.
I am going to deal now with cattle. We are developing rapidly as a stock growing country. I am sure the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) did not go headlong into wheat growing alone; he stood fast as a farmer; he carried on diversified agriculture and grew good live stock. During the calendar year 1922, 18,000 head of live stock were shipped to Great Britain, valued at over
82.000.	000. To the United States we shipped 217,000 head, valued at over $5,000,000 and to other countries 4,000 head valued at $391,000. Our total exports were 240,000, valued at $8,000,000.
I have here an estimate by the Dairy branch with respect to the total production of dairy products. Last year the total production of creamery butter in all Canada was
128.000.	000 pounds, of a total value of $48,000,000. Of cheese the total production was
162.000.	000 of a total value of $28,000,000. The total dairy production in Canada in 1921 [DOT]-milk, casein, milk powder, skim milk, sterilized milk, and so on-totalled $212,000,000. We know that in the eastern provinces dairying is largely carried on, and we are just beginning to realize the necessity of regarding dairying in the West as something more than a mere side line. In 1921, 8.000,000 pounds of creamery butter were produced in Manitoba; last year the production was 10,000,000 poimds, an increase of 2,000,000 pounds. In Saskatchewan in 1921, the production was
7.000.	000 pounds; in 1922, nearly 9,000,000 pounds. In Alberta in 1921 the production was 13,000,000 pounds and in 1922, 15,000,000 poimds. There is the hope of Alberta. I am sure the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) would, if he had the liberty that we all like to enjoy, tell us how he kept his head above water, how dairying kept him afloat as it has kept many another man, especially in the pioneer days when there was nothing else to live on but the cows.

I was going to give the total exports of wheat from Canada, but I do not think I need give the figures; they are familiar to all hon. members.


Mr. CHURCH:: I understood that the minister when he was out West in a recent byelection promised that the Hudson Bay railway would be ready by Christmas. I am afraid it will be like getting the boys out of the trenches, and take a much longer time than that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon. gentleman may ask a question but he cannot give an address.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
referring to the time when I was out West on that interesting Easter holiday. I may say that I did not hear anything about that report until I got back nearly to Ottawa. I saw it on the train in some of the morning papers-of course, we read everything on the train-and that was the first time I ever heard of it. I took particular care not to discuss the Hudson Bay railway very much in that by-election. I certainly never even suggested such a thing as the railway being ready by Christmas. What is more, if I had, the people in the Moose Jaw '-iding. especially, in that district interested in branch lines, certainly would not have been in favour of it because they would have figured out that the more, mileage built on the Hudson Bay railway the less money there would be for branch lines in the southern part of that riding. Whoever started that fake yarn did not know the situation in Moose Jaw. The people down there want branch lines, and they want them very badly. I may add that in spite of the result of that election I had occasion to make a recommendation regarding some of the earlier lines to be taken care of and one of them was in the southern part of Moose Jaw riding. I recommended that because the people need it, no matter whether they were foolish or not about whom they selected. There is nothing like casting bread upon the waters, Mr. Speaker.
I am going now to deal with an interesting subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope I am not too tiresome to my hon. friends. I try to be as little wearisome as possible but it is a big story, the story of agriculture in Canada.
We dealt with the subject of immigration in this House for five consecutive days, and I did not feel like rising and further obstructing the estimates of my colleague to my right (Mr. Stewart, ArgenteuiP I want to congratu-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
late the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) for the sane and wise attitude that he has taken on the question of immigration, not only in this House but in Winnipeg and elsewhere in Manitoba where his voice was heard after he received the position he now occupies. He spoke on the subject at Brandon too, I believe, at the convention. He takes the ground that a great many of our difficulties would be solved if we had more people. He does not think it is wise to induce any more people to come to this country until those who are here are on Easy street. Well, if we wait till that time comes we will wait till the crack of doom, for a lot of people will never get on Easy street; they are not built that way. He takes the ground that the railway situation would also be solved by immigration. We have too much country and too few people. Twice as many people would not cost twice as much to administer; that is obvious.
Then hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) is to be congratulated too, also the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) in his few remarks, and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I think after all is said and done, it was the few over in that corner that offended on the question of immigration. Some people have the capacity for making considerable noise and getting in the limelight. I feel like exonerating the great bulk of the Progressive party of the charge of disparaging their own country. Why are they doing this, those that are doing it, and how much of it is genuine and how much for political purposes? I am going to make a confession. I can recall when I was in opposition. It was apparently my fate to be born in the county of Lanark where a fellow that was a Liberal was always in opposition, and in the early 90's in the West and the late 80's I can recall when we were all nearly bankrupt and would have been absolutely if it had not been for the Rebellion of '85:	The government of that day, which
was Conservative, would send down some of their members like the present Senator Foster to tell us how to farm. Of course, we got mad and turned around and said, "Here, we have been working at this farming business for years and are getting poorer all the time." In my younger days I used to say just the same kind of foolish things, but surely with the years should come some wisdom, and that is the reason why the leader of the Progressive party has wisdom.
What I want to point out is this. During those days of hardship there was some justification for it, because we had no tradition, we had no history; it was all a question of
what the future of the country was going to be. But we have had forty years' experience now which we can look back upon as an earnest of what can be done in the future. During those bygone years I did take the ground on more than one occasion, especially when a Tory politician from Ottawa came around, that there were enough people already in the West to experiment, and that we should wait before bringing more people in-just exactly what my hon. friend was saying the other day. But there was justification for my saying that then. It was a gamble, an experiment in those days. There were only a few Hudson Bay posts and a few church missions throughout the country to tell what could be done in agriculture. I want to put myself in the same category with the hon. gentleman who was wanting me to define "stability," because I took the same ground, but I think I had some justification. The object was partly political. I am free to make that confession now that thirty years have gone by. It was partly that, and I think it is partly that on their part now. How are they going to get any political advantage out of this? I do not know myself, but the idea as far as I can understand it, and we have seen the same disposition in several of the committees as well as in this House, seems to be to blacken things blacker than your hand. Well, if that is good politics, we cannot throw a lariat around any hon. gentleman and choke him off if he wants to talk that way. This is a free country and we have free speech; there is no closure even, so I suppose we will just have to submit to it. But I understand the feelings of hon. gentlemen. I know the tragedies that have occurred on the prairie. I know homes there that are destitute of the ordinary necessities, let alone the conveniences of life. I know of the hardships because I went through them. I do not wish to refer to myself too much, but I started on the Portage plains as a harvest labourer and I know the business of agriculture, I know its hardships. If a man goes there with youth, courage, determination and health and stays with the job I know he will win out. Where would I go to for a better place to farm?
Mr. MARTELL; Nova Scotia.


William Richard Motherwell: Premier Dunning had an experience that I am going to relate. I do not know whether he told it at the Grain Growers' convention at Saskatoon or not, but he said some straight things there. Some person'was croaking about the West There are lots of things that are not very pleasant if you are looking for that black side, and this man was chewing about the black

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
things of life, when Mr. Dunning said, "I am not a wealthy man, but if you will pick out the place you want to go to I will buy your ticket." Then the gentleman thought he would stay a little while longer. He did not take advantage of the offer. It may have been a bluff, but he did not call it.
Now I wish to refer briefly to the amendment to the budget. That amendment is so remarkably like some features of the budget that it would need the X-ray to distinguish the difference between them. The amendment declares:
And, further, that the best interests of Canada will be served by:-
(a) An immediate and substantial reduction in the tariff, particularly on the necessaries of life and the implements of production.
How many Progressives from the prairies voted for the reductions last year? What encouragement is there for anybody to fight for a thing and have not a single Progressive from the West support it? I think the proper policy when there is a lowering of the tariff is to support what you are getting. The Progressives last year showed the same attitude towards the lowering of the tariff as the Conservatives did. The latter opposed the government's policy because there was too much tariff reduction; the Progressives opposed it because it was too little. Had either proposition been adopted the government would have been defeated. It shows the folly of group parliament. Then this amendment proposes an immediate increase in the British preference to 50 per cent of the general tariff. That is the policy of both the Liberals and the Progressives. The leader of the Progressives, I want to point out, is far too modest in asking for an increase of 50 per cent in the British preference, far too modest. He is asking for something that is already in existence, something which now obtains on many articles although not on every article. I expect that when I read the list of tariff duties which I am about to do my hon. friend will head a deputation to the Finance [DOT] Minister to-morrow telling him that he will have to reduce the British preference in these cases, that it is altogether too high. Let me enumerate some of the tariff items which I got to-day. I asked the commissioner of Customs to supply me with a list of imports from Great Britain that came in under this new tariff at 40 per cent or more. Here is the statement furnished me.
Memorandum
The following items of fabrics, furniture, _ boots and hardware, are extracts from an extensive list, showing where the present preferential rates, with the 10 p.c. discount therefrom is equal to 40 p.c. or over of the present general tariff rates:-
Item	
.	Present Pref. rates	Pref. rates less 10 p.c. dis.	General Tariff rates	British rate is now the percentage indicated below of the General Tariff521 525	Gray cotton fabrics and fabrics of flax, n.o.p.. . Stair linen, sheets, tablecloths, etc., of cotton	p.c. 12,	p.c.	p.c. 25	p.c.557	or linen	20	18	30	60W oollen yarns	20	18	30	60562	Coalid cloth, etc	20	18	30	60565	Blankets, any material	22|	20f	35	57 6/7 51 3/7566	Flannels and linings	20	18	35	568	Knitted goods	20	18	35	51 3/7575a	Linen and cotton clothing	22!	20!	35	57 6/7 52!581	Velvets and silk fabrics	17!	15!	30	582	Ribbons	22!	20f	35	57 6/7519	Furniture	20	18	30	60 '611a	Boots	17!	15!	30	52!413	2 crews	22!	20!	35	57 6/7417	Nails and brads	20	18	35	51 3/7426	Cutlery	20	18	30	60427	Enamelled ware	20	18	35	51 3/7428	Iron and aluminum holloware	20	18	30	60435	Lamps	20	18	30	60440	dewing machines	20	18	30	60450	Shovels and spades	20	18	32!	55 5/13626	Hats and caps	22!	20!	35	57 6/7627	Gloves and mitts	22!	20!	35	57 6/7

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
Let me deal in detail with a few of these. For example take: Gray cotton fabrics, and fabrics of flax. Under the British preference the duty is 12i per cent. Under the general tariff it is 25 per cent. The British percentage rate is not given. Take the next item: Stair linen, sheets, tablecloths, etc., of cotton or linen. Twenty per cent is the present rate and the rate under the general tariff is 30 per cent. The British preferential rate now is 60 per cent. Now let us take woollen yarns. This is something very essential in a cold country like western Canada and sometimes it is very cold in the East too. Now in the case of woollen yarns it is 20 per cent and the British preferential rate is 60 per cent, 10 per cent higher than is asked for in the amendment. What are we going to do about it? We have overdone it, we have slipped a cog somewhere. Then we have coalid cloth. 1 do not know what kind of material that is but there is 60 per cent preferential rate on it. These figures were obtained from the Customs department not three hours ago and no change could have been made in that time. Then we have the article of blankets. As to that I felt guilty myself when I heard my hon. friends pleading for cheaper blankets. I tell you you need lots of them and cut wide in a cold country. I see that on blankets we have a preference of 57 6/7 per cent, which is less than one-half of the general tariff. There is no question about it the Tories will have to submit an amendment in regard to these reductions. Then we have flannels 51 3/7 per cent. I have not looked over this list very carefully and if I make a blunder it will be kind of awkward. I am therefore going to try and keep one line ahead if I can. The next item is linen and cotton clothing 57 6/7 per cent. Here at least is a case where we have even exceeded the pledges contained in the National Liberal convention of 1919. We have more than carried out our promise here, so we will put that to the credit of some other pledge and call it two. Next there is the. item of velvet and silk fabrics 52^ per cent; ribbons 57 6/7 per cent; furniture 60 per cent; boots 52J per cent. We are two to the good there. Then nails and brads 51 3/7 per cent; screws 57 6/7 per cent; cutlery 60 per cent; enamelled ware 51 3/7 per cent; iron and aluminum hollow-ware 60 per cent; lamps 60 per cent; sewing machines 60 per cent. And so on. There are twenty-four articles and on none of them is the British preference 50 per cent. We will have to have an investigation into that.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Last Mountain will have to ask for some sort of an inquiry.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I am quite satisfied for the minister to get what comfort he can out of the present budget. I would submit to him, however, that the list he has read constitutes a very small part-


William Richard Motherwell: No doubt.


John Frederick Johnston: -of the total list of commodities which this country imports from Great Britain.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that. There may be one hundred or two hundred but we have not got round to those yet.


John Frederick Johnston: You are a long time getting there.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will the minister give us the preferential rate on butter?


William Richard Motherwell: If we had the
same advantage as our friends the Progressives in the matter of adjusting platforms I do not know in what position we should find ourselves. An interval of twenty-three years elapsed between the conventions held by the Liberals. After such an interval I think it is only right that the platform should
9 p.m. be brushed up. A number of members of the Liberal opposition in parliament took the ground that the Liberal platform of 1919 should be brushed up; in fact was brushed up by a subsequent resolution. I was not there so sometimes it is convenient not to have a past. I know that very strong opinion has been expressed that the platform of the parliamentary members of the party was not the same as the 1919 platform. But two wrongs do not make a right. Surely a platform should not have finality any more than a tariff I have here the platform of the Progressive party. It is quite interesting and I want to comment upon some of the clauses. Here is one extract from it:
By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
That expression "in five years" was dropped off in 1920 and it now might mean five centuries. That was a very convenient expression to knock off from the old Progressive platform. The free trade plank has also been eliminated from the platform. I think the


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A commission.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
Conservatives at least, will consider that as all right. Another plank in the Progressive platform reads thus:
That the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911 which still remains on the United States statute books be accepted by the parliament of Canada.
Did my hon. friend hear the Minister of Finance make his speech? Why repeat part of the budget asking for what they have? They were sorely tried to pad out an amendment when they had asked for a British preference to SO per cent of the general tariff, when it was already 60 per cent, and to ask for reciprocity which they already had in the budget. An oversight must have occurred. Several hon. members probably drafted the amendment; they merged it together, and they had not time to see whether they conflicted with each other or not. This is one of their proposals:
As these tariff reductions may very considerably reduce the national revenue-
They propose this method of raising revenue:
By a direct tax on unimproved land values including all natural resources.
That is their old platform. They have dropped that, and I do not blame them, because it was fallacy. There is nothing about that in the amendment.


Robert Forke: What makes the hon. member think we are moving a platform? We are moving an amendment to the budget.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course I recognize that. My hon. friend was not present when I pointed out that he had more already than he was asking for.


Robert Forke: Just on a few articles. Th:s is not, however, the place to enter into .i debate, but we shall probably have an opportunity at some other time.


William Richard Motherwell: That pleases me all right. I was trying to point out, when I was assisted by my hon. friend, that they had the advantage and the wise advantage of being able to change their platform. They are doing that now, and they are omitting a number of things that they previously asked for. Things which they are asking for now, in some important instances they already have.
I think it was stated by the Regina Leader that, in the West, they had one pleasant surprise in the budget, namely the standing offer of reciprocity. It surely was not necessary for any of the oppositions to bring down another budget with the same proposition precisely. That is not an amendment. Moreover, tMr. Motherwell.]
the amendment asks for a British preference to 50 per cent of the general tariff, disregarding the fact that on some twenty-four articles, the preference is from 50 to 60 per cent already. That is quite delightful to me. Whether it is consoling to my hon. friends or not, I do not know. It is the carrying out of both of our platforms, and then some more.


Andrew Knox: I was wondering, when the minister was quoting from the Regina Leader, if he also noticed what the premier of Saskatchewan thought about the budget.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is three or four laps behind. I have already dealt with that.


Andrew Knox: I am sorry I had not the pleasure of listening to that'part of the minister's remarks.


William Richard Motherwell: They all have the same joke. WTe cannot expect another one. This "blue ruin" talk has developed that kind of thing.
I come now to a very interesting part of the budget with respect to bounties. We are told that it is a protectionist budget. Strange to say, so far as I have been able to determine, the change in every single item in the budget, in which there has been a change, is downwards. How in the world then, do you make out that it is protectionist? Can you make it free trade by putting it up? Can you make it lower by making it higher? If you can, there must be something wrong with this kind of figuring.
Personally I do not see any justification for the amendment on the ground that the budget is protectionist, unless it is as regards the two items upon which bounties have been placed. I wonder upon which of those two items the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) thought he discerned the vicious hydra-head of protection. I do not like protection one bit better than my hon. friend. I was not brought up on that at all.


Robert Forke: The hon. member has changed his views.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to know on which of those two articles he thinks he can detect the vicious principle of protection, that interminable protection that you cannot get rid of. A bounty is, admittedly, a species of protection; but it is the least objectionable, and it is terminable rather than interminable.
I do not hear vociferous voices telling me which of these two items constitutes the pro-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
tectionist feature of the budget. Perhaps hon. members straight opposite will be the authority on protection and can tell me that. I am up against it. I am not an authority myself on protection. That reminds me that there is protection and protection. When I was advocating the establishment of a new industry in Manitoba, the development of the flax industry there, some of the arguments seemed ominously like those which the Tories used to make. I can remember them, but this had the saving virtue that it was going to last only so many years. There is no termination that I can see to the other kind of protection. In my election address at my nomination in Regina, before both urban and rural representatives, I made this statement. I have under my hand what I said. I wrote it down so that I would know:
In a young country like Canada, with so many and varied natural resources, new industries are bound to be springing up from time to time. Any of these that are likely, and indigenous to the country, could, if deemed wise, be directly assisted in a start, by means of loans, guarantees or otherwise, and then gradually withdrawn as the particular enterprise becomes established. Right in this city-
That was in the city of Regina.
-we have two illustrations of such state assistance by the provincial government to the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries and the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevators.
State nursing -to exotic industries or industries al-* ready long and well established under a protective tariff is not good ultimately for labour, consumer or anybody else, except the beneficiaries thereof, and is frequently the source from which corruption emanates in our public life.
I am pledged, as a matter of fact my whole provincial experience was along the lines of starting up industries connected with agriculture by some form of state assistance.


John Morrison: Does the minister say that the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company got a bounty?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that at all. If my hon. friend will sit down, I will tell him what I said. There are other illustrations. I could not be expected to say everything, even in this House. I will refer my hon. friend to an activity that was a straight subsidy, and that was the stockyard at Moose Jaw and the other one at Prince Albert. They were each given a straight subsidy of $25,000. I would not be surprised if my hon. friend has stock in that stockyard. I know I was canvassed for it, and if I had not been hard up, the chances are that I would have had some.


John Morrison: I have a $100 share in it, which I will count as a subsidy to the Moose Jaw stockyard, instead of an investment.


William Richard Motherwell: It was after I left
that they gave that.
I am glad to find myself entirely on the side of the amendment in one important respect and that is with regard to the question of the excise. I do not know whether in this weary political world we shall ever get around to that but it is absolutely sound, and it is the only way to take protection out of any tariff. There is no such thing as an exclusively revenue tariff; the question is merely one of degree as between one kind of tariff and another. The tariff may be high enough to be prohibitive, to be protectionist, or it may primarily be just a revenue tariff; but if it is a revenue tariff it is to some extent protectionist. The more general adoption of the excise, we are told, would be most equitable all round and would relieve the poor man accordingly. "I am," the hon. gentleman says, "in theory, if you like, and in practice if I can be, in favour of an excise tariff." If that is so, let him come over and help me get it through. What is one among so many? Let the hon. gentleman come and help me. But that, Mr. Speaker, shows the folly of being divided. If I had not had the experience thirty years ago of having made just exactly the same blunder that my hon. friends are making, I would be on the other side now. But when you make a mistake once what is the sense of making it a second time?


John Frederick Johnston: May I ask a question?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, two if you like.


John Frederick Johnston: Just one. Does the minister mean to imply that he is the lone wolf howling in the wilderness, and that there is no one on the other side besides himself who holds these views?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that.


John Frederick Johnston: You want us to ijpme and help you.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say anything about wolves or coyotes or anything else.


John Frederick Johnston: You cried for help.


William Richard Motherwell: I did; and there is no reason why my hon. friend and I should not be on the budget together instead of his submitting the flim-flam proposition that we have here. What is the use of asking for reciprocity? How much more can you get than is offered in the budget?


Andrew Knox: Speaking seriously, does the minister really want to leave the impression

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
that as a westerner he is satisfied with the present budget?


William Richard Motherwell: I am never satisfied with anything in this progressive world; I am always on the lookout for better things. Did the hon. gentleman ever see a Liberal who was satisfied to stay in one place? Now, I was getting around to the subject of twine, and I could not get a reply from my hon. friends from Manitoba as to whether they thought that the budget in this respect was protective. I can recall the time when Manitoba voted eight to two against reciprocity, and I am disposed to think that if they were so vigorous as protectionists at that time they will not object very much to this least objectionable form of protection, particularly when it is likely to establish an industry which we stand in very much need of and for the product of which we should be independent of the outside world. There are two or three primary requisites for which we should not have to depend on foreign countries One of these is coal and another binder twine. I remember that during the war we were at one stage almost with the last ball of twine; and if the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) is in his seat he will no doubt recall that I interceded on his behalf once and got a carload of twine hooked on to an express train that was going to Yorkton, for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of the situation there. We have become, almost overnight, the greatest exporter of wheat in the world. The estimate of the International Institute of Rome shows that we have exceeded the United States by some six or eight million bushels this year in exports of wheat. Yet here we are, the greatest exporter of wheat in the world, bound to depend on foreign nations for 90 per cent of the twine that is used in binding it. We do not want to anticipate any difficulties that may. arise in the future, and probably our relations with our cousins to the south will continue to be cordial. But what about Mexico? A lot of our sisal comes from Mexico and our manilla from the Philippines. Suppose another war should occur, where would we get our binder twine? Why should we depend for our raw materials on places at the ends of the earth, especially for the manufacture of such a commodity as binder twine, or rope, or the various cordage and articles that are made from hemp?	It seems to me that both
this commodity and coal we should be able to produce ourselves; we should be self-sustaining so far as they are concerned. Should we allow any theory, shot 
into us when we were young regarding trade and economic practices, and which may be all right in theory, to prevent us from carrying out such a policy? Such a policy is not contrary to the tenets of the Liberal party. We have had subsidies before and I presume we shall have them again. A high tariff on articles not made in the country is not incompatible with free trade. There are certain things that are not inconsistent with the policies of the Liberal party, and one of those things is the permission of aid to such an industry as this. What would be the situation if we were to take the position that every new industry must either start on its own merits or not start at all? This idea seems to me to be absolutely nonsensical. How can you get capital invested in an industry that is in its experimental stages if it has to face such an old-established industry as, for example, the International Harvester Company? If you have to wait until capital will come in under conditions of that kind you will wait until the crack of doom, because that will never be. So that unless w7e do something to help this industry we shall have to keep on buying 90 per cent of our binder twine outside the shores of Canada. I am not an authority on the copper trade, but I have had an opportunity of visiting some of the hemp factories of Europe, and I know that hemp can be grown and has been grown in Manitoba around Portage la Prairie and the Swan river country. I do not believe there is a man in that province who has not seen it growing; and there are many parts of Saskatchewan in which it can be grown. Under irrigation in Alberta also, particularly around Edmonton, there would be no difficulty in raising this crop. There is therefore an immense industry capable of unlimited development later on which would be able to supply not only our own needs but the oriental trade and the Antipodes as well. Is there any reason why this should not be?
I do not know of any country that can produce this raw material in greater bulk than can the Canadian West. Now, if this is not a protectionist feature of the budget, what is? And if it is a protectionist feature of the minister's proposals, do I understand that hon. gentlemen are opposed to it? Judging from the remarks of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), that hon. gentleman is heartily in favour of it, as we might have expected. It was not necessary for the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to put any resolution on the order paper dealing with this matter to indicate where he was. I knew where he would be. I might have sus-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
pected, from our experience with the Progressives with regard to the Crowsnest pass when they swiped our policy, that any credit that was coming to the government might be encroached upon in the same way by the leader of the Opposition, in the placing of his resolution with regard to hemp on the order paper, the hon. gentleman knowing that we intended to take action in any event. If this swiping business keeps on I think we will soon have to tie on our political clothes with a logging chain. I exonerate the right hon. leader of the Opposition from any such intention. He is a straight protectionist from the word go. He never changes, and we know where he is-if that is any virtue.


Arthur Meighen: If one is a protectionist he is better to be a straight one.


William Richard Motherwell: Sure. I am with my right hon. friend. There are certain points of similarity so far as bounties are concerned that I think all three parties could agree to. Then why worry about them? This is one.


Robert Forke: Why worry?


William Richard Motherwell: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with what I think are some discriminations against the West. My hon. friends over there, while they have not, done all they might have done to help themselves, know the shoe pinches in some other respects too. We have known that for many years. But while they are endeavouring to get a certain remedy from the state, that is no reason why they should not come to their own relief through the dozen and one avenues that are available to them, as I have already described. What is the use of sitting back and not adopting modern methods of agriculture? Those are the only methods that can lead to success. Simply waiting for the state to come to your relief in the matter of tariffs or anything else will not get you very far. There is no system of taxation through the customs tariff that will not bear unjustly on the West. That is a statement which T think on reflection you will all agree is correct. At least, such a system of taxation can not be levied so as to bear justly on the West until we have manufactories out there equal to those in the East, and I never expect tr see them. Protection, even the most modest protection you like, cannot be of any essential value to the people of the prairies in the sale of their staple products such as wheat and cattle. Our wheat goes to the markets of the world and sells on its own merits regardless of what the tariff is here. Our steers are going there now, landing at the various ports and
standing on their four feet in competition with every steer from the four quarters of the globe and selling on their merits. How can you protect them? Our butter is coming to that position, too, because we now have an export surplus. I say that any tariff, whether for revenue, protection or otherwise is only a matter of degree, will bear unjustly-will bear unduly perhaps is a better word, because 1 do not think that any of us want to be unjust-on the West. My eastern friends demonstrated that last year when they said: If you can show any of us how the West can be assisted, even by the establishment of what we disprove of-a compulsory wheat board, for instance-we will give it to you so far as is possible to do so through this House. And they did go as far as they could in that direction. I do not think there is any desire on the part of the eastern provinces to be unjust or unfair in continuing a system of tariff taxation that inevitably must be unfair to the West simply because it cannot be otherwise. The alternative is to assume that the millennium is here, that the hundred and ninety-five representatives from the eastern provinces are ready to set their interests aside in favour of the interests of the three prairie provinces. I never expect them to do that. Then how are we going to equalize matters? There are certain causes for the discontent of the West, apart from their mighty bad farming in some instances and equally bad management. They are going into it to-day right to the eyes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the hon. minister claim that in the West there are more bad farmers than good farmers?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not been up in my hon. friend's constituency of Battle River so I do not know. But I do know there is a lot of bad farming in the West. When those farmers arrive at that conclusion themselves, it will be the first ray of hope for their betterment. Yes, my hon. friend surely knows there is a lot of bad farming in the West. How could it be otherwise when much of the country was settled by people without farming experience? And yet some of those very people, much to their credit, have made a prenounced success of their farming operations. T know many of them.
Where did I leave off when my hon. friend interrupted me?


Mr. SPEARMAN:: It does not make any difference. Star* again.


Robert Forke: The cattle were on their feet.


Alfred Speakman: No, the butter.
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friends will just keep quiet for a little while I shall be able to satisfy them. I have been very patient with them and have enjoyed myself as much as, possibly more than, they have. I want to make an appeal to the entire House with regard to the question of natural resources. It is a time-honoured question in the West. There is never an assembly out there but what that stereotyped resolution is on the order paper All three of the western provinces got a splendid bargain from both the Liberal government and later on from the Conservative government in the form of subsidies in lieu of their natural resources. Those resources now, Mr. Speaker, are actually becoming a liability on the Dominion to administer. Out in the West we are beginning to feel that while we did get a good bargain in that respect, we are sufficiently ambitious and optimistic to think the time has come when we can administer those resources much better ourselves than they can be possibly administered from Ottawa. All the interest that Ottawa has is to administer these resources efficiently so as to get enough revenue to meet the expenditures involved; and that is barely what they are doing. As a matter of fact the revenues are not meeting the expenditures.
Now, why should we not administer our own natural resources? If we are going to be a happy family of nine in the confederation surely we should as nearly as possible be all on an equality. I have pointed out that we cannot be on a footing of equality so long as we have a protective tariff; I do not care how modest it may be it will bear unduly on the West. Then why aggravate that inequality by continuing a condition of affairs which puts three of the nine provinces in an unfair position with regard to their natural resources, particularly when these resources are administered by the Dominion at a loss' How do I know that? I have gone into the Department of the Interior and examined the accounts. I knew the natural resources of the prairie provinces were barely carrying themselves. I am not going to give these figures in detail, I am merely going to show the results of the last 18 years. The total includes immigration and also the Dominion parks, but their inclusion will not affect the total to an appreciable extent. British Columbia is also included in these figures, but the small amount of natural resources there and the difference between the expenditures and the revenue is so little that it will not affect the result either. However, we will knock off several millions on this

account if you like. We find the total expenditure for the four western provinces since 1905-that is when the three prairie provinces were erected-has exceeded the total revenue by approximately $?7,500,000. That is to say, it cost the Dominion that huge total to administer the natural resources of the western country over and above the revenues received. If we knock off "7,500,000 for Dominion parks we find the Dominion is still out to the extent of 820,000,000. That is the liability on the Dominion n respect of the administration of these natural resources.
Now why wait until this liability becomes so much heavier that the provinces will want even greater subsidies in lieu of their administration of these natural resources? That is what is going to happen. Look at the province of Manitoba. It costs in that province
85,000,000 annually to administer the natural resources, and you will not get a million and a half out of it. That is the condition that will soon prevail in Saskatchewan when the instalments for lands that were sold during the boom are all paid in. In Alberta their natural resources are gradually going to bring in more revenue. They are more fortunate than the other two provinces in regard to the permanency of their revenue-producing natural resources, due to their wonderful coal deposits and, possibly, oil deposits. I have discussed this matter not only with my colleagues but with private members, and they are imbued with the idea, that if we get the balance of the natural resources we should give up the subsidy. On the face of it that looks logical, but the fact is that any balance that is left is so small that there is no revenue in it for anybody at this time. Why, not, seeing that this is a liability to the Dominion, pass it over to these three western provinces and make that equality to exist that should prevail among all the members of confederation? Give them the opportunity of converting this liability into an asset to the various provinces. Make the subsidy terminable at some particular time, if you like; the right of that subsidy will then have been purchased by this Dominion forever.


Arthur Meighen: To whom is the hon. member appealing to do this justice?


William Richard Motherwell: The whole House.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be a good idea to bring in a bill?


William Richard Motherwell: It takes two to
make a bargain-the provinces and the Dominion. There has never been anything done between the provinces and the Dominion on

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
the question of the resources except by consultation or by conference. Suppose we could get a bill through this House, the provinces might not accept it.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. gentleman not succeed in making terms with the government of Saskatchewan that he junt came out of?


William Richard Motherwell: The government of Saskatchewan knows when it has a good thing in this bargain and it is not likely to give it up. A year ago last autumn there were suggestions that the natural resources should be given plus three years' subsidy; I believe that offer was made to the three provinces. A flat rate basis of that kind will sooner or later have to be arrived at, but the provinces would not accept the three years' subsidy. They might accept ten; I do not know. It was tentatively talked about. I know that my right hon. friend, as former Minister of the Interior, is familiar with this question and interested in it. It must have some finality-unlike the tariff. I am satisfied that a settlement of it would remove a lot of the grievance on the ground of inequality of treatment through the western provinces not having control of their natural resources. You may say, why should we take over a liability? Well, we believe we can convert them into an asset at some time or other; and they are getting to be more and more of a liability administered where they are. I appeal to every hon. member of this House, those

the oppositions included, to get this involved, knotty, long-standing question solved and put off the order paper.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. minister will allow me, he knows the terms that he asked for when he was a member of the government of Saskatchewan, and he knows the terms that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) asked for when he was Premier of the province of Alberta. May I ask why this government does not grant these terms? Has he now come to the conclusion that they were unreasonable?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that any government has ever got as far as to offer the terms that we did at the last conference.


Arthur Meighen: I mean the terms the provinces asked for, that the minister himself asked for when he was in the government of Saskatchewan. Why does he not now grant the terms that he himself asked for?


William Richard Motherwell: It was never my fortune to be in the conference. I always had the impression-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
asked the terms.


William Richard Motherwell: I know, and I take the responsibility for doing so. But nobody knows better than my right hon. friend the ramifications involved in settling that question by an accounting. I cannot conceive of a body getting at that in less than ten years.


Arthur Meighen: I tried to convince the hon. minister of that when I was in power, but I could not convince him.


William Richard Motherwell: Better late in getting wise than not at all. I was under the impression that this government was the first government-speaking from recollection-that had made a straight flat rate offer.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


William Richard Motherwell: And trimmed it off with all these conditions. I am only speaking from memory, of course.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. The hon. minister is about ten years late in that.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad my right hon. friend did think up something that was right during his regime. I am appealing to my right hon. friend's good nature. I see that he is in good humour, and I do not want to put him otherwise.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend not think that we were pretty nearly right on the tariff too?
Mr. MOTHERW-ELL. No. Some of it you cannot get away from, I admit, but you were not right, just the same.
Now, as to these natural resources, we are going to get further in wrong, we are going to get a greater liability. The instalments on the Saskatchewan land will all be due next year; the same applies to Alberta. After that the receipts will gradually grow less and the deficit will grow greater. We will have one more deficit added to that of the Merchant Marine, one more added to that of the National Railways-which, by the way, I hope will soon disappear altogether. There is no sense in letting one deficit disappear and having another bob up on the horizon like this one, but that is what will happen. I appeal to hon. members of this House, all of them, to consider the advisability of handing these re-

The Budget-Mr. Sexsmith

sources over on some conditions associated with a terminable period of years after which the payment of subsidies would stop. Naturally the number of years would be smaller in the case of Alberta than in the case of the other two provinces. I am not going to suggest how many years should be stipulated, but in my opinion that is the proper basis on which to arrive at an agreement.
I apologize for taking up so much time, but I think the responsibility is equally divided over the House.


Mr. E. J. SEXSMITH (Lennox and Addington) :: Mr. Speaker, I am persuaded that my contribution to this verbal deluge will not, perhaps, be of very great value. Still, on account of the importance of the subject before the House I feel it incumbent upon me to express some of my opinions in connection with this budget.
I admit that the task of discharging the duties of a finance minister is a tremendous one, involving perhaps more labour and care and ability than many of us have a true conception of. Therefore I find mingled in my suggestions this evening feelings of sympathy and respect for our worthy Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). Perhaps in my remarks tonight I may deviate somewhat from the general line of discussion that has been followed. I desire not to be specific but to talk along lines of general principles.
Canada has a debt of approximately two and a half billion dollars. If we consider this debt in comparison with her undeveloped abilities or her resourceful wealth we have grounds for optimism; but if we consider this debt in comparison with her volume of business and her population this problem is a bit more serious. Yet I take it, Mr. Speaker, that every statesman, every representative should have a determination and express that determination that this debt can and must be paid. Indeed every citizen should feel that Canada is his country and that the defeat or success of Canada means his personal defeat or success, that the distinguishment of the country means his distinguishment. A national debt means a depreciation in the value of individual possession. Therefore, every one should feel that it is his imperative duty to endeavour to pay this debt of the country. In order to make this privilege proportionately possible governments have as far back as we can remember resorted to taxation.
In raising the revenue there are certain fundamental principles to be observed. Governments try if possible to bring down a

balance budget, or to go one better and bring in a surplus, but when large war debts accrue and post-war conditions obtain I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that to bring down taxation proposals that would produce a surplus in any one fiscal year might not be the wisest policy to followi It might create demands that would encourage and lower the morale of the people and retard national progress. We, however, both governments and citizens, should try to decrease the deficit. In the report brought down by the Finance Minister fof the fiscal year 1922-1923 we were told that the revenue estimated on the then existing method of taxation amounted to something like $332,000,000 and that the expenditure was $460,000,000 odd. This convinced, or should have convinced, the people of Canada of the necessity of accepting the burden of additional taxation, but I am free to state that no hon. gentleman here decided within his own mind that we would have a balanced budget, that there would not be an increase in the deficit. In talking to many people in my riding I estimated that there would be a deficit of perhaps twenty or thirty million dollars. I regret, however, to learn that that deficit amounts to about forty-five million dollars. Now we are facing a condition. The business of Canada will not permit an increase in taxation. Neither would it be wisdom to decrease our revenue from taxation. Then whence is relief to come?
I wish by way of constructive suggestion to refer to two well-tried principles that are fundamental in this connection; First, an increase in national business, and secondly economic retrenchment in financial expenditure. It is necessary for Canada to have more people. You cannot have a greater business unless you have more people. Our population is about nine million; the population of the United States is about one hundred and twenty million. I would therefore suggest that the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures should co-operate in a vigorous policy of an effective kind to induce immigrants to come into our country. No matter what their vocation in life, so long as they are not abnormalities, speaking in the broad sense of the word, let them come. We are not importing machines; we are importing men and women, men who are eager and willing to start at the bottom of the ladder. Men who start at the bottom of the ladder generally look up, but the man who starts at the top generally looks down. If we get enough people who will appreciate the

The Budget-^-Mr. Sexsmith
great privileges that the Dominion of Canada has for them, and will take hold of these privileges, that will be a great help in increasing our business. Along with that I would suggest that the government of Canada try in every possible way to develop our natural resources. Canada is rich in minerals, and I was pleased to hear the Finance Minister speak of the efforts put forward for the mining of copper. I hope that there will be efforts put forward for the mining of coal, for I believe that we have coal mines in Canada capable of supplying our people with all their fuel requirements. It is true that in its early development any mine or any works might not pay, but if we persist the time will come when the output will be prolific enough that it will pay. The development of the natural resources and more people in this country mean more business.
Let me now take up my second thought, economic retrenchment. It is true that in the development of a country the spirit of miserliness must be forgotten. We must carry on necessary public works, but it does seem to me sometimes and to others who have spoken to me that parliaments that handle money by the millions of dollars seem to forget the value of the hundred dollars. Of course, we know that all departments try in every possible way, or at least they ought to, to curtail unnecessary expenditure, but I sometimes think that the members do not try very hard to do this. They come here with requests from the different provinces and from the people of their riding for all manner of new public works, post offices, dry docks and so forth.


Mr. LOGAN:: What about the Hudson Bay railway?


Mr SEXSMITH:: I think it is only right that members should consider the financial condition of the country and not encourage those who ask them to try and further such works. It would be a help to the men who have the responsibility of carrying on these works.
Let me mention a few things that, perhaps, may not be very popular. Aside from the expenditures on public works, economies might be effected in other directions which would save, I think, millions of dollars to the treasury. With all due respect to the late government, as well as to the present government, the administration of the country's affairs is far too expensive and has been for some years. I am well aware that my suggestionsfefor retrenchment may be unacceptable. Tft'ey certainly will not be very popular in the city of Ottawa. However, I want to make a few remarks as to the cost of government here and if I am wrong in any respect I am quite ready to be corrected. First of all, there must be a retrenchment in expenditures in connection with the Civil Service. I voted for an investigation into the salaries, classification and numbers of the staff of the Civil Service. It seems to me that the investigation which is being conducted into these matters ought to result in a very substantial saving. Salaries are disproportionately high. They have been increased from time to time because it was the custom so to do. In that respect we have been following a practice which obtains in other countries, with the result that the stipends are in very many cases too high.
Then I would restrict, in great measure, the expenditure on superannuation and retiring allowances. Why should men who have been receiving large salaries for the greater part of their lives receive a retiring allowance when quitting the service when hundreds of thousands of people who are following vocations that are essential from the standpoint of the national well-being and who are in every way good and commendable citizens get no such allowance when the time comes for them to quit work. This question has been impressed upon the public mind by the very large amounts granted to officials of the government railways on retirement. The electors are asking why, for example, a railway president who has been receiving a salary of from $35,000 to $50,000 should be retired on an allowance of $35,000. If the expenditures of the public departments are carefully studied it will be found that there are many directions in which retrenchment is possible thus, possibly, causing a saving which could be devoted to the reduction of our national debt.
I want to speak now for a moment or two on the question of taxation. As fair minded citizens we cannot rebel against just and equitable taxation, but we can protest against extravagance and we, as a parliament, can show the lead to the rest of the country by practising economy ourselves. To my mind when budget proposals are brought down the effort should be to relieve the burden of taxation where it bears heaviest upon the great mass of what I might term unprivileged people, and to impose such taxation as is necessary in the interests of the revenue upon those best able to bear it. At the same time I do not believe in the doctrine of equality which we often hear preached: I think that is something which ought to be discouraged as undemocratic. On the other hand, men who are in
The Budget-Mr. Sexsmith

responsible positions should do their utmost to discourage that spirit of selfishness and graft, too often present in the human character, and which in the past has resulted in oppression, the oppression of the financially weak by the financially strong. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is exceedingly difficult to arrange equitable methods of taxation. There are
10 p.m. some methods that commend themselves to all of us; there are other methods that we do not approve of. It seems to me, for example, that there could be no fairer tax than the income tax. Nevertheless we find people who have never paid a cent of income tax in their lives raising the greatest outcry in regard to it. I also believe that a business tax is fair. If a man is conducting a good business he certainly can afford to pay a tax of some kind. Then there is a consumer's tax. If it is absolutely such as represented and can be made workable I cannot see that there is anything so particularly wrong about it, provided due regard be paid to the principle of which I have spoken. I had intended saying something about the sales tax because in calling upon different business concerns in my own riding complaint was made that it was unworkable. I understand, however, that the Minister of Finance, having had various deputations wait upon him has made the necessary changes so that the same ground for criticism no longer exists. There are some methods of taxation of which I certainly do not approve. The tax, whether direct or indirect in its nature, which builds up one industry at the expense of another is unfair. It is based on special privilege which is unjust and will result in bringing about an unbalanced economic condition.
In 1878 or 1879, Sir John A. Macdonald introduced his National Policy, a policy to build up cities. I remember hearing a speech delivered by him in our county town, to the effect that if you build up your towns, your cities, you build up home markets, and thereby you build up your country. All this, however, had to be done at the expense of the rural districts. Nobody ever built up a city from above, nor from below. This, to my mind, has obtained too long in the interest of the cities' wealth and the cities' privileges, and it has resulted in the neglect of rural interests. People are expecting a revision of this policy. Not only have I heard men who believe in the Liberal platform or in the Progressive platform, but I have talked during the last year to men who professed to be Conservatives, and they say emphatically that there must be a downward revision of this protective feature.

Leaving for a moment this campaign football, the tariff, let me say that there are other questions of momentous concern for men who are in responsible positions as ministers of the Crown or even as representatives of the people. There are forceful organizations which are national octopuses, and they are chaining the hands of governments and parliaments. In North America, governments are strangled; they are helpless. The forceful feature, for instance, in the labour unions- and I say this with all respect to labour-has become reactionary. There was a time when labour was not recognized as it should be. I know that because for several years when I was younger I worked as a mechanic; I have associated with such men and I know whereof I speak. But silently and subtly, this union has been working until the plumb line has gone the other way. Strikes are unprofitable from the fact that they throw men into idleness for a certain length of time during the season, and they keep up the high cost of living the whole season around. Vigorous efforts should be made to try, by commission work and in every other way, to see if there cannot be some conciliation between labourers and their employers. During the height of the coal strike in the United States, President Harding is reported as saying that the United States government would take over the mines and they would see that the people were supplied with the necessary fuel. Immediately after that he received word that he had better go slowly and be considerate, or transportation would be stopped. This is a serious condition. It is a more important matter to occupy the minds of men in responsible positions than for them to play party politics.
There are other unions which are fixing, maintaining and controlling prices, and it is a problem to know how to manage them. Retailers report that in many lines of merchandise their price is fixed from above, and that price is maintained by controlling the outlet. Would it be justifiable, if it were possible, for those engaged in agricultural pursuits to form unions, combines, and monopolies, and to fix the price of the foodstuffs of the world? Certainly that would not be right. That is the very feature of protection or monopolies in any respect that we as Progressives stand against. I am sure that organizations or industries that are financially strong enough to form combines of that nature do not need protection. It will be to the eternal honour of some government to at some time make this decision and, in spite of any influences whatever, act upon it.
Letvne speak for a moment on agriculture. After hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. MAY 15, 1923
The Budget-Mr. Bird
Motherwell) talk for two hours and a half, I do not know but that I might almost feel optimistic. I will, however, make this statement, that farmers have not come to parliament to have glass beads hung about their necks, nor to receive bouquets for the farming interests and nothing else, and then to run home like children. Those who are engaged in agricultural pursuits are broad enough to know that there is a diversity of industries in Canada, and that every industry, no matter whether it be great or small, must have its status. Since I have been in Ottawa, I have arrived at some conclusions in connection with the duties of parliament. One is this- and I say this conscientiously and with due respect-that the man who has been brought up in a city has a very slim conception of what it means to farm. Another conclusion to which I have come is that partisan politics is costing this country too much, and people are beginning to find this out. The trouble with the agricultural industry to-day is, plainly speaking, that the prices of all the supplies that the man who is engaged in agricultural pursuits requires, are so governed by combines that he has nothing to say. If he cannot afford to buy those supplies, there is no use in saying so; the prices are fixed, and it will be observed that when prices can be controlled, they are not fixed, maintained and controlled without a commensurate profit being given. On the other hand, if an agriculturist has anything to sell, there appears an army of respectable people, of course, whom you could not coax or persuade in any way to go out on a farm. They stand between the consumer and the product of the farmer. They have to be kept, and this creates a spread. They cannot ask too much because the consumer cannot buy the article, so they have to go the other way and force the price down on the agriculturist until it is almost impossible to coax or persuade young men to continue in agricultural pursuits. We hope that the very effective work of the different parliamentary committees, together with the Combines Act, will tend to relieve conditions. At any rate they will reveal those conditions, which will be realized by the public, and will create a sentiment which may perhaps have the effect of ameliorating matters.
As regards the budget, I must confess that I am very much disappointed. We were told some things last year that we thought justified us in supporting the minister's budget at that time. We realized that it was the government's first year in office and that there were post-war conditions and difficulties in the way, and we had a promise that there would
be a reduction in the tariff. I do not know that I object to the tariff so much as to that feature of it which is called protection, and which continually exploits one class of the community to build up another. That is the part I object to. The amendment is more elaborate than I should like, but there are principles in it which I feel will compel me to give it my support.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Did I understand the
hon. member to say that he supported the budget last year?


Edward James Sexsmith: Yes.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Did the hon. member's party support it?


Edward James Sexsmith: No, not all.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: My fellow
members will agree with me that we have had a very interesting day. I listened with a very great deal of interest to the address of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and was very much pleased with the good humour that he exhibited practically all the way through. I did detect, however, signs that the hon. gentleman was just a little bit sore, a little tender around the place where he got kicked at the Moose Jaw election. The minister does not take very kindly any reference to that matter. With regard to the other interesting speech with which the day opened, I may say that on this side of the House we always listen with kindly interest to anything contributed by the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), and I will not make any lengthy reference to his speech except to observe that his definition of stability apparently is going to be historical. His definition of stability is the stability of a ship, which can be stable at the same time as it is making progress. When he mentioned the word "ship" in connection with Liberal policy my mind went back a good many years. Association of ideas is a wonderful thing, and when the hon. member mentioned that word "ship" in that connection I thought immediately of the Jolly Roger which used to float so bravely over the good ship Hispaniola. I do not know which member of the Liberal ministry is responsible for the policy of this budget, but he might be likened to the good old John Silver, that man of attractive yet questionable genius. T think that if we could put a wooden leg on the Minister of Agriculture himself he would fill the character very well. Whoever else on this side of the House has failed to appreciate the present budget, its policy, its delicate con-
The Budget-Mr. Bird

cessions to the people of Canada, I shall try in the few minutes at my disposal to do it what justice I can.
During the war, and under the stress of the conditions that prevailed then, very many experiments were tried in federal taxation. These included the sales tax, the customs war tax, the income tax, the business tax and the luxury tax, the two latter of blessed memory. Some of these were rough and ready means of raising money in a time of stress and were justifiable solely from that standpoint. But we are no longer at war and it might reasonably have been expected that before this some sincere effort would have been made to place our taxation on a more equitable basis. Instead of that, last year the Minister of Finance chose to perpetuate these crude methods and not only to perpetuate them but to make them bear more onerously upon those elements of the community that always find it difficult to bear any extra burdens of any kind. I think we may be grateful that the income tax is still with us. It is probably the tax that is most easily adapted to the requirements of equity and the economists tell us that it is the only tax that will stay where it is placed. It is a tax that exacts money where it is expected that money can be got. I do not say that our present income tax law comes anywhere near to that ideal. I am sure it does not; it is clumsily and inequitably graduated. The well-to-do people of Canada are not taking a fair share of the burden of Canada's taxation.
We have heard many expressions of appreciation of England during this session. In that wonderful little island the principle of noblesse oblige is practical politics, and the well-to-do person is expected to pay a fair share of the country's expenses. For instance, a man in receipt of an income of $10,000 over there pays in income tax an amount equal to about 18 per cent of his income. In Canada a man in receipt of a similar income would pay about 9 per cent. The well-to-do person, the person who has the good things of life, is getting off very easy in this country at the present time.
There is another defect in our income tax law that might very well be remedied, namely, the failure to discriminate against unearned income-income which comes without any effort or enterprise on the part of the recipient. At the present time there is about a billion and a half dollars in the hands of well-to-do Canadians that did not exist until the war had been in progress for two or three years. That is to say, an income of over $50,000,000' a year was diverted by war into the pockets of
[Mr. BirdJ
certain people. According to all the rules of equity such income ought to bear an extra share of the expenses of government, especially when more than half of our national expend-tiuro is for purposes arising out of the war. In a word, this is the income of people who do not sow, neither do they spin.
There is another form of tax neglected by our federal government, no matter which party is in power and no matter whether we are at war or at peace; I refer to an inheritance tax. This is a form of property upon which the state has had an unchallenged claim from time immemorial. There never was a time in the memory of man when the state did not have a claim upon both real and personal estate at the moment it passed from one generation to another. A short while ago I was reading that even the contemporaries of the late lamented King Tutankhamen of Egypt paid inheritance duties, and I rather think that is the best explanation yet of that monarch trying to carry so much property with him-he was evidently dodging the inheritance tax. We know that the Roman statesman of old, who laid the foundations of much of our present system of statecraft, thought the most appropriate end that could come to an affluent career was some form of compulsory bequest to the state, and they saw to it that such careers were so fittingly closed. Let us look at little England again- a never-failing source of sound precedent, I notice, to certain hon. members. Those lovers of the constitution who are so well sprinkled over the benches of this Chamber when any uncomfortable constitutional question arises always look to England for their precedents. Well now, as soon as England emerged from its political tutelage, at the time of the Revolution her statesmen imposed a tax of (bis kind, and it has been kept in force in more or less the same form ever since.
Now, it seems to me that such an inheritance tax approaches as nearly as a tax possibly can to the principle of painless extraction. It hurts nobody. That it is a perfectly just claim established by time, reason and sound democracy, cannot be denied. Therefore it seems rather odd that our federal government should so long have overlooked this source of revenue. I would go as far as to say that all our sister dominions have adopted such a tax, for the reason that in most of their legislatures there is a greater carefulness for the interests of the common people than has been displayed in this House for a good many years. Indeed, when it comes to the principle of equity in taxation Canada is the laggard of the British Empire.

The Budget-Mr. Bird
The principle of discrimination to which I have already referred was recognized during the war to some extent in the business profits tax. The history of the imposition of that tax is very significant as illustrating the spirit that has prevailed in this House, irrespective of party, towards equity in taxation. There was a tax that, while it contributed very justly to the cost of the war yet was inaugurated very timidly, very tentatively, very apologetically, and it was provided with a kind of automatic stop lest, I suppose, some future finance minister-possibly a Progressive-might forget to stop it. That is one of the pieces of legislation that is not altogether rare in our history whereby a law comes to a silent unseen termination and nobody is the wiser. And so the business profits tax was allowed to go out of existence. It was a just tax, an equitable tax, a tax which if in existence to-day would to a great extent relieve the consuming people, the common people of Canada.
That leads me to a brief discussion of the sales tax and its failure to discriminate against luxuries. The luxury tax was inaugurated on May 19,	1920, and after a short,
unwelcome existence it went out of this world of fiscal sorrows on	the
20th of December of the same year. The circumstances surrounding its death were very significant-just as significant as the circumstances surrounding the death of the business profits tax. The former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) said some very touching things at the graveside. He said in effect: "It has fulfilled its purpose; it has checked extravagance and lowered the cost of living in this country." Above everything else- he did not actually say this, but it must have been in his mind-it made it easier for the people to swallow the sales tax. There is no doubt that that was the hidden motive behind the luxury tax. It was imposed at the same time as the sales tax. When this tax was dropped the opposition of that day, constituting the present party in power, were silent; they were suspiciously acquiescent; they consented to its death. I think I am right in imputing that attitude to them, because the present Minister of Finance has not, so far as I know, as much as mentioned luxury taxes during the last two years. It is true that one lone voice was raised against the elimination of this tax, that of a gentleman who until recently sat in the ministerial seat but is now translated to a better position, without the responsibility of office. The protest made by that gentleman was remarkable because of its picturesqueness, its biblical imagery. He said: "The Minister
of Finance is pandering to the millionaire. He has stood by and allowed the Queen of Sheba to mince past in her furs and diamonds and all her gay apparel, while he has stood by, with a cudgel for the poor workingman." That came from the Opposition benches when the luxury tax was dropped. I have wondered how that fervent advocate of the poor man felt last year when the hon. minister allowed not only the Queen of Sheba to go by, but also King Solomon in all his glory, while the minister lay in ambush, with a club twice as big this time, for the poor workingman. These are the kind of discussions we get in this House; things are allowed to pass quietly; they are never known to the public at large. Taxes are born and taxes die, both parties consenting thereto. We have this silent, invisible pact whereby the masses of the people always get the heavy end of the burden, and the well-to-do people get things easy.
I want to say a word further in regard to the principle of indirectness as it predominates in the taxation of this country. Canadian governments, it does not matter whether Liberal or Conservative, believe in taxing the consumer-and "the consumer" means that entity which we sometimes refer to as the common people, the great mass of the people who are not very well able to bear taxes upon the necessities of life. This House, irrespective of party, believes in taxing the consumer, making the consumer pay for the war, making the consumer pay for the cost of government. The figures for 1922 show that the consumers of this country paid in that year 67 per cent of the money raised in taxes to carry on the affairs of the country. I think I am safe in saying that in no other country in the English-speaking world do any such figures apply. When we come to apportioning taxation, irrespective of what government is in power, the poor man gets it every time. The hon. member	for Fort	William (Mr. Manion)
this	afternoon suggested that Great
Britain laid very heavy taxation upon the necessities of life; that in spite of the fact that it was a free trade country, Great Britain was making things very burdensome for the poor people. Now, I want to say that in Great Britain the principle of laying the burden where it can most easily be borne is carried out to the fullest extent. There not more than 30 per cent of the cost of running the country is laid at the door of the consumer. I could go a great deal further than that, because I am just referring to what is collected under customs and excise. I think the hon. member for Fort William referred to these as neces-
The Budget-Mr. Bird

sities of life, but I would point out that customs and excise taxation in England correspond to our excise taxes here. I want to know how many necessities of life are included in our excise taxes? Nobody but a Scotchman would call spirits a necessity of life, and that is about all that is contained in the British customs and excise-except' sugar, of course, and sugar is taxed fairly heavily. The same applies to tea, matches, and, to some extent dried fruit. Outside of these things there is nothing that can at all be called a necessity of life. I do not think that more than 5 per cent of the total British revenue is raised upon the necessities of life. I would not be so unfair as to say that 67 per cent of our income is raised from the necessities of life, but the great bulk of our revenue comes from the consumer, is laid upon what he purchases and what he uses. That is a serious thing for Canada, a country that is finding great difficulty in maintaining its population. The people are just slipping through our fingers all the time. Some time ago there were a good many allusions to this subject and I do not want to cover the ground again, but .since the Minister of Agriculture has been handing out congratulations I think I will follow his example and hand out a few more. The gratitude of this House-I do not suppose it will be expressed in a formal manner-is coming to those upon this side who attempt to bring the House face to face with the facts. It takes a courageous man to tell the truth sometimes, and that is exemplified from what has followed in this House from action along those lines. I have been pleased to note that since some Progressives made it the fashion to tell the truth, others have followed suit; it is not so hard to tell the truth once somebody has broken the ice. Not long ago the attention of the House was drawn to a front page article in a responsible and influential western journal which stated that last winter 6,000 families had gone from its own city to the United States. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture, when he referred to that journal, did not make the reference with perfect equanimity; he is not on very good terms with it just at this time. The reason is thaf the minister feels that public opinion in the West is going one way and he is left alone to go the other way. I am reminded of the story of the little boy who went with his mother to see his big brother's regiment off to the war. They saw the regiment march down the street, and the little fellow said "Mother, look! They are all out of step but our John." Now it seems that the Minister of Agriculture does 
not like it because that great organ of public opinion in the West is going in the opposite direction to him. But we are very glad that it is. We are very glad to think that one of the most powerful organs of western opinion is coming around to the opinion as expressed in this House a few weeks ago. This is not only a western matter. The other day on the front page of a very important American daily I saw an article in which the present leader of the Opposition was represented as saying that thousands of people were leaving Canada every day because of the high cost of living. Now when I read that statement and saw that it was not associated with the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) I had a grand and glorious feeling. After all it is not the Progressives alone that are telling the truth. The Progressives having made it easy to tell the truth the others are beginning. It is going around this way to my right and it may be that it will get across to the other side.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I can let that go quite unchallenged. I did not make a statement so strong as that. I do not know where the hon. member read it. I went to the limit of the truth but no further.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member will have to settle his accounts with the New York Tribune. He did say incidentally of course, that the high cost of living was due to the management of our friends across the way, but I thought it not advisable to say that. In that article there was another thing with which the right hon. leader of the Opposition had nothing whatever to do. This article on its own account, I believe, said that on a certain day in Montreal there were four hundred skilled Canadian workmen who applied to the United States consul for entry into the United States. That was in Montreal, not Winnipeg, I may add to these a little news item that I collected from a local paper in my own district at home which read like this: We are sorry to see so many of our Swedish neighbours leaving us; four families left last week for the United States. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of immigrant that is held up to us as being most capable of adapting himself to conditions as they are in Canada. So from city, town and hamlet they go in thousands and tens of thousands. Then there comes along a certain type of patriot and says: Do not mention it; hush it up; breathes there a man with soul so dead that he will draw the world's [DOT] attention to a thing like that? An open vein spouting out the rich, red life of Canada, and these lachrymose

The Budget-Mr. Bird
patriots say: Cover it up; bring a funnel and pour in more; bring a force pump and pump it in; bring Mr. Coue and let us cure it by auto-suggestion; let us woo the immigrant in, and check immigrants from going out; let us cure these things by simply denying them. Now some people call that patriotism, but we on this side of the House call it stark foolishness.
Now there is another side to this inequitable taxation story besides the national one.
I do not see how you are going to attract people from countries where they leave the poor alone, into a country where they make a practice of giving them the heavy end. Apart from that, this is a social question. This iniquitous system of taxation that has prevailed in this country before and during the war and is carried on now succeeds in accentuating unjust conditions that already existed apart from it. I am referring more particularly to the farming community in this country, because I am more particularly associated with them. Some hon. members in dealing with this question of farming conditions have pointed to other countries and said: Look at the farmers in other countries, you Canadians. See how they are getting on. If you only take stock of farming in England and the United States and other places you will be satisfied to stay in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is poor comfort. It is the kind of comfort that Job got. It means this: You are trying to comfort the Canadian farmer by showing him how widespread his trouble is. I think he could endure it if he thought it was only local, but when he is told it is a world-wide condition, that farmers are getting it in the neck throughout the universe, that is pretty hard on the spirit of the farmer.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural industry throughout the world for the past few generations has been gradually pushed into the background by growing industrialism. The farmers throughout the world have wakened up at last to find they are living in a world that has been moulded to suit the ideals and aims of urban life. Educational, social, fiscal, financial, in transportation, in almost every important economic item that you can mention, our modern life has been switched away from the fanner, and it does not matter what country you lay your finger on you will find the same thing. This trying to compare British farmers with Canadian farmers does not amount to-that! The Canadian farmer and the British farmer are suffering from the same thing-the neglect of governments that did not understand them
and did not want to understand them, that bid for their votes at election time but when it came down to their economic difficulties they did not know and did not want to know.
I say this is true whether of the British farmer or of the Canadian farmer, and the fact that the British farmer wants protection and the Canadian farmer free trade makes my point all the more clear if you will only think about it. Free trade and protection does not matter that much! It is the negligence, the callousness of governments that have not tried to understand the principles that govern rural life and the industry of the farmer. Yes, the world has been aroused, "a green international" has come into being and the farmers throughout the world feel that they are standing on common ground. This has resulted in what? It has resulted in the birth of certain political forces that have shaken the old political parties to their foundations-in England the National Farmers' Union, a non-political body but exercising tremendous political influence, in the United States the Farmers' Bloc, an inter-party body that absolutely dominates the parties in the United States, in Canada a direct political movement that may not dominate the old parties but it has them pretty well worried, and it will have them more worried yet, mark my words! In Canada this movement has taken its most logical course because the Canadian farmer stands in this world as being the man who relatively is the worst off. I say relatively advisedly, because the Canadian farmer has no business to be as badly off in a rich country like ours as farmers in other parts of the world. Relatively speaking conditions have pressed most hardly upon the Canadian farmer, and it has resulted in a party so sane in its demands, so democratic and broad in its constitution-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: Wait till I am through-so broad in its constitution and that so appeals to the man who loves a square deal that I prophesy for it that it is going to transform the public life of Canada and divert it into channels that will be more conducive, not only to that national prosperity that we hear so much about, that is registered in bank clearings and factories and exports, but the prosperity that is registered in the homes, the lives and happiness of the people.
Some gentlemen in this House try to persuade themselves that this is a temporary movement, that it is an ebullition of class consciousness that will die a speedy death. But those gentlemen are ignorant of two
The Budget-Mr. Bird

things. They are ignorant of the depth ox the wrong from which the Canadian farmei is suffering in the first place, and they arc ignorant moreover of the economic and political enlightenment that the farmer of Canada enjoys to-day. Now, the consciousness of a wrong is no assurance of permanence I admit; history is too sad a testimony of that. There are plenty of wrongs that have been keenly felt but that have never been redresaed. But a wrong that is backed up by enlightenment and the ability to organize, is the thing that is going to win out; and I want you older politicians to think of the organizations that exist throughout Canada: The little local, the little spot of light in a local community where there is just as much intelligent discussion of economic and political matters as there is on the floor of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Far more.


Thomas William Bird: -I want you to remember that before you try to make any prognostication, because if you do not remember that you will be all out. You will remember it sooner or later. This is not an ephemeral thing you are dealing with. Oh, you may exercise your eloquence pointing out the defects of our political ability. We have not been very long in the game, we have not learned its tricks and all its deep and dark ways, but we are getting on. We are learning quickly. If we are here a year or two more we will know most of the things that make the politician notorious in modern life. Now, the shaft of ridicule that hits us does not hit the movement that is behind us. You may wipe out everyone of us twice over but you will nox touch it. This movement could get on without any of us. It will not only break the man that opposes it but it will break the friend that is false to it. You may point over hero and say "Scratch them deep enough and you will find the old Tory and the old Liberal." You may hit the nail on the head sometimes, but in saying that you are unconsciously paying a compliment to this party. The party that has been able to take hold of the old Tory and the old Liberal and make them, for the first time in their lives, step forward on the path of progress, has something in it that you have got to reckon with. Even the man that goes back "to the flesh pots of Egypt" will never forget the exhilaration he experienced while he was here.
Now, just a word more specifically in regard to the principle of protection that underlies our whole taxation system. I have criticized the taxation system but all my criticism cofnes to a focus upon the principle 
of protection. While other English-speaking countries have been forging ahead and achieving a degree of equity Canada has been lagging behind because its system of taxation has been vitiated by this principle of protection and so lofig as you have protection as the basis of your taxation system you will never get equity. The protectionist does not want equity because if you get equity you will not get protection. The protectionist who goes out to seek for equitable modes of taxation would rather he did not find them because if he did find them it would spoil the scheme of protection. That is why we have not got an inheritance tax in this federal parliament, that is why we have not got other taxes that would be successful. We do not want an equitable and successful form of taxation in this federal parliament because it would endanger the very existence of protection as a revenue producing instrument. No, protection is the thing that vitiates the whole sys-
11 p.m. tern from top to bottom. Now, the proof of this, the proof of the influence of protection upon, this parliament is to be found in that annual work of art we call the budget. What is the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal budget? It is like the difference between finality and stability. That is not a conundrum, it is a serious question. What is the difference between a Tory budget and a Liberal budget?


Mr. HOEY:: They are both Tory budgets.


Thomas William Bird: The Budget-Mr. Bird
and economic relationships of this country, they will purify themselves; they will become serious; they will lose their corruption automatically, just as in our personal life, if you have a consuming purpose, your life is kept stronger and straighter.
And so it will be in political life, if we can only forget the idea that politics is an end in itself. We are out for political reform because we want to see things done, we want to see Canada a happier place; and we are out, let me say, although one hesitates to say it, as men who love their country. We are out as patriots, we hope, but we are out for that kind of patriotism which seeks to inculcate the love of country by making the country a place that one can love. I could take you to place after place in rural Canada which it would require a man of strong imagination, to work up any affection for. You cannot build up patriotic Canadians upon that basis. Patriotism is not a vague feeling; it is not altogether founded in the affections. It is a matter of sentiment in regard to real things, things that a child can be trained to love and to have a real affection for. We are out to transform the countryside of Canada and make it a place in which people can live and be contented to live, and which they can grow up to love. I want to say moreover that the Progressives are out for the unity of Canada, and I make bold to say that we have the only basis upon which there can be such unity, that is, the basis of justice as between classes in Canada and as between sections in the community. That is the only real basis upon which there can be any unity. We have no traditional spites and no petty feelings of strife behind us. Our sole stock in trade is what we carry with us, just a straightforward economic policy, that is all. It does not matter what you are religiously, socially or provincially, you are equally welcome into this fellowship, because we do not specialize in any of those things that divide one Canadian from another. The basis on which we work is the basis on which all the people can cooperate.
Just one parting shot at the policy of the Liberal government. I was reading some of the earlier budget speeches of the Minister of Finance, and I discovered that he made his first budget speech on St. George's day and another subsequently on St. Patrick's day. Now I want to make the humble suggestion that he deliver his next budget speech on Holy Innocents' day, because no budget he has yet made has killed any dragons or driven out any serpents, while I am afraid they have taken in quite a lot of innocents.

On Motion of Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Wednesday, May 16, 1923