1923-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce presented.- Hon. Mr. Maclean.
First interim report on the second part of investigation by the Royal Commission on Pensions and Re-establishment.-Hon. Mr. Beland.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I beg to move that the name of Mr. Garland (Bow River) be substituted for that of Mr. Reed on the standing committee on Banking and Commerce and that the name of Mr. Reed be substituted for that of Mr. Garland (Bow River) on the standing committee on Agriculture.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent. Motion agreed to.



THE PUBLIC DEBT-RAILWAY APPROPRIATIONS

William Stevens Fielding: The leader of the Opposition asked the other evening for certain additional information concerning the public debt and railway appropriations. The debt statement is brief, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read it:
Net debt, 31st March, 1922, as shown in the Public Accounts laid on the table of the House during present
	$2,422,135,801 73
Estimated amount to be added to the net debt in the year just closed as given by the minister in his budget speech	 49,293,086 00
Estimated Net debt March 31, 1923.. $2,471,428,887 73
The statement regarding railway appropriations is more elaborate, and I will send it over to my hon. friend rather than read it.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 180, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation and Rfrirement Act.
Mr. MARTELL:: Is this simply to extend the so-called Calder Act?

Lake Rates


William Stevens Fielding: No. That will come up at another time. There is a clause in the old Superannuation Act which authorizes the Treasury Board to grant additional years in fixing a retiring allowance. We think that some embarrassment may arise from that, and we propose to repeal that clause so that if in any case it is deemed necessary to make any addition to the amount granted it can be done by special appropriation by the House, instead of by act of the Treasury Board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 176 (from the Senate), respecting The Northern Trusts Company.-Mr. Hudson.
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), respecting The Subsidiary Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.- Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 178 (from the Senate), for the relief of Winifred Scatcherd.

Mr. Church.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to ask the government whether it is the intention to introduce this session legislation to further extend the period during which oleomargarine may be manufactured and sold in this country, and imported. The act of last session only extended until 31st August, the right to manufacture and import oleomargarine, and until 1st March next the right to have that article in possession.


William Stevens Fielding: I promise my hon. friend that the government will give serious consideration to his representation.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: In that connection may I state that I got a similar answer some two or three weeks ago. How long is this state of giving the matter consideration going to last?


William Stevens Fielding: The subject is very serious.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not possible to get an answer without this evasion?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that is nice.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is not, but does the government deserve anything better?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid, to use the Asquithian phrase, my right hon. friend will have to wait and see.



COMMISSION ON LAKE RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: I wish to inquire when the report tabled the other day from the Royal Commission on Lake Rates will be printed and made available for the use of members.


William Stevens Fielding: I presume that the printing of this report is for the printing committee to decide. I think that is the usual course followed. I do not think these reports are printed unless so ordered by the printing committee. However, I will make inquiry for my hon. friend. I do not think any special instruction has been given about it one way or the other.


John Frederick Johnston: It is very important that this report should be printed and in the hands of members at an early date.


William Stevens Fielding: The printing committee can direct the printing of the report at once.



PUBLICITY AGENT IN LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: It is reported from Great Britain in the morning press that the government has appointed a publicity agent or publicity representative in London, and that the appointee is one Mr. W. T. Cranfield, of Great Britain. May I ask if the report is correct, and when the process of appointing other than Canadians is to cease?


William Stevens Fielding: I must confess that personally I am not aware of the matter, but I will have inquiry made. Speaking for myself I am not aware of such an appointment; it may have been made in some one of the departments.



WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to ask. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), in whose department the matter lies, is not in his seat, and I was withholding the question in the hope that he would come in. Probably some other member of the government will be able to answer. The question is this: Have the government had a request from either the government of Alberta or the government of Saskatchewan, or a joint request from both, to extend the wheat board legislation by order in council as provided by



The Budget-Mr. Morrison
the act of last year? Further, have any names been suggested to this government to handle the proposal for the present year?


William Stevens Fielding: This matter comes under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, unfortunately, is not present. I will see that the inquiry is brought to his notice and that the information is given to my hon. friend as early as possible.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 18, 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 on Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Robert Forke.
Mr. JOHN MORRISON'(Weyburn): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this the occasion of his seventeenth budget. I am only sorry that it contains so little encouragement for agriculture and for the working classes in general.
* It has been frequently stated here, Sir, that Canada is passing through a very precarious era; and some speakers have been roundly denounced for attempting to relate just how bad the conditions are in their particular districts. Well, Sir, the conditions over some very large areas are fully as bad as have been described. Climatic causes have contributed very largely to these conditions. Adverse weather for four and sometimes fives successive years, together with high operating costs -some of which were controllable and others uncontrollable-have contributed to place matters in very bad shape. Other causes were -the non-appreciation of the real facts by the government, and that combinations of different kinds, who thought the country could stand it, have kept increasing their charges for their respective services, whether it was, lending money, carrying freight, or supplying coal, farm implements, or manufactured goods. When deflation struck the country, farming was the first industry to feel it, as the prices of farm products were fixed by world conditions plus the ability to buy and pay for those goods. Our income fell to one-third of previous years, but costs stood pat, they remained away up. The result is that the greatest basic industry in Canada to-day has a very low purchasing power. Our inability to buy means that the manufacturing establishments are only running from 25 to 75 per cent

capacity, and their overhead costs are very high. According to Mr. Bradshaw, General Manager of the Massey-Harris Company, giving evidence before a committee of this House the other day their overhead was up about 400 per cent as compared with that of pre-war days. Surely then protection has failed to fulfil its purpose in keeping our manufacturers busy. That grand old policy of protection, which the Conservatives boldly proclaimed in office and out of office, that policy which the Liberals denounced when in opposition and practised when they got into office, has failed to fulfil the expectations of its friends.
It is claimed, Sir, that the outcry of hard times in the West has injured Canada. Not very much I think. It has been my observation, Sir, that if there is anything wrong doers dislike, it is publicity in regard to their evil practices. We have tried other methods and we have failed to get any response, and yet when we tell the facts in order to try and bring about a remedy we are called calamity howlers. I do not think that the government could supply a remedy for every difficulty which exists, but there are measures which could be applied if this government was fearless and determined to give a square deal all round, if service was the big idea and fear was not so prevalent.
I think the British Preference should be increased to at least 50 per cent all round. That is a very desirable course in order that the prices paid for goods that we need shall be reduced to a reasonable rate. It will also make it hard for our oppressors to combine, and will render easy the enforcement of the Anti-Combines Act. If that is done, combines will find it very hard to operate in Canada. Another reason for increasing the British preference is to be found in connection with the shipping conditions. Referring to the annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, I find on page 5 a paragraph which reads as follows:
It is admitted by the best authorities that the past year was the worst in recent shipping annals. While tonnage offering increased to some extent the commodities were of lower value than in preceding years, and, as a consequence, the earnings fell off considerably. Outward tonnage was fairly well maintained, but on the other hand the inward business, more especially from the United Kingdom, Oriental and Australasian ports fell away to such extent that it was exceedingly difficult-and at times impossible- to obtain, and, on this account, a great proportion of the voyages during the year resulted in losses. The Merchant Marine had a deficit of $9,649,478. Our exports to Great Britain for the four years ending 31st March 1923 amounted to $1,480,427,628. Our imports from Great Britain were only $597,759,207, a balance in favour of Canada of $882,668,421, and average balance per year of $220,667,105.

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
Now sir, tliis one-way-load transportation is a very expensive business. That is another serious loss caused to us from over protection. When people stray from sound business principles their difficulties are always cumulative. One wrong leads to another, and one difficulty causes another difficulty. The way of the transgressor is hard in public business, the same as in private life. Surely our friends who are so long on loyalty and on patriotism should be willing to give the Motherland a chance. Great Britain is putting up a great fight to-day. She is a manufacturing nation as well as a good trader, but she has still
1,200,000	men in enforced idleness, because world conditions are bad. We must buy her manufactured products if we expect her to buy our wheat, flour, cattle, bacon, and dairy products. Nobody can continue buying if he cannot sell. Neither can a nation buy, if she does not sell. Britain has been our second best customer, the United States being first. For four years ending 31st March last our imports from the United States amounted to $2,714,149,766. Our exports were $1,668,020,011, a balance in favour of the United States of $1,046,129,755. Talcing the United Kingdom and the United States there was a trade balance against Canada of $163,461,334. Now there is something wrong when we find ourselves in that position. We must have such high duties that they are interfering with trade. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) brought down his budget and increased the duties on cigarettes and thought he would obtain increased revenue from that source, but he found he was $1,200,000 in the hole. I think that shows that when they overdid it in a little thing like cigarettes, many other lines of business were materially injured. Instead of getting more business, the customs tariff was so high that it killed business. We need more British commodities from that country, and one commodity which I would suggest to import more heavily would be British people, but as they come here we have to see that they are well looked after, and not exploited, as many of them have been in the past, not brought out and dumped on the prairies and on the newer lands, left to shift for themselves, and exploited by people who make a business of that game. The newer parts of Canada are deserving of more careful consideration of her various problems. We need extensions of branch lines of railway where there are large settlements of thrifty farmers who have been holding down the job since before the war, some of them hauling their wheat thirty or forty miles to the nearest railway. Many of our people in such 186i
circumstances are becoming discouraged and are going across the International boundary line. I think it is well worth while for the government to make an intelligent careful survey of all frontier problems and meet those people half way. If we do that we will find that we can hold them. I think it is poor business to spend a lot of money in bringing in new people and not providing for those who are discouraged. We have thousands of settlers to-day who are "broke." There are men who have not any money going across the International boundary line to-day with their families, and I am told that when a man goes broke he cannot get a clearance and make an assignment for less than $500. Those men could not find $500 to save their souls. Something should be done to save those people for this country. It is folly-it is worse than folly-to let those people drift. It is not justice to them. They have suffered this loss, not so much through their own fault as the general aftermath of the war, and I think some compromise should be effected which would save those people to Canada.
Now the problem of adequate credits is a live one from coast to coast to-day. Business men as well as farmers are demanding a better system. It is a difficult problem and worthy the attention of Canada's best men. Members of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce will, I am sure, submit proposals to this House for much needed amendments to the Bank Act. I think we should have a commission on banking and credits similar to the railway commission or the grain commission. I do not know why any small bunch of men should have such arbitrary powers over the business of this country. These men have not been reasonable in the past, and we have no assurance that they ever experienced a change of heart. Now when banks want a renewal of their charter, they try to get it put through, and if they succeed the public will be at their mercy for ten years. The bank presidents and general managers who have been down here giving evidence before this banking committee have a lot to say about the stability of our financial institutions, but, Sir, there is nothing as unstable as the line of credit that the most people have been obliged to use, or to be satisfied with, during the last ten years. I know a farmer who was doing business with a bank for over twenty years before he ever asked to borrow a dollar. He had a first class farm, well improved, everything paid for and he had other investments! He went into the bank and asked for a loan of $200, and the manager told him he was very sorry but they
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Morrison
were not lending money that day. That money was wanted to pay for some cattle the farmer had just bought, and the man went out and got the money elsewhere. I recall another instance where a neighbour of mine had a half section, well improved, and he had horses and implements. He had borrowed some money from the bank, and when in December his note became due he wanted a renewal. He told the banker that he had paid up everything in the stores, paid his threshing bill, wages and taxes. He had paid all he said, but one lien note of $300 on a team of horses which he purchased for $600. He was at that time owing to the bank $300, and the manager said "That is all right, you just pay your note now, and you will be in good standing when your note for the horses becomes due on the 1st of March, and we will take care of you." The farmer took him at his word and paid the note in the bank. But when 1st March came around the bank refused to give him a loan of $300. The vendor of the horses had the team in town to re-sell them, when a neighbour came forward and loaned the farmer the money. I do not think the banks are doing justice to their customers in such cases as that to which I have referred. I could quote much worse instances than that of uncalled-for ill-treatment.
The banks tell us that money is tight. People who are tight when we want to do business with them are no good; we should have some way of keeping them in working order. We want continuity of service. Personally I have no complaint to make; but I have seen some gross injustices handed out to the people, and I do not see any reason why one group of men should be in a position where they can dictate the whole game right through. I do not think any man in the world is good enough to have an absolute say *over his fellow man; there should be some [DOT]check on him. Lack of continuity of service has been the chief cause of many people of this country getting into trouble. I have seen men canvassed to get them to use more credit, and later on the same bank manager who so canvassed them, came around and compelled them, when they did not have a crop, to give him a mortgage to protect their loan.
Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. gentleman not to mention in the debate, mattters which are under consideration before a standing committee, the report of which is not yet before the House. That is one of the essential rules of debate.


Mr. MORRISON:: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The United States is to-day providing for farmers a service which land mortgage companies and banks cannot give. Banks require their money out on short-term loans, because they have big deposits of money that are due on demand. They are, therefore, obliged to keep their assets as liquid as possible, and they are not in a position to lend money on live stock for one or two years until the stock grows to maturity. Our land mortgage companies also cannot touch that business. There are many farmers who have plenty of feed, but who cannot use it on this account, and there is no margin for waste to-day in agriculture in Canada. Our country requires a system of intermediate credit, similar to the United States' system, to suit the requirements of our live stock men. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), in speaking the other day, scoffed at the idea of farmers consolidating their debts on the amortization plan. Why would that not be good business for farmers as well as for the British government? The British Government had their debts to the United States spread over a term of sixty years recently, and they are recognized as the best financiers in the world. What is our own government doing? It is not trying to pay off its debts in five years. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in fact all big companies, borrow money over a long term of years, and there is no possibility to-day of farmers being able to pay their debts off in a short term of years. Recently the Canadian Pacific set an example which shows some real appreciation of actual conditions in western Canada. They announced that they were calling in some 30,000 contracts outstanding with western fanners to whom they had sold land on a short term payment plan at 8 per cent interest. They are re-writing the contracts to extend over a period of thirty-four years on the amortization plan, where the interest and principle combined will not exceed 7 per cent. This is a lead for other big companies like the Hudson's Bay Company and many others that have made colossal fortunes out of Canada. Land mortgage companies and financial institutions that have big reserves, having put many people into a position out of which it is impossible for them to get, should compromise with them and make it possible for them to stay on their land. Most of this trouble has been caused by the aftermath of war, by uncontrollable conditions, and in war time we compromised with some of these companies and readjusted their bargains. Take the case of the Crowsnest pass agreement which was cancelled for a term.

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
The railways found out that they were up against uncontrollable, unexpected costs, and the position was compromised and rightly so. I do not know why the small man should not receive as fair treatment as the big corporation receives. I suggest that the government should take cognizance of the advice given recently by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and put the fear of God into some of these companies, if they will not voluntarily compromise with these men, if, rather than compromise, they will drive men out of the country. The Shyloeks have had their day, and workmen and ordinary business men have had impossible conditions exacted of them. I hope the government will deal fairly and courageously with all sections and not permit these big corporations to jump on the farmers and reap the benefits of the compromise which the Canadian Pacific has made.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us the other day that he had faith in the intelligence and industry of our people; that he had faith in the people and faith in the resources of this Dominion. I would remind him that another authority said that "faith without works is dead." It is all right to have faith, but there has to be a little more than faith in order to get this mess cleaned up and things in working order again.
The Minister of Finance proposes to give bounties to companies manufacturing hemp and artifical silk, and also to the mining of copper. Non-resident capitalists can come into this country, get the ear of the government and secure big bounties. On the other hand, men who are resident in Canada and who have got into hard positions, cannot secure the ear of the government to receive any redress. These companies come into Canada, and without showing parliament that it is necessary for them to receive financial assistance in order that they may gain a footing, and make a success of their industry, they can secure a gift from the public treasury; they can get help. But we come here and present an irrefutable case, and yet we are not listened to. It is outrageous that this pernicious habit of doles to companies without their proving a good case before a committee of this House should continue. If an industry looks good to capital, capital will come and develop it. If it does not, capital will not come by bounties alone. This government proposes to put a bounty on copper of 9 per cent of the output. That would be equal to a bounty to of about 11 cents a bushel on wheat. Supposing we clamoured for a bounty of 11 cents a bushel on wheat,
what would our Conservative and Liberal friends think? They would think that we were unsound, and they would be right. We do not want a bounty for ourselves, and we do not want it for the other fellow. What right has the government, when parliament is in session, to grant such a favour to any company? A matter of that kind should be considered in this House. The hemp industry proposes to establish a factory somewhere near Winnipeg and it is to get a bounty of $200,000 a year, extending over five years, on an investment of $5,000,000. Take a $5,000,000 investment by settlers coming on to the land: they will not get a $200,000 bounty; they have a penalty of more than $200,000 imposed upon the necessaries of life which they have to purchase before they can start. This penalty is not sliding down; it is climbing up for five years, and there should be a reversal of this business. The bounty should be given to the actual men on the land. When we went out West and got free homesteads, we had to live on the land. A non-resident could not get a free homestead. Therefore, the actual settlers in this country, the actual citizens of Canada, should receive preference, if any preference is to be given. I do not ask for preference, but I do not want the other fellow to get it.
We Progressives have received lately from different quarters of the House a great deal of advice about how to manage our business. When men propose to give advice, they will surely be sporty enough to take a little. I wish to advise the hon gentlemen on the treasuo^ benches that their stock has gone down greatly in our estimation. Last year a plea was made for a little patience; we were asked to give the government a little time because they had undertaken a very intricate task, and new men were on the job who were faced with many difficulties. Last year's budget wras claimed to be a step in the right direction, the inference being, of course, that when this budget was brought down we could reasonably expect a further step along the same line. Alas, however, it has been a step backwards. To-day we are convinced that the grand old Liberal party is simply a replica of the party as it was constituted in 1911, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that grand old statesman attempted to give us a fair and generous reciprocity measure. At that time Sir Wilfrid and the country found that there were wolves in sheep's clothing in that party,-high protectionists, camouflaged Tories masquerading under false colours. The mask was torn off, and all the protectionists lined up in their own ranks, and defeated
2932	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Boss (Kingston)
that measure, which would have been of inestimable value to this country, to the banks, the railways, the manufacturers, the labourers, the farmers and the professional men. The interests of the citizens of this country are all bound up together. To-day we have hard times, and hon. gentlemen to my right are charged by the people with a fair share of responsibility for this condition. The onlp difference I see between the two parties i3 that the Conservative party is true to false principles while the Liberal party is false to true principles. The people are tired of public men who make fair promises at election time and then do as little as possible to carry out those promises, through fear of some powerful interest. Canada is looking to-day for men like Mr. E. C. Drury, who will fight public evils in and out of office, and who dares to do right, refusing to compromise with wrong. Many good Liberals believe that their platform of 1919 is treated by this goremmen; merely as a scrap of paper, and respect for public men and members of parliament has not been enhanced in the public mind by this last budget. In conclusion, I want to tell my hon. friends across the Floor that I believe their term of office will be brief, because of their failure to implement their pledges.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Knowing that there are quite a number of speakers to follow me and that this debate must terminate at a certain time, I shall make my remarks as short as possible and shall refer only to the budget. Following our principles as a party, we cannot support the amendment; therefore any remarks I have to offer will be confined to the budget. I have the same opinion as the last hon. member (Mr. Morrison) in regard to this statement of the Minister of Finance; I think it is altogether unsatisfactory and is not in keeping with the promises that his party has made. To me it seems to be nothing more than a political cenotaph of the party platform of 1919, The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), the Liberal member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) and the Liberal member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) have sealed the tomb of this old platform which is dead so far as the party is concerned. It is quite true that there is a voice, but it is only one lonely voice in the wilderness, preaching this old platform of 1919, and that comes from the distant land of Prince Edward Island. It is to be regretted that the budget has created a great gap, leaving I.O.U.'s for the future; we regret chat we cannot settle our own accounts but are leaving a large amount of these promis-
sory documents for the future generations to meet. The reasons given for this state of affairs have been general. It is perfectly true that conditions in Europe are largely responsible for business conditions throughout the world to-day. It is a matter for regret that peace does not exist between France and Germany and that the old struggle is still going on, so that the old spite will be aggravated and the dispute prolonged. In addition to this, Europe is to-day divided up into a large number of small states, and this policy can but protract the unrest and dissatisfaction that now exist. To my mind, we as a British race made a mistake in the peace that has been arrived at, for I think that we should have stuck to our policy of the supremacy of the British navy. I believe that the supremacy of the British navy is the best guarantee of peace that the world has ever had or will ever have, and we can only regret that to-day on the Pacific coast we have no authoritative voice. Chinese bandits may seize our citizens, detain them, and murder them, and we are speechless and even helpless, because, as a matter of fact, the British navy has no strength on the Pacific coast. Years ago, if such a thing had happened, Britain could have spoken with some authority, and a matter of this kind would have been settled very soon.
There is another matter of complaint which has been spoken of by many hon. members, and that is the present exodus of our citizens. We have passed through the Book of Genesis, built up the country, and made a confederation, and now it seems that we have reached the Book of Exodus. There is only one suggestion which appears to me to be practicable in this matter, and that is that the government should at once institute a bureau of information so that every settler going from Canada to the United States might be questioned as to his reasons for leaving the country. We should then know whether men were leaving on account of the lack of work or were going to the United States to secure higher wages. We might also secure information as to why men were coming to Canada from the United States. Our trade commissioners in other parts of the British Empire should be able to give us information as to why settlers from Great Britain and Ireland are going to Australia and New Zealand in preference to Canada. Knowing that these people are loyal to the Empire, and would not, except for some good reason, prefer one part of it to another, we naturally ask ourselves this question; is the practice which now prevails of moving motions in this House of Commons for the purposes of disbanding the

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of doing away with military training, and of curtailing our naval activities, having some effect on those people who would likely settle in this country? This question naturally suggests itself to our minds: Are we doing any good to the people who would like to come to Canada from the great heart of the Empire, by moving such motions in this House and having them appear on our order paper?
There is another cause of complaint which perhaps will have little weight with the government, and that is the matter of party pledges and promises to the people of this country. During the last election the workingman and the poor man were promised that they would have cheaper food. What has been the fact? Last year a reduction was made on cocoa and liquid medicines. This year, according to the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) the government have gone one step further; they have reduced sugar somewhat, knowing that the price of sugar would jump away up beyond all expectation; but they have added to the liquid medicines. They have also given the workingmen and the poor people of the country an opportunity of buying brandy and sparkling wines at reduced prices. These fulfilments of the promises to the poor man are causing a great deal of complaint. There is no question that the prices of food to-day are not going down. In confirmation of this I may quote the prices of meats for 1921 and 1922 contained in tenders called for by a certain institution. In 1921 best breakfast bacon cost 30 cents; in 1922, 32 cents. In 1921 the best beef cost 16 cents; in 1922, 18 cents. In 1921 sausage cost 15 cents, and the same price prevailed in 1922. Smoked ham in 1921 cost 23 cents and in 1922, 28 cents. These prices are per pound, of course. These are merely a few instances; but if one goes through these lists it will be found that in nearly every case the price is up rather than down. So that the workingman has very little to be thankful for in last year's budget and in this. *
There is another cause of complaint. We do not usually grumble about the cost if a suitable service is given in return; but unfortunately the money taken from the pockets of the people is not being returned in the shape of suitable service. The first complaint I shall refer to is in regard to agriculture-the expense of the tuberculin test. Nobody seems to get any benefit from this expenditure. No encouragement is given to the farmer who has his herds regularly tested in order to keep them free of tuberculosis, for he gets no better price for his milk than the farmer who
does not trouble to have his cows tested. Money should be spent to ensure that every man who wishes to have his herd tested should get the benefit of this service.
Another source of complaint has already been referred to by a member from the government side, and that is the cost of special delivery of letters. I have many complaints in regard to this service. We pay heavy charges for the service and get very poor returns. When a man affixes a special delivery stamp on his letter he expects delivery will be made immediately the letter reaches the post office at the other end; but frequently delivery is not made for several hours afterwards, in many cases not much ahead of the regular delivery. These complaints are very general, and this service should be speeded up and be made what it purports to be- a special delivery service.
Complaint is also made regarding the large amount of money expended for military training. If we had adequate military training in return for this expenditure, well and good; but unfortunately we do not get anything like the proper equivalent, and I am surprised that the departmental officials informed the minister that last year's training was satisfactory.
I know for a fact that it was not, and I may add that under present conditions it never will be satisfactory. Military training, to be of any use, should have two objects in view: first, to train the rank and file, and, second, to train a staff. Now, there is only one way in which you can train a staff, and that is by having training camps where all branches of the service are assembled. A properly trained staff is indispensable and during the late war we had to have British staff officers attached to our brigades and divisions to supply our deficiency in this branch. I am not advocating an increased expenditure, but I do not think we gain very much from our present local system of military training-a squadron of cavalry here and a battalion of infantry there. We should have in certain parts of the Dominion central training camps where 4 p.m. all branches of the service would be brought together and where those of our officers who wish to go on staff service could get the necessary training. An efficient staff officer must have experience in every branch of the service, otherwise his training i incomplete and he cannot possibly measure up to the duties of his profession. We are certainly not getting an adequate return for the money we are spending to-day on military training, and I throw the suggestion out to the government that they should as soon as possible establish large camps where all
The Budget-Mr. Ross

(Kingston)
branches of the service may be assembled and where officers may be properly trained for etaff service.
I think the country is waking up to the fact that if we can do without cabinet ministers for three or four months while parliament is sitting, we can get along very well without them for the rest of the year. During the session cabinet ministers are required if at any time at all, and if we can go through a whole session without three or four cabinet ministers, surely the question must arise in the minds of the people: Are all these cabinet ministers required?
Changes in our income tax law have been suggested from time to time, and I propose to refer to one particular change which was suggested last session, but so far nothing has been done in the direction indicated. Under the income tax regulations a widow is granted exemption of SI,000 and a married woman $2,000. Why should such a difference exist? In many cases widows are continuing their homes and their household expenses are a heavy burden upon them, and there seems to be no reason why they should be discriminated against to the extent of $1,000. This matter was brought to the attention of the government last year, and I hope it will now be taken into consideration and both classes be placed on an equal basis.
Now, coming to reciprocity-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


Arthur Edward Ross: The hon. gentleman may not say "hear, hear" when he hears what I have to say, and that is that I am not at all in favour of reciprocity. I will tell you why. Reciprocity brings us into association with the United States in many ways, and I am going to point out how we have come under the influence of our neighbours to the south, and not always to our benefit. In our school system we have been dominated by the influence of the United States, and to-day the boy of poor parents is practically cut out from the technical courses. In my time a boy could take four years in medicine and graduate. In the past we have had some very, very successful physicians as the result of that four years' training. During the four years the boy was able to go out and earn money to put him through his course. Personally that was my experience. I had to put myself through college and earn the necessa'ry money to do so. To-day the course takes six or seven years. This is altogether due to the influence of the United States, to our trying to imitate their system. With the lengthened course the term 
has also been extended so that the boy has veiy little opportunity of earning his expenses, and consequently the boys of poor parents are practically excluded from these branches of study-all because of the influence of the United States over our school system.
Then, too, we have come under the influence of the United States in the standardization of our hospitals. And what has it cost us? We have followed their advice under the Rockefeller Foundation and have built up hospitals according to their standardization. This has resulted in a very expensive system of hospitals, a system not at all intended for our use, a system where the poor man has to attend the public wards and take the doctors in those wards, and all simply to fulfil American ideas of standardization in hospitals.
In addition to that, our political and our social system have altogether been dominated by the United States, and to-day people are doing nothing else in towns but weighing and measuring babies to see if they come up to certain standards. This is a social service that is altogether due to the influence of the United States, and it is dominated by them. Lastly, I do not think that this country of ours is to be at all benefited by the moral influence which would come from the United States.
If you take eastern Ontario, for instance, they have had a great loss in their cheese and butter trade through the influence of the United States, and the high price which they at one time got for their cream has lately been cut down and the farmers are left drifting. In all these ways the United States has had an influence over us which has not been at all beneficial to us. I believe that we can go on by ourselves and build up our own trade without throwing our doors open to these people. Our position is not so bad as some people are crying it to be. The position of Canada to-day as a whole is not one that we need regret. If you look over the list of our products-I have taken only a few of them-in wheat, Canada is third in acreage, being headed by the United States and India only, and in production it takes the same place. In oats Canada is second in production, and the second in acreage. In potatoes we fall down a bit to seventh in acreage, and fifth in production. In live stock there are only three or four countries ahead of us in the number of horses raised, and the same with cattle. We have a field crop valued at over $1,400,000,000. Our manufactures amount each year to over $3,000,000,000. We have live stock amounting to over $1,000,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
That is a condition that we need not cry about. It is a very successful condition, and I do not know if our friends to my left- I am not offering any criticism of the group system; I do not go that far; if the group system will benefit us, well and good, let it come-but this is a general condition of the country that I do not think our friends to my left could improve on if they were in power. All told we have a condition that is very .favourable, and I have confidence in the future. Like the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), my confidence is largely in the people that we have. We must have confidence in our people. The people who are building up this country have never failed in any crisis, neither has the stock they sprang from ever failed in the past. Even when almost hopelessly beaten, with their faces to the foe and their backs to the wall they determined never to give up but to go on. The blood stream of this people is coming, and has come, from the centre of the great Empire to which we belong. Their hopes in that Empire are ours; their ideals are ours, and the hope of the future lies in a strong connection with that same blood stream, no matter whether it is found in Great Britain or Ireland, in Australia or New Zealand, in India, Africa or the isles of the sea. We need no other reciprocity than a strong confidence in that race and a strong connection in the future with that race.
I have confidence also in that other great race in this country, the French-Canadian. I have just as strong a confidence in the courage and the bravery of that race. History has never shown them to be thoroughly beaten. They proved their patriotism at Chateauguay and other scenes of struggle. In the Great War it was my experience to have about fifty or sixty of these French-Cana-dians in my unit, and I well remember that Sunday night in the middle of the gas attack when these men who belonged to the transport column of my unit and had no reason whatever to place themselves in the front rank, came to me and said, "Here, all our stretcher bearers are about finished. Will you give us a chance?" Fifteen or sixteen of them went up to the front as stretcher bearers and before morning five of them were dead, two of them died within twelve hours, and the rest were shot to pieces. With an experience of that kind one can well have confidence in these two great races making a country of which we shall all some day be very proud.


Mr. J. G. ROBICHAUD (Gloucester):: In rising, Mr. Speaker, to continue this debate
it is not my intention to add very extensively to what has already been said. I am rath&r inclined to express the wish that we should end this long debate and get down to the real business of the country with all possible speed. For the past four months apart from look'ng after the best interests of my constituents, a task which in itself was not such an easy one, I have endeavoured to follow the debates of this House in detail. I have thus been more of a looker-on than a participant in our deliberations, and at times, Mr. Speaker, I was inclined to believe that from some sections of this House there was more talk than real action. It is for this reason that I shall refrain from any lengthy discussion at this stage.
I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not in his seat for I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him bn the great wisdom he has shown in the preparation of this budget. Few men in this country can command in the same degree the admiration and confidence of the nation. He is a man with long years of experience. He has had a long life which he has devoted to the best interests of this country, and I can only wish him a still long and happy career filled with all the joys and contentment that could be wished for him.
In sizing up the political situation in this country there is one movement which gives rise to a great deal of speculation, and that is the political movement of our friends directly opposite-the Progressives. As a new member of this House I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should be open to conviction in so far as the best interests of our country are concerned. To a young man brought up in the democratic atmosphere of Liberalism the prima facie evidence adduced by our highly educated friends has "been somewhat seductive But, Sir, the more I study the political policies enunciated	by our friends the
more I become convinced of the futility of their efforts.	I am ready to recognize the high and noble aspirations that prompt the efforts of our friends of the Progressive party. They certainly mean well; but unfortunately for themselves, and for the vast interests which they represent, it would appear to me that their actions are ill-advised and the manner in which they propose to carry out their object is somewhat inconsistent with the end in view. They have repeatedly told us of the conditions which prevail in me western provinces. Well, to a large extent we are ready to admit the truth of what they say, but the remedy does not lie in adopting the programme which they propose,

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
but rather in adhering to sound national policies, policies thought out by the men who have seen the growth of this nation in all its phases. Sir, we want in this country of ours that spirit of nationhood which is so essential in the building up of a new country. We cannot permit class legislation. Whatever course we may pursue in our deliberations it must be one that is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. It is all very well to express an opinion on the present economic difficulties in Canada, but surely there is no reason for shouting from the housetops that blue ruin is at our door. Pessimists and quitters have been too free in their gloomy expressions. If I wanted to draw an exaggerated picture of the conditions in the Maritime provinces I would have no difficulty whatever in out-rivalling some of my extreme friends opposite. But, Sir, were I to do that I should be paying scant justice to the courage and the energy of the people of that part of Canada. The population of those provinces is endowed with more courage and more resourpe-fulness than any other people that I know of. Descending as they do from the pioneers who have experienced the hardships of primitive conditions in this country, that sturdy Scotch blood of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the industrious loyalists of New Brunswick, as well as that nucleus of the French race, the Acadians, of the Maritime provinces, would not flinch from the difficulties of the hour. We have confidence in the future of our country, we believe that its prosperity is sure. We may be mistaken but we feel that the time is not ripe for any drastic change in our national policv.
Our friends directly opposite have suggested b. great many reforms in order to relieve our national troubles which, if put into practice, would inevitably kill the very object they have in view. In other words, it seems to me that tho remedy they propose would be worse than the disease. It is not the first time in our history that conditions have been admittedly unsatisfactory. Prior to the year 1896 there existed in Canada a condition of affairs which was none too good. There was a distinct period of depression. The ship of state was grounded and its crew, many of whom were in the state of mutiny, were leisurely awaiting the rising tide to refloat it. Happily the people realized the seriousness of the situation and handed over the administration of national affairs to the Liberal party under the direction of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The change of government was soon followed by a change for the better 
throughout the country. Throughout the length and breadth of Canada a revival of business took place and such an expansion of trade, such a growth of population and settlement that before long two new provinces had to be created. Soon after the late war conditions again changed for the worse. In 1921 Canada again experienced conditions similar to those which existed in 1896. Once more the ship of state was found to be badly equipped and its boatswain sleeping at the rudder. But to-day we are once more feeling the benefits of a change of government and under the Liberal regime we are proceeding again on the road to prosperity.
Sir, if the trade of the nation is in any way indicative of prosperity may I be permitted to quote a few figures showing that we are regaining our former prosperous position as a country. In the fiscal year ending March 31,
1922,	largely in consequence of policies pursued by the Conservatives, our imports amounted to $747,804,300. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923, however, those imports had increased to $802,465,000, an increase over the year 1922 of $54,660,700. For the year 1922 our exports amounted to $740,240,700 as against a total of $931,451,400 for 1923, an increase for the latter year of $191,210,700, oi a total increase in the business of the country for 1923 as compared with 1922 of some $245,871,400. In other words our trade has increased during the last year by almost twenty per ceDt as compared with the previous twelve months. The expansion of trade for the year
1923,	over that of 1922, was larger than the total business of Canada for the year 1896-7 by some $15,000,000. Furthermore, taking the first month of the present fiscal year we find that our imports for that month, the month of April, reached the figure of $68,181,300, as against $47,695,400 for the same month of 1922, an increase of over $20,000,000. Our exports have increased in the same proportion. For the month of April 1922, our exports amounted to $31,917,500, and our exports for April last amounted to $53,642,250, or an increase for April 1923 over April 1922 of $21,724,750. Thus we see that the increase in Canada's external trade for the last month over the corresponding month of the previous year was some $42,210,650 or an increase of over fifty per cent. Furthermore it will be seen by these figures that in 1921 there was a balance of trade against us of sixty million dollars. In 1922 the balance of trade against us was reduced to seven million dollars, and in 1923, our last fiscal year, the balance of trade Was converted into a balance in our favour of some $131,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Mr. Speaker, these figures of Canada's trade do not show any sign of hardship. There is no reason to be alarmed when we can present such a prospectus of the business of this country, when you can show that for the first month of our fiscal year the business of the country had increased by some 50 per cent. Now I want to show there is no reason for alarm and that, perhaps, we have been subjected to a little too much pessimism on the part of our friends. I wish to read a portion of an article from the Ottawa Journal of 4th May last. This article deals with the Banking and Commerce committee. As the report of this committee has not yet been presented, I shall refrain from dealing with it, but if the House will permit me, I will read a portion of this article. It says:
No good comes from ignoring facts. But what is the sense of magnifying evils, of arguing from the exceptional, of refusing to see things as a whole? It is true that we are passing through a depression. It is true that agriculture as being hit. But will anybody hold that we are not better off than most of the rest of the world, that labor and industry and agriculture in Canada are not as prosperous, as in most other countries? In Europe, nations are dogged by shadows; turbulence, economic dislocation, debt and impoverishment are their lot. In Canada we know little of such hardships. We have social and industrial tranquility our trade is reviving; our reconstruction problems diminish; there is a minimum of unemployment. Why, then, should we permit a few individuals, whom fortuitous circumstances have brought into Parliament, to keep shouting "wolf," or the summoning of witnesses before special committees to tell the world that our economic structure is trembling?
I believe, Air. Speaker, that this is only a fair statement to make on the present situation. I am not quite in love with the long deliberations of the committee on Banking and Commerce, I believe the generosity of the government in this respect has been abused by those of my hon. friends opposite who have been instrumental in all these long deliberations. I think after all we should trust to the wisdom and sagacity of the party of whom I am a supporter.
It affords a great deal of satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, to hear the announcement made in the budget speech of the reduction of the British preferential tariff, especially when we consider that, from this reduction, special preferment has been given to Canadian ports. This is a case of obtaining something for what we give. This was one of the fundamental principles underlying the reciprocity pact of 1911, and in my humble judgment this principle should form the very basis of our national policy. The announcement that negotiations were already on foot with a view to another reciprocity treaty with the United States has been received with a great
deal of satisfaction. Our friends opposite would like to have us tear down our tariff walls without getting anything in return. While it is true that by that policy some immediate relief would result in some sections of the country, we must not lose sight of the fact that Canada must have access to the markets of the world. This is the one essential point that must be borne in mind in the revision of our fiscal policy. Trade negotiations have become a factor of the greatest importance, and I sincerely express the hope that they will be adhered to for generations to come. Suppose, for instance, that one of our western farmers, or a farmer in this province, for example, woke up one morning to find the fences dividing his farm from that of his neighbour so constructed as to allow the neighbour's herds to pass to his farm and pasture, so that they could graze in his pasture with the farmer's own herd, and that there would be no possibility of the herds passing to the other farm and, of course, no chance of the farmer receiving reciprocal advantages; would not the farmer who was placed in that position consider it a very unjust state of affairs? I do not believe he would tolerate it. With this Canada of ours, with the large imaginary boundary between our country and the large country to the south of us. I believe that we must establish some sort of a treaty, or business arrangement, by which we can have access to the markets of the immense population of that country. Our geographical situation is a unique one. We cannot compare our situation, as has been done by my hon. friends at the other end of the room, with that of the British Empire. Others have tried to compare our situation with that of Australia. While our industries may resemble one another, yet there is this one inevitable reason why we should establish a different national policy; there is our geographical situation It has been known that the trade of a country can hardly move from east to west, but there is a natural tendency for traffic and immigration to move from north to south. Therefore, all those circumstances have to be overcome and we must adhere to the national policy of the country, a policy such as has been established in Canada.
I desire to crave the indulgence of this House in expressing my view in regard to Canadian sea ports on which I have already made some remarks in connection with the British preference. The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner) the other day had a dream. He undoubtedly was dreaming about an era of prosperity in Canada, and
:938
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

in his dream he inquired of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) as to the possibility of opening up new ports in eastern Canada in view of the announcement made in the budget speech. There are times when dreams come true, and if there was the realization of one dream which would be for the benefit of the Canadian nation as a whole, it would be the realization of that part of my hon. friend's dream which conveyed his mind to	the Atlantic seaboard of Canada.
We have on the Atlantic coast several natural ports awaiting development. We have at the entrance of the Bay of Fundy several ports which are still undeveloped. I was going to dwell quite extensively on those ports; but I was glad when I came to my seat the other day, to find that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) had discussed the very point which I had intended to bring before the House. I can assure my hon. friend that I heartily concur in everything he said. The development of ports on both the eastern and the western coasts of Canada should constitute a part of our national policy. There is in my constituency, the constituency of Gloucester one of the finest seaports on the Atlantic, situated as it is at the entrance to the Baie des Chaleurs and at the terminus of the Caraquet railway, a line that is now owned and operated by the state, the harbour of Shippigan offers splendid facilities for development.
Many hon. members have said that the Hudson Bay scheme should be adhered to. While I admit that the accomplishment of this scheme would be to the great benefit of the western farmer, provided always that this scheme could be made feasible, yet I must impress upon this government the importance of giving this matter all due consideration. In view of the fact that it would involve navigation in the icy waters of Hudson bay, I am of opinion that this scheme is too dangerous for our nation to indulge in. If the farmers of the West consider the disadvantages of the Hudson Bay scheme, they will soon find that they have nothing to gain, In the first place I am told that the expenditure of vast sums of money would be required to construct that part of the road which is not yet completed. If we consider the great amount of money which this country would have to invest in the building of such a road; if we reckon the interest on that amount; if we add to this the cost of equipment and maintenance, the cost of improving the harbours in Hudson bay, the extra cost of vessels specially built to navigate the icy 
waters of Hudson bay, the extra ocean freight rates and-this is a most important item for our friends of the West-the extra insurance which they would have to pay on their shipments; if all these extra costs to be borne by our farmers and the extra expenditure of money which would be necessary on the part of the government are put together and given to the western farmer in the shape of a reduction in freight rates as against the high rates; if the farmers were to consider the expenses of the other route. I believe that, after all, it would be seen that it would pay the wheat grower of western Canada to ship by way of eastern harbours.
Someone may tell us that our harbours cannot handle the western wheat; that the equipment in eastern harbours will be inadequate to handle such immense quantities of wheat. As I have already said, we have on the Atlantic coast numerous harbours which are still undeveloped. Montreal and Quebec already have up-to-date equipment, and during the summer time they can handle a great deal of freight. Halifax and St. John also have splendid facilities for shipment. Why should we plunge into such a scheme as the establishment of a Hudson bay route?-a route, which, after all, could be used for only five or six weeks, possibly two months at the utmost with convenience, and perhaps, in the face of exceedingly uncontrollable difficulties, for three or four months of the year? As against this project, if our eastern harbours 'are inadequate, we can use some of our undeveloped harbours, and while I am speaking of these harbours, I want to put before this government the advantages offered by the port of Shippigan. In the first place, there would be very little if any construction of new railways; these would only consist of spur lines to deep water terminus. The road is already built and it is operated by the state. Little or no dredging is required. There will be found in that locality plenty of labour at a low rate; the insurance is not high, and this harbour offers the shortest possible route to the European coast.
To show this House that this scheme has been long thought of, I want to read an extract from the report of our famous national engineer Sir Sandford Fleming, a report which dates as far back as 1865 or two years prior to confederation. This report is a fairly lengthy one, and it deals very extensively with the diffeient proposed routes to the European market. As regards the port of Shippigan, Sir Sandford Fleming says in part:

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Under these circumstances, it is too apparent that the Intercolonial railway may find in the United States route a formidable rival for Canad'an passenger traffic to and from Europe, by way of Halifax.
It will be noted here that at that particular time the question of passenger transportation was one which was receiving the most careful attention of our statesmen, and there was speculation as to whether the port of Halifax would be used, or whether American ports would be resorted to. The report continues:
Fortunately, with a view to counteract this difficulty, a line by the Ray Chaleurs would offer special advantages, which may here be noticed. The chart which accompanies this will show that the entrance to the Bay Chaleurs is so situated, geographically, that while it is about as near Europe as the entrance to Halifax Harbour, it is, at the same time, several hundredt miles nearer Montreal and all points west of that city.
Some of the projected lines of railway touch the Bay Chaleurs at Dalhousie and at Bathurst; the latter place is not admitted to be suitable for the purposes of steam navigation, and the former, although in possession of a fine sheet of water, well sheltered and accessible at all conditions of the tide, is, nevertheless, from its position at the extreme westerly end of the Bay, farther inland than might be wished. In order to reduce the steamship passage to a minimum, it is desirable to have the point of embarkation as far easterly as possible, and, therefore, the existence of a commodious harbor near the entrance of the Bay is of no little importance. A place named Shippigan-
It will be recalled that in those days Shippigan was hardly on the map; to-day it is a fishing port with a population of some 5,300 persons.
A place named Shippigan, on the southerly side of the entrance of the Bay Chaleurs, appears to have many of the requisites of a good harbor. It is thus spoken of in the reports on the Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick, published under the authority of the legislature of that province.
Great Shippigan Harbor
This spacious harbor is formed between Shippigan and Pooksoudie Island and the mainland. It comprises three large and commodious harbors [DOT] first, the great inlet of Lameque, in Shippigan Island, the depth of water into which is from four to six fathoms; second, the extensive and well-sheltered sheet of water called St. Simon's Inlet, the channel leading to which, between Pookshoudie Island and the main is one mile in width, with seven fathoms water from side to side. The principal entrance from the Bay Chaleur has not less than five fathoms on the bar-
I may point out here that this is the only bar at the entrance of Shippigan harbour, at which at low tide there is five fathoms of water. To continue:	,
The principal entrance from the Bay Chaileurs has not less than five fathoms on the bar, inside which, within the harbor, there are six and seven fathoms, up to the usual loading place in front of Messrs Moore and Harding's steam saw mill at the village; from thence to the gully, there is about three fathoms of water only.
This is a small entrance to the eastern side [DOT]of Shippigan harbour and it is used only by
our fishermen with their small craft. The main entrance is on the western side, leading into the entrance of the Bay of Chaleur.
Vessels within the harbor of Shippigan have good anchorage, are quite safe with every wind, and can load in the strongest gale. The rise and fall of the tide is about seven feet.
"The noble haven called St. Simon's Inlet, the shores of which are almost wholly unsettled and in a wilderness state, runs several miles into the land, maintaining a good depth of water almost to its western extremity.
Duncan McNeil, an old pilot, frequently employed on the government steamers, when calling at New Brunswick ports, describes Shippigan as a good harbor, with plenty of water, regular soundings and tough blue clay holding ground, indeed where vessels would be perfectly secure in any storm. He says that he could take a ship of heavy draught into it in any weather, by night or by day; that in dirty or dark weather, he would go entirely by the lead.
Of course, these are the views of an oldtime mariner and it is not likely that the lead would be used nowadays; they follow gas buoys and other modem signals.
Others describe Shippigan Harbor as unobjectionable. The Admiralty Chart seems to agree in the main with the descriptions above given; it shows that the area of the basin, embracing only the water over the three-fathom line at low tide, is about two and a half square miles; a sheet about double the size of Halifax Harbor between St. George Island and the narrows to Bedford Basin. The only objectionable feature seems to be the channel at the entrance, which is about three miles long, to the basin, a little crooked, and at present without leading marks.
As I have po nted out, the engineers make mention of the eastern entrance, but that i.-used only by our fishermen.
It is, however, about half a mile in width, free from all obstructions, the depth varying from five to nine fathoms at low water. There is good warning by the lead in the channel and the approaches to it..
It would appear from the above, therefore, that Shippigan Sound presents a favourable opportunity for form ng a traffic connection between the Intercolonial Railway and Ocean Steamers.
As to the geographical situation of the harbour, I have already stated that it is situated at the terminus of the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway, which now forms a part of the Intercolonial. The distance from Shippigan to Liverpool via Belle Isle is 2,318 miles, whereas the distance from Halifax to the same point by Cape Race is 2,466 miles, or a difference in favour of Shippigan by the Strait of Belle Isle, of more than 148 miles; and via Cape Race from Shippigan, the distance being 2,493 miles, there is a difference of 27 miles in favour of Halifax. As against these ocean distances we find that Shippigan harbour is situated 419 miles from Quebec whereas Halifax is 685 miles from that point, or a difference of 256 miles. The report then goes on to show the distance between Halifax and points west via Bangor, Maine, but I do not

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
believe that these routes are utilized at the present time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a national railway policy and I believe that we should observe its real intent and purpose. Our railways cannot be made to pay if they are used to divert traffic to other roads and to foreign ports.
This question of seaports suggests to my mind something else. It has been said that the Fordney-McCumber tariff has rendered the market of some 110,000,000 people inaccessible to our fishermen in regard to many varieties of fish. Furthermore, consequent upon the removal of certain war-time measures, our American friends have closed their ports tight to our fishing vessels, also as a direct result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff our dried fish are excluded from the Porto Rico market. We in the Maritime provinces have some $20,000,000 invested in the fishing industry, and many thousand families depend upon the industry for a livelihood. Our situation is somewhat abnormal at the present time, but if we are to outlive these difficulties we must guard our industries against protected competition. I have no desire to call for drastic measures against our American friends, but I feel that the time is now opportune for the revocation of the modus vivendi which was established in 1880.
Conditions in the Maritime provinces are ' not perhaps just as we would like them to be to-day. Of course we deprecate irresponsible talk of secession, but, after all, this talk is caused by unrest, and I believe we should adhere, in so far as the status of the Maritime provinces is concerned, to the provisions of the British North America Act; in other words, I believe the terms of confederation should be held sacred in the shrine of this nation. It is only in this way that we can hope to maintain the firmness of our aspirations, the integrity of our manners and customs, and joy and felicity of our social life.


Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to contribute a few remarks to this debate. First, because otherwise I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents; secondly, on account of several questions that have been disposed of by this House and to which I might be considered as tacitly assenting; and thirdly, on account of the geographical position of my constituency, I think a better understanding will result by my bringing to the notice of the House some of the local conditions, and thereby I shall be doing a duty not only to my constituency but to the Dominion at large.

I wish to associate myself with all the complimentary remarks that have been extended to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). As a young member of this House I can say that he commands the highest esteem and respect of every member, and I trust that he may be long spared to enjoy the comforts and pleasures of this life which he has so well earned and is so abundantly entitled to.
Since becoming a member of this House I have felt that there is perhaps a lack of knowledge in the eastern and central provinces regarding the westerly provinces. I am strongly of opinion that every member should have as intimate a knowledge as possible of the whole Dominion, but particularly of the far westerly provinces, because many times in
5 p.m. the course of debate in this House I have been struck by the fact that some members did not fully understand the conditions that exist in the far West. Perhaps this is because a good many people in the East have not had the opportunity of visiting the West; on the other hand, a large percentage of the population of British Columbia, for instance, is made up of those who originally lived in the East, and through business and holiday trips to their old homes they are fairly conversant with conditions in the other provinces. Therefore, I feel that it is the duty of every representative in this parliament to give the closest personal study to conditions throughout the whole Dominion.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps a few of the remarks I am about to make may be in a somewhat different tone from those of my good friends with whom I am associated, but in what I am going to say I believe I shall express the sentiments of my constituents. I shall speak in a somewhat optimistic vein, but this optimism I hope to demonstrate is well-founded and I trust my remarks will not be considered as in any way too provincial or too sectional. In reviewing for a moment a few of the assets and resources of British Columbia I wish to emphasize their diversity. It has been many times expressed in this corner of the House that the West is entirely a wheatgrowing country. This, of course, applies in great measure to the prairie provinces, and while we all recognize the vast importance of the wheat production of the West, we must also realize that the province of British Columbia contributes its share of the national wealth in other forms. We in British Co lumbia are fully aware of the unsatisfactory conditions existing in Canada to-day, particularly in respect to agriculture, and believing that the producer and the consumer have very much in common, it is the wish of the

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
people in my constituency to co-operate as far as we possibly can to bring about legislation that will be beneficial to both, and at the same time develop our national resources for the benefit of the Dominion as a whole.
Let me review very briefly some of the assets of the province of British Columbia. We have a wonderful climate, fertile land, minerals, timber and fishing resources, water powers and many other assets that go to make up not only a farming but an industrial province-not forgetting the seaport of Vancouver that is available for shipping the year round. Although the per capita debt is very high I feel sure that 99 per cent of our population are looking forward to the future with every confidence and a spirit of hope, and they are ready and willing to co-operate with the other provinces of the Dominion with a view to making Canada more prosperous and a better country in every way.
I would like to touch on a few features oi national legislation. The statement has been made in this House that the British Columbia members are a unit on all questions that arise here pertaining to British Columbia. That is quite true in some cases, but not in all. The one topic on which the members for British Columbia are unanimous is the question of Asiatic immigration, or the exclusion of orientals. This is a question that has already been passed upon by this House, which has given assent to a bill affecting the immigration of Asiatics, and I know that that action will meet -with the approval of the people of British Columbia. I believe as do all other British Columbians that it is a step in the right direction, one that will lead eventually to the exclusion of Asiatics.
Before going on to discuss the budget, I should like to refer very briefly to some of the questions that pertain particularly to the province of British Columbia. There have been quite a number of questions discussed in this House and bills passed, and at times it has been impossible for the members from the different provinces to be present in the House and take part in all the discussions. In that way one may perhaps be taken as having given silent assent to the legislation that has been passed and to the disposal of these questions, whereas if one had been in the House he would have been able to explain the position he takes on any question on behalf of the district he represents. British Columbia, particularly the district I represent, . is a mountainous country, and our towns and cities and villages are situated at varying altitudes, some as high as five and six thousand feet, others at an altitude of one thousand or twelve hundred feet; but being
situated in the heart of the Rockies we are labouring under difficulties that differ from those of other parts of the Dominion, parti-cularlj' the prairie provinces. For the past few years the federal government have seen fit to give aid to the provinces in the building of highways, the aid being given in proportion to the population of the province. The aid that has been given in that respect has been welcomed by the province of British Columbia. It has been a means of opening up and developing the province, providing better communication perhaps than could be had by railways. It has enabled the province to build highways that will eventually connect up with our national highway. It has been of great advantage to the farming community, and particularly to those settled in the outlying districts. This federal aid has now been eliminated, and I wish to urge upon the government that every consideration possible should be given to assisting the province of British Columbia in this regard. I understand that some provinces have not used up their quota of money provided for this purpose, but British Columbia's quota was used up some time ago, and the federal aid that has been given has proved of great assistance particularly in opening up a southern international road extending to the boundary line and the state of Washington. This was referred to, I believe, last year bjr the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie). In respect to the action taken by the electors in that district I can onfy say that although the plans and specifications for that particular highway were not sent on to Ottawa in time to receive the federal assistance, nevertheless the province has taken upon itself to go ahead and complete that highway. It is expected to be opened up this year and will connect up with many other roads in that district and provide communication into other parts of the province. While on this point I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster in this connection last year. I am sorry he is not in his seat. In his remarks in the budget debate the hon. member for New Westminster referred to certain action taken by the electors of Revelstoke and Nelson and went on to say in Hansard, 1922, p. 2238:
They absolutely bribed the electors of that country. I do not like to go too far. There are a lot of other things I could say in this connection but I will let things go just as they are as to this particular matter.
I resent those words of the hon. member for New Westminster. As the representative of that district I feel that the electors in the vicinity of Nelson and in the vicinity of
The Budget-Mr. Humphrey

Revelstoke have not at any time been bribed upon any question. I believe they are perfectly capable of judging on the merits of each question as it arises, and that they are competent to judge for themselves. I resent the suggestion of the hon. member that they are capable of being bribed.
I would like to refer for a moment to Bill No. 43, an act to amend the Canada Temperance Act. I wish to dissociate myself from the views expressed upon that question by my hon. friends to my right. I was unable to be present when the discussion on this bill took place, a measure which affects the entire province of British Columbia, but speaking for my own particular district, I believe the people there will commend the action of this House in passing that measure. The people of British Columbia have already decided to place the handling of the liquor question in the hands of the provincial authorities; and the residents of my district, particularly the farmers and labouring classes, feel that any legislation that will assist in curtailing the illegitimate sale of intoxicating liquors will be a step in the right direction.
British Columbia is a young province and its population is, as yet, very small. Therefore I think public sentiment in that province favours a policy of immigration. I can only speak for my own district and public opinion there is in favour of immigration, because in that part of the province there is a great deal of fertile land available for settlement. In that connection I may be asked whether the present condition of the fruit growers of British Columbia is satisfactory. As far as my knowledge goes that condition is not as good as it might be but I believe that matters will right themselves shortly and that the fruit growers will work out a system that will be beneficial to themselves and to the consumers in other parts of the Dominion. In the district which I represent there is an abundance of good land available for settlement, and there are many openings and opportunities for settlers. I should explain that the fruit growers do not confine themselves exclusively to farming or fruit growing but extend their activities in other directions. They will, I think, before long be working under more settled conditions, and a sagacious policy of immigration will be welcomed by them as likely to promote the settlement of the vacant lands and aid in the further development of the province. The machinery necessary is already in existence in the Kootenay district. Railway communication has been provided, there are good opportunities for settlers, and a sane and sound policy of immigration 
will undoutedly be productive of the best results.
It is unfortunate that in the discussions that have so far taken place here this session no reference, or very little, has been made to questions affecting our returned men. Last session a special committee was appointed by the House to deal with these matters, and I believe such action met with the approval of the country as a whole. During the recess a royal commission was appointed to investigate and report upon many complaints in regard to the treatment of the ex-service men. That commission has reported on certain phases of the inquiry, and has made a number of recommendations. Nevertheless a feeling of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country. I believe the case of the ex-service men should be seriously considered by this House and such action taken as the facts call for. In view of the prevailing discontent in the country, not only on the part of the ex-service men but in the mind of the public as a whole, I deem it desirable to place on record one or two resolutions. I deem this to be only an act of justice to the organizations that have forwarded them. Bor example I have here a resolution forwarded by The Canadian Legion, Victoria Post, No. 1, Victoria, B. C. which reads as follows:
Whereas since the sittings of the Royal Commission on Pensions, the Pension Board has, if possible, acted in a more arbitrary and unfair manner than ever before, and whereas many deserving cases have been refused pensions or other relief asked for:
And whereas it is creditably reported that it is the avowed intention of the Pension Board to challenge the re.port of the Royal Commission;
And whereas such an attitude shows a total failure to appreciate the extent of the wrongs being committed against ex-service men and further is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Pension Act;
Resolved that this meeting of the ex-service men do most strongly resent and protest against* the attitude of the Pension Board generally, and more particularly in regard to its avowed intention to challenge the report of the Royal Commission.
Resolved that the protest entered by the secretary of the Dominion Alliance at Ottawa against the present actions of the Pension Board be and is hereby fully endorsed.
Resolved further that in the opinion of this meeting the chairman and members of the Pension Board should resign and persons capable and willing to administer the act fairly and justly be appointed in their place subject to some proper control.
Resolved further that copies of this resolution be sent to the members of parliament for British Columbia at Ottawa, and to all federal cabinet ministers.
The foregoing resolution is dated Victoria, B. C., May 10, 1923. I believe it has been the desire of the people of Canada as a whole that the Pension Commissioners should consider honestly and fairly the cases of exservice men presented to them and that they

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
should administer the Pension Act in a fair and equitable manner. From my own observations I conclude the returned men are justified in the protests they are making.
Speaking of those returned men from my own district, they want nothing but what is right and fair; they wish to be re-established under the provisions of the act passed by this parliament and to be given a fair show. But, on the other hand, if we find upon investigation that we have a board of pension commissioners who are not administering that act according to the intention of the members of this House and the members of the different committees that amended the act, I feel that it is the duty of the House to make thorough investigation and take whatever action is necessary to provide a board of pension commissioners that will administer the act honestly, fearlessly and according to the intentions of those who were instrumental in framing that act. I do not bring out that point with the intention of prejudicing the Board of Pension Commissioners, but in a spirit of absolute honesty and sincerity. I bring this point to the notice of the House with the view of impressing it upon the members in such a way that, after the results of this commission are brought to the attention of hon. members, they may understand the seriousness of the question and give it every consideration.
Passing on for a moment to a particular question that appertains to the district I represent, I ask, Mr. Speaker, the privilege of again referring to a sectional point. I wish to commend the government on the action taken in the district I represent in regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the past few months the government has seen fit to withdraw the mounted police from my district, and I believe I am voicing the sentiments of 95 per cent of the people of that district in expressing myself as I do. There have been one or two protests-one particular protest- entered against the action of the government in that connection, and I take this opportunity of explaining the position of the people I represent in that connection. It has only been in the last few years that it has seemed necessary to maintain a force of mounted police in that district. For many years, in fact since confederation, the point of having mounted police in the interior districts was not considered, and it was only within the last few years that they have been established at those points. The people of those districts have always considered, in common with many *others throughout the Dominion, that it was



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
an unnecessary expense and an overlapping of service, and that they were absolutely unnecessary. I am glad to see that this government has seen fit to recognize that contention. In that connection I would like to explain my own position and to voice the opinion of those whom I represent in this House. A telegram which was sent by the Board of Trade of Nelson, British Columbia, and was published in the press and otherwise, reads as follows:
Advised orders have been given to close immediately Nelson office Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that office now stationed here will be removed.
Members of this board strogly protest against proposed action being taken. The Dominion police have rendered excellent service throughout this district. Opening of the international thoroughfare south, increased mining activities and presence of professional agitators make it of great importance that local force be maintained. Trust orders will be rescinded and police retained.
I think it is my duty as the representative of that district to explain to this House and to the government some points in regard to that telegram which was sent to the press. I wish to resent the wording of it, and to state that I am thoroughly in accord with the increased mining activity and the opening of the international thoroughfare south, but I cannot agree-and I think the parties sending the telegram are wrongly advised in so stating- that there are present in the district any professional agitators. I do not know whether the parties sending this telegram were referring to labour or not, but I can honestly say, from my knowledge of that district, being thoroughly acquainted with the conditions as they exist at the present time, that I know of no professional agitators there. As far as the labourers are concerned, there is no better regulated body of men in the Dominion than in that district. We have no labour troubles, and I can sincerely say that I think the country is entirely free from any professional agitators. Being a representative of labour I feel that it is my duty to explain the position.
I would like to refer for a moment to one item in the budget before making my position clear. That is in connection with the action taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in regard to providing a cent and a half per pound bounty for copper products. As the minister said in his speech, this bounty will only apply to products of Canadian copper, produced and manufactured in Canada, and to be used in Canada, and is not to apply to copper for export purposes. Having the honour and privilege of representing the district to which this bounty applies, I can say that the residents of the West Kootenay disEDITION
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
trict practically depend to a great extent upon their mining. A great deal of the copper that is obtained from the province of British Columbia is refined and turned out from a smelter situated in the district I represent. At the location of this smelter, which is a very large institution employing very close to
2,000	men at the present time, outside of their employees in connection with their different mines and property, there is a small city of nearly 5,000 inhabitants, which is kept up by this concern. I do not wish to go into the principle of providing this bounty, but I wish to point but the facts that have occurred through the action of providing a bounty of one cent and a half upon copper products. In the past few years nearly all of the copper that has been used for the producing of copper rods and wire has been obtained from the United States. The providing of the bounty of one and a half cents a pound on copper products will be the means of opening up, according to reports that I have received since the delivery of this budget, a copper rod mill that has been built in that district at a cost of veiy close to one half million dollars. It will create employment for from three to five hundred men, and instead of $3,500,000 yearly going to the United States, as it has in the past- and I believe those figures are correct that the Dominion of Canada has sent $3,500,000 to the United States for their copper-the providing of this bounty will keep this money within the Dominion and particularly within British Columbia. The information I have is that within thirty days this rod mill will be operating with the number of men increased to from three to five hundred.
In expressing the views of the constituency which I represent, I can state them only in a spirit of optimism. There exists among the people a willingness to meet the conditions of the future in a spirit of confidence and good will, 'believing that there is a future for British Columbia. I am well aware that this does not quite meet with the views of the friends on this side with whom I have the privilege of associating, and the people of British Columbia are cognizant that conditions throughout the prairie provinces are not as they should be and not as they would like to see them.
It is only right and fair that I should make my position clear respecting the action taken on this budget. Since becoming a member of this House, I have followed with a great deal of interest the remarks made by the different leaders of our parties and the remarks made by the different individual members as regards platforms. Some have spoken about the plat-

forms that they were elected upon; others have spoken about the platforms that they are standing on. I feel that I would perhaps be slighted or slighting the House if I did not place my platform before hon. members. In that respect, I might say that I was elected a member of this House, not supporting the platform of the Liberal party, not supporting the platform of the Conservative party. I was not elected a member of this House to support the platform of our Progressive friends so far as it pertained to tariff questions. I believe it is only fair to the hon. leader of this party (Mr. Forke) that my position should be made clear. I realized in the past and I realize now very fully the situation which has arisen. The people of my district feel that they have a great deal in common with the members of this party on many questions, but as a member who was elected on a platform which was drawn up as an Independent platform by a joint conference of farmers and labour representatives, a platform which had in it the recall, I believe, together with a plank stating that I could not commit myself to low tariff proposals, under those conditions, and with all respect to the leader of this party, to members of this group and to the House generally, I feel that I can point out the platform on which I was elected and confine myself to it in respect to supporting this budget. As one of the planks of that platform stated that I could not support the hon. leader of this party as respects tariff questions, I cannot support him in respect to this amendment. I feel that this explanation is due to the leader of this party and to the members of this House, and I consequently must govern myself accordingly. As long as I am a member, I shall consider it my duty to follow out the pledges made in that platform as it is practically a platform pertaining to my own election.
Mr. L. J. LOVETT (Digby-Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a constituency in the province of Nova Scotia, adds to my pleasure in associating myself with those who have already taken part in this debate in offering congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on this, his seventeenth budget, and also personally to express the hope that he may be spared to bring down many more budgets in this House.
I think it is a recognized fact that no matter how fair or moderate a budget may be, it will not always meet the wishes or be wholly acceptable to the many diversified interests in this country, nor will it satisfy each and every province in this Dominion. But

The Budget-Mr. Lovett
speaking generally, I think the people of this country, taking into consideration our present financial condition and the need of revenue, will look upon this budget as one admirably suited to the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people. True it is that Canada for the past few years has been labouring under a period of depression and things are not as we would like to have them. But if we, as loyal Canadian citizens, realizing as we should, the great heritage which is ours, with a country unsurpassed for its great natural resources, with an industrious and, in the main, a frugal people, maintaining and standing steadfast by that spirit of optimism which, I believe, is inherent in the people of Canada, we cannot help but emerge from these trying days of depression into the brighter days of renewed prosperity. If our trade returns are an index-and they certainly are-they indicate that we are again on the eve of more prosperous times. Perhaps prosperity will not blossom forth in a day; and better not, for if it comes gradually, we can congratulate ourselves that we are on solid ground, that we are not building on an artificial foundation which would destroy stability, but that we are laying the stable foundation for enduring national prosperity.
As I have already said, I believe this budget will be generally acceptable to the people of this country. If I had any criticism to offer, it would be a desire for further downward revision; but taking into consideraion the present financial condition of this country and the need of revenue, I fear such a step at this time would be attended by very grave consequences. I believe, Sir, one should consider all matters from the broadest possible viewpoint, not seeking to force his individual opinion in direct conflict to those whose wisdom, experience and legislative ability have made Canada what she is, but more in the spirit of suggestion, with a mind open to conviction, to the opinions of those who have had wider experience in guiding our national affairs. I do not wish it to be understood that one should sink his own individual opinions on any great national question; not at all I am only trying to convey the thought that our individual beliefs and opinions should not be adamant, but should be amenable to the arguments of those who, as I have said before, have had wider experience.
The member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) during the course of his remarks a few days ago, suggested the reduction of the postage rate as it affected British mails, and with that suggestion I am heartily in accord. But I would go further. I believe that a return to
the old 2 cent postage rate under the Laurier regime would find favour with the mass of the Canadian people. It may be thought that this reduction would seriously interfere with the revenue of the Post Office Department. But when we take into consideration the surpluses under the 2 cent rate of the Laurier administration and contrast them with the deficits of the 3 cent rate under Conservative rule we are bound to conclude that the reduction in the rate would not lessen the revenue but would on the contrary augment it through an increased volume of business. Let me illustrate. Many business concerns in this country, and in fact the people generally, would use the mails to a greater extent if the rates were reduced. A prominent business man who was in the habit of sending 40,000 letters to his customers annually informs me that he had abandoned the practice and was now reaching his patrons through other channels than the mails. I imagine that there are many other large business concerns that are doing the same thing. Can we not logically conclude that the reduction of the postage rate to 2 cents would at least not impair the revenue, while it would relieve the people of this country of a tax that bears equally on poor and rich? I would submit this matter to the government for their careful consideration.
Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a few moments in reference to the fisheries of the Maritime provinces, more particularly as they affect my constituency. At the same time I would take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the fishermen of that part of our Dominion who have proved themselves heroes in contributing a large share to the wealth of this country. We whose activities are confined to the land do not stop to realize what the fisherman endures in his hazardous and perilous calling. Day and night alike he has to venture forth to earn his bread, a prey to sudden storms which threaten life and property. But even all these difficulties and obstacles which he encounters cannot daunt that splendid courage and pluck which these people possess. Therefore, if there is any class of the people in Canada that deserves consideration and concessions of a government, it is the fishermen of the Maritime provinces. Never during forty years Mr. Speaker have the fishermen of the Maritime provinces encountered such extreme weather and ice conditions as they have done in the past year. Loss of gear and lack of fishing opportunities have put these men deep in debt; as they often buy their outfits on credit and this handicaps them for the following season. Impaired credit and loss of gear is
The Budget-Mr. Lovett
juMU om
a deadly combination, and it has placed tb fishermen of the Maritime provinces in serious financial straits. Surely some relief must be afforded these men. I therefore strongly urge upon the government not only the desirability but the necessity of granting the fishermen of the Maritime provinces a reduced freight rate in order that they may place their products in the markets of central Canada at a fair and reasonable profit. Why should the farmers of the West be granted reduced freight rates on wheat, which is not a perishable product, and the farmers and fishermen of the Maritime provinces be refused the same privilege, when their products are in the main of a perishable nature? Fuel, we find, has been granted a reduced freight rate, and with this I have no fault to find. But why should not the fishermen and the farmers of the Maritime provinces receive a like privilege? Surely whatever loss might be incurred by the reduction of their freight rates would be more than compensated for by an increased volume of business. Then again as has been alluded to before in the debate, the fishermen of the Maritime provinces are denied through the Fordney tariff the privilege of the United States market, which is their natural market. This increases the necessity of access to the central markets of Canada, and if they are not available these men will have to find a different means of livelihood, and the industry, one of Canada's greatest assets, will languish. I am trying to place before the government the facts as they actually exist. I do not want to leave the impression that the fishermen and farmers of the Maritime provinces are a lot of professional m or. Tiers Mice the farmers of the prairies. They recognize adverse conditions and ask for amelioration, but they go their way with courage and with an abiding faith in the future prosperity of this Dominion.
I want at this point to commend the provisions of the budget which permit free entry into Canada of machinery for the manufacture of fish waste into fertilizer and other products. This opens up a new avenue of profit to the fishermen; it provides for the establishment of new industries and the employment of more men-much desired results. I also strongly commend the reciprocity offer to the United States as embodied in the budget.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned at six o'clock, I had finished presenting the claims of the fishermen of the 
Maritime provinces for amelioration of their financial difficulties, and I urged upon the government reduced freight rates for their products in the central markets of Canada.
We people of the Maritime provinces are still optimistic concerning Canada's future and have no use for a pessimist-he is a blot on the landscape. I believe the spirit of pessimism that has been poured forth by the farmers of the prairies during this session has had the effect of seriously discounting Canada's resources in the eyes of the world, and defeating the objective which is of paramount importance to this Dominion-the attraction of desirable settlers. I am afraid, Sir, that Canada's enemies are as much within as without, none the less harmful because the damage done is not intentional. What is the use of our immigration department embarking on an immigration policy which holds out strong inducements to prospective settlers if those now living in that section of the Dominion most widely recommended to these settlers, the great Canadian West, is described by those already in possession of the land of promise as "the unhappy dwelling-place of the impoverished farmers" who "refuse to see the sunshine because it does not shine down in every way and every day on every blessed one of them." I fear it will take a long and expensive advertising campaign to reassure prospective settlers and offset the complaints that have been voiced in this House.
A number of criticisms of the budget have been voiced in the press. I shall refer to only two, one credited to the leader of the Progressive party in this House (Mr. Forke) and the other to Mr. H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta. The Ottawa Citizen of May 12 last contains the following:
Robert Forke, Progressive leader, questioned by a Canadian Press representative last night, declared that Progressives did not consider the budget satisfactory. "I do not think," he said, "that the tariff changes in the budget will be of any benefit to western farmers. Furthermore, the finality of the reductions as announced in the budget speech was extremely disappointing."
In the Ottawa Journal of the same date the following appeared:
Head of Alberta Farmers thinks Budget good one. Pleased With the Reference Made by Mr. Fielding to Reciprocity
Says removal of tariff would be great boon. United States the logical market for cattle from Canada.
Canadian Press by direct wire
Calgary, Alta., May 12.-General satisfaction with the 1923 budget brought down in the House of Commons yesterday by W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, was expressed by H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta, in an interview here last night.

The Budget-Mr. Lovett
Looks pretty good to him
"It looks pretty good on the face of it, although I have not studied it carefully," Mr. Wood said. "I don't see anything the matter with it and, speaking generally, I am satisfied with the budget; it appears reasonable.
"I am pleased to note the first step towards reciprocity with the United States, which was mentioned by Mr. Fielding in his budget speech," the Alberta farmer leader said. "The removal of the tariff would be the greatest thing that ever happened to Canada, in my opinion, and I -wish heartily to commend Mr. Fielding on this step that has been taken.
The logical market
"I believe it would be more important and would have better results on the prosperity of the west as a whole to have the tariff on cattle removed rather than the tariff on wheat, for instance. The United States is our logical market; she is in a position to import our product.
"The United States grows wheat for export. On the other hand, I observe that there is a decided movement among farmers of the United States to obtain the removal of the tariff on cattle, for this would be of mutual benefit to both countries.
"However, it will come ultimately," Mr. Wood concluded.
Mr. Speaker, I have given you the views of the hon. leader of the Progressive party as outlined in the press, declaring his and also his followers dissatisfaction with the present budget; and this dissatisfaction has been further emphasized in the amendment which he has placed before this House. I have also quoted the views of Mr. H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta, which are exactly opposite to those expressed by the hon. leader of the Progressive party. Their respective views clearly indicate the divergency of opinion in western Canada regarding the budget.
I would ask my Progressive friends, particularly those from the province of Alberta, how they can support the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) against the opinion of their constituents as voiced by Mr. Wood, who presumably voices the opinion of one wing at least of the western Progressive party. If by supporting the amendment of the leader of the Progressive party they condemn the budget which has been declared by Mr. Wood as generally satisfactory, will they not incur the danger of a sharp reprimand from their constituents?-a reprimand which may focus its force in defeat when next they face the electorate? Is it not well to remember that we as elected representatives of the people are not here to voice our own personal views, but to present and urge the viewpoint of our constituents? For we should always consider ourselves servants, and not in any sense masters. It will be extremely interesting indeed to watch which horn of the dilemma our Alberta friends will take, whether they will
follow the Progressive leader of this House, who expects the millennium at once, or the saner opinion of Mr. Wood, a man who recognizes that changes must come gradually and appreciates all efforts in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the present government is doing everything possible in the interest of agriculture, particularly as it affects western Canada, without discriminating against other business interests, and yet in spite of the concessions made the attitude of our Progressive friends in this House is one of rank ingratitude, an ingratitude crueller than a serpent's tooth.
As to the criticisms made of the budget by the official opposition, they are undoubtedly within their rights as are all others, but as yet they have not made much headway. Fair and honest criticism is always appreciated, but when they undertake to play politics and descend to carping criticism and insinuations they will not find favour with the people of this country, who have an abiding faith in the masterly ability of the present Minister of Finance, and feel assured that he is the man who will eventually place Canada on her feet financially and restore the prosperity of days gone by.
There is one matter that I hoped the government would treat in a more comprehensive and direct way than is indicated in the budget.
I allude to forest conservation. To realize a->
we must from the exhaustive and conclusive data placed before the government and every member of this House that the great wealth of our forests is fast being dissipated through fire, insect pests, destructive lumbering and the exportation of large quantities of raw forest products, and that the time has arrived when positive steps must be taken or this great source of our wealth and national credit will be a thing of the past. True it is that both the Dominion and provincial governments are doing a wonderful work in extensive and improved methods of forest fire prevention and protection, but in spite of this thousands and thousands of acres of our best timber are being destroyed annually until wfe have reached the stage when it is incumbent upon the Canadian government, for they are the custodians of Canadian interests to realize that a further depletion of our forests from these causes I have already named will leave us barren of what was a great national inheritance. No matter what precautions are taken in regard to forest fire prevention and protection we can never entirely eliminate thi3. great menace, and it is a drain on our forest: areas that will have to be reckoned with foe
The Budget-Mr. Lovett

all time to come, and must be recognized as a constant factor in forest depletion.
It is a well-known fact that the United States has reached the stage where she has no longer sufficient pulpwood to supply her own demands An American forestry expert states as a positive fact that in ten years or less the great American pulp and paper plants will have to remove to Canada or else go out of business. Canada's forests are being robbed of thirty-five million trees annually in the export pulp trade, fifty per cent of which goes to the United States. American operators are already buying up our timber limits, corralling our supplies of pulp, and shipping them to their own mills there to be manufactured into the finished product, giving employment to their own workmen, and thus conserving their forest reserves. In proportion our Canadian workmen are deprived of employment. Our existing mills are feeling keenly the pinch of market competition in buying wood, and culminating disaster of all, our forest reserves are being rapidly depleted. I ask you, is this good business?
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that you cannot build up a country if you allow her raw material to be shipped to a foreig.i country there to be manufactured into the finished products. It is not a narrow or selfish policy to restrict and conserve the use of our raw products 'to the upbuilding of our own industries and the employment of our own workmen, and I would earnestly urge the government to apply this policy of restricted export of pulpwood before our sources of supplies are further depleted. I know of no greater work that can be done to sustain the future financial credit of Canada than that which Mr. F. J. D. Barnjum, the apostle of forest conservation, is doing to-day. He is unsparingly devoting his wealth, his energy and his great business ability to the task of arousing the Canadian people to a recognition of the great forest wealth which is theirs-but which, alas, they are allowing to slip from their grasp. He is a prophet whose warning voice should be heeded, or Canadians unborn, and even those of this generation, will have to mourn the loss of one great source of wealth-the forests of Canada. It has been truly said, Mr. Speaker, "that every square mile of forest in the Dominion is an incubator of new industries, and new population. To kill the forest is to strike a death blow at our future development." I would earnestly and respectfully urge the government to take a more direct and quicker method for immediate conservation than that 
foreshadowed in the budget by the proposed commission.
I am concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without specially referring to many outstanding economically beneficial provisions of the budget such as the reduction of the stamp tax, the bounties to encourage struggling industries and the admission of free machinery to encourage the establishment of new ones, the reduction in sugar duty, the improved form of collecting the sales tax, increasing the British preference and the effort to divert more trade to Canadian ports, and the holding out of the open hand for reciprocity with the United States. I do not do so because these things have already been discussed before the House. The budget, I believe, is a credit to the financial genius who produced it, who was evidently guided in its framing by a stern sense of justice to all classes and conditions of Canadians and to Canada's present financial requirements.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take the opportunity of discussing some of the subjects that have been raised during the debate on the budget, and first I will refer to the subject of the British preference. The Minister of Finance proposes that there be a 10 per cent discount allowed on duty payable under the preference. There are two important qualifications of this reduction, one being that it shall not apply in the case of articles when the duty is not above 15 per cent and the other that the discount shall only apply when goods are brought to Canadian ports. To effect this change it is proposed that the customs tariff of 1907 be amended by repealing section 5. What is section 5 of the customs tariff? It reads in this way:
Preference to Canadian ports
On and after a date to be named by the Governor in Council, in a proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, the British preferential tariff shall apply only to goods brought into Canada by ship direct to a Canadian seaport.
The customs tariff was introduced by the present Minister of Finance in 1907, and section 5 was placed therein to enable the preference to apply only to Canadian seaports by order in council at any subsequent date. Section 5 has remained in the customs tariff for sixteen years without action having been taken upon it by any government until the past few days. The subject has frequently been discussed in parliament and out of parliament. Much public opinion has been expressed in its favour, and only last year a resolution was brought forward by the hon. member for

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
Cumberland (Mr. Logan) urging that the provisions as contained in the section be brought into effect. What has happened? The proposed resolution restricts materially the powers made available under the present section. The British preference will still apply to goods brought through all ports but when they are passed directly through Canadian seaports they will have a 10 per cent discount if the duty exceeds 15 per cent. The essence of section 5 was the preference to Canadian ports, and the British preference would apply only when trade is through these ports. The proposed resolution, therefore, is a shadow of the ideal as presented in the customs tariff of 1907. But the minister has done something. No doubt he did the best he could. He has given vitality to the principle. Credit is cheerfully given him for what should be regarded as a very important step. And the consequences will be very considerable. No loss will be sustained by the country. Indeed, the increase to trade through our ports and over our railways will be found to be a gain. One looks forward to the time when the British preference will apply only when Canadian ports are used, and then the whole country will obtain the full benefit. It is more than a party matter; the principle which is involved is a national one. So far as the principle of preferential trade, as contained in the resolution to be brought down, is concerned it will receive my "support. It is fair to recognize that the severely criticized French treaty has a bright spot, in that it shall only apply when Canadian ports are used, and that will also include all favoured nations availing themselves of its provisions. The minister has stated that it will also apply to the Italian treaty, and while I trust it is a correct interpretation I do not feel fully convinced of this The Chairman of the National Railway Board recently said:
The truth is that we have too much mileage and not enough traffic, and that is what is wrong with the C.N.R.
Very well, the mileage may not be easily diminished, but the traffic can and should be increased. The British preference amendments will help to give it; the treaties which were just referred to will help to give it; the bringing of coal from east and west to central Canada would help to give it; the shipping of grain and goods over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports will give it. For the seven months ending March 31, of this year there were over 130,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain shipped overseas via United States seaports while 38,000,000 bushels of American grain went through Canadian ports. Whether
or not the government puts forward a general policy regarding transportation there will still remain the obligations regarding Canadian transportation taken over with the railways and they will need to be observed.
On the entrance to this building the words are carved:
The wholesome sea is at her gates. Her gates both East and West.
Gates which are wide open and ready to pass trade in increasing amounts outwards and inwards to the enormous advantage of our transportation service and our country. One may well exclaim "Wake up, Canada 1".
In reference to the subject of petroleum bounties it is proposed to amend the Petroleum Bounty Act of 1909 by providing that the bounty shall be payable only on crude petroleum now produced in Canada and that it shall apply at the present rate for one year. The next year it will be reduced one-half, and the following year cease. I have a telegram from the manager of the New Brunswick Gas and Oil Fields which says:-
With reference to Finance Minister's proposal pay present bounties crude oil during this year only cutt ng it in half next year, and thereafter d.scontmumg altogether urge you oppose this measure to the utmost as calculated to strangle the industry in Canada unless an equal or heavier tariff is imposed on all ima+.irm.
It may be wise to make provision in the event of large developments of oil wells as is proposed by the minister, so that enormous bounties would not be entailed. But this large development of oil wells has not yet happened, and in the meantime the prosperity of the oil industries now being operated will be seriously affected, and I urge upon the minister the propriety of extending this bounty as now proposed over a considerably longer period.	.	_
The subject of immigration has already been fully discussed during the present session, but I would again wish to emphasize that the immigration policy should be more comprehensive and more fully organized. The important officials in Great Britain should certainly be representative of different parts of the Dominion. I have an article which recently appeared in the public press calling attention to a report in the Isle of Man Weekly Times of an address on Canada delivered by Mr. F. W. Kerr, immigration official of the Dominion government. The article says:
The chairman of the meeting, which was very largely attended, was the Governor General of the island and the most important part of the whole address, so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned because of the effect which it would have on the audience

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
among which were many prospective immigrants, is that the lecturer started at Quebec and went westward. So far as he was concerned, the Maritime provinces did not exist, and he left with that audience a wrong impression of Canada. At the conclusion of the address a show of hands was called of all those that had relations in Canada and the result shows that fully one-third of the large audience had relatives in this country. Yet there is one Manxman in New, Brunswick, and little wonder when the immigration agents of our country, whose salaries we help to pay, not only ignore our province, but described Canada as a place in which New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have no existence.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: What is the name of the person who made that statement?	.


Murray MacLaren: I am quoting from the Daily Journal of St. John. The name of the official is Mr. F. W. Kerr. The article goes on to say in reference to these Manxmen:
But they are told nothing of these provinces. Most of these prospective immigrants, who are just the kind of stock these provinces need, are hustled off to the West. The Maritime provinces should demand some explanation when a federal immigration official describes Canada by beginning at Quebec, as the report says he does.
Then the report goes on to describe a series of pictures which were shown of Niagara Falls and the Rocky Mountains and other thrilling scenery of the Dominion. Would it not be well to get down to some common-sense treatment of the subject and give information suitable for immigrants?


Mr. COOTE:: I did not catch the title of the article. I wondered whether the literature was designed to attract tourists or immigrants.


Murray MacLaren: I am referring to an account of a large meeting held in the Isle of Man, at which meeting the Governor of that island presided, and the paragraph that I have partly read gives 'an account of the meeting. He describes Canada by beginning at Quebec and going west, and he gives beautiful pictures of Niagara Falls and the Rocky mountains as well as a description of the prairies and the West. The comment is that he has made no reference to the Maritime section of the country which was regarded as particularly important, in view of the class of immigrants which we might obtain from the isle of Man, such as men who are accustomed to small farming and fishing. My question was: Would it not be as well to come down to some commonsense treatment of such a subject and give to the immigrants information bearing on the occupation of suitable portions of the Dominion?
Recently a considerable number of people from the Hebrides have been brought to

Ontario and one of the prairie provinces. They are a most suitable class of immigrants and will no doubt be successful wherever their lot falls. They are a sturdy, frugal and industrious people who have been engaged in mL\ed farming and sea fishing. The salt air is the breath of their life and the roar of the sea is music to their souls, a class preeminently suited by their heredity and environment for settlement on the sea coast. A familiar poem speaks of the Hebrideans who previously came to Canada in this way:
From the lone shieling of the misty island Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas-
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland, And we in dreams behold the Hebrides:
Fair these broad meads-these hoary woods are grand;
But we are exiles from our fathers' land.
Those who might dwell at the sea coast would not only behold the Hebrides in theii dreams but might see something like them in their daily life.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: There are plenty of them in this House. I am one of them.


Murray MacLaren: While it may not be
possible in some cases to place immigrants in Canada in surroundings similar to those they have lived in, it is submitted that this should be kept in view in determining our immigration policy.
The proposal to organize certain naval units throughout the interior of the country, however novel and weird it may be, I trust will not be regarded as a precedent in our reversing the order of nature, but let us have the people placed, as far as practicable, in surroundings suitable for them.
W'ith reference to forest conservation, it is ' noted that it is proposed that a commission shall investigate the subject of the exportation of pulp-wood. Let me urge that the matter be dealt with promptly, for, whether an embargo be placed upon pulp-wood or an export tax, the government has a powerful instrument in its hands to benefit the country, and I trust will exercise it. Forest conservation is now becoming of increased importance, and as it largely lies within provincial management, there is difficulty in obtaining general or concerted action regarding the many forestry problems. I would think that tne Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) might well constitute himself convener on the subject of forest conservation, and so facilitate general conference and co-operation amongst, provincial authorities.
A favourite subject of exhortation, but an unpopular one, is economy. We shall all agree that a very large sum is required to be

The Budget-Mr. Gould
spent to meet our obligations; but it is not agreed that so much money should be spent as is now being done. I do not think the general opinion of the House is that economy is being practised in a way that our present position demands. There is no evidence of a firm grasp being taken by the government to exercise economy. I do not mean economy that would interfere with or retard trade and the vital needs of the country; but surely non-essentials might be controlled or delayed. The civil government is so top-heavv that it needs revision and curtailment. Works of doubtful or problematical character, such as the Hudson Bay railway, might be deferred for an indefinite period. I do not suggest that the budget should have been balanced this year, but I do say that it should have been more nearly balanced than it is. I believe the feeling of the country is that economy should receive at the hands of the government greater attention than is now the case. Let the government put as much effort in controlling expenditure as is now exerted in raising revenue, and then a substantial improvement in the finances of the country will be obtained.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish with other members who have preceded me, to tender my hearty congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who has brought his seventeenth budget into the House. I am minded to say that I believe just as great congratulation would be tendered to the hon. gentleman if he were now bringing in his fifteenth budget, for to me, and I believe to the majority of the members in this corner of the House, the last two budgets were a disappointment. I sincerely believe that, and I also sincerely believe that ninety per cent of the people in the country consider this budget and the last budget to have been disappointing, more particularly when they have in mind the great promises given to them in 1919 as laid down in the Liberal platform. I have been somewhat amused when my mind has gone back to the old House, that is, the House at the time of Union government, when our worthy friends who now occupy the treasury benches sat in opposition, and I have recollected the words of fire which emanated from them in denunciation of all and sundry things that the Union government did at that time, the promises, tentative and otherwise, that were held out and the -predictions as to the benefits that would come to the people of Canada if thev would only again repose power in the Liberal party.
We have now had for two years an opportunity of reviewing what these hon. gentlemen have done for the country since the people reposed confidence in them in 1921. Whether or not we are justified in looking back over history, back as far as 1896, perhaps, when my first recollection of political things in this country took form, I recollect very well the campaign that was carried on prior to 1896, the victory that was achieved by the Liberal party at that time, and the promises by which they achieved that victory. There is a great similarity between the tariff proposals then and the tariff proposals placed in the tariff platform of 1919. Very positive is it in the minds of the people who remember those incidents, that the tariff proposals of the Liberal party in 1896 were not carried into effect as was promised by the politicians of that date. According to the record of the last two budgets and according to the speeches that were delivered last year and those that have been delivered this year by hon. members opposite, which speeches, I must say, appear to me to be only apologies for their not putting into practice the policies which they presented to the country, we are right in assuming that it is their purpose to go back all the time on their pledges as regards the tariff planks in their platform.
I recall the elections of 1904 and 1908 when our western country was being opened up and the railway policies were dangled before the people of Canada, so that they in a measure might forget the action of the party after the election in 1896. Then we had the platform of 1911 containing what was known as the offer of reciprocity with the United States, and the Liberal party at that time had hopes that the people of Canada had forgotten. Evidently-and I point this out-although it has been said a thousand times in this House that the people of Canada repudiated reciprocity at that time, what happened is not, to my mind, any proof that reciprocity was the real cause of the defeat of the Liberal party in 1911; but most people who remembered that the Liberal party had gone back on their promises of 1896, took that opportunity of telling that party that they did not believe in the pledges they were making. The only recourse that the people of Canada had then was to place in power the Conservative party, which had been defeated in 1896 upon its tariff policy. In 1914. the war broke out, and for some years political conditions were disturbed. But again, in 1921, the people were appealed to upon practically the old platform of 1896, and by a very slender majority they said: "Yes, we will endorse
The Budget-Mr. Gould

the Liberal party in regard to that platform." In the meantime, however, a large faction had been created in Canada who really believed that the Liberal party was not constituted so that it could carry out the pledges of the platform laid down in 1919. Again I say that the last two budgets and the apologetic speeches made by the members of the government prove conclusively that those who believed the Liberal party would not carry the pledges of 1919 into execution, were justified, and I cite that as a reason why there are to be found at the present time sixty-four or sixty-five members in this part of the House.
Reciprocity is again held out in the budget speech of to-day as a reason why the .liberal party should be perpetuated in power. To me, reciprocity is a fetish. I supported reciprocity in 1911, and if the day ever should arrive when I have again an opportunity of supporting reciprocity, I promise now that I shall be quite prepared to do so. But in the meantime there is no excuse for the government to hide behind the fetish of reciprocity, and to let the things which pertain to-day go unchallenged and unwarranted. Every government speaker in this debate has been telling the people who live in the West and, indeed, people throughout Canada who have been proclaiming the truth with regard to agriculture, that we should hide the truth; that we are pessimists and so on. I maintain that if we are ever going to have a Canada worthy of the name, we must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and let the people judge for themselves. WThen we tell the truth, we wish to be heard, and to have remedies applied to the evils of which we complain.
I have often thought, as I have sat in my place in this House and listened to the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite, whether any of those speeches were in evidence when their platform was made in August, 1919. That was the year after the close of the war, and surely at that time hon. gentlemen opposite must have been perfectly aware of the fact that we were overburdened with a debt. They knew very well that if they were returned to power they would have to find the ways and means of meeting that debt. And in the face of that certain knowledge, what did they do? They gave us to understand that they would eliminate the tariff upon the implements of production immediately. That was one of the first things that they promised to do; they preached it incessantly throughout the West, and during the campaign of 
1921 they emphasized the pledge that by this means they were going to bring relief to those who were suffering from an unjust burden. All hon. gentlemen opposite who campaigned in the West were very positive in this regard, but we had particularly a strenuous champion in that part of the country. The people of the West desired the reduction on these implements, because it was their belief then, as it is now, that the tariff in this respect weighs heavily upon every individual who lives in that part of the Dominion. So that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) made great promises of what his party would do in this matter, the people naturally listened with great attention to what he had to say.
I have many extracts from the hon. gentleman's utterances in the West; we all listened to the speeches he made in western Canada, in which he told us of what would be done when he came to Ottawa. Why, Mr. Speaker, we were led to believe, from the hon. minister's statements, that the tariff would disappear practically overnight. Yes, Sir, the Hon. Frank Carvell's scalp was to be put into his belt in a very short time. But we have not seen any results since the hon. gentleman came here. The other night, however, speaking in this debate he took the opportunity to give the Progressives in this part of the House a severe lecture, the while admitting that in 1901 he was going up and down the province of Saskatchewan, protesting against the enormities that were being practised to the detriment of agriculture. The hon. gentleman would have the House and the country believe, I suppose, that all those evils of which he complained so strenuously in those days are now utterly eliminated. He deplored the fact also that while he had entered the field of politics the present member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Hopkins), whom he mentioned as one of his colleagues in the early days, had no right to do likewise nor refer to the difficulties under which the western agriculturist labours. I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that while I was not working exactly in his company at that time, I likewise was working in the interests of agriculture, while thousands of others were doing their utmost, in their own small way, to try to bring to the powers of the day the disadvantages against which we were protesting. Those disadvantages to-day are as acute as they were at that time and I think it would be very much better for the Minister of Agriculture to stand up in his place to-day and endeavour, with U3, to fight

The Budget-Mr. Gould
those evils against which he spoke in those days, and try to have adequate remedies provided, rather than get up* and give curtain lectures to the Progressives who are honestly trying to remove the evils that are complained of.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, in all seriousness, this question:	Would the
farmers, in the province of Saskatchewan, say, complain of the conditions to which reference has so frequently been made if those conditions did not in fact exist? The Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan has stated that 261 municipalities, according to the returns for the year 1922, showed an average tax deficit of $33 per quarter section. I stated the other night that it was $37; it should be $33. The same gentleman in giving evidence before the Agricultural committee last year stated that $90 was the average tax on a half section of land, which would be $45 per quarter section. This year he states that the sum of $33 out of that $45 is in arrears. I ask all hon. members, therefore, would any agriculturists in Canada, either in the West or in the East, desire to have a tax record against them such as that if the conditions did not warrant it? In the past, when we had the means of preventing such a thing, it never occurred. But these conditions are forced upon us, and when hon. gentlemen get up in this House and presume to lecture the representatives in parliament of the people of the West on account of circumstances such as these, they are, to say the least, speaking without any knowledge of the facts.
We are told to work a little harder and to go more into the raising of stock; hon. gentlemen kindly advise us to take up mixed farming and to do various other things. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is very kind of them indeed; but really, a man does not need to be told this sort of thing. I listened the other day to a lecture of this kind from the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) who comes from a province where the rainfall is 112 inches per annum. If he came to Saskatchewan and visited the district in which I live, I think he would have reason to modify his remarks somewhat, for in the past ten years we have not had much greater precipitation than 10 inches per annum. We have not had enough water to water our cattle, and I have been in such straits many a time; on two occa-9 p.m. sions I was obliged to sell the whole herd of cattle because I could not find water to water them; and I had to sell at a sacrifice at that. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to tell us these things, but I
think that we know best, who live in that part of the country, just the conditions that prevail there. We do not need to be told, either, what it is best for us to do. Under the conditions that we have to cope with, wheat growing must be the bulwark of our activities until such time as we can find enough water to ensure the profitable raising of cattle.
I have figures compiled by a statistician which show that there is nothing the matter with the West so far as the producing of wealth is concerned. A comparison of the exports of the various countries of the world for the year 1922 will reveal the fact that Canada exceeded by a considerable sum any other exporting nation. The nearest to the Canadian exporters were those of the United States; the figures in relation to that country showed a per capita export of $65, while it was $98 in the case of Great Britain, and 1150 in the case of this country. Why do hon. gentlemen stand up and tell us to work harder and save more? What possible ground have they for abusing us and concluding offhand that we have been indulging in extravagant expenditures? Let me emphatically assure this House that this is absolutely not so. I may tell hon. gentlemen here that I know a man in my district who some years ago had thousands of dollars in the bank, but who last year was compelled to borrow money from the banks, although his land and everything was clear. These conditions have been getting worse and worse gradually, and if matters do not improve in the very near future I am not prepared to predict what the outcome will be. Certain it is that when hon. gentlemen stand up and undertake to lecture us, notwithstanding that we tell the positive, the plain and the simple truth, their attitude is not likely to appease our minds or to produce that manner in us which gentlemen would like to display.


Mr. PUTNAM:: The hon. gentleman gave certain per capita exports; were they the total per capita?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes. The Minister of Agriculture informed the House that he had kept certain notes of some of the remarks that he had made at Regina . I want to tell the hon. gentleman that some one else has been keeping track of his remarks as well, and I wish to give two citations to prove this. I regret that the minister is not in his place to-night, although I am quite sure that he knows that I would say the same things in his presence. I have done -so before and possibly may have occasion to do so again. In Prince Albert on November 2, 1921, the hon. gentleman stated:
The Budget-Mr. Gould

It is contended by the Farmers' party that the eastern Liberals will make it impossible to carry out their tariff platform.
Well, who was right? Why, the Fanners, absolutely. Has it not been proven by the past two budget speeches that the Fanners are absolutely right. But here is another extract from the hon. gentleman's remarks. The Regina Leader of December 2, 1921, quotes the minister as follows:
There is one outstanding question upon which I feel I should insist, and that is a substantial removal of the burdens and iniquities of the present protective fiscal policy that has been crushing the life out of western agriculture and conditions generally for so many years.
AH this is very nice, you know, and it goes well on the platform; but hon. gentlemen who heard the minister the other night, as he stood in his place and lectured the Progressives, noted very well that his remarks then did not accord with what he said out in the West in 1921, and there was absolutely no fight in him to uphold the convictions he then expressed. Oh no; instead of fighting for western agriculture he rather undertook to give us of the West a curtain lecture, notwithstanding that we are proclaiming in this House the very same things that the hon. gentleman so fervently put forward himself out in the West.
The hon. gentleman has achieved the position which he sought, that of Minister of Agriculture, and it is my opinion that since receiving his portfolio he has forgotten the people back home, he is not fighting their battles as we know he was capable of fighting them in the past tw'enty-five years in western Canada. I was going to make further references to the hon. minister about a certain byelection in 1919, of a personal acquaintance I had with him on that occasion, but I do not wish to go into it now.
But we know what is the matter with agriculture-there are too many combines, which are a law unto themselves in taking whatever toll they choose. A report was laid on the Table a few days ago as a result of the investigation of our charges that a huge combine existed to keep up lake freights. I do not wish to discuss that report, but I am sure hon. gentlemen who have read their newspapers lately will agree with me that we in this corner of the House were justified in making those charges. Those unduly high lake freights were taken out of the western farmers. And yet when we protest against this and similar injustice we are called alarmists and pessimists.
From 1912 to 1917 we had a somewhat similar condition in regard to our terminal [Mr. Gould.1
fjelevators. The matter was investigated by ;Price, Waterhouse & Company and reported upon. Why that report was not published I do not know. In this connection I was very pleased this afternoon that the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) urged that the report laid on the table with respect to the lake shipping combine should be printed and published. The people who have been filched of their hard-earned coin by this and other heartless combines should be given an opportunity to study such reports. Then I am sure the efforts that have been made by us in this corner of the House to portray the actual conditions will be supplemented a hundredfold by the public. I have been studying the Price Waterhouse report and from the computations I have already made-and these are not final-I find twelve terminal companies showed a profit of 815,003,265. Remember, this was over and above the huge salaries paid their executives and over and above all expenses except the business profits tax which was then in force. At the present time we have twenty-five terminal companies, and so far as I have studied the figures they disclose a profit of 87,217,503.20. We have protested against these huge profits and have received a promise from the government to appoint a commission to look into this and cognate matters. It is the exactions of these combines which have caused the western members to stand in their places here and protest. As I have said before on many occasions, these combines are a law unto themselves to extract for their own benefit whatever proportion of the wealth of the country is created by the farmers and other producers, and yet our governments, both past and present, sit idly by and will not take these exorbitant profits from their hands.
There is another point which occurs to me in connection with the Price AVaterhouse report, but I want to refer particularly in passing to an address made the other night by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Ar-chambault), when he discussed very lucidly and effectively means of getting further revenue: that is, by taxing unearned income. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in 1920, when I first had the honour of addressing this House,
I referred to this source of revenue. Again I say that from a study of the Price AVaterhouse report I have received a fresh stimulus along this line, and with your permission, Sir, I should like to supplement the remarks made by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres and demonstrate to the Minister of Finance and to the government the fact that there are further means of raising revenue

The Budget-Mr. Gould
apart from the tariff. When I am told that the tariff is the only means of raising revenue,
I reply that there is no justification for such a statement until all other possible fields of revenue have been explored.
I think in 1920 I tried to draw the attention of the House to our harbour facilities, and I cited more specifically those at Fort William. I find that the Price Waterhouse leport corroborates the statement I then made, namely, that certain companies had acquired sites along this waterfront free of cost. What is the result? Away back in the country the people-the state-creates wealth, and those companies, perhaps with more discernment than the people generally, or even the government, having possessed themselves of this waterfront are placed in a peculiarly advantageous position. The Price Waterhouse report distinctly states that many of _ these institutions in Fort William received their sites free of charge, and they include the capitalized value of these sites among their assets. And do not forget also that our government dredges the harbour, as occasion demands, and every time this is done an additional value is given to these sites. Therefore it amounts to this, these companies expect to earn dividends upon the capitalized value of something which cost them practically nothing. And this feature relates also to vast areas of land, particularly in western Canada, because there we find a large amount of real estate held out of use by speculators who oftentimes live in foreign countries. These land holdings the people residing in the locality make valuable by. their enterprise. Therefore after our people have created this wealth, that is, after they have settled the country and their labour and enterprise have caused land values to rise, the holders of these vacant lands are able to sell their property at greatly enhanced prices and take this unearned wealth out of the country. I maintain and insist that the government should take a substantial portion of such unearned wealth by way of taxation. That is something that I would recommend to the government and to the Minister of Finance as worthy of their attention, and after they have investigated this source I do not think they will continue to tell us that our only source of revenue is the tariff.
Speaking of the tariff reminds me of the speech of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) a few days ago when he complimented the Minister of Finance upon having reduced the duty on stumping machines. Now, the hon. member being a Conservative is according to all precedent, a
strong protectionist, and yet we find him complimenting the Minister of Finance for this reduction of duty, and therefore we may con-clue that he realizes how necessary it is to have the cost of the implements of production brought down to a minimum. I for one, Mr. Speaker, would be too proud to stand in my place and thank the minister for something that would benefit my own district only while the rest of the Dominion continues to suffer under burdens similar to those of which we, as agriculturists, complain. I recommend that thought to the hon. member for Fort William in his solicitude for stumping machines. By a tariff tax the implements of production are made more expensive to the individual, and such a tax is a dead weight on production. All the people of Canada require woollen garments, shoes, in fact all the necessaries of life in common, and on these we are taxed in like proportion. As an agriculturist the first thing I must have is a capitalization of approximately $2,000 to work a half-section of land. What do I find? That the average tariff tax of 14 per cent on my agricultural implements, plus 6 per cent sales tax, represents a 20 per cent handicap on my capitalization, o>-$400 before I can start in to produce a commodity which I have to sell in competition in a free trade world. It is absolutely unfair. We are quite justified in my humble opinion in keeping up this fight for a square deal.
In the amendment that has been presented reference is made to a special committee of the House to look into tariff matters, It is my humble opinion that a special committee of this House is not sufficient. In reading over the evidence given before the special Agricultural committee it is very difficult for me to believe some of the evidence given. I do not wish to make reference to any specific case, but it does seem to me that a commission should be appointed with power to enter into these institutions, to ascertain the value of their plant and all the necessary facts. The government at the present time, if they question the veracity of any individual or corporation in making out an income tax return, despatch a man who goes into the office of that company or individual, makes an inquiry and tells the individual or corporation just how much his income tax amounts to. Then why not have a man or a commission armed with the same power and authority to go into the organized industries in this country and say: We want to see your books, we want to find out your overhead; we want to know how
The Budget-Mr. Gould

much watered stock you have, and exactly what it costs you to produce your product.
What has been the procedure in the past? Regardless of what government was in power we have simply had the say-so of the beneficiaries of the protective system. They come to this government or some other government and say: We must have a tariff; we cannot live without it; organized industry in the United States will put us out of business if we are not protected. And the government will say: Yes. We will give you protection. How much do you want? The answer may be 25, 30 or 35 per cent All right, says the government, we will give you that protection. But that is not the policy we want. When an institution will come to any government and give positive proof of just what amount of protection is required for any legitimate industry, I do not think the Progressive party would refuse to give it to them, but we are not prepared to accept their say-so. We have good reasons to doubt, we know the huge amount of watered capital on which we are being asked to pay dividends, and that is the ruination of Canada. I am shortening my remarks somewhat, but I might state that I have in my office upstairs one page of a newspaper which shows twenty-three companies, some paying quarterly dividends and some annual, and on the same page appears a letter from a certain farmer in the West who subscribed to this paper but was not able to continue his subscription, but the paper was going to continue him as a subscriber just the same-and on the same page, I say, there were twenty-three companies listed that were all paying dividends. That i3 what is the matter with Canada. These companies are a law unto themselves, and we cannot get away from that patent fact.
We also receive lectures on other things. Hon. gentlemen say: Why the per capita debt of Canada is not nearly as great as that of the United States or Great Britain. Or the Saskatchewan per capita debt is not as great as Ontario's. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why it should be? Saskatchewan was not formed a province until 1905, and we had not one solitary cent of debt at that time; we had money to the good. Yet to-day hon. members and ministers will come along and say that our per capita debt is 'less than Ontario's-Ontario, which is years and years, yea, almost a century older than Saskatchewan.
Take the Dominion itself. We are a comparatively young country. Yet hon. gentlemen will say: Our per capita debt is not as great as that of Great Britain. It has no [Mr. Gould4
reason to be. Accumulations of centuries of wars and everything else hang over the taxpayers of Great Britain. We have not that, thank God, and that is one reason why hon. gentlemen should not compare our per capita debt with that of Great Britain, although, Mr. Speaker, if we continue at the rate we are going, before we are one-tenth the age of Great Britain we are going to have four times as much debt, and it is time we called a halt right now.	.
It seems to me that the present government and governments of the past have always been afraid to tread new paths in taxation. Yet when we look over the history of the past twelve or fifteen years we find that they have gone into new paths, but not until they have been forced to do so. It is the same thing with our railways. I can recollect fifteen years before the nationalization of railways became a fact in this country, we people in the West said we knew that it had to come the way things were going. We predicted it, and it came about. Again, when we called attention some years ago to the possibilities of direct taxation, we were called dreamers. Oh yes, but we have direct taxation to-day. We were told by the politicians of that day that it was an impossibility, yet to-day we are collecting the greater part of our revenue through direct taxation. We were told the same thing about government ownership. We were called socialists for advocating it. Hon. gentlemen will remember the day when we in the West advocated government ownership of interior terminal storage elevators, and the word hurled at us more often than anything else was socialists. But to-day we have government ownership of elevators all over the country; we have government ownership of railways; we have government ownership of steamships. I might mention, too, that the Conservative party were the ones who most loudly denounced the principle of public ownership in those days, yet to-day they stand as the champions of government ownership, showing that they are capable of learning something; and there, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive party stand side by side with them on the principle of government ownership.
It was also a very dangerous thing some years ago to advocate the taxation of unearned increment, yet the other night we had the hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Archambault) standing in his place in this House, four years after the member for Assiniboia had advocated the theory, and urging it upon this government.

The Budget-Mr. Senn
Bonuses-that is something that sounds very much like tariffs. If it be that the bonus to be granted to the flax industry in the West is intended as a sop to the Progressives, and hon. members have spoken of concessions given to the agriculturists of the West, they need not count on the member for Assiniboia, because in my opinion that is not any concession at all. I do not believe in any sops whatever, for capital will always be found for any legitimate industry.
I do not anticipate that the individuals who will grow the flax or hemp will receive any benefit from this bonus. No, the capitalists will absorb all that themselves; I question very much whether the grower of the hemp will benefit. I also question very much whether at the expiration of the supposed term of the bonus these same people will not be back again to the government asking that the subsidy be renewed. We have had that happen before. It reminds me of the Crows-nest pass agreement and the license to manufacture oleomargarine in this country. That was a privilege given during the war period because of the high price of dairy products, but what happened after the war? Selfish interests came along and said: We want the privilege continued, and it was continued.
I predict that the same thing will happen in the matter of these bonuses. These young industries will only treat this understanding as a scrap of paper, I am afraid.
The Minister of the Interior speaking in this debate made the statement that he did not know why protected industries in Canada required so much protection. That is the only note that has come from the Liberal party so far which has a ring at all similar to what we might anticipate took place when the Liberal platform was framed in 1919. This is the only note of the kind that has come from the whole of the Liberal party up to the present time, and yet the minister concluded with a remark that he wished the Progressives to have the opportunity of taking charge of the affairs of the nation. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that if we did not feel like taking that responsibility when the election occurred in 1921 we are quite prepared to assume it to-day. I feel sure also that the people of Canada will have more faith in a Progressive policy formulated by the men who come here and back up the things they have advocated outside of parliament, who are prepared to go ahead and take a chance at it. I question whether the Minister of the Interior was very sincere in that remark.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You will never see that.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is mere conjecture on
my hon. friend's part; I venture to assert nobody will be prepared to bet any money on his statement. However I wish to state that if the people of Canada would only take a serious view of the offence-I was going to say -committed against them by this last budget speech they would rise in their might and turn the offenders out when the roll is called the next time.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish to speak very briefly to-night upon a few aspects of the budget as delivered by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and to discuss some phases of the announcements contained therein which are of direct interest to my own constituency.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gould) who just preceded me. In spite of his denunciation of the principle of protection I am not yet convinced that it is wrong. The party to which I have the honour to belong have always believed in adequate protection. They have always maintained that our industries should be protected from'undue competition with the highly organized industries of other countries, and that they should be protected against the product of the cheap labour of those countries. In so far as the budget affords this protection to our industries and to our business interests, whether they are commercial or agricultural, it is to be commended; but in my judgment there are many respects in which it does not go far enough, nor is it the revenue producing factor that it should be if foreign goods continue to come into our country at the rate they are doing.
The Progressive group who sit to my left were no doubt led to hope for a more material reduction in the tariff than has been granted, and I do not wonder that they cannot reconcile the present tariff with the platform of the Liberal party in 1919 and with the pre-election pledges of that party. It seems to me that one of the needs in all lines of production at the present time is a profitable market: Production in many lines is exceeding the demand and all countries are looking around for markets that will afford a constant and consistent demand for their products.
The British preferential tariff has been again increased, although many of our factories at the present time are not running to full capacity because of lack of orders. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in this House is in favour of British connection. We are proud of our place in the Empire, and we are fully aware of the benefits which we derive from our British connection. But even so, it is surely a mistaken policy to penalize
The Budget-Mr. Senn

any Canadian industry to satisfy our obligations in that respect. If we have a duty to perform for the Empire by all means let us discharge that duty; but each and every citizen of the country should bear a fair share of the burden without imposing too heavy a load upon a few. The increase in the preference will bear very heavily upon the woollen industry and unfortunately many of our factories engaged in that industry are not running to their full capacity owing to lack of orders. Their operators are not being employed, and they are leaving Canada to get employment in other countries where there is more work to be had. Orders for woollen goods are being taken by British and French manufacturers at prices which labour costs in this country make it impossible for us to compete with. The small margin of safety which these companies had under the old British preference has been removed by the present increase. This will create even keener competition, and may possibly force some factories to close entirely. I do not think that the Minister of Finance contemplated anything so disastrous to the welfare of such an important industry in this country.
Every time we purchase from outside we send our money to build up industries in other countries, and to encourage them to compete with our industries more keenly than ever. If we are to prosper as a nation we must stop this flow of wealth out of our country. I think we should, as far as possible, become self-sustaining. As it is, we are building up industries in other countries which are enticing our young men and women out of Canada by reason of the opportunities which they offer.
A duty of 15 per cent has been placed on artificial silk. The principle of protection is being applied in this instance with a vengeance. If I may use a contradictory expression protection is being afforded to an industry which does not exist. In the meantime the users of artificial silk in this country are being penalized to the extent of $15 on every $100 to encourage the establishment of this artificial silk industry. If I might I could give the House a concrete example of how our industries are suffering. I could tell of one order for ladies' knitted sweaters, principally of artificial silk, amounting to $40,000, which was placed in France just the other day, and owing to the depreciated currency of that country they are able to land these goods at Toronto cheaper than they can be produced in Canada. If our knitting factories in addition to this have to labour under an extra duty of 15 per cent for their materials (Mr. Senn.]
they can see nothing ahead but absolute ruin.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, 300 names which have been appended to a petition protesting against the increase in the British preference and the alteration in the sales tax. The prayer of that petition reads as follows:
We are your constitjitents and are engaged in working in the wooilen and knit goods mills. We have seen with great alarm that the British preference has been increased 10 per cent and that the sales tax has been altered. Some of us can remember, and those who do not have been told, of the hard times in our mills wh ch followed the increase of the British preference in 1900.
We know that the wages paid in British mills are about one-half that are paid in ours, and we fear that the present reduction in the duty will bring disaster to our industry in Canada.
Our wages go towards buying food from the farmers, to storekeepers who buy food from the farmers, and to trades which buy food from the farmer. We therefore submit that you thoroughly investigate conditions and use your best endeavours to have the 10 per cent increase removed from woollen and knit goods.
I wish to urge as strongly as possible upon the Minister of Finance that this extra duty of 15 per cent should not be applied until the Canadian product is on the market. The copper and hemp industries are being encouraged by a system of bounties, and it would seem to be the better way to adopt that system in this case.
The minister has renewed his offer of reciprocity with the country to the south of us. If I understand the term reciprocity as applied to trade, it means equality in trade relations. It means that if an article of Canadian origin is admitted free of duty into another country, we make similar concessions with regard to goods from that country. It is surely only reasonable that if duties are imposed on Canadian products that a corresponding duty should be placed on goods coming into the country. The Candian customs tariff in reality is much lower in many instances than the American tariff. This is particularly apparent when we consider farm produce. I have taken the trouble to compare the duties imposed upon a few of our farm products going into the United States with our own customs tariff, and I find the duties are as follows:
Canadian tariff-
American tariff.
Butter, 4c.
Cheese 3c.
Eggs 3c. per doz.
Hay, $2 per ton.
Clover seed 10 per cent.
(70c to $1.50 per bushel). Potatoes 20c. per bushel.
8c.
5c.
8c. per doz.
$4 per ton.
$2.40 per bushel.
30c. per bushel.
Imports for 1922, of these artitcles amounted to-

The Budget-Mr. Ward
Butter	
6,078,882	lbs.Cheese	
1,883.013	lbs.Eggs	
9,377,769	dozensHay	
29,008	tonsClover	seed	
3,547,080	lbs.Potatoes	
429,543	bush.
The total imports of farm products amounted to $66,890,766 for the year 1922. In the case of potatoes the minister has seen fit to add to the duty. There has been an increase of 15 cents per bushel in the duty on potatoes. If the principle is sound for potatoes why not follow it in all other lines of farm produce? By the imposition of that extra duty the minister has admitted the principle as well as the necessity of protection for our farm produce. There is no reason why a country such as Canada, with a surplus of butter which must be sold in the markets of the world, should import a quantity equal to that surplus. We imported last year nearly $6,000,000 worth of fresh meat when we have a surplus which must be cured and sold abroad. We also imported nearly $4,000,000 of cured meats. Last year we exported $24,000,000 worth of cured meats to find a market abroad. The weakness of the present budget lies in the fact that no further attempt is being made to retain our home markets for our own produce, either manufactured or from the farm. I contend very strongly that if we are to provide adequate protection of our own products there can be no justification for any increase in the British preference. There can be no good reason why a duty should not be imposed high enough to ensure our markets to the Canadian producer.


Harold Putnam: Will the hon. member
permit me to ask a question?


Mark Cecil Senn: Certainly.


Harold Putnam: As the matter stands, are we to understand that the hon. member opposes the present increase in the British preference?


Mark Cecil Senn: In certain lines, Mr. Speaker, the increase is not justifiable. I was looking at some of the items and giving my reasons for taking the stand I have taken.


Harold Putnam: I would take it from the hon. member's remarks that he considers that none of it is justified.


Mark Cecil Senn: I would not like to go that
far, but I think that in the instances I have mentioned it is not justified.
The announcement of the Finance Minister that it is impossible to balance the present budget and that he did not hope to be able to do so for some time to come is cause for
alarm. The fact that Great Britain and the United States have both been able to do so should lead us to consider carefully if the attempt should not be made by the government at all costs. There is urgent need for economy not only by the government but in every walk of life. If we are to prosper we must ultimately get back to the old system of working and saving. We must keep our expenditure within our income. During the war our standards of living gradually became higher because money was plentiful. The great difficulty to-day is in the fact that these new standards and new conditions are making such demands upon our earning power that we find ourselves unable to meet them. It is peculiarly disturbing when the Finance Minister states frankly that he could not keep our expenditure within our income, and that the national debt must go on increasing. It is high time that our governments, our institutions, our business concerns and our private citizens realized the necessity of living within their income and acting accordingly, and only when that time comes will our national prosperity be assured.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: It is with a great deal of. shall I say reluctance, that I rise at this late period to take part in this annual family squabble, the budget debate. I feel that practically everything has been said that can be said, but as I have listened with a great deal of interest to the various arguments that have been put forward both for and against protection, which seems to be the hub of the debate, the argument has taken a somewhat zigzag course. My hon. friends to my right argue that the tariff is not high enough. We in this corner of the House argue that it is too high, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has told us that he has taken the middle course. I am not going to worry the House to-night with very much in the way of argument on the tariff. I think there are other matters of greater importance than the tariff, great and all as it may seem.
There is a matter that has been little referred to, yet possibly it took a greater toll from the western producers last year than any other single economic wrong that has been perpetrated on the farmers in the last few years. I refer to the high freight rates that were charged on the Great Lakes last year. I accepted the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) in the early part of the session that it was not within the jurisdiction of the government or of his department to suspend the coasting laws last October when the congestion took place. In

The Budget-Mr. Ward

looking up the orders in council I find that in 1912 the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day did suspend the coasting laws without calling the cabinet council together, and that action has never been questioned up to the present time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce simply remained inactive last October and quietly looked on while the shipping barons of the Great Lakes took from the western grain producers something in the neighbourhood of $20,000,000-at least that statement has been made. I doubt very much if even the excessive tariff rates that have been applied to food and clothing and implements of production in this country for the last 12 months took $20,000,000 of a direct toll from the pockets of the western grain producers.
The explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) is not a sufficient explanation why the coasting laws on the Great Lakes were not suspended last October. I have under my hand the figures of the normal rates, and the rates at which boats were carrying grain in the early part of last summer from Fort William and Port Arthur to the eastern ports. The rate was 2 cents per bushel; yet in the congested period, that is during October and November, a rate of 8 cents a bushel was charged between Fort William and Port Colbome. There was also colected an excess tariff of 15 cents between Port Colbome and Kingston so that it seems to me that there is still due to this House and to the people of Canada an explanation from the Minister of Trade and Commerce why he did not take some action at that time. It appears to me that the shipping barons of this country are running the government, because we find that the government did attempt to take some action in this matter, and immediately the shipping barons of the Great Lakes notified the government that they would contest the mling of the department. Evidently they frightened the Minister of Trade and Commerce; he conceded their demands, and the coasting laws were not suspended.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a side of this question that I have not heard mentioned so far in this debate, and that is that Canadian boats were carrying wheat from Fort William to Buffalo for 2 cents a bushel-


Jean George Robichaud: Is my hon. friend not aware that a minister of the Crown cancelled the coastal regulations in 1912 without an order in council?
[Mi. Ward.]


William John Ward: Any western member will remember that in the fall of 1912 we had a late harvest, very late threshing, and that very little grain came forward until late in the season, this necessitating a great deal of grain being stored at the head of the lakes. On application being made to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the coasting laws were suspended in October of 1912, and they remained suspended until the following June. If my hon. friend will look up the orders in council of that date, he will find that those statements are correct.
As I was saying, while our Canadian boats were carrying grain to Buffalo for 2 cents a bushel, they were charging 3J cents a bushel to Canadian ports. Last year 120,000,000 bushels of our Canadian wheat were milled in bond in the United States; going on through the United States; and were exported to the European markets, and there competed with our Canadian-milled flour, thereby placing our Canadian millers at a disadvantage of from li to 1J cents a bushel on the grain they milled as against their American competitors.
There is still another side of this question. It has been estimated that the advantage which the American railways received from transporting this flour from Buffalo to New York amounted to $12,700,000. That would have paid a great deal of wages to our Canadian railway men, and it would have considerably relieved the deficit on our Canadian National Railways. In adition to that, it is estimated that $20,000,000 was, may I say, bled from the western grain producers. The Canadian ship owners have stated that they paid the excess freight, which statement, of course, any sane man knows to be pure buncombe; they simply charged it back to the grain shipper, who was naturally the grain producer. Therefore, this $20,000,000 of excess freight that was paid to the shipping barons of the Great Lakes was a direct loss to the wholesalers, retailers and general manufacturing people throughout Canada. Had that amount been returned to the pockets of the producers, it would have been $20,000,000 more money to have been spent, which would have helped a great deal towards keeping our factories open and our workingmen on the job.
This is the point that my hon. friend (Mr. Robichaud) raised a minute ago. Expert legal opinion decided that the cabinet had not the power under the act to make this suspension. However, from reliable sources it is understood that the cabinet, in view of the emergency, determined to take the risk of suspending the coasting laws. This was last October.

The Budget-Mr. Ward


Jean George Robichaud: Therefore those regulations were cancelled without an order in council, just by order of the minister himself.


William John Ward: I am now referring to October, 1922. Let us see what happened. The shipping barons of Canada promptly notified the cabinet that if the coasting laws were suspended they would get out an injunction to prevent American vessels from trading from one Canadian port to another Canadian port. They, of course, graciously intimated that they would not, however, oppose American ships coming into Fort William and Port Arthur ports to load grain for storage last fall. That, however, had very little effect, because that order came through so late that only some four or five vessels were loaded. This, of course, was not permitted until some 75,000,000 bushels of our grain had been handled from Fort William to eastern ports at this excessive freight rate. In view of what has taken place during the past season, it is up to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government to see to it that, if the laws of Canada are not such as will permit this government to control shipping on the Great Lakes and if the shipping barons of Canada are running this government, laws are enacted that will permit the government and not the shipping barons to run the affairs of this country. I bring this matter to the attention of the government in the hope that they will see to it that this cannot occur again. We went home from here a year ago with high hopes that we had again restored the Crowsnest pass agreement as regards grain and grain products, and we had thought that this would go a long way towards saving the situation in western Canada. We see, however, that practically every dollar that was saved through the application of the Crowsnest pass rates, was taken from us through the excess freight rates charged on the Great Lakes.
Statements have been made in this House without very mature consideration by hon. gentlemen opposite and also by some hon. members to my right, that western agriculture has been most selfish in its demands, and so on. Perhaps we are, but I think it would be a good idea if hon. members would come West and study western conditions. Since I have come to Ottawa I have taken advantage of every opportunity to visit eastern Canada and I have gone to nearly every city in this part of the country in the last two years. I was born in Ontario and moved to the West when still a boy; 1 was one of those emigrants who went out to the West and hewed out a home in the bush. But I have tried to educate myself to eastern conditions, and I think that 188!
if hon. gentlemen living in eastern Canada would reciprocate and come West and study conditions out there it would tend to bring about a better mutual understanding. I have often asked myself whether it is going to be possible for this country to be governed by a spirit of compromise long enough to enable us to come to a realization of the situation and be able to keep Canada in one confederation.
I notice that hon. gentlemen, from both the East and the West, while conversing in privacy, speak a great deal about secession from the union. I do not know why they should refrain from mentioning these matters on the floor of this House, because this is the place where all such questions should be raised. I, for one, stand absolutely for one solid Canada, for I think that we have the prospects of making this the greatest country in the universe; and I should be very sorry indeed to see anything happen to disrupt the confederation of Canada. But we must take cognizance of the facts, and one of the facts is that there. are whole sections of western Canada made up absolutely of English-speaking people and British-born who are talking secession. Why is this? It is because we do not understand one another. It is because eastern Canada does not understand western Canada, nor does the West appreciate the conditions and the circumstances of the East.
It is high time that the governments of the country, and the responsible men in this Dominion, should study the situation as it really does exist with a view to offering some solution of the problem. I believe that the good people of this Dominion will unite and will surmount the difficulties that face them to-day, and that with the help of Providence this great Canada of ours will go forward and be the greatest country in the world. I do think that the people of Canada will yet unite into one great harmonious family so that this shall be the happiest country in the world to live in. When this is the fact then we shall not need any Minister of Immigration or any immigration agents; people will come in without any invitation. But, I repeat, we must take cognizance of the situation
I have here a paper-I did not send for it, it came to me the other day incidentally- from which it will be seen that over 200 quarter sections in one municipality in Manitoba are to be sold for taxes. It is not one of the best municipalities of the province, nor is it by any means one of the poorest, for they get a fair rainfall; and one would suppose that people ought to be able to make a fair living there. The fact remains, however, that over 200 quarter sections are to be
The Budget-Mr. Ward

sold in the month of June for taxes. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place; I was going to say the misrepre-sentative of agriculture. I listened with some astonishment to that hon. gentleman's speech the other night as he referred to conditions in Saskatchewan, and I challenge him to prove many of the assertions he made then. Conditions in Manitoba are no worse than then they are in Saskatchewan. I am not very familiar with conditions in Saskatchewan but I do know that the freight rate on wheat is 4 cents less in Manitoba than it is in Saskatchewan while the freight rate on cattle is very much less, as well as on other natural products from Manitoba. So that in turn they must pay higher freight on manufactured goods shipped into Saskatchewan. I am quite sure, Sir, that conditions are very similar in Saskatchewan to what they are in Manitoba. We have the greatest country in the world in western Canada; no part of the universe produces so much wealth per capita as that portion of the Dominion. But what is the matter? I was speaking a few months ago to a business man and I asked him whether he was aware that 85 per cent of all the farms of western Canada were operated under mortgage, and he replied that he knew that 90 per cent of them were mortgaged. Now, if 90 per cent of all the farms in the West are being worked under this handicap, and we are paying 10 per cent interest on our money, can any hon. gentleman not appreciate the position that we are in? Sir Henry Thornton on his first visit to western Canada, speaking in the city of Brandon, said: "In spite of my very short visit and my limited opportunity of studying conditions, I appreciate this fact, that the people of western Canada will never successfully compete with the more fortunately situated peoples of the world so long as they are hemmed in 1,500 miles from tidewater." That is only one of our problems. The problem of carrying on agriculture and paying 10 per cent interest is the greatest one that we have facing us to-day; and while the institutions of the country, the manufacturers, the banks, the mortgage companies, the insurance companies, in fact all big corporations, all tell us that they cannot operate and pay more than 6 per cent on working capital, although they are highly profitable, how in the world is agriculture, which is much less profitable, going to survive and pay 10 per cent interest on the money it owes or on its working capital.
If we make agriculture prosperous, it will follow that the other industries will take their

places; make agriculture prosperous and you cannot keep prosperity away from the doors of the other industries of Canada. Personally I would be loath to say anything that was not respectful and that did not 10 p.m. show a regard for our Canadian industries. But I do think that agriculture and the other industries must go hand in hand. They are like a four or six horse team in front of a plough. If one of the horses is unable to keep up his end, the whole works go wrong, and that is what is wrong with agriculture in Canada to-day. Agriculture is one of the team that must take the country forward to prosperity. I think that all we need is equity and concerted action and prosperity is assured.
There is another matter I want to refer to of which I have heard very little. Possibly I was responsible for bringing it to the attention of parliament in the first place. I refer to the gratuities that were paid to the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern directors and officials. I did not think that the explanation given by the hon. gentleman who was then acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) was all that parliament had a right to expect. He made the statement, in reply to a question by one of the Progressive members, that the information had been forced upon parliament. The facts were they were forced to give the statement to parliament. Five months had elapsed between the time the gratuities were paid and the time the information was submitted to parliament and no action had been taken; and I have no hesitation in saying that no action would have been taken had the matter not been brought to the attention of parliament. I noticed that while the Minister of Railways took to himself, or rather to the government, the credit for bringing the information before the House, a little pamphlet which I read with a great deal of interest, entitled "The Mirror", also claimed the credit for having brought the matter to the attention of the country. It might be of interest to the minister to know that I could have given to the House all the information that we did get long before I asked the question. I think that a government which was elected pledged to economy should have shown a greater interest in the affairs of the country than to allow nearly $400,000 to be paid out to men who may have thought that they had earned it, but who certainly were not entitled to it. However, I see the government has decided to appoint a commission, and I hope its personnel will be such as to ensure a real investigation and bring the guilty to task.

The Budget-Mr. Ward
A week ago I visited Montreal and had the pleasure of seeing a ship loaded with cattle. In fact I saw the super-structure built on the ship for the accommodation of these cattle. It will be recollected that immediately cattle were offered for shipment to the British Isles the freight rate went up $7.50 per head. On my return from Montreal I went to the trouble of figuring out the cost of building the super-structure and in conversation with the agent I ascertained the operating costs I shall not weary the House with detailed figures, but in my judgment cattle could be transported from Montreal to Liverpool at a profit at $12 per head; and yet we are paying $22.50. I was informed that this particular boat was expected to make six trips during the season. Of course, the Minist'-r of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) told us that he did not carry shipping space in his ves: pocket, and perhaps that is all the interest he has in the matter, but I think this is something that might well be looked into. Of course, if $22.50 a head is the lowest possible rate we should not kick very much, but, in my judgment we are paying $10.50 too much.
Turning to another subject, it seems to me that we have a right to expect something more from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) than that he should throw up his hands and say that he is hopelessly stucu., that nothing more can be done. For that i? precisely the attitude he has taken in saying that Canada must expect to go on for a number of years getting deeper and deeper into debt. I think the government -should accept full responsibility for bringing about drastic economies. It is not possible for the average member to intelligently criticize the estimates. The government brings them down and mast be responsible for their reduction to the lowest possible point. I think that we had every right to expect the government to bring down a balanced budget this session in view of the enormous taxation we are burdened with today. The total debt upon which we are paying interest is something over ten billion dollars. It is a tremendous sum. The interest charge alone last year amounted to something over $s00,000,000. In addition to this heavy burden, the taxes of all kinds paid by this little handful of people in 1922 amounted 11 practically one billion dollars. I ask the serious thinking business men of this country, do they think it possible for us to continue doing business on this basis? At the present rate of increasing, our national debt in twenty-five years will have reached the staggering total of twenty-five billion dollars. I am sura that few of us can really comprehend such
enormous sums, we speak in terms of billions without really understanding their serious import; but at the same time I do think the Minister of Finance should change his attitude of despair, take the bull by the horns and bring about such economies in administration as will at least balance the budget.
I would like to refer to the loan floated in New York last April. My suggestion may seem somewhat radical, but I make it for what it is worth. Many schemes have been put before the Banking and Commerce committee, most of which have been scouted as ridiculous and impracticable. But all the same, certain facts are basic, and I should like the Minister of Finance and the business men of this country to give me their opinion on this suggestion: What would have been the effect if instead of floating that loan a year ago and pledging the real credit of Canada-that is, the ability of the people to produce-to foreign moneylenders in order to get a United States certificate with ten figures on it, and upon which at the expiration of the term of the loan we will have paid $157,500,000 in interest,-I ask, instead of doing that what would have happened had we issued a Canadian certificate to ourselves and saved that interest charge? I direct that question more particularly to the Minister of Finance, and I hope at some later date he will give the House his explanation, because to me there is only one hope for the country, and that is to utilize our own wealth for our own development. We must stop borrowing money by the hundreds of millions of dollars or we can never expect to get out of our present financial difficulties. Failure to produce the bare necessities of life for the last two or three years is not the problem that is facing Canada to-day. The spectre that haunts us by day and disturbs us by night i* Debt. We have all acquired the pernicious1 habit of doing business with borrowed money -governments, municipalities and individuals-are alike guilty; they have all gone astray in: that regard. Not long ago I read an article written by Douglas Terstoile in which the writer pictured the effect of debt upon individuals, "How it carves the open countenance into a wrinkled face, what meanness what deception, and how like a knife it stabs the dishonest heart!" I know many men who two or three years ago you could not have persuaded to lie or be guilty of double dealing or any other meanness, but who to-day will lie to their bankers and their merchants and be guilty of double dealing with their neighbours. If that is the deplorable situation that is developing in this country, again I ask
The Budget-Mr. White

every thinking man and woman: Do you not think it requires the most serious consideration on the part of our business men and especially of the governement? In the face of this deplorable condition of affairs I should like to see a more serious attitude taken towards the solution of these grave problems, I should like to see the government attack them with vigour instead of throwing up their hands and saying, "We are hopelessly stuck in the mud."


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: In continuing the debate I do not wish to cover all the points in connection with the budget. I shall touch on only a few which I consider of particular interest.
I think the budget is a source of disappointment to the country in general in that it does not come more nearly to being a balanced estimate. Last year the Minister of Finance in his budget speech referred to the situation as a very serious one indeed, and said he would soon have to make plans for the reduction of our debt. Now the taxation which we are bearing at the present time is as much as our people can stand, as much as they are willing to stand. It is as high as international competition will allow it to go. There therefore remains the alternative of reducing expenses.
At this date, four and a half years after the armistice, we are not reducing our debt. We are feeling the disappointment of adding this year from fifty to sixty million dollars to our debt, while other countries are improving their condition. The United States is reducing its debt somewhat, and Great Britain in spite of all her woes has reduced her debt considerably. A year ago the estimated expenditure out of consolidated revenue was decreased in round figures by about $128,000,000, while this year the decrease is not quite '$47,000,000. It is some reduction, I admit, but not much considering the circumstances. I would also point out that last year there was an estimated increase in civil government of $51,000, and this year it is further increased by $266,000. There is also the item of superannuation, which increased last year by $68,000 and this year by the further sum of $225,000. I am not objecting to the principle of superannuation, but I fear that many public servants are being superannuated while they are still capable of rendering many years of good and faithful public service. These conditions do not indicate the drastic retrenchment which the times demand. The items quoted, of course, may be small, but the trend is in the wrong direction, and the organization of all government departments might

well be scrutinized so that further retrenchment could be made in our expenses.
I notice that the minister proposes an increase in the duty on raisins and dried currants. That increased duty on the basis of our importations for the year ending March 31, 1922, will mean an additional cost to the Canadian consumer of $813,000 per year, while the change will probably mean quite a decrease in the customs revenue. I understand that this change in duty is proposed on account of Australia making efforts to establish a market for her goods within the Empire. I believe we should make every effort to foster trade within the Empire, not only with the Mother Country but with the other dominions comprising the Empire; but it will take considerable trade development with Australia to offset this addition to the Canadian cost of living occasioned by this duty, and we look to the government to secure conditions, either after the session or during the Economic Conference in October, which will be of benefit to Canadian trade with Australia. No doubt, if these conditions are secured, it will be along the line of an extension of the sale of our manufactured goods. May I express the hope that the arrangement with Australia will be of greater advantage to Canada than the French treaty is likely to be.
It is interesting to note that despite the famous Liberal platform, the minister is proposing to encourage the establishment of industries by means of imposing a tariff. It is also interesting to note that the minister, in his endeavour to establish the artificial silk industry, levies a customs duty, while to encourage the hemp industry a bouncy is the means adopted. He has not explained why a bounty will not serve the silk industry development as well as that of hemp; neither has he explained to the House to whom this bounty on hemp is to be paid, whether to the farmer who grows the hemp or to the manufacturing firm which makes the yarn or twine. I would judge, from reading clause 3 of the resolution, that the cordage firm is to receive the bounty.
The minister has expressed the opinion that binder twine and other products will be ready for the market by July, 1925. It would seem that he is desirous of retracing the steps taken by the Liberal government in abolishing the duties levied on binder twine. If the manufacturer of hemp or binder twine is to receive a bounty, in what position will the present manufacturer of twine be placed? Given an equal output of hemp per year for the five years in which the bounty is to be paid, the manufacturer will receive an aver-

The Budget-Mr. White
age of one cent per pound for his output. This will put the present manufacturer, who has neither bounty nor customs protection, at a disadvantage of about 10 per cent.
I have been wondering if the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) will rise in his place in committee and protest against this unjust, discrimination against a manufacturing firm in his own constituency. It is to be noted that the limit suggested by the minister to be paid in any one year on account of this bounty is $200,000, which on an average will provide for a bounty on 20,000,000 pounds of twine.
Last year Canada imported 50,000,000 pounds of binder twine. Why is it limited? Is this provision for the benefit of one firm only, or otherwise? What guarantee has the minister that this industry will be self-supporting in five years, or is it the hope of those who are interested in its establishment that the bounty will be extended?
The manufacture of binder twine in Canada has a tragic history. This article prior to 1S97 bore a duty of 12J per cent; that duty was reduced in 1898 to 10 per cent and in 1899 wiped out altogether by the Liberal party then in power. At that time Canada had twenty-four or twenty-five factories making twine but as a result of the free entry all went out of business but three. Two of these are branches of American industries, I understand, and have other lines and the binder twine business is a very small part of their turnover. Those factories which disappeared did not sell out to a larger company or a trust; eleven went into liquidation; eight dismantled their plants and went out of business, and two or three were destroyed by fire. In spite of the abolition of the duty, prices did not decline, but advanced instead.
I have figures furnished me by a hardware merchant in central Ontario, who deals in twine in a large way, which show that the average retail price of binder twine for the seven years prior to the removal of the duty, that is from 1892 to 1898 inclusive, was $4 cents per pound, while for the next sixteen years, between the abolition of the duty and the war, the average price was 121 cents per pound.
It may be argued that all commodities increased in value to the same extent, but that is not the case. Take for example, iron and steel, which being one of the basic materials is generally recognized as a pretty safe trade barometer to follow. Bar iron and steel was quoted in Ontario in the seven year period, previously referred to, at an average *of $1.71 per 100 pounds, while in the sixteen
year period referred to the average price was $1.93 per 100 pounds. These prices show an increased price on iron and steel of 11-4 per cent, while binder twine, when competition was largely eliminated, rose 45 per cent in price. I believe similar destruction of competition in any line of manufacture will produce price inflation.
In conversation with a friend who came from the Philippine Islands last summer, he told me that the raw material for twine was last year a drug on the market, and the price paid for it was extremely low, yet the price of twine is still high. Now it may be asked by some how it is that the one concern which makes most of the twine manufactured in Canada is able to continue in business. In almost every line of business there is some one firm which is more efficient, perhaps, as to buying and selling, and in the management of its plant, than any other, and is thus able to produce at lower costs than its competitors. This may be the case in connection with the firm in question. The only other reason I know of is that there may be some understanding between the manufacturers in the United States and the Canadian manufacturers as to division of the market and the price charged for twine, which enables the Canadian firm to continue business and, at the same time, by that very action to allay any criticism or fear on the part of the consumer that he is not getting the lowest price at which the commodity can be sold. If that is the case evidently the scheme has been very successful, because I have not noticed any mention made of binder twine at any of the deliberations of the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions.
On inquiring into this matter of binder twine, I secured some figures from the Bureau of Statistics which may be interesting. In the year ending March 31, 1923, Canada manufactured 31,864,000 pounds of twine, valued at $3,483,000, or 10.9 cents per pound. We imported from the United States 46,927,000 pounds to a value of $4,820,000, or 10.3 cents per pound; from the United Kingdom, chiefly from Ireland, over 3,000,000 pounds, valued at $379,000, or 12.4 cents per pound. We exported 7,520,000 pounds which figures, when worked out, show that Canada produced 43 per cent only of the binder twine used during the year. In previous years the percentage has gone as low as 26 or 27.
I have heard hon. members of this House grow eloquent on more than one occasion when discussing our export business, particularly with reference to agricultural implements,
The Budget-Mr. White

claiming that the Canadian manufacturers sold their goods for export much cheaper than they did for home consumption, the argument being that the tariff protection under which they operated was excessive and enabled them to overcharge the Canadian consumer. I have figures from the Bureau of Statistics which show that the same price conditions existed in the case of binder twine on which there is no duty whatever. The Canadian production of binder twine in 1922-23 was valued at 10.9 cents per pound. The United States imports were valued at 10.3 cents per pound, and imports from the United Kingdom at 12.4 cents per pound. Canadian exports of twine to Argentine in the same time were one million pounds sold at S90,000, which is 9 cents per pound. Canadian exports to Denmark amounted to 251,000 pounds, also valued at 9 cents per pound. There were some exports to the United Kingdom at less than 9 cents per pound. Evidently the critics of the customs tariff will have to look elsewhere for the cause of this difference between the price for home consumption and the export price as far as binder twine is concerned, and, I think, other commodities as well.
Now, the Minister of Finance in the budget speech has declared for tariff stability. He says that "broadly speaking it is possible to have reasonable assurance of stability of tariff. That this assurance is desirable as business men do not care to embark on enterprises which may be imperilled by frequent changes of tariff." This statement is a correct one, but as I listened to the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Interior, I came to the conclusion that there were various grades of stability. These two gentlemen seem to think that stability for this year only was all that was desired, and I suppose that if we were to hear a number of speeches from the government side of the House on this question there would be as many definitions of stability as there were interpretations of the Liberal code of ethics in the campaign of 1921. In this connection I would like to quote from a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at a meeting in Toronto in 1906. That statesman said:
It is absolutely essential to the capitalist, to the working man, to the business man, and the industrialist that he should know exactly the conditions under which he invests his capital, that he should know that it will be invested under a condition that will not likely be overturned, but I am able to say that in our regime the manufacturers all sleep soundly, and never fear interference with the tariff. We have made very few changes tin the duties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that the manufacturers of this country will

be lulled to very sound sleep by the assurance of the Finance Minister that the tariff is now stable, particularly when so many members of the present government are not of his opinion. The Minister of Finance proposes to insert two clauses in the tariff resolutions dealing with the prospect of reciprocal trade with the United States. Ever since the United States abrogated the original Reciprocity treaty in 1866-although after eleven years of the treaty Canada had an adverse trade balance of over nine millions-it has been impossible, for one reason or another to make such an arrangement with the United States. Time after time Canadian ministers went to Washington with this end in view, but returned empty handed, till on one occasion Sir Wilfred Laurier stated there would be no more pilgrimages to Washington. He did sanction one more pilgrimage, and out of that came the proposed reciprocity agreement of 1911. That agreement, however, did not receive the en-dorsation of the Canadian people. Even last year, I believe in February 1922, the Minister of Finance himself visited Washington and made another attempt at an inter-trade agreement with the United States, but he did not receive any encouragement. The Fordney-McCumber tariff was passed by the United States government last year without any consideration whatever for the interests of Can-* ada. It was passed largely at the behest of the American agricultural interests, and this measure practically ended the possibility of any large amounts of Canadian produce going to the American market. The United States government, of course, had the right to establish their tariff at any elevation they saw fit. If the Minister of Finance would word his resolution to the effect "that if the United States will reduce the tariff against Canada, particularly on food stuffs, to something approximating the Canadian tariff, we will take it as an indication that the United States are willing to do business with us on a fairly equitable basis," then the resolution would be much more deserving of support. It is time the Canadian should give up passing pious wishes, give up the idea of dependence on the United States, and act as though he could take care of his own affairs. That course of action, will, in my judgment, have the desired result-the securing of better trade relations -and get it by the shortest route.
As to the amendment moved by the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) I cannot support it as I consider the principle involved is detrimental to Canada's interests. I fear, too, that the one who draughted the clauses with refer-

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
ence to providing the revenue that would be lost in the event of the policy embodied in the amendment coming into force, did not give very serious consideration to the situation in regard to the income tax. Canada's present tax on incomes is about the same on the smaller incomes as the United States tax. It is much higher on the larger incomes, however, and there is no surer way to drive capital to the United States than to tax the Canadian income at a higher rate than obtains in the country to the south.
As to "unearned incomes," that is a new phrase to me. I have heard of "unearned increment," but I will have to get a better definition of "unearned incomes" than I have at present before I shall be able to understand it, unless it means the indemnity paid to members of parliament. It would appear that there are at least two members of the Progressive party who are quite willing to have their indemnity reduced, but only to the extent of 12i per cent.
The House has been treated from time to time to certain Socialistic utterances which I consider do not make for solidity and progress of business enterprises or business conditions in this country, and to those who have made these speeches, and particularly to the member for Centre Winnipeg, I would commend the words of Abraham Lincoln on questions of this kind:
Capital has its rights which arc as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is and probably will be a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.
"The strongest bond of human sympathy outside of the family relation should be the one uniting all working people of all nations, and tongues and kindreds. Nor should this lead to a war upon property or the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor, property is desirable, property is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own sholl he safe from violence when built.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: In common with other hon. members who have spoken on this subject, I wish to convey to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) my congratulations on the presentation of his seventeenth budget. We may differ in regard to some features of the budget presented by the hon. minister, but I think we will all give him credit for sincerity of purpose in his long political career and on this as on former occasions all will concede that he has done his very best, or what he believes to be his best, in the interests of Canada as a whole. We have heard considerable criticism of the
budget along different lines. To my mind a great deal of this criticism has been more for political purposes than with the idea of presenting something really constructive. We have heard the financial aspect of the budget attacked, and we have been told on different occasions by members on the other side of the House that we have no war burdens at the present time, and that the statement of the Finance Minister that the deficit of this country had been reduced from some $674,000,000 in 1920 to $47,000,000 at the present time did not indicate a good showing. We were told that the budget should balance and the great argument was that we had no war burden.
I want to take exception to that statement, and to place on Hansard figures which I think will convince the House and the country at large that the greatest burden we are carrying to-day is the result of the war debt. In the matter of interest charges alone, we find that '.n	1914 our total interest charges were
$12,893,000. At the present time we find our total interest charges are $138,000,000. I got the information direct from the Finance department to-day that over $100,000,000 of that interest is due directly to our war debt. How hon. members on the other side can say we have no war burden at the present time is more than I can imagine. Our total war indebtedness is the staggering sum of $1,688,000,000 due directly to the war, and there are interest charges going on yearly, and will go on till this generation passes away, no doubt, and still we are asked to-day by an amendment to wipe out a source of revenue which is yielding us now the round sum of $135,000,000 or practically enough money to take care of these interest charges on the war debt. The situation is a very serious one and, I think before we cast our votes on this budget we should give it very careful consideration.
Apart from the large amount of interest that we are called upon to pay on that tremendous debt we have the soldiers' civil reestablishment to take care of and we find that, including the care of patients, treatment, pay and allowances, vocational pay and allowances, salaries, unemployment relief and cost of living bonuses, we have a yearly expenditure of $12,463,081. We find that we pay out in pensions $32,612,243, or a total of $45,168,029, which is paid yearly directly in pensions to our soldiers and in the running expenses of the offices, and so forth. This $45,168,000 added to the $100,000,000 of interest makes a total war expenditure from these items alone of $145,168,000 yearly. Those are staggering figures, and it is a debt that it is impos-
2968	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
sible for us to get away from. Nobody is complaining, Mr. Speaker, of the pensions to the soldiers or the soldiers' re-establishment, in taking care of our men who served overseas. We are only too glad to pay to those heroes this amount of money and I am sure we would be willing to increase it if we possibly could.
When, Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side of the House tell us that to-day we have no war burden, I wish to contradict the statement, and I think I have successfully refuted it in the figures I have placed before the House. In view of those facts, and under present conditions, I consider the budget in its financial aspect makes a mighty good showing, and I believe, as I said at the outset, that the Finance Minister, in presenting the budget, has done the very best he can, taking into consideration the diversified interests of our country and the obligations we are called upon to meet. The budget may not meet the views of a lot of Liberal members on this side, and, speaking personally, there is possibly no one in this chamber who would wish to see a greater reduction in the tariff, if it were possible, or to see a greater measure of reciprocal trade with the United States, than myself. But those things, to my mind, are not possible under present conditions. Still we must admit that since the present Finance Minister assumed his responsible position the tendency has been for a continuous lowering of the tariff, with a strong desire for reciprocal trade arrangements with the United States. Now, while some hon. members may make light of this move, it is a move in the right direction, and we do not know what good may come of it. It is a standing offer, made in good faith, and the New York Times speaks of it as follows:
New York, May 15.-The Times, in an editorial on the reciprocity proposal made by Hon. W. S. Fielding, Canadian Minister of Finance, endorses reciprocity between Canada and the United States and says there is every reason why it would be absurd for Canada and the United States to embark upon a tariff war."
"There is no geographical barrier between the United States and Canada," the paper continues, "and the facility of intercommunication is such that the free and uninterrupted interchange of products between these two nations is to the advantage of both. America needs Canada and Canada needs the United States. During the year 1922 nearly 40 per cent of Canada's exports went to the United States and more than 65 per cent of her imports came from this country. Canada can well absorb more American goods and the United States can oSer Canada a much greater market for certain of her products.
This coming from such an important newspaper as the New York Times must not be passed over lightly, and no doubt it conveys the impression which is prevalent to a large extent in the United States. As I said at the outset, we do not know what good

may come from this standing offer which has been put into the budget, and which we are to vote on in the course of a day or two. What more could a Liberal or a Progressive ask than the offer that has been made to the United States in the hope they will before long see as we do, that it would be to the benefit of both countries for us to have reciprocal trade? We might go on and discuss the question at some length, and some might contend that immediately upon the opening of the doors, our country would be flooded with the farm products of the Uinted States. I could never see the matter in that light. We cannot ship products into a country where there is no demand for them, and the very fact that we grow largely our own foodstuffs, I think answers that question, and proves that there would be really no market in Canada for American farm products. Another feature that has possibly been overlooked is that a large amount of the profits of the Canadian farmers is used up in the long haul over our railroads, whereas with reciprocal trade arrangements north and south, both eastern and western Canada could have an interchange of trade with a very low cost of transportation charges. Therefore, from every angle, I think this standing offer that has been made is to our advantage, and why our friends have moved an amendment along the same lines when this offer is made in the budget, is really more than I can understand.
Some splendid points have been brought out by different speakers. One thing in the budget that has been emphasized by members from the Maritime provinces is the benefit that will accrue to maritime ports through the ten per cent increase in the British preference on goods coming into Canadian ports, when the duty is over fifteen per cent. This should mean greatly increased business for our maritime ports, and it should greatly enhance our railway earnings in transporting these goods to the different centres throughout the Dominion.
The reduction in the tariff on sugar has been reflected very quickly in the sugar market, and we find to-day that sugar is being sold at from 40 to 50 cents a hundred pounds less than it was before the budget speech was brought down the other day As was pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), this will mean a saving of over $2,500,000 to the consumers of this country.
A great deal has been said with regard to the expenditure of our country, and very little has been said regarding economy, although some speakers have referred to it. There is room for economy all along the line in the

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
different departments of our civil government.
I am not criticizing this government; every government is guilty of the same mistake; but we are trying to develop too many activities that, in my humble opinion, are not needed, and we are doing work years before it is needed and possibly work that will not be needed in our generation. Let the departments get down to actual needs and not do work in useless experiments. In this way we shall save the country millions of dollars. No man would think of running his business in the way in which every government runs the business of the country, and we as elected representatives of the people should be just as careful as if it was our own business, and even more so, when we have to tax the other fellow to pay the bill. We should have a regular stocktaking in all the departments, and see if a tremendous saving could not be effected for our country. At the time when these activities were started, the revenues of our country were, perhaps, able to stand the expenditure; but now that we are in a different position and until our finances are greatly improved, every effort should be made to curb expenditures on every side.
I trust I may be pardoned if I refer to a few expenditures on which I believe a saving could be made. My viewpoint may not be correct; but in the Maritime provinces we look with some suspicion at the large expenditures that are made in the different departments in connection with some provinces of western Canada. In passing the estimates, we were asked to pass an item of $261,475 for irrigation purposes. This is a very large sum of money. In the eastern provinces we wonder why the government is called upon to expend such a large sum of money. Why should the provincial governments not do this work themselves? I am not in a position to say whether, under some prior arrangement with the western provinces, this government is bound to carry out schemes of irrigation for the different provinces; but I just wish to point out that apart from the small subsidy that we received for Prince Edward Island, we get very little assistance along any of the lines that are indicated in the Auditor General's report. Take, for instance, the surveys for water powers alone. On measuring streams and rivers in this country, streams and rivers which, I venture to say, will never be developed, we spent last year $319,885. If the streams and water powers of this country are to be developed, why not let the organizations or business concerns that are going to use this power make these investigations themselves? I do not believe any good business man would
think of promoting any large business without making a thorough investigation of the waterpower himself. He would not take any government report. Those are items which, to my mind, might be pared down, especially during those years when we are called upon to pay the huge expenditures which I have just mentioned in connection with our war burdens.
I am also informed that on those large water-powers that have been developed to some extent by this government, not one dollar has yet been collected by way of revenue. There is under way, I believe, a proposition whereby some fifty cents per horsepower is to be charged, or some other similar small charge is to be made, but as yet no revenue has accrued to this government from the development of those water-powers.
As regards the question of immigration, I do not believe forced immigration is or ever will be of any value to any country, and still the Auditor General's report of last year shows an expenditure of $251,895 for immigration purposes. Are we justified under present conditions in spending such a large sum of money in that department?
The sum of $194,189 has been spent in connection with reclamation of land. I am not well enough posted to discuss this question of reclamation of land; but I understand that no practical results have accrued from it. A number of the men employed in these departments, the moment they are appointed by the Civil Service Commission, immediately surround themselves with a staff of officers and engage a large number of officials to do woik whether it is necessary or not. In my opinion the time is coming when a real stocktaking of these departments will have to be made in order to see that not one dollar is spent that is not absolutely needed.
With regard to the question of immigration, I have already stated that I do not believe in the principle of forced immigration; I do not think that such immigration is of any use to a country. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, we spent last year $932,000 to take care of the unemployed in this country, and in the face of that expenditure we are asked to vote large sums for immigration purposes. I venture to say that nearly every dollar of that $932,000 has beeo spent west of this city; I am sure that not 5 cents of it was spent in Prince Edward Island. Yet, in view of these facts, we are asked again to go into a large immigration scheme.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Who got the benefit of it?
2970	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I believe that in the Maritime provinces there are people who, owing to the almost depleted condition of the fisheries, would be willing to try their fortunes in western Canada if they were given some assistance by our Immigration department; but as matters stand to-day no native of this country who wishes to emigrate to the West can receive any such assistance. I think that provision should be made in connection with our immigration regulations that a man in eastern Canada who desires to try his fortunes in the West might be afforded some assistance in this direction. We have a's good a class of people in the Maritime provinces as can be found anywhere, and I know they would make good. I know that a large number of our men in eastern Canada are going to the United States just because they have nc-i the wherewithal to make a start in western Canada.
Another matter we look upon with suspicion is the Air Force. Is it really necessary for this country to spend $1,660,822 in experimenting with flying machines which have not yet proven of commercial value to the country? In the event of war, I venture to say that the experiments carried on in the United States and Great Britain will have provided means that will be ample to give us any information that we may stand in need of. We all hope that the day is far distant when flying machines for war purposes will be needed, and I submit that in the meantime such a heavy expenditure as this is not justifiable. I do not wish to be misunderstood; but we have heard a great deal about economy, and I have endeavoured in a brief way to indicate some instances in connection with which I believe that some measure of economy might welf be practised. In a return brought down in this House this year there appears some valuable information. This return is dated February 12, 1923, and gives the total number of employees in the inside Civil Service up to March 31, in each year from 1900 to 1922. The Civil Service Commission, I believe, is an institution that is growing away and beyond the dimensions ever dreamed of by its founders. I have no quarrel with the Civil Service, and I believe that the
11 p.m. Civil Service Commission is a body that is needed; but I do not believe that it can be defended in its present status. Do we realize that whereas in 1908 there were only five employees in the commission, to-day there are 220, and that in the former year while there was an expenditure of $4,329 today it is $342,000? I do not think it was ever the intention of any government of this coun-

try that this organization should attain such proportions. As I said before, immediately upon any branch of work being taken up, the commission as well as other branches of the government service begin to organize a staff and fortify themselves with officials; they entrench themselves in a position in which they think they will be secure. Now, in the evidence submitted to the committee inquiring into the Civil Service, Sir Joseph Pope, Under-Secretary of State, said-


The Acting SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil):: I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the rules of the House do not permit of reference to the evidence taken before any special committee before such committee's report has been submitted.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I regret the
transgression, Mr. Speaker; I will refrain from quoting the evidence. However, we know that a great deal of information has been gleaned which will be at the disposal of the House and of the public in a short time. Now, the different departments of government have greatly increased in cost, within recent years. The Department of Labour in 1910 had some 24 employees; in 1921 there were 105; and the increase in dollars and cents has been from $34,000 to $256,000. All along the line it is practically the same. I am glad to know, however, that since the present government has taken office there has been not only a reduction in the staff, but a large reduction in the expenditure of each department. In the Department of Justice there were 42 employees in 1900; to-day there are 208; and the cost was $36,000 then as compared with $270,000 now; and as I pointed out before, the number of employees in connection with the Civil Service Commission has increased from 5 in 1908 to 220 at the present time. The Department of External Affairs shows the same results. In the Department of the Interior, the Mines Branch, the number of employees has increased from 51 to 250, and the expenditure from $65,000 to $605,000. My object in submitting these figures is to show the tremendous cost of the expense of government in the different departments, which to the ordinary layman appears to be beyond all the necessities of these departments. I firmly believe that a reduction in the staff and in the cost of operation could be made in every direction. We have a great many committees in parliament, but I believe that we want an economy committee in this House to look carefully into the different departments and to submit a report, with a view to ascertaining whether

'The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
some saving cannot be effected in the directions I have suggested.
With regard to the Canadian National Railways, we believe in eastern Canada that there is already a decided improvement in the situation. The railway situation to which we took great exception regarding the management for the past few years has been greatly remedied in the past year. We in the Maritime provinces were united in our request that we should have more control and the eastern division placed back at Moncton. We are pleased that this has been done, and that Mr. L. S. Brown, one of the most competent railway officials in the entire service, has been placed in charge, with the result that already a great measure of relief has been given and a confidence restored that argues well for the future of the road.
Now in passing, just let me say that if our officials will realize the responsibility of theii positions and that the success of our railway lies largely in their hands, we may hope for a fair measure of success. I remember reading a motto that the owner of a railway had posted up in all his cars

"Courtesy costs nothing." It might be well for the officials of the Canadian National Railways to place a similar notice all over our system, as we are competing with a company that has given a great deal of attention to this phase of the operation of its lines.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman say that the officials of the Canadian National Railways are not courteous?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No. I said at the outset-


William Findlay Maclean: Then I do not think the hon. gentleman should have expressed the opinion we have just listened to, because the experience of this House and of the people generally is that there is just as much courtesy on the Canadian National Railway as on any other line.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I quite agree with my hon. friend, but I do not think that a suggestion for even more courtesy will hurt. I think the success of our National Railways lies largely in the hands of the officials, and I have every confidence that they will not be lacking in courtesy; but, as I have said, courtesy costs nothing, and undoubtedly the travelling public demands it more and more.
I may be pardoned here if I make reference to a remark that appeared in the papers, attributed to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) to the effect that any concession that was obtained by the Crowsnest
pass agreement was forced on the government by the Progressive party. I wish to take exception to this remark. No one knows better than the hon. gentleman himself, who was a member of that committee, the true situation. He knows that it was due to the vote of the Liberals on that committee that they were enabled to obtain the relief that was given on the rates, not because they were forced by the hon. members of the Progressive party, but because they believed it was only fair and just that some relief should be given. I think if the hon. member made the remark attributed to him he owes this side of the House an apology, and I would be glad to give him the opportunity now of doing justice to the Liberals who assisted him and his colleagues on that occasion.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter was brought to the attention of the House on a former occasion, and therefore I may be allowed now to offer a few words of explanation. During a sitting in camera of the Transportation Costs committee last session, after a Conservative member had spoken for some time explaining the change of ideas in regard to the Crowsnest pass arrangement, I whispered to him when he sat down-I was close beside him-"We forced you to it". I said this in a jocular tone, blit unfortunately his temper got the better of him, for he jumped to his feet and immediately announced what I had said. I think the member for Prince Edward Island was present, but he did not hear me make the remark, which was intended only for the ear of one gentleman. I hope there will be no further misunderstanding. It was an unfortunate remark and I admit I should not have made it, but it was made as an aside and never meant to go any further than that particular gentleman and would not have gone further if he had not lost his temper for the moment and spluttered it out to the whole gathering. That is the explanation I have to make of the incident referred to. In regard to giving credit to the Liberal members who assisted the Progressive members from the West on that occasion, I am prepared to make this statement on the floor of the House: During the recess at no time and in no place did I ever speak in connection with the Crowsnest pass agreement and what took place in committee and in this House without giving credit to the members of the Liberal party who stood by us at that time. Not only so, but I think I mentioned specifically three Liberal members-I cannot remember their constituencies for the moment-who stood
2972	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
with us all through and assisted in getting the matter brought before the members in such a way that they were inclined to support our motion.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think the hon. gentleman is willing to admit that so far as I am concerned my stand on that committee was fair and above board.


Mr FORKE:: Undoubtedly.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thank the hon. gentleman for his explanation and I accept it in all good faith.
Last year in making a few observations on the budget I referred to the natural resources of the western provinces. We are still of the same mind in eastern Canada. We believe that we have an equity in the natural resources in the West, and we believe that when this matter is finally adjusted we shall receive just treatment. I could go into this matter more fully but I think sufficient has been placed on Hansard in the last few years to show that we have claims along these lines, and I have no doubt that the matter will be satisfactorily adjusted when the time comes.
As representing a farming community I wish to say that the farmers of our province have passed through just as trying a period possibly as the farmers of western Canada. We have been forced to take very low prices for our products, and transportation has been so high that it has been almost impossible to place our products on the market at a profit. However, we have a very industrious people and our farmers who take up diversified farming pay a great deal of attention to dairying, to the production of pork, eggs and different products of the farm that will find the best market we have, and in that way they are able .to tide over a period of depression such as we have experienced for the past few years. They are also endeavouring to put on the market the very best products that can possibly be produced, and I think it is up to the farmers of all Canada at this time to use their best endeavours along that line. The lower your market goes the better the product required and too much attention cannot be given by the farmers of this Dominion for putting our finished products on the market in the very best possible condition.
The matter of our fisheries has been taken up at greater length by other speakers than I propose to deal with it at the present time, although I am greatly interested in that industry. This year will be an exceedingly hard one for the fishermen on account of the late spring, which has made it impossible for

them to begin operations with the opening of the season, and unless some consideration is shown to them by extending the season this year there will be serious losses among them. I sincerely trust that when this matter comes before the cabinet later on in the season, the fishermen of eastern Canada will be given every consideration.
We talk about reciprocity with the United States, but I believe there is a reciprocity along other lines which we should try to develop. I believe we want great reciprocal or freer trade within our boundaries. If there [DOT] is one thing needed more than another it is the reduction of the cost of distribution from the factory to the farm, and from the farm to the factory. The city people need the products of the farm, and it is to the advantage of the farmer that he use his best endeavours to see that the man in the city gets the very best articles he can procure anywhere, and gets them at as low a cost as possible: that is, that the price be not doubled by the middleman.
Then again it is up to the manufacturer to see that his goods go to the farmer and labourer at the very lowest possible price. Cut out the middleman as much as possible, and let there be a freer trade between the consumer on the farm and the consumer in the city.
Let us get away from this idea of one trying to do the other for all he can, and let us get down to the essential truth that the more we can help one another the better it will be for all. Let us establish confidence in one another: get away from suspicion: do not try to set town against country, and country against town. One cannot exist without the other. Let us co-operate along the lines indicated, and I will venture the assertion that we have gone a long way to reduce the cost to each other, and at the same time give as much or more in return to the producers. Let us forget our differences and take each other into mutual confidence, and we have gone a long way towards a better understanding of each other's difficulties.
I think the evidence brought out in the special committee on agriculture will be very beneficial, and will give to the public more confidence in the business man and producer on the farm and in the factory.
I think that a great deal can be done along those lines to reduce the cost not only of manufactured articles to the man on the farm but also of farm products to the man in the city. I do not think any farmer will object to the city man getting his food products at the lowest possible price providing that the man

The Budget-Mr. Drummond
on the farm gets the highest market price that is going for his products.
Any criticism I have offered is offered with the best intention. I believe that a substantial saving can be made, and although personally I would have preferred very much to see a greater reduction in our customs tariff, still I feel that for the past two years we have accomplished something in tariff reduction, and I predict that notwithstanding what construction may be placed on the word "stability" in the Finance Minister's remarks, still the people of this country, especially the Liberal party, will demand a constant downward revision from year to year.
I am going to support the budget because the government showing is good. The deficits have been reduced from 674 million in 1920 to 47 million in 1923, and if it were not for the war burden left us, a surplus would have been shown-to say nothing of the railways.
I am going to support the budget because there has been an honest effort to reduce the tariff duties in the past two years, especially on the most important items, and to assist any industry that may start in Canada that all believe would be a benefit to us. I am going to support the budget because I believe the standing offer of reciprocal trade with the United States is a move in the right direction, and will yet be accepted by that country. You might as well try to keep the tide from coming in as to stop trade flowing in its natural courses. I am going to support the budget because I believe that out of his large parliamentary experience in dealing with the fiscal policy of this country, the Finance Minister believes that the budget as presented is the best in the interest of our people, having regard to our diversified industries and callings, and to our financial obligations.
I am going to support the budget in preference to the amendment because it contains now nearly all that is asked for in the amendment and proves conclusively that our Progressive friends are fast becoming adepts at playing politics. I am going to support the budget because the greatest era of prosperity in Canada was under Liberal rule and it will come again if we give Canada's Grand Old Man, the Minister of Finance, a fair trial in this critical period of our country's history.
In closing, I would say:	Let us have faith
in this great country of ours. We have the best laws of any country in the world. Our people observe those laws better than any people in the world. The observance of the seventh day as a day of rest, which is the bulwark of any nation, is better observed by Canada than any other country in the woild. We have the richest country in the world in
natural resources in comparison with our population. We have open ports on the Atlantic and Pacific all the year. We have the most diversified occupations; we have everything that makes for a great country. Let us give our best to this country in the way of legislation, not for selfish or political reasons, not for one section as against the other, not for one calling as against the other, but for Canada

Canada, the fairest of the dominions that form the British Empire, that Empire to which we as loyal Canadians are proud to belong.


Mr. J. D. F. DRUMMOND (West Middlesex) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the budget mainly because it has been said during the past two sessions that the Progressive members from Ontario seem to be very little interested in the tariff matters which are brought up in this House. But before saying anything about the budget, or other questions I want to refer, briefly to a resolution which it was my privilege to move this session regarding the marking of woollen goods. The resolution was opposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, referring to me said "What he is asking for is in the last analysis the highest degree of protection." Now, I have been of the opinion that it was beyond the dignity of any minister of the Crown to impute to any member of this House motives which were not contained in the resolution moved by me and which were not implied by one single word that I had uttered. If it is necessary for me-for the information of the House or for the information of the country, to state my position on protection I am ready to do so. It is my firm and honest belief that any system of protection which saps the very life blood from one basic industry for the purpose of building any other is economically and fundamentally wrong.
Members of all parties in this House join together in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) upon presenting his seventeenth budget. But there are some of us who are not so anxious to compliment him upon what that budget contains. During the last session, and also during the present one, I have been much amused at the taunt which has been flung across the House first from one side and then from the other -I must admit not so much from the government side as from the Conservative side- of repeated violation and breaking of promises made to the electors before the election. If my recollection serves me right, and I can go back a good many years, this peculiarity, if peculiarity you call it, is not confined to

The Budget-Mr. Drummond
one political sect. It may be that one party have been greater sinners than the other; but I think we can safely say that both, at one time or another in their career, have committed the same sin.
It has been said here during the present session that the measure of prosperity which the country enjoyed in 1896 and for some years after was due to the policy which had been adopted-I cannot say inaugurated- by the late Sir ^Vilfrid Laurier and his government. Looking back in our history we find that the Liberal party fought every election on the issue of protection from 1878 to 1896. That fact is very vividly imprinted upon my mind. I well remember some of those elections and the issue that was before the electors on those occasions. At one election the issue was free trade as they have it in England. At another it was unrestricted reciprocity. Again it was a tariff for revenue only; until we come to the time when the change of government occurred in 1896. I well remember that the tariff question was not an issue in that election. That contest was fought entirely uopn the Manitoba School question, and after the Liberal party got into power they were blamed-I think rightly blamed-for robbing the Conservative party of their much loved protection policy.
I now wish to refer for a moment to a part of a speech that was made by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). You will find it on page 2852 of Hansard of the present session. In that speech the hon. member made the following statement:
Perhaps it may shock some members on this side of the House-
I was greatly surprised to hear any hon. gentleman on that side of the House make the statement-
-when I say that I have very little confidence in the making of platforms, anyway. I do not believe that a government or members elected to the responsibility of a seat in this House should necessarily be asked to accept what may be ill-digested planks in any platform imposed upon them by people who come from various parts of the country and whose suggestions probably are as much dictated by political expediency as anything else; I do not believe that men who represent the public should be expected to carry out such ill-considered behests on the floor of this House. So that speaking for myself, Sir, I would say frankly that in the public interest the platform of 1919 should not be permitted to shackle the government responsible to all the people, whether it be a matter of tariff or anything else.
I want to ask, as briefly as I possibly can, that if the sentiment expressed in the foregoing extract from the hon. gentleman's speech is going to prevail in the public life of this

country what is going to become of political honour? If there is one thing more than another upon which the people of this country depend at the time of an election it is upon the principles that are advocated, upon the policy that is laid down by a political party, and which they say they intend to follow if put into power. It seems to me that the statement I have quoted is one that would drag the honour of any political party in the mire.
I now wish to make reference to an utterance by the Prime Minister before the. last election. Speaking at Bolton on the 29th October, 1921, as reported in the Toronto Globe, he said:
I believe in doing all possible to further the legitimate interests of agriculture, as such a policy was going to help all industries in Canada. The Liberals did not propose to continue to help a few men to become multi-millionaires.
He went on further to say that he was in favour of the most drastic measures of economy, and retrenchment in every direction. No voice rang out with louder denunciations throughout the land, no voice gave a greater promise of economy, than that of the present Prime Minister. No statesman before the last election made, with greater emphasis, promises of retrenchment than the leader of the government to-day; and when declared successful at the polls he boastingly heralded the dawn of a new era that would speedily put the country upon its feet financially and cure all the ills that are in every case the aftermath of war. But two years have gone by, and notwithstanding the repeated protests of the Farmers' party for economy and some legislation that would be of assistance in remedying the grievances which they complained of, and which were undoubtedly real, the same need for economy exists to-day and their grievances remain unredressed.
I do not want to be partisan, because that is one of the greatest crimes any Progressive could be guilty of, but I wish to refer for a moment to something that took place in the Conservative party which I hope will prove the assertions I have made that pledges and promises have been violated by both parties in the past. In the year 1911 the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), speaking in favour of a reduction of the duty upon agricultural implements said, Hanasard page 1917:
But the charge I have to make, and which I hope to bring home to the government this afternoon, is not that one though it is the most serious,-

The Budget-Mr. Drummond
That is the one that they have made false
pretences.
-but it is this that in their attempts to continue the National Policy which had obtained for years before, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy, they have quite forgotten its guiding principle, namely the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength, as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold of the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions.
Then follows the wonderful statement made in that speech that the government then in power had helped themselves into power by maintaining themselves behind ramparts of gold.
Also in the same Hansard and at page 1919 the present leader of the Opposition stated:
As everybody knows in 1896, and for two years previously, the duty on agricultural implements of all *kinds stood at 20 per cent and the same rate of duty was maintained by this government for eleven years subsequently, or until 1907. In the meantime the insidious work of the officials of this government in increasing the valuation for duty had got into play, and while the nominal duty was maintained at 20 per cent, the actual duty was very seriously increased. . . Other regulations were made by the government which afforded the manufacturer a greater protection than the 20 per cent set out in the Customs Act would indicate.
Now to prove the assertion that the Conservatives after having obtained power in 1911 did the very same thing they charged the Liberals with doing, I quote the following figures obtained from the Bureau of Statistics regarding the duty on agricultural implements from 1912 to 1915, and the duty on the same implements in the year 1921, the last year in which they held office. It is not necess-sary to go through the whole list of agricultural implements, and for briefness I will take binders. The duty on binders in 1915 under the 174 per cent tariff was $18.96. I may say just here that this is to some extent at least an answer to the question that was asked the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King) by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sinclair) on Friday, I think. The duty in 1915, under the 174 per cent tariff was $18.96, according to the information furnished by the Bureau of Statistics for the year 1919. The valuation for duty purposes of that binder was $108.35. In the year 1921 the valuation on the binder for duty purposes was $182.60 and under the reduction which they boasted of from 174 to 124 per cent the agriculturist who bought the binder was obliged to pay in protective tariff the sum of $22.82.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Could the hon. member give us the tariff under the reciprocity ^arrangement of 1911?


John Douglas Fraser Drummond: Twenty per cent reduced to 174 per cent, and in 1915 or 1916 it was reduced to 124 per cent. Now again let me make reference to the home markets that have been boasted of by some of those who are in favour of a protective tariff. Those who stand committed to a protective tariff as being in the best interests of the people of Canada are fond of boasting that the home market is provided by the industries which are brought into existence or kept in existence by that protective tariff.
In that connection I want to quote a few figures which are also obtained from a report of the Bureau of Statistics issued in 1920, and giving the statistics for the year 1919:
Number of implement manufacturers in Canada in 1919, 86.
Total capital invested in implement manufacturing
industries, $83,276,450.
Total value of products of said implements manufactured in Canada during that year, $37,715,331.
According to this report there was exported from Canada in 1919, $8,831,803 worth of manufactures, leaving a balance which was either purchased by the agricultural people of Canada, or retained in stock to the value ol $28,883,528. That was the amount of goods left over after $8,000,000 worth had been exported. While the average duty at that time was 124 per cent, under the tariff introduced by the government last session, the protective duty upon agricultural implements was reduced by 24 per cent, which was boastingiy held up as something that the Progressives should be eternally thankful for, we will therefore strike 10 per cent as the average duty. Ten per cent upon the sum of $28,882,528 means that the Canadian agriculturists who bought those implements paid in duty t to the manufactured industries of the Dominion of Canada the sum of $2,888,352.80.
Now the number of men employed in the agricultural implement factories of Canada in that year was 10,808 and the wages paid 'o those employees was $11,715,331, or an average salary per employee of $1,084. If you will divide the number of employees, 10,808, into the total amount that the users of agricultural implements in Canada were required to pay in duty, you get the sum of $265.80, which is the amount that it cost the purchasers of agricultural implements for each employee who weis engaged in the manufacture of these implements, or in other words, the Canadian agriculturist who purchases implements is charged $265.80 for each employee for the home market which such employee provides.
I will leave hon. members to draw their own conclusions as to whether every employee in the implement manufacturing companies is



The Budget-Mr. Drummond
worth $265 to the agricultural people of this Dominion.
I wish to say a word or two about the Canadian National Railways. While I am one of those who would wish to see the Canadian National Railways placed upon a basis that would avoid a deficit, I cannot undei-stand how such a thing is going to happen when we have such instances as the Chateau Laurier, one of the Canadian National's own hotels here in the city of Ottawa showing an annual deficit of $351,000. If that is the basis upon which our National Railways are going to pay, it will be a long time before we ever reach the desired end. From the report that was given, the hotels in the other parts of the system also show large deficits.


Mr. STANSELL:: What is the deficit in connection with the Chateau Laurier? I did not catch the figure?


John Douglas Fraser Drummond: The figure given to me was $351,000 for the Chateau Laurier, and I am led to believe that that is correct.
Some members in the two old political parties have lovingly spoken of the Progressive party, but they have not chosen just the right words to give expression to their love. As nearly as I can remember, this was started by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) before the last election. The leader of the Opposition in his manifesto published before the election of 1921,-and you will find this in all the papers of that period- after referring to the policy of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), used these words:
But a stronger and more menacing enemy has arisen. For some years past there has been growing up, first on the prairies of the West, and later through selected parts of eastern Canada, a party backed by a costly and persistent propaganda, the purpose of which is to reverse the tariff policy of this country.
I should like to ask my right hon. friend, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his seat to-night:	Whom is the Progressive party
menacing? Whom are they the enemy of? If there is any degree of citizenship, those at present engged in the pursuit of agriculture are the most distinguished of any. They are the men and the women on whom the hope of the future of Canada depends. They are the men and the women who must be depended upon to fill cars for their precious railways and precious merchant marine which are standing monuments of the want of foresight of both the old political parties. They are the people above all others who, if they moved away, would leave Canada bankrupt.
Looking at the matter from the standpoint of what has been attained or what has been

received by the occupation of agriculture from any government that has ever sat on the treasury benches of this House, I do not think there should be any doubt in anyone's mind as to the reasons why sixty-five Progressive members were elected at the last election. Perhaps I should correct myself a little as regards those sixty-five, because by a natural process of elimination known as the survival of the fittest, we have been reduced to sixty-three. But I think I am safe in saying, as regards those sixty-three, that notwithstanding the fact that we have not received very much yet, we who form the Progressive party will still continue to go forward and onward, firm in the belief and strong in the hope that there is somewhere in the distance, be it far or near, a hill top radiant with the sunshine of something for the agricultural people, a hill top radiant with the glory of equal opportunity to all and special privileges to none.
Mr. DAVID SPENCE tParkdale): Mr. Speaker, talking seems to be catching; my hon. friends all around have been talking; but I do not intend to cover the whole country from Vancouver to Plalifax, nor to make any lengthy speech. While representing one of the largest ridings in Canada, I may say the second or third largest, unlike my hon. friends to my left, I have no complaints to make; I am at peace with all the world. My riding is asking for nothing; it expects nothing, and it will get nothing. Anything the government can pass over to my hon. friends from the prairie provinces, let them hand it over to them to appease their hunger.
I hesitate in rising to-night to say very much after what has been said so ably by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. I must confess that I am not an orator, and I hjve never developed my oratorical powers. My life has been a busy one in the business world, and I am trying my best to give service to the people who entrust their business to me, so that speaking has not been my forte. When I entered Parliament I expected to meet big men discussing big things; instead, I find one-half of our time wasted discussing erratic resolutions and economic questions which are of no account whatever.
I want to make some observations, from a business man's standpoint, with reference to certain things in connection with this parliament, and if I err or get out of order, I hope you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to discuss the budget at any length other than to say that I cannot support the amendment to the budget, because

The Budget-Mr. Spence
it means a lowering of the tariff and possibly, free trade. I do not intend to support the budget itself, because reference has been made in it to reciprocity. In my humble opinion, the producers of the soil in this country cannot compete with our friends to the south of us, particularly as regards fruit and vegetables-and I have a long experience in those lines-on account of climatic conditions and the extensive markets to the south as compared with climatic conditions in this country, which are much colder, so that more energy and everything else are required in order to produce our stuff. Are hon. members aware that from Florida to North and South Carolina, truck gardeners can raise from two to three crops a year? That cannot be done in Canada. Take the eastern shore of Virginia alone, the greatest producing country on this continent, particularly in potatoes, where they have thousands of acres of potatoes raised by a co-operative organization that supplies the greatest part of the United States and this country during the latter part of May, June and July. After that, we have invariably sold them our old Ontario potatoes, and they replant another crop for their home market in the winter months with great success. Can that be done in Canada? I say, no. I am in favour of more protection for the tiller of the soil, apart altogether from any question of the manul/acturing industries of the country. Why should the ingredients that go to the manufacture of oleomargarine, or why should oleomargarine itself, come into this country without paying a duty? I do not know whether or not there is a slight duty on oleomargarine, but at any rate I would put a tariff on these products equal to the Fordney tariff on similar Canadian products.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: One hundred per cent.


Mr. SPENCE:: I beg your pardon? I did not hear what the hon. member said. However, I want to assure my hon. friends to my left that they have my sincere sympathy in their difficulties. But they cannot expect to bring about an improvement in their conditions without some sacrifice on their part, such as the business men have had to make in the past few years since the close of the Great War. I would suggest to those hon. gentlemen that they stick more closely to their business. I would advise them to remain on their farms and exercise a continuous supervision over them just as the business men of this country have to do in connection with their various enterprises. That after all is mi	<
the only way in which any business can succeed; and if that is done in connection with the farms of the West I think that my good friends will make a great success of their farming. In any event, we wish them luck and prosperity.
It gives me much pleasure to compliment the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on the optimism he displayed in the course of his speech the other day in his discussion of matters in the West. I think that speeches of that kind go to inspire confidence in the people and help to build up the country; it is that kind of speech that we need, which is very different from the calamity howling that we have been hearing from our hon. friends to the left, who have been talking of secession and things of that sort that cannot but be detrimental to the interests of the country. Those hon. gentlemen seem to me to be troubled with "imaginitis." They seem to think that the members in this parliament from the East are not sympathetically disposed to them. Let me assure my hon. friends that that is not so; I want them to believe that they have our deepest sympathy and that we are willing to make any sacrifice that we possibly can to improve things so far as they are concerned. One hon. gentleman the other evening in his speech, after complaining of everything conceivable, made this statement: "If we cannot get along together, let us part good friends." I do not take that view of things at all; I say that we must get along together not only in the interests of Canada, but because I am sure we all have the welfare of the Empire at heart. Let us determine that there shall be no secession. Another hon. gentleman to my left, after threatening parliament with every imaginable ill, said that if we did not listen to his groans and cries we might have reason to regret it. This is what he said, and it is something that in my opinion should not be tolerated in this House of Commons:
Hon. members may not believe this; -*
I may say, we had not the impression before, but what I am about to read would, if possible, confirm it if it did exist:
-some hon. members are inclined to laugh and say: "Oh, the agriculturists are always whining," but if hon. members keep on saying that, I assure them that they are taking a dangerous course. We may not always whine. We have in this country a strong foreign element, and sometimes it is necessary to keep them in curb. If the House and the country continue to take that attitude, an attitude of, as I said before, cold-blooded insolence, we may come to a time when there will be more unrest and more real trouble than we have had in the past. I would just give hon. members fair warning. Hon. members may laugh at this if they like; but that will be the effect.
The Budget-Mr. Spence

Now, speeches of that kind are positively detrimental to this fair country and should be discouraged, at least on the floor of the House. Let me tell my good friends to my left that they know nothing to-day about hard times. Let them go back to the days between 1892 and 1897 when pork sold at 3\ cents to 4 cents per pound, eggs from 8 to 10 cents, butter from 10 to 12 cents, and beef at any old price; when geese sold at from 3 to 5 cents a pound, turkey from 7 to 8 cents a pound, and when there was scarcely any demand for chickens, these being from 15 to 20 cents per pair, with potatoes at 10 cents a bag. I can substantiate every statement I make in this connection, because I bought all these commodities in those days.


Mr. KNOX:: And I sold them.


David Spence: Yes, and I sympathize with you; and if you keep on talking in the strain in which you are talking to-day you will soon bring back the conditions that existed then.


Andrew Knox: But sympathy is not worth much; what would you do?


David Spence: We have been doing everything for you. I know conditions in the West just as well as my hon. friends do, for I have covered the prairie provinces. I have travelled all over this country from Halifax to Vancouver and Victoria, and I can say that the conditions in the country from which my hon. friends come were no worse in those days than were the conditions in our part of the country, nor indeed, were they half as bad. I remember that at the same time bread sold at 4 to 5 cents a large loaf retail; I sold tons pf it myself.


William Findlay Maclean: A loaf of bread and quart of whiskey would be a cheap meal.


David Spence: What would wheat and oats be worth at that time?


Andrew Knox: We ought to know; we were selling wheat in those days you speak of.


David Spence: Then why do you forget those bad times so soon? The life of the farmer, I think, has improved a lot since those days with a few exceptions, and this is due to the activities of the Department of Agriculture under different governments, that department having improved dairying and farming generally. The Agricultural department under every government has done a great deal for hon. gentlemen. It has established cold storages, while private interests have also built similar institutions, enabling the speculator to pay these gentlemen and

those whom they represent a reasonable price for their butter, their eggs, their poultry and hogs during the summer season, when the amount of these products coming in could not possibly be consumed. And yet hon. gentlemen growl about not having accommodation, and so forth.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker-


David Spence: Pardon me; I am talking now. When I get through with this sentence you may interrupt me.


Robert Forke: I will not bother you any more, I am sure.


David Spence: Butter especially has been improved to the greatest extent. I remember well having seen dozens upon dozens, nay, hundreds of barrels, come into our market, some of which was absolutely unfit for food; and when we segregated the good from the bad and got all we could for the best, we had to sell the rest at from 4 to 5 cents i pound. To-day, through the good offices of the departments of agriculture of the provinces there is no excuse for there being any bad butter in the country, and the lady who cannot make good butter nowadays can sell her milk to the creamery or take it to the cheese factory. What else do hon. gentlemen want to have done for them? To-day, I am glad to say, there is a big 12 m. demand for the woman who can make her own butter. In the fall of the year when the farmers decide to get lid of their stock before the winter season sets in, for one reason or another, generally to obviate feeding during the winter, veiy heavy shipments come in and the cold storage is again brought into use to save the situation. These gentlemen bitterly complain because they cannot get the prices they want for their stock. But how would it be possible to consume trainloads of half-fed cattle, the scrubs that come into the cities and large centres? How would it be possible at all to make any use of them without cold storages? Again, my good friends are protected by the provision that has been made for them in the different provinces.
There are too many people to-day who know everybody else's business but their own. Before entering public life men should have a broad knowledge of their country's needs as a whole and not think their own little part of the country alone needs attention. Thank goodness I have never been that way. All my life I have tried to give the other fellow the best of the deal. When in 1909 I first offered myself as a candidate for the city council of Toronto my wide experience on the water-

The Budget-Mr. Spence
front made me realize the necessity and importance of water-borne transportation, and I advocated then, as I do now, the deepening of the waterway between Montreal and Toronto and also the deepening of the Wel-lan canal. I pictured ocean boats leaving Toronto loaded with apples and other merchandise for the Liverpool and Glasgow markets and bringing back return cargoes for delivery clear to the head of the lakes. Can any hon. gentleman tell me that such a waterborne traffic would not build up the central and western provinces? And yet I have heard some hon. members from the West ridiculing the idea of a deep waterway to Montreal. The day is not far distant I think when we shall see the realization of this idea which will mean so much to Canada and the Empire.
The Ontario cabinet has been accused of irresponsible	government-government	by
commission. As I see this administration it is a case of government by committee. The government has refused to accept responsibility for any important legislation introduced this session. The government is run like a six-ring circus-committees sitting in every quarter at a cost to the country in the neighborhood of $500,000, with little prospect of any return commensurate with this outlay. We have been told by the Prime Minister that we are to have a fair and equitable redistribution. Well, on the committee to which the redistribution bill has been assigned we have ten members of the Liberal party, five of the Progressive party and four of the Conservative party. Do you expect to get a fair and equitable redistribution from such a committee? I say. no.
I am not going to criticize the budget too severely. I am glad to see that the tax has been changed on soft drinks and that the cigarette duty has been reduced to its old figure. I wrote a letter last year to the Minister of Finance pointing out just what would happen in respect to the increased duties he then placed on these two articles. I received a very nice answer from him in which he said he would take my suggestions into his very serious consideration-that is what Sir Oliver Mowat used to say-but I do not think he did. However, he has taken my advice at last. Speaking of the income tax, I think the penalties are entirely too high. A friend of mine who was executor of a small Toronto estate forgot to make his return within the specified time, but he did so three days later and paid the tax. In the meantime the income tax department saw fit to fine him $50. Now, could he take that out of the widow's mite? No, he had to take it out of his own
pocket. That is penalizing a good, respectable citizen and I say the law should be changed to prevent the repetition of such an injustice.
We should know to-day whether the Post Office Department is being run at a profit or a loss. The sale of postage stamps to-day is enormous. Many of these stamps are placed on cheques and receipts and go to the credit of the Post Office Department. Altogether it is a very badly managed affair. Then the reduction of the maximum stamp on cheques is no help to the ordinary man of business. A wholesale man like myself has occasion to draw many cheques from $100 up to $2,000 or $3,000, and consequently the reduction only benefits bankers, brokers and millionaires. The rate of duty on cheques is extremely high and eats up our profits. There is not a dollar you make that somebody is not trying to get it.
If the hon. Minister of Finance were in his seat I would ask him why was the sales tax taken off newsprint. To my mind it was not taken off in the interests of the Progressive party or of the consuming public; it was bribery pure and simple to get the support of the newspapers of the country. Furthermore, there is no class of business to-day that can afford to pay a 6 per cent sales tax. To my mind some commodities to-day that are free from duty could well afford to stand a tax, and it would be a good way of getting revenue. Take bananas alone, for some reason or other the banana trust, composed of the foreign element of this country and the United States, control our politicians and consequently not a cent of duty has ever been placed on bananas. Bananas to the value of $5,210,000 were imported last year. There is absolutely no reason in the world why a moderate duty should not be imposed on bananas, especially as there is nothing so detrimental to our fruit growers as the importation and sale of bananas in the months of June, July, August and September when our own strawberries, plums, peaches and other fruits come on the market. Oranges and pineapples are free of duty. I am not advocating that they should be made dutiable, I merely mention that they enter free. Grape fruit for some reason or other is taxed too high, one cent a pound being equivalent to seventy or eighty cents a box. Ten times the amount of money would come into the Treasury if grape fruit, oranges, lemons, and pineapples were taxed 25 cents a box, and this tax would never be noticed in the resale price.
If there is any commission in this world that should be appointed-I do not advocate
29S0

The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
commissions because I believe the men who are elected to this House should bear the responsibility of legislating for this country- but if there is any commission that should be appointed it is a tariff commission, composed of men who know something about trade conditions in this country, instead of this parliament tampering with the tariff from time to time. The day after the Minister of Finance delievered his budget I read in a Toronto morning paper-I was not able to be here on that day-that the tariff on potatoes had been increased from twenty cents to thirty-five cents per hundred. The public thought that was an awful increase. I do not think it meant from twenty to thirty-five cents a hundred, because the duty was 20 cents per bushel. It was only increasing the duty one and two-thirds cents per hundred pounds, and I do not think the tariff should be interfered with to make a little change like that. Again, we have established the principle of a certain sized barrel, two and a half bushels, or two and three-quarters, or three bushels. To-day we are fighting with the customs officials all the time over the weight of the barrel, and I say it is not worth disturbing trade for such a small amount. I think it is easier collecting duty than anything else, and that would be my system of raising money and having less taxation, but I would recommend strongly to any government that is in power in this country not to make these small changes in the tariff, but appoint a tariff commission composed of men who know the business needs of the country.


Mr. E. N. HOPKINS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have the sympathy of every hon. gentleman in this House because on some occasion, whether it was last year, five years, ten years ago, thirty or even forty years ago every hon. gentleman has been in the position in which I find myself at this moment. It is a wonderful thing for a man to have the record of forty years in the House of Commons which I believe two hon. members of this House enjoy, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister or Railways (Mr. Graham). But it is a more wonderful thing to be forty years in the Canadian House of Commons and have the respect and love of the entire House.
Mr. Speaker, when a member comes to the House of Commons for the first time, he comes here as you know with just the vision of his own little constituency. He does not just at first get the vision of the Dominion of Canada, or, as I suppose he will later on, the

vision of Canada as a nation, the world's vision, for we all believe that Canada is a nation in the building. We believe the day will come when we shall have countless thousands of people in this country to develop the resources that have been bestowed upon us with such a bounteous hand, but just at first all we can do in our maiden effort is to talk about the things back home. All governments say, if they are asked to do anything out of the ordinary: We must first feel the pulse of the people, so I would like for a few minutes to present the pulse of my constituency.
I represent a constituency in the centre of Saskatchewan, in that great granary that is called the bread basket of the Empire. Every year the milling companies of the West just after threshing time send out and get samples of all grains in the different parts of the West and submit it to the baking and milling tests, and when they find the grain that is best adapted for milling they send to that particular district and get that wheat for their mills. The wheat in the northern part of my constituency-it is an old settled district for forty years-has been selected as the wheat the millers want to grind in their own mill. Now we do not get any premium on that.
I say it is an old-settled district, and one of the best. The southern part of the riding is a newer district where some of my people are forty miles from a railroad, but it is a good district, and I was glad to note from the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) the other day that we are going to have a railroad there. Half of my constituents are rural and half of them are urban, and I make no apologies to my urban constituents for discussing the problems of the rural people, for in the West, in the farming district on the prairie, the interest of the city is so connected with that of the farmer that they cannot be divided. We have only two classes of people in that country, the people who can make a living on the farm and make a fair living, and the people who are enabled to live in the city because the farmer makes a fair living. In the early days the farmers were fairly successful before the war and we got a city, but now that the farmers are not doing well their condition is reflected in the city, and I want to say to you that these are strenuous days in western Canada, and I fancy there are going to be strenuous days all over Canada because when the buying power of the farmer is diminished it is reflected in the business of the whole country. Canada was started by a little colony of farmers, and though our commerce has ex-

The Budget-Mr. McKUlop
paneled it still remains true that the great industry of this country is agriculture. We in the West have always believed that a high tariff bore unduly heavily on the West.
Let me put it in another way. We will suppose, if you can imagine it, that in place of having the great Dominion of Canada we had an eastern Canada and a western Canada, that these were both British possessions but divided into two separate provinces, and that the people of eastern Canada came to the people of western Canada and said: Let us form a great confederation and have one great Canada. If you will form that confederation we will make this proposition to you. Remember that we have the great bulk of the population east of the great lakes, and consequently we will have the voting power and will make the laws. But we will make this proposition to you: If you will join us in the East we will put a high tariff on all the things you consume. You will be allowed to take all your products of the farm and sell them in the markets of the world in competition with the whole world, but we will put a heavy duty on everything you buy, on your implements, on your clothing, on your boots and shoes. Yes, we will do more than that. We will take your lands, your mines, and administer them for you.
Do you think that would have a tendenev to make the West join with the East? I do not think it would. A good many gentleman here seem to think that we are on the up grade, that we have crossed the Rubicon and are going to climb up. I hope that is the case but I do not think so. Some of the brightest minds in the world to-day belie''e that the best way to have a reconstruction would be for the different nations to cancel their debts and commence again. The wav has been over for a good many years and in my opinion we have not started re-construction yet. Re-construction means to commence at the bottom and build up from the foundation. The only way you will build a permanent structure in Canada is to take a recapitalization of your debts and then adjust those debts. There are thousands of people in western Canada to-day who are adjusting their debts-the debtor and the creditor-and starting anew. We will never accomplish what wc want in this country, in my humble opinion, until we adjust our debts as between the debtor and the creditor. This Canada of ours has lost millions of money during the war, and the trouble is that to-day some people want to make others bear more than their share of that- loss. When our people bear their proportionate share of the burden then
we will be able to build afresh; and it is a duty of parliament, I think, to do for the people what they are unable to do for themselves. That is to make every Canadian, as far as is possible, bear his share of the burden. When every Canadian realizes his responsibility and is willing to do his part then we shall really commence to build up the country.
Mr. HUGH C. McKILLOP (West Elgin):
I am sure the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) must be tired of the congratulations which have been showered upon him from every comer of the chamber and therefore I will content myself with wishing him for the future many years of good health and happiness and freedom from parliamentary duties.
The budget as brought down this year does not display very many changes as compared with the previous budget. True there are a number of small changes. For example, the tariff is reduced on sugar but at the same time it is increased on clothing, so that in the end it works out very much the same. It is just about the same old tariff. Some items are higher, some are lower, but on the whole it is just about the same. This is the second budget that has been brought down by the present government, and it makes one wonder whether they have forgotten altogether the platform they adopted in 1919, which was broadcasted in blazing colours all over this country. Take even their more recent pre-election promises which they made throughout this country in 1921. So far there have not been such changes in the tariff as to give very much encouragement to those who supported them in the last election. It is no wonder, therefore, that the present government have not achieved greater success in the by-elections that have taken place since they came into power. Mr. Speaker, the handwriting is on the wall, warning the present government that unless they change their ways and endeavour to carry out some of their promises their time in office is going to be very short.
Now, I want to direct attention for a few moments to a matter that concerns the bean producers of this country, and in dealing with this subject I will present the facts as briefly as possible. For a number of years past the duty on beans imported into Canada has been 25 cents a bushel while beans entering the United States from Canada have to meet a duty of $1.20 a bushel. I claim that this is not right, and that it constitutes a hardship on the farmers of Canada who have been engaged in the production of beans. Since this condition has prevailed many farmers have been driven out of the industry, while others have so curtailed their production that not over

The Budget-Mr. McKillop
40 per cent of the quantity of beans that used to be grown in Canada is now produced in this country. Take in the period from 1892 to 1901 the production of beans in Canada amounted to 875,597 bushels. In the latter year the import of beans amounted to 11,003 bushels. Since that time imports of beans have grown by leaps and bounds and at the same time the home production has steadily declined. To such an extent has that been the case that in the year 1920-the last period for which I have figures-the Canadian bean production reached a total of only 388,499 bushels, whereas in the same time the imports had grown to the extent of 444,698 bushels. In 1920 we find the production of beans in Canada was only a little over one-third as much as it was during the ten years that I have mentioned. What is the cause of this? Simply that owing to the low tariff maintained by Canada this country has been made a dumping ground by the nation to the south of us. This is not as it should be, and no self-respecting government should allow such a condition to continue any longer. Then there are other countries. For instance, Austria and Japan send a lot of beans into this country. I do not think it is fair, equitable or just that the farmers of Canada should be called upon to compete with countries where the standard of living is so much lower and where labour is so muoh cheaper. I have it on good authority that a labourer in Japan does not receive as muoh in the fields for two weeks' work as the labourer does in this country for one day's work. Now, Mr. Speaker, I claim that if this duty on beans coming into this country were put where it should be, and the bean producers given to understand that the home market was available to them, it would only be a matter of a short time when the production of beans in Canada would far exceed any production of the past. It is suggested that the reason the tariff is kept down is to favour the consumer. As to that I will only say that, with all the importations of beans in the past, the consumer is not buying the bean a particle cheaper than he did two years ago, as it is a well known fact that for years the price of beans in small quantities has been ten cents per pound. I am convinced that if the tariff on this commodity is raised the consumer will not have to pay any more than at present, as the production of beans would so increase as to keep the price to the consumer where it is at present or even lower. I hope the government will give this matter their earnest 
attention and see that the farmers and bean producers have a fair show.
I should like to draw the attention of the House for a few moments to the conditions of the workingmen in this country. We have at present on our statutes, under the Department of Labour, what is known as fair wage officers, and I understand that one of these officers is stationed in Montreal, another in Ottawa, another in Toronto, another in Winnipeg and another in Vancouver. I would have these officers inquire in their respective districts as to the condition under which the workingman is labouring, first as to wages, and secondly, as to the cost of living in his community. It is a well-known fact you may have a labouring man in one place who is doing a certain kind of work and receiving what is termed a living wage, and at the same time you may have, a thousand miles from him, a man engaged in similar work, receiving the same wage, and yet, on account of the high cost of living, hardly able to make ends meet. I claim it should be the duty of the fair wage officer to inquire into the workingman's conditions and to see that he is satisfied and contented, for after all, a satisfied and contented workingman is one of Canada's greatest assets.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I claim that if the workingmen are contented, a great obstacle is placed in the way of the entrance into Canada of Bolshevism. For my part, I have no use for Bolshevists, or Bolshevism, or of any other kind of "ism" except good, sound, strong, loyal Canadianism. I am satisfied that 90 per cent of our working men belong to that class. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this matter. I do not hold any brief for any radical element. The class I am speaking for is the honest, sincere and loyal workingman, the man who wants to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I want to be placed on record as being ready, at any time while a member of this House, to suport any sane legislation that has for its object the bettering of the workingman's conditions.
In conclusion, I may say that since coming to this House I have heard a good deal of talk about low tariff, and a great deal of talk about free trade, but I am convinced that neither one of these will ever cure the ills Canada is suffering from. On the other hand, I am just as strongly convinced that what this country needs is a strong national policy, if she is ever going to take the place that she originally intended to take, as one of the leading nations of the world.

Pension Act
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Leeds) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, May 22, 1923