1923-05-23

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1025	Volume II: Pages 1027-2045


Volume HI:: Pages 2047-3044	Volume IV: Pages 3045-4005


Volume V:: Pages 4007-4756



VOLUME CLVIII


[Stage Direction]
OTTAWA P. A. ACLiAND

[Stage Direction]
ftattse of Commons
[Stage Direction]
debates
Wednesday, May 23, 1923

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That eight hundred copies in the English language and two hundred and fifty copies in the French language of the report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Great Lakes freight rates, laid on the Table of the House on the 18th May, 1923, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I beg to lay on the Table of the House certain amendments which have been made to the Radiotelegraph Regulations and to the form of licenses of private commercial broadcasting.



INSURANCE ACT, 1917, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 1S4, to amend the Insurance Act, 1917.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Mr. FIELDING:: The first part of the bill is designed to avoid the duplication of returns in certain insurance matters. The larger part of the bill provides certain conditions of insurance policies with respect to automobile insurance. There is a correction of the French version of the previous act. These are the chief purposes of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Dunnett.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 182 (from the Senate), for the relief of Laura MacBrien.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 183 (from the Senate), for the relief of Chester Abbott Redmond.-Mr. Church.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Alexander Robb: At a previous sitting the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) inquired:
Has 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 providec by the act of last year?
Further have any names been suggested to this government to handle the proposal for the present year?
It will be recalled that by the legislation of 1922 providing for a wheat board covering one year, the government was authorized if requested, to extend by order in council, for a further period of one year. Under date of February 27 last the Premier of Saskatchewan forwarded to the government a copy of a resolution passed by the legislature, and requested the government of Canada to immediately pass an order in council extending the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1922, for one year from the 15t,h day of August, 1923. The resolution referred to expressed the opinion of the Saskatchewan government as follows:	.
The government of this province should request the government of Canada to immediately pass an order in council extending the operation of the Wheat Board Act of 1922 for one year from the 15th day of August, 1923.
The government of this province should indicate to the government of Manitoba its intention to extend the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board (additional powers, Saskatchewan) Act, 1922, for one year from the 15th day of August, 1923, provided the necessary federal order in council be passed.
The government of this province should communicate to tlie government of Manitoba the willingness of the government of Saskatchewan to immediately co-operate with the other prairie governments and farmers' organizations for the purpose of evolving a co-operative method of marketing for subsequent years, but without in any way restricting discussion and co-operation to the precise type of organization outlined by the Premier of Manitoba.
Under date of March 10, the Premier of Alberta forwarded a copy of a resolution passed by the legislature of that province on February 13, and stated it was the intention of his government to pass the necessary order in council extending the provincial legisla-

Budget Changes

tion for one year. Mr. Greenfield further stated:
I am writing to urge upon you the desirability of the federal government passing the necessary order in council extending the federal legislation for a like period.
The resolution referred to was an expression of opinion of the legislature that:
The government should continue the negotiations carried on last year with the governments of the Dominion of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan, for the establishment of a wheat board, and that every effort should be made this year by the said governments, together with the government of the province of Manitoba, if that government passed the necessary legislation, to establish such a board in time to handle the crop of 1923.
In accordance with the above notification, the Canadian government passed two orders in council on the 7th April, 1923, that is to say, P.C. 610 and P.C. 611. The first order in council referred to ordered that the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1922, be brought into operation as provided by section 19 thereof; the second order in council referred to ordered that the operation of the said act for all purposes be extended for one year from the 15th of August, 1923.



BUDGET CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Stevens Fielding: I purpose laying on the table of the House notice of several changes in the budget resolutions. They will reach the members in the Votes and Proceedings in the morning; but perhaps the House will be pleased if I state at once, without comment, the nature of the principal changes. If there be no objection, I will do so.
In the resolutions as they stand the change in connection with the sales tax is to take effect on the first of August. We have decided to make the date January 1, 1924, inasmuch as it will cover existing contracts and avoid embarrassment which might otherwise arise.
According to the resolutions before the House, the tax on beverages and also the tax on confectionery would be abolished on the first of August. We propose that the abolition shall take effect practically at once, on the first day of June.
There is a readjustment of the silk duties, the details of which I need not mention.
The item of newsprint is omitted from the exemptions to the sales tax. There was a misunderstanding ; this was not asked for by anybody, and it was inserted for customs purposes. But at all events we are not pressing it.
Another item I might mention is with regard to what is called the dumping duty on

sugar. The resolutions as they stand provide that the dumping duty shall not apply when sugar reaches a certain price, eight cents per pound. We are proposing to make a limitation ; we propose that the dumping duty shall continue, but that it shall be limited; that at no time shall it exceed three-quarters of a cent per pound.
I think those are all the matters of sufficient importance to speak of now. The details will appear in the Votes and Proceedings in the morning. In the meantime, I will give copies to my hon. friends opposite.


Air. STANSELL:: Does the tax exemptior as applied to drain tiles apply at once?


William Stevens Fielding: I would prefer that the hon. member should read the resolution in the morning. The idea is that it is to come into effect at an early date, I forget the date.



OLD AGE PENSIONS AND MOTHERS' ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: Have
any negotiations been carried on by this government with the governments of the various provinces for the purpose of arranging for conferences between the provincial and the federal authorities in the matter of old age pensions and mothers' allowances?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My impression is that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) had a conference last fall with representatives of the Labour departments of the provincial governments, in the course of which conference a number of matters relating to the question to which my hon. friend refers, were discussed. I cannot say at the moment what further conference there has been, but I know that the matter has been the subject of conference between the provincial governments and our own.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 22, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. 3. Fielding (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Robert Forke.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the Minister

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
of Finance (Mr. Fielding), to whose wide experience and sound judgment in financial and tariff matters the country is mainly indebted for the essential features of the budget which has been presented to the House, will speak again in the course of the debate with reference to some of the criticisms that have been directed against it by hon. gentleman opposite. In the circumstances, I should much have preferred to leave to my hon. friend such further reply as may be necessary. Inasmuch, however, as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has seen well to go beyond the subject matter of the budget to direct his attack against the Liberal party as a whole in what, with characteristic use of opprobrious epithets, he declares to be a lack of honour and fidelity to pledges and a repudiation of principles, and as certain other hon. members in the course of this debate have sought by their remarks to give to the public a wholly erroneous impression as to the character of the budget, I may perhaps be forgiven for taking up more of the time of the House at this stage of the debate in a few general observations upon some of the matters referred to in criticism.
First, let me speak of the charge that the action taken by the Liberal party in this budget has not been in accordance with the platform of the Liberal party as laid down at the convention of 1919. I say that any such charge is wholly unwarranted. I think I am as familiar as any member of the House with the platform of 1919 and with what took place at the Liberal convention in reference to it. When I was honoured by the members of that convention with the position of leader of the Liberal party, I did not wait until those present at the convention had dispersed, to express what I conceived to be the purpose of the platform which had been laid down and the spirit in which the party would expect to have it interpreted. Indeed, the first remarks I made on the occasion were to the effect-and I used at that time a simile which I thought was obvious to all, and which I still think is as appropriate as any that could be used- that I regarded the platform drafted by the convention as a chart on which had been plotted the direction the Liberal party would be expected to take, should it be returned to power. I made it perfectly plain at the time in the use of that simile, that I did not regard the party as bound by the platform literatim et verbatim, pledged to carry out each line and letter of it during the
first year or two we might be in office. Indeed, I made another fact equally plain, which was that I should not attempt, if at the head of the government, to follow the example of the then Prime Minister the present leader of the Opposition, of trying to direct the operations of government pretty much, if not wholly, by myself; I stated that I would endeavour to surround myself with the ablest men whom this countrj might send to parliament, and from their col lective wisdom, I would seek to derive the guidance necessary to decide how far at any particular time it might be wise to go in pursuing the course plotted for us by the convention. That was the statement I made in the presence of all the delegates on that occasion. There was no exception taken to that attitude; there has been, so far as I know, no exception on the part of the Liberal party as a whole to that attitude from that day up to the present.
Some little time after the convention had been held, and I had again the privilege of having a seat in this House, while the Liberal party were still in opposition, I had the honour of seconding a resolution which was introduced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) setting forth the attitude which we believed was the one the party was expected to take towards any matters of tariff revision. I shall not read the whole of that resolution, but I will quote the concluding paragraphs of it. It was moved by the present Minister of Finance on May 10, 1921, and seconded by myself:
That such changes should be made in the customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion;
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
That was the position of the Liberal party as it was asserted in this House of Commons after the Liberal convention of 1919 and before the general election of 1921. And that was the position we took when we went to the country.
I noticed in the remarks of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) yesterday, that although he introduced many subjects in the course of his speech, there was one very significant omission from all that he said. He made no reference whatever to a single speech of mine delivered during the campaign of 1921. I spoke in every province of the Dominion with the exception only of the
3048	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
province of British Columbia and in every province in which I spoke, from every platform upon which I stood, I took occasion on this subject of the tariff, to refer to the convention of 1919 and the interpretation which the Liberal party put upon the Liberal platform as adopted at the time of that convention. I spoke in terms exactly similar to those which I am asserting at this moment. I made it plain, using indeed, the very simile I have used this afternoon, that if returned to power 1 should regard the platform as a chart on which was plotted the course the Liberal party was expected to take. I said that I would not seek to follow it literally, that I felt it would be unwise to do so, but that I would seek to bring about me, from the different provinces of the Dominion, men upon whose judgment the country would have reason to rely with confidence and that I would be guided by their collective wisdom in moving in the direction indicated. I also made it clear that whatever the Liberal party might do with respect to the tariff, it would do in relation to conditions existing at the time; and I know I made the further assertion that no established industry in this country operating at that time and which was earning a legitimate profit need have any fear, if the Liberal party were returned to power, that its legitimate business would be injured by any revision of the tariff. That was the position I took throughout the campaign; I took it in every province; and I challenge my right hon. friend and those around him to search the journals of this country from one end of it to the other and bring into this House of Commons, if they can, a single statement of mine, truly reported, that is contrary to what I am saying at this moment.
Now, Sir, I say that that is the pledge by which we are bound; that is the position we took when we appealed to the country. We were returned on that representation and on po other. What we have done in this budget is to carry out the spirit of the platform as laid down in 1919, in the light of conditions as we see them at the present time.
Some of those who sit opposite have referred to this budget as a protectionist budget. What are its features? In the first place, there are in it, so far as tariff matters are concerned, a very large number of reductions in duties. I have in my hand a list of tariff reductions in which some 21 different items have been affected by considerable reductions, apart altogether from the general reduction made through the British preference on all articles. Twenty-one different articles, which I will not detain the House by reading, have

been affected by an immediate reduction of duty. Then, as respects all commodities, the British preference has been increased. This is equivalent to a reduction in the customs duty on articles coming from Great Britain of a 10 per cent discount on all goods coming in through our Canadian ports. There again is a further general reduction of duties. But let me point out to hon. gentlemen that this budget must be considered not only in relation to what we are doing at the moment but in conjunction with what we did last year. Last year we made some material reductions in customs duties, some of them with respect to the British preference; and if one takes occasion to study carefully the items that were affected, one will find that as regards goods coming from the Old Country there has been a very considerable reduction in customs duties through an increase of the British preference. I have here a list of items that have been affected by the British preference in a very direct way and to a considerable degree by what we have done this session combined with what was done last year. In some 40 cases which I might cite there have been reductions ranging anywhere from 2 to 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 per cent increase in the British preference. Among these let us cite the following: take first the case of flannels; there was a reduction last year and again this year, the two together making a total reduction of 41 per cent. In wool fabrics, the total reduction is 5} per cent; in clothing, the total reduction is 44 per cent; wool clothing and tweeds 5J per cent; blankets, in one case 9J per cent, in another case 4f per cent, and in another 2}; in cotton fabrics there is a reduction of 4J per cent; in collars and cuffs 7 per cent; in corsets of 4j per cent; in harness 4i per cent, besides other items that I might mention. These are all items that enter into the cost of living; they are articles that affect every home; and this means a material reduction in the cost of living. But that is not the only change made so far as the effect upon the customs tariff through the British preference is concerned. I have here another and much larger list, a list of something like 180 articles, many of them important, which have been materially affected by the change in the tariff that we have made through the British preference. Of these 180 articles, in the case of 80 of the items the present rate is over oO per cent, while in the case of the 100 others the preference runs anywhere from 40 to 50 per cent. One of the planks of the platform was that we should aim to bring about a British preference of 50 per cent. Well, we have brought it about in these 80 items of

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
the tariff to which I have referred. In 100 others we are above 40 and approaching 50 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: In how many of these cases do we bring the goods from England at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the exception, I think, of three or four all the goods come into this country from England.


Arthur Meighen: Practically none.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my right hon. friend will tell me the ones that do not come from England.


Arthur Meighen: The amount of goods coming from England is negligible compared with the amount coming from the United States, which is the controlling factor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have before me a list prepared with some degree of care by one of the officials of the government. Included in this list are two items, sewing machines and drain pipes, which have been affected by the two last reductions, and in regard to these there is the following footnote:
Practically no importations of these items from Great Britain at present, or likely in the near future.
All the other items which constitute those affected by the changes of this year and last combined, come into this country from Great Britain. The point I wish to make clear is that the platform of the Liberal party called upon us to aim in the direction of a 50 per cent British preference. We have that 50 per cent applying now in a large number of cases, and we are approaching it in a still larger number of cases; but we have also gone beyond this 50 per cent in some instances. If we had adopted the attitude of mind which some hon. gentlemen' take towards platforms we should have stopped the minute we reached the 50 per cent. We take the position that there has been indicated to us the direction in which we should go provided the circumstances of the times so permit. As I have said, we have carried out that policy in a manner which I think will help materially the consumers and producers while it will also help the trade of the country.
Then again in this budget we have emphasized our belief in the importance of reciprocity. That was another plank of the Liberal platform. Let me not forget also to make mention of an important article on which a very marked reduction has been made-50 cents on every 100 pounds of sugar
coming in not only from Britain but from all other countries. There is a reduction which affects every household in this country. There are a few cases where the tariff has been readjusted, but for the most part the entire revision, both last year and this, has been in a downward direction; and in addition to that a very substantial relief has been afforded through the specific items I have mentioned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when one considers that the essential features of this budget are: No increase in taxation; a substantial revision downwards of many items in the customs tariff; a large reduction so far as sugar is concerned; an increase in the British preference on all articles coming by way of Canadian ports; a revival of the offer of reciprocity to our neighbours to the south-when we consider these essential features how can it possibly be stated that this is a protectionist budget? By an identical process of reasoning, assuming that we had taken a reverse course, assuming that we had increased the duties all along the line, reduced the British preference, added 50 cents per 100 pounds to the sugar duty, denied any further faith or belief in the merits of reciprocity, hon. gentlemen opposite might have brought in and supported an amendment declaring that we had introduced a free trade budget and that they would not support it on that account.
Another feature that I think it is right should be taken into account in the consideration of this budget is what has been enacted, or is likely to be enacted, in the way of legislation this present session. Commercial treaties have been made with France and Italy which will bring considerable relief to the consumers of the Dominion, and we believe will materially help in the expansion of our trade. Then there is the enactment, we hope, of a Combines Investigation Act, which contains a clause giving the government power, wherever it appears as a result of investigation under that act that the tariff is being used as a means of enabling groups of interests to gain an undue profit, to reduce duties by order in council. These are all part and parcel of the legislation which we are presenting to the House and which is associated with this budget. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that far from being capable of the interpretation which some hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to place upon the budget, on the face of it this is clearly a budget leading to freer trade and reduced cost of living for the masses of the people of this country
3050	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
Now, may I say just a word to my hon. friends who believe strongly in free trade? The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mo-Master) referred last night to his early studies in political economy. I think probably that is where most of us, in the first instance, get our conceptions with respect to matters pertaining to the tariff. But many forget that there is a difference between the theoretical study of a particular subject and its practical application where there are concrete circumstances which have to be taken into account. Many men carry their academic training into the business world and cease to be of any practical use just because they do not realize the difference between theory and practice. If every country of the globe followed a free trade policy, if there were no protective walls erected by other nations, certainly free trade would be the best policy for the world. No man can argue successfully against free trade on theoretical grounds. It is obviously to the interest of all mankind that capital should be attracted to and invested in those industries which in the matter of comparative cost of production afford the greatest natural advantages. That is absolutely sound doctrine. But when you have the countries of the world following not a free trade policy, but instead erecting tariff walls higher and higher, a man ceases to apply his theory accurately when at a given moment he is prepared to concede to other countries the placing of a handicap against the trade of his own. For that reason, as one who believes in the theoretical soundness of the free trade argument, I contend that in the application of all our economic ideas and principles we must take account, as economists do take account, of world conditions as they are and apply our theory in the light of existing conditions.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, the fact that those who were strongest in the advocacy of free trade, the people of Great Britain, did not achieve their object in a single day, a single year, or even in a generation? Free trade was not brought about in Great Britain in the course of any one parliament. If one leaves out of account altogether the Reciprocity Treaty of 1787 which Pitt negotiated with France, and which was one of the first measures for freer trade, but which was shot to pieces by the Napoleonic War-if one leaves that measure out of consideration, it was some thirty-five years from the time of the first material reduction before the free traders of England were able to reduce the tariffs of their day to the point where free trade became an actuality. And

in that period a change had taken place from the England that existed in the day when the movement started. At the inception of that movement England's industries were more or less in their infancy, but in course of time the effect of the so-called industrial revolution made itself felt, the application of power to industry became more and more extended, until England rose to be one of the greatest manufacturing countries in the world. In addition to that, England developed not only her manufactures during that period; she developed also her mercantile marine; her trade upon the high seas; and it was co-existent with the growth of her industries at home and her trade on the high seas that England began to reduce the duties,-a step which ultimately led to free trade. If we were to be logical in this country in what we say with respect to the introduction of free trade, we would study with care some of the essential developments in the English free trade movement. I have referred to the reciprocity treaty with France which Pitt negotiated in 1787. It was in 1825 that Huskisson reduced the high tariff previously existing to a maximum rate of 30 per cent on fully manufactured goods. Peel in 1842 reduced the tariff to a maximum rate of 20 per cent, and abolished the corn laws in 1846. Gladstone in 1853 brought the tariff down to a maximum rate of 10 per cent and finally swept away all protective duties, co-incidentally with the enactment of the second French reciprocity treaty negotiated by Cobden, in 1860. When the British in this cautious way introduced free trade, Britain was indisputably the greatest manufacturing as well as the greatest trading nation in the world. The introduction of free trade greatly helped her traders and did not injure her manufactures, who in almost every product could defy competition. The final step was taken as a result of the reciprocity trade negotiating with the other leading manufacturing nations of the time. Is Canada, which both last year and this has made substantial reductions in her tariff, to throw down the bars completely, entirely irrespective of the policy of our great neighbour to the south, where the high tariff party, gs we know to our cost, is in power? The present budget includes a grant of lower tariffs to the one and an offer of negotiations looking toward, lower tariffs to the other of the two great nations with which five-sixths of our foreign trade is carried on, while reciprocity treaties with two other of our leading customers have been brought before parliament.
May I say to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and to my hon. friends of

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Progressive party, that I do not object in the least to any of the views they may put forward; I believe absolutely in their sincerity with respect to lower duties on commodities and the help that lower duties might be to the country. But what I do take exception to is the method whereby they seek to effect the objects they have in view. Does my hon. friend from Brome believe that Pitt, that Huskisson, that Peel, that Gladstone, that these great protagonists of free trade, never had their days of darkness, of disappointment, and of difficulty? Does he believe that these great statesmen never knew what it was to feel solitary and alone in their inability to realize within a limited period of time the ideal which was so strong in their own minds? Had these men seen well to divide themselves from their party, even to the limited extent to which my hon. friend has found it necessary so to do, would Gladstone's name, would Peel's name, would Huskisson's name stand out to-day in history as they do, as the men who brought about these great reforms in trade?
Mr. BIRD (rising)-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Mr. BIRD:: If I am not transgressing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Thomas William Bird: I am sorry if I am transgressing any usages in this regard, but a question did occur to me and I am going to ask it in justice to the hon. member for Brome.


An hon. MEMBER:: He can take care of
himself.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Thomas William Bird: If I have the permission of the Prime Minister, I want to ask him if England would have had free trade to-day had it not been for John Bright?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not omit the name of John Bright intentionally. I happen to have before me the names of those identified with particular reductions of the tariff at the time they were made. I think my hon. friend is quite right; John Bright's contribution was one of the greatest-but John Bright fought within the ranks of his party. John Bright, through his great moral strength and his noble eloquence, was able to influence the men of his own party to his own view, and he exerted that influence by standing in their ranks and commanding them with his majestic power. I say in all seriousness to the hon. member for
Brome that I am sorry to see him take a seat opposite. Why? On his own account? Yes. On account of the party? Yes; but most of all because of the very ideal that he has at heart; for the place to realize that ideal is among the men who are helping to bring about its fulfilment. I would say much the same to the members of the Progressive party, because of their attitude; that is to say the attitude of some of them. They feel it necessary not to interpret the difficulties of the economic situation in this country to their constituents, but to create in the minds of their constituents, by their attitude in parliament, the impression that there is, in this parliament some unwillingness to have justice done to western Canada, that there is a need for agitation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends applaud that remark; I am happy to say, however, that I noticed only a very few of them do so. They take this attitude, Mr. Speaker, instead of seeking to interpret to their constituents what they know to be some of the oroblems and difficulties in connection with all these tariff matters, and the extent of which they had not learned as they now know it until they came into this parliament. There is a double duty on the part of members of this House: they owe a duty to their constituents, but it is not the duty merely of advocating in parliament the particular demands of particular sections; they also owe a duty to return to their constituents and to explain to them the problems with which the nation as a whole is faced. I was told by several members of the Progressive party before this budget was introduced that regardless altogether of what the Minister of Finance might say in the budget they would find it necessary to bring in an amendment. Where is there in such an attitude the extending of help to a government that is seeking to effect reform? How can any government be expected to co-operate with men who, though proclaiming a like purpose and a like aim, maintain that-regardless of what is done-for the sake of agitation, for the sake of making clearer and wider a division and a breach in our country, they will bring in some amendment and by their course in debate create an impression throughout the land that a condition of injustice exists so far as the attitude of one section of Canada toward another is concerned? Let my hon. friend from Brome, and my friends of the Progressive party look at the gentlemen directly opposite and take a leaf from their books. You do not find in their ranks any high priest of
3052	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
protection, simply because he is unable to get all the protection he wants, taking a seat apart and erecting an altar of his own in some far corner of the room. You do not find these hon. gentlemen who profess to believe in protection dividing into two great wings, one saying we have not protection enough and the other saying we must have more protection. "The children of this world"-sometimes interpreted as "the children of darkness"-"are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
May I say just a further word with respect to another feature of the budget-the emphasis which has been placed upon stability as regards the tariff in the government's tariff announcements? Why is it that the present government is seeking stability in the tariff? For the simple reason that what this country needs to-day, as what the world needs, is a little more in the way of stability. What we need to-day is to restore a feeling of confidence in the minds of the business community, and in the minds of the industrial community. The world to-day is still trembling more or less from the convulsion of the titanic struggle of a few years ago, and the highest duty of statesmanship is to seek, so far as it lies within the power of every nation, to restore in the minds of all classes of the community a feeling of certainty, a feeling of confidence, a feeling which for want of a better -word we describe as stability. Stability does not mean finality. I notice that some hon. gentlemen opposite have sought to combine the two words. If there was one thing above another which the hon. Minister of Finance was most careful to emphasize when he spoke of stability, it was that as regards all legislation, and in particular as regards the tariff, there was no such thing as finality. He spoke particularly and specifically of the probable need for change as respects some items of the tariff affecting consumers and in relation to the necessities of production. He mentioned these things, and if there be need for greater emphasis as to what he said, may I direct the attention of the House to the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had no sooner concluded his reference to stability than he began to speak of reciprocity and of trade agreements with the United States, which would mean changes in the tariff the minute they were brought down.
No, what my hon. friend sought to convey to the House in his remarks was that the government, after having carefully studied the situation from all angles, had come to the conclusion that having regard to the situation of Canada to-day in relation to other coun-
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
tries, it should tell the Canadian people that as respects the tariff, unless there were obvious reasons why there should be changes occasioned by necessity, they might be reasonably assured that there would be a steadiness in the tariff for some little time to come. That is what my hon. friend sought to make clear to this House, and he did so for the reason, that what we in Canada can do with justice in the matter of tariff revision is necessarily dependent in large part upon what is done by our neighbours to the south and upon what occurs in Europe.
What is the position with regard to the United States? Since the Liberal convention was held, there has been enacted by the United States a much higher tariff than ever before existed between Canada and the United States. The Fordney-McCumber tariff, so-called, to-day is operating to the disadvantage of Canada. Is there any member of this House who will stand up in
4 p.m. his place and say: Notwithstanding that obvious fact we think we should throw down our bars against the United States and give them an opportunity to come in here and affect our industries in a manner even more seriously than they have already been affected.
Take the situation in Europe-and this accounts in large measure for the troubles that my hon. friends are having in the West. It is not our tariff alone. In these discussions on the budget all ills that any portion of the country seems to have are focussed up against this one target. The reason western Canada is suffering to-day is in large part due to the fact that the demand for our grain and our raw materials is not what it used to be, is not what it should be or will be until conditions in Europe become more settled than they are at the present time. We feel that the settlement of conditions in Europe and the favourable change in the American tariff are not likely to be effected for some little time yet, and for that reason we say that pending a change in this external situation we wish to give to the Canadian people the assurance that we do not purpose having an unstable tariff, because that is the significance of it. The one word has to be used in relation not only to its synonym but also its antonym. We do not propose to have an unstable tariff while this unstable condition exists in different parts of the world.
We have sought however in this budget to take steps which while not so apparent on their face, will we believe, become increasingly apparent as the years go by, and will, we feel sure, be helpful in changing the situation. We have increased the British

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
preference on all articles coming from Britain through Canadian ports. Why have we done that? One reason, let me say, which prompted the government to that action, possibly the reason which above every other may have inspired the thought in the first instance, is the circumstance that Great Britain, the Mother Country, has removed the embargo on our cattle going into the markets of Britain, and we wish the Mother Country to see and to know when she takes an attitude toward us which means stretching out a hand of which we are in need, that we are equally prepared to stretch a hand across the sea and greet her with goodwill in return. We hope to see continue, as we are seeing now, our ships crossing to the islands of Britain laden with cattle from our western plains, but we hope also to see these ships returning to Canada with goods which will be of service to the people of the western plains as well as of other parts of this Dominion. We hope to see furthered in this way a larger trade.
There is another object we have in view. We have been trying to build up our railways in this country, and no group of men in parliament have talked more of the necessity of nationalization of the railroads or expressed more often the desire and hope that the National Railways would succeed than hon. gentlemen of the Progressive group. We believe that if we can develop trade through our own ports we will be helping to develop and assist our National Railways. We think this is a moment when we should seek to bring as far as we can over our own Canadian lines all the trade that we can hope to bring. There again, is a national purpose that we have in mind.
But more than that. It is becoming increasingly apparent that not only on the Atlantic ocean but on the Pacific ocean as well there are possibilities of great trade development. Vessels are leaving the ports of Vancouver and Victoria and sailing down the Pacific around through the Panama canal to the countries of Europe. We hope to see a return trade developed between Great Britain and those western ports by way of the Panama canal, and whatever comes in that direction is all to the benefit of western Canada. We believe that by our policy we will help to make apparent to the world the advantages there are in trade through Canadian ports, and I think I am right in saying that whether we trade through Canadian ports on the Atlantic or through Canadian ports on the Pacific, whatever comes in the way of increased trade through
any of these ports will redound to the advantage of all parts of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
But, Sir, we had another aim, and I think it is becoming apparent to anyone who reads the American press of to-day. The Americans, as I have said, have put up a high tariff wall against us affecting no part of this country more than the part from which my hon. friends of the Progressive group come. They have that wall, but we want to show them that if they wish to sell they must also be ready to buy. There can be no jug-handled proposition in matters of trade. If you wish to sell you have got to be willing to buy. If you wish to buy you have to be willing to sell. I think our American friends will come to see that if, as a result of their action-* and it is their own business, of course-if as a result of their action Canada is going to seek and obtain new markets in which to buy and sell in Britain, new markets in France and new markets in Italy, is1 going to develop a reciprocal trade and effect agreements with Australia and possibly other countries as well, if they begin to see that in all these directions we are striking out into and creating new lines of commerce, and that we can manage very well as we are, I am inclined to think that that line of thought, quicker than anything else, will bring about the change which my hon. friends of the Progressive group opposite hope may come.
Before I leave that matter, may I add this with respect to our endeavour to bring about stability? We are taking in this connection a stand which we believe to be not only in the interests of our own country but in the interests of the world. I have in my hand a copy of the report which was presented to this parliament some little time ago of the Genoa Conference for the economic and financial reconstruction of Europe. Canada was represented at that conference by two able and distinguished gentlemen and there were assembled there, as hon. members will recall, representatives from most of the commercial nations of the world. True, in some respects the conference did not achieve all that was hoped and expected of it, but there were certain matters on w'hich there was general agreement, and in the report of this conference I find the following. It appears on page 37 of the report printed by order of this House:
(A)-Customs Tariffs Article 43
All customs tariffs should be published; such publication should be accompanied by a clear and precise indication in regard to each category of goods of all the duties which are leviable on the importation or exportation of the goods concerned.
3054	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
Article 44
The tariffs should be made, so far as possible applicable over substantial periods of time and changes in rates and in customs regulations should be made . as rarely as possible and duly published, the practice of frequent modification for the purpose of economic warfare being entirely abandoned.
I would direct the attention of my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, particularly to these last words. He has been urging throughout this debate that in trade matters we should use the tariff more or less Jontinually as an instrument of economic warfare. At this conference of European and world statesmen-


Arthur Meighen: I was commenting on the fact that the government was doing so itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no, I think the right hon. member went much further than that in his comments. Indeed his whole speech on the French treaty was a declamation in favour of economic warfare and the uses to be made of the tariff in that connection. However, this conference at Genoa of men who had seriously at heart the future welfare of Europe and the well being of mankind deemed it advisable to give as their studied and thoughtful opinion that the practice of frequent modification of tariffs for the purpose of economic warfare should be abandoned. Not only did the Genoa conference consider this matter; it was dealt with also by the League of Nations. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, and as such we are specially interested in any step which that body may take to further the object for which it has been created. A great deal has been said about tariffs and their bearing upon world peace. The League of Nations exists for the purpose of furthering the peace of the world. Among matters to which in this connection the League of Nations has felt it necessary to give attention have been some of the questions of economic relations between the different countries. I have here a copy of the latest proceedings of the League of Nations and I find that the economic commission, which is a committee of the council, had under consideration the recommendation of the Genoa conference to which I have referred, and that this committee of the council made its report to the assembly of the League of Nations. The following appears at page 1396 of the official Journal of the League of Nations for November, 1922:
B. The council, desirous that effect should be given to the recommendations embodied in article 3 of the resolution of the Genoa Economic commission, "that tariffs should be made so far as possible applicable for substantial periods of time and changes in rates

and in customs regulations should be made as rarely as possible..."
Resolved:
To endorse and communicate to the states members of the League the following resolution adopted by the Economic committee of the League at its last session [DOT]
"The Economic committee is deeply impressed with the inconvenience and injury caused to international commerce which result from the uncertainty arising from frequent changes of customs tariffs and associates itself cordially with the resolution of the Genoa conference on this subject.
"The committee strongly recommends that all states should endeavour to ensure that their customs tariffs should remain applicable over substantial periods of time, and that changes in rates and classifications should be effected as seldom as possible and only when they are required by the essential economic needs of the country."
That resolution, according to the report of the assembly, was unanimously adopted by the assembly of the League of Nations at its last session. Now I read these resolutions not for the purpose of helping to foster the impression that in speaking of stability in matters of tariff the action of the government contemplates finality in any particular or in any direction. I rather wish to bring home to the members of this House, as far as may be possible, what has become so apparent to the statesmen of other parts of the world, that if we are to get away from the unsettled conditions of the present, if we are to restore confidence among the nations of the world, if once more this world is to be brought back to the order which prevailed prior to the Great War, we must all seek, in whatever directions we can, particularly in our international relations, to establish something in the nature of a reasonable stability. That is all we are aiming at. We do not intend to sacrifice in any particular the needs of any class of our citizens or the needs of industry, the needs in any direction of consumers or of producers, but what we do wish to make clear is that, so long as conditions continue to exist as they are at present, so long as on the part of the United States, the tariff wall remains what it is against us, and in Europe the unsettled condition continues to be what it is, and so long, may I add, as Canada remains the only country that has reduced its tariff since the Great War, while other countries continue to put up their tariffs, for that period of time at least we shall give to those who are interested in investing their capital and establishing industry in this country, and who are seeking to restore business to a higher level of development, assurance that there will not be unstability where stability ought to prevail.


Mr. GOOD:: Does the Prime Minister think that stability on a wrong and false basis would help to allay unrest?

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope I have made it plain to my hon. friend that the world has been on a wrong and false basis, and that we are trying to get it on a right and sound basis, and the only way in which that can be done is by having regard, not for an imaginary world, but for the world in which we are living. If my hon. friend says that it is a wrong and unsound thing that all the nations of the world should have tariff walls erected against one another, I say that in principle I agree entirely with the hon. member; but if he says the way to cure the evil is for one country, perhaps the smallest of the lot, to throw down its tariff walls, while the rest of the world keeps up its tariff walls, I say that he would be a long way from providing a remedy for the condition which he hopes to cure.
Perhaps the best evidence of whether or not the government's action in proceeding slowly and cautiously, as it has done in the matter of the tariff, is a wise and a good one, may be borne out by a few statistics that more or less speak for themselves.
I shall give the House just a few figures and with that conclude. We have heard from one quarter quite a wail about the alleged deplorable condition of our country; but that is not going to help to improve the situation. It would do much more for Canada if we let it be known throughout the world exactly where and how we stand in the matter of economic revival. I have brought together a few figures as nearly up-to-date as possible for purposes of comparison, and I think they show conclusively the direction in which we are heading at the present time. These figures, by the way, I have obtained from the statistical department of the government. The figures are as follows:
The estimated outlay on building operations during the month of April, 1922, was $14,047,198; during April, 1923, it was $17,544,061, an increase of over three and a half millions of dollars.
Canada's trade for the month of April, 1922, was estimated at $80,347,495, made up of imports, $47,695,454, and exports, $32,652,041. Our trade for the month of April, 1923, was $122,509,396, made up of imports, $68,181,320, and exports, $54,328,076, an increase in the one month of 1923 of $42,161,901. This is equivalent to an increase of about half in the total trade of last year.
Bank clearings, in April, 1922, amounted to $1,213,021,399; in April, 1923, they amounted to $1,267,520,018, or an increase in the one month of 1923 of $54,498,619.
Savings deposits, another barometer of prosperity or the reverse, were for January, February, March, 1922, $1,184,703,596; for January, February, March, 1923, $1,218,295,721, or an increase in those three months of $33,592,125.
The figures on immigration are still small but they reveal a similar increase for the first four months of 1922. There were 16,774 immigrants landed in Canada as against 22,240 for the first four months of 1923, or an increase of 32i per cent. But that is only the beginning of our immigration for this year.
The question of employment has been referred to at different times. The Department of Labour works out what it describes as an index of employment on percentage basis of the available labour supply. For the 1st of May, 1922, the index number was 83.3; for the 1st May, of this year, 1923, the index number stands at 91.44.
These figures which reflect the trade of our country, the savings of our people, the employment of our people, and which reflect clearly and beyond dispute the national progress, are more eloquent of the position of our country than any words can possibly be.
I would say to my hon. friends, instead of striving to make the condition of this country out to be what none of us would wish to have it, they should lay the emphasis and stress lather on those things in which we have good ground to take pride and satisfaction.
With respect to the budget proposals which the Minister of Finance has brought down, let me say just one word in conclusion. If there is one thing above another for which at this time this country has reason to be grateful to Providence, it is that we have had spared to guide us in matters of finance and tariff, the grand old gentleman at whose side in this parliament I have the honour to be seated.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, up in the York valley where I live, there is an old settlers' road that has been in use now for over one hundred years, and on one side it is backed by a very high hill, very much wooded and very steep. It is altogether sheltered from the sun, and from that day to this the old name given to it by the settlers has been retained, that of Greenland. The snow never melts in the spring, and there are in the hillside two openings through which the winds blow at all times. As I say, the settlers called it Greenland. When I look at the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) down there in the

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
Greenland of this House, and when I listen to the speech that has just been delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the thought comes back to me of a statement once made by the late Goldwin Smith, who was a great student of English as well as Canadian politics. He said:
A great deal of the time of the public men of Canada :s devoted to the respective amount possessed by each of the doubtful virtue of consistency.
We have heard a good deal of that to-day; we heard a good deal of it yesterday, and on different occasions we have heard a good deal of it in this House. Still, my sympathy is with my hon. friend down there in Greenland.
I have just this to say about the speech of the'Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Having always been a Conservative and a believer in making Canada a self-contained country, I am pleased to hear him make the speech that he has made to-day. He professes to be a protectionist, and he now professes to be in favour of Canada having industries of various kinds of her own. Yet, when he says that, and when I endorse it, still there is a grievance on the part of the people of our western country, and still there is a grievance in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in connection with the way in which the war has treated the people there, and they believe something should be done for the development of those provinces. If I take the occasion of the discussion of the budget to refer to some public questions, I am not going for the moment any more into the subject before the House than to say that I cannot vote for the amendment and I cannot vote for the budget. Recognizing the urgency before hon. members to get away during this evening so that th:y may return home for the holiday, I am going to take the little time I have at my disposal to discuss two public questions of some concern to the people.
_ I begin by saying that the greatest railway in the world to-day is the Canadian National Railway system, the only shareholders of which are the people of Canada. The second greatest railway in the world to-day is the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is not owned by the people of Canada, but which was largely subsidized by the people of Canada by way of land grants, legislation and bonus, and which is owned by a private company. These two roads have come now somewhat into competition One is a publicly-owned road and the other is a company-owned road. The people in the province from which I 
come, indeed the people in my riding, are great believers in public ownership. Not only have we our share in the National railways; but the province of Ontario has a splendid system of railways, publicly owned up in northern Ontario. In Toronto we own the street railway system and in Ontario we own and control radial roads. We also have a hydro system for the distribution of electricity, and we are absolute believers in public ownership as applied to public services. We are glad to have the National Railways to-day; they are making headway and I have no doubt will soon prove a great success. But it seems that the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has been dealt with so generously by the people of this country, is gradually creating, perhaps, a party in this House, and certainly a sentiment in the country, through the press and in other ways, which has a tendency to destroy confidence in the public-owned railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway evidently wants to have the National system crippled or destroyed, or at all events to have it turned over to itself. That will never come to pass in this country. If such a thing should happen, Mr. Speaker, it would simply establish a sort of boss-ship that would make life in this country intolerable and almost impossible. It would destroy our political institutions, for there would be a railway boss in Canada to whose dictation the government would be subject; indeed, parliament and the press would be equally subject to that dictation. And yet you can see this process working in Canada; the suggestion is being disseminated throughout the country that the National Railways ought to be destroyed or at least turned over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway professes to be, and as a matter of fact, by right of citizenship in Canada, is a shareholder in the National roads; and if my good friend, Mr. Beatty, and those associated with him in the railway business find themselves in competition with the public-owned roads, let them compete with those roads. Do not, however, let them seek to destroy the National system; they must give that system a race for the money, and put up a competition against it in the matter of service. They may win out, but I do not think that is possible. Of course, they can spend the enormous reserve which the Canadian Pacific Railway possesses to-day and devote that money to an intensive competition with the National Railways, but I believe that such a competition would ultimately prove ineffective, and they would not get much support from their shareholders if they attempted a policy of that kind the object of which would

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
be to squander the reserves of the company in any such competition. But, I say, let them go on; I do not think that the National system need have any fears.
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Canadian National Railway system is the greatest institution of its kind in the world to-day. It is made up of the Grand Trunk, now seventy years old, the old Canadian Northern, the Mackenzie and Mann Northern, the Transcontinental, and many other roads that have been taken in; and this National system to-day has the marked characteristic of possessing almost the entire strategic advantage of transportation from one coast of Canada to the other. It possesses everything on the St. Lawrence, in the old city of Quebec and in Montreal. It comes to lake Ontario by the St. Lawrence route and has all the strategy of position at Toronto and Hamilton. It commands particularly the strategy of the Niagara river and the Detroit river, it has the sites of bridges and tunnels, it has much of the land along these shores,, and it possesses wharves and everything of that kind. Similarly, it enjoys all advantages of this kind along the Welland canal to lake Erie and the upper lakes. Now I come to the right-of-way, and I will say for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as I have always said, that in the building of the Transcontinental railway there was accomplished the greatest piece of railway strategy on the North American continent. The Transcontinental railway built by the Laurier government from the city of Quebec to Winnipeg is a splendid stretch of railway. It has the best grade in America and is on a height of land from which the water runs to Hudson bay on the north and on the south to the lower lakes. It has, I believe, a better grade than any ojther road on the American continent; and besides this, it has the whole strategy, so far as transportation is concerned, in crossing the Rocky mountains through the Yellowhead pass. So that I am convinced that the Canadian National railway system is bound to be a great success. To-day it is in the hands of excellent men who understand the railway question and most of whom are Canadians; and I believe they are getting a fair opportunity from the government to work out a solution of the problem before them.
. The road has been making some deficits, and this fact is constantly brought up against public ownership. But as a Canadian I declare that the roads we have taken over are going to be a great success. They are going to solve the transportation problem of this country, and I have no doubt about their future. I
have faith in my country and believe that we are going to surmount the difficulties that have followed in the wake of the war; and one of the greatest means by which we shall, recover from the war will be the development of our transcontinental railway system owned by the people.
We have spent a great deal of public money in making waterways in Canada and these are of course complementary of the railways. The two can be utilized together and in that way I am sure they could be more efficient than the Canadian Pacific Railway; and perhaps some day when the air-ways have been sufficiently developed they will be able to work in conjunction with the dual system of the waterways and the railways. Altogether, the people of the West and of the East, being, I believe, of the"opinion that the National Railways are a valuable asset to this country, I entertain the hope that they will soon make good. But I think there is room for the Canadian Pacific Railway as well. And if the Canadian Pacific Railway is wise, some day perhaps it will see its way to become a part of the National system. There is no reason for the separate existence of the two, except the reason advanced by some of my friends from the West, that they desire competition between the two systems. Be that as it may, I believe that some day the two roads will have to be consolidated.
And now that I have spoken of these two examples of railways, one an instance of most successful private ownership, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the other an example of a publicly owned system of railways which I am sure is going to be successful in the near future, I desire to take up the question of the merits of the company-owned road which is being lauded so much in this country, in the press and elsewhere. As a matter of fact the greatest wreckage since the war, and not caused by the war, has occurred in connection with the American system of company-owned railways. These have been absolutely scrapped. Even the private roads of Great Britain are in very bad shape, but the private systems in America are absolutely at the end of their tether to-day. They have three great tasks before them, namely, first, the reconstruction of all their tracks; secondly, the electrifying of their motive power; and last the reequipment of their rolling stock. They cannot get money, because the public have no confidence in them, and the United States congress has by legislation directed the railway commission over there to put a valuation on all these roads. Further, congress has provided for the consolidation of the roads into ten regional divisions, the weak roads along
3058	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
with the better roads, the idea being to endeavour if possible to put them on a sound basis. But the only way in which this can really be done is for the treasury of the United States to come to their rescue; and I predict, after a careful study of the proposition, that even the great New York Central will not be able to finance itself now; and I do not think that either the Pennsylvania or the minor roads have any future before them. So clearly was congress impressed by these circumstances that, as I have said, it ordered a re-valuation of the roads; and congress 3 believe will be forced to come to their relief, and take the position which one of the ministers of the late government in Canada took when relief was sought for the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. He said, "I readily gave them money to help them out, knowing they would come back to me for more, and then I would get the roads." Well, the American government will acquire the company-owned roads of the United States in very much the same way, and they will co-ordinate them into a single system as publicly owned railways. So those who deplore the fact that public ownership of railways cannot succeed in this country had better ponder how the company owned roads have failed in the United States.
There is room in this country for two great railway systems, but there is not room for any ascendancy of the Canadian Pacific either from political or an economic point of view. The executive of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company must be content to face the situation as it is. If they care to work in co-operation with the National Railways, I have no objection. The two companies might very well pool some of the business, for there are unnecessary trains run by both roads that could be cut out. The National road which possesses the best grades and the best strategy in transportation would be willing, I imagine, to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway running rights on terms.
But be that as it may, I have every confidence in the National Railways, and I am sure parliament will enact any necessary legislation for their improvement. I was talking to a friend the other day. a Senator, who has a proposal to meet the situation as it presents itself to him. He told me that probably we might have to put our railways under a somewhat improved board to what we have now, and he suggested that we might very well get men of the standing of Sir Joseph Flavelle, to become members of such a trust or board. I know we can get men of his stamp. But even if we do not, with 
the management we have at present I have every confidence in the success of our National Railways as against the success of the company owned railways in the United States, and I am certain that under a fair revaluation, which would involve a considerable reduction of their present capitalization, our National Railways, while they may not be able to earn very large dividends, will at least in a very short time show a surplus sufficient to pay a low rate of interest on the debenture issues, and will continue to give the country good transportation service. This is a splendid asset owned by the people of Canada-we are the shareholders. The shareholders of the Canadian Pacific are not confined to Canada, there are some in the United States, some in Great Britain and some in other countries of Europe, but if they have any regard for the future of their investment they will be prepared at no distant date to make an arrangement with the Canadian National System.
This is an appropriate time in which to bring before the House a subject that touches the economics not only of Canada but of the world. Notwithstanding all that we have suffered from the war, notwithstanding the accumulation of riches in some of the countries which participated in the war, and notwithstanding the enormous gold reserve that the United States has created, there is something that is astounding in the condition of the world to-day, and yet our bankers and our economists more or less ignore it. This subject has been brought to our attention in this House and it is coming before us again. I refer to the awful gambling in the staples of life that is carried on on the great stock exchanges of the world. On the Chicago grain exchange and on the New York produce exchange the great staples of life are dealt in-wheat, oats, flour, barley, cotton, sugar, and so on. The rising price of sugar has been a matter of public discussion during the last few weeks both in this country and in the United States, and some relief has been secured here partly because of the action taken by a committee of this House and partly because the *women of this country have set their faces against the use of sugar at present prices. There is no doubt that enormous gambling is going on in connection with the sugar supply of the world. A great deal of the discontent that exists throughout the world to-day is due to this heartless gambling in the staples of life. As an apologist for the sugar refiners of Canada pointed out the other day-I refer to the Montreal Gazette-there are a lot of gougers who have

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
their own money and the credit of the banks behind them and they deal in futures, which is one of the main causes of the discontent that prevails to-day against unfair economic conditions.
Now, the problem before us to-day is:	How can we take the gambling element out of these bogus transactions in the staples of life, that is, cotton, sugar, flour, meats, and so forth. One deplorable feature is that nearly all the bankers of the world and the great newspapers and periodicals more or less justify this economics scourge of gambling in staples. If as the bankers and the great newspapers and periodicals say, there must be this dealing in futures, why do they not call for the creation of a department in every government for its further development? Our universities ought to have departments devoted to the elucidation of the principles that underlie this gambling in futures. But nothing is done. I will tell you how bad the condition has become. In the United States the people are thoroughly aroused to the fact that there is something wrong with the sugar market, and the government, through its attorney general, applied to the courts for an order prohibiting the produce exchange and the sugar exchange in New York from dealing in futures. The application was refused, but he is appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, and I believe he will get an injunction. The United States is building up a great engine for the purpose of regulating this awful gambling in grains,' in sugar, in cotton, in hides and all things of that kind. It is grad-usually reorganizing its financial and banking system. It has created a great reserve bank system in which every bank of the country has to have membership if it wishes to get along. The whole financial organization of that country to-day is under the control of congress, of the government, just as their railways have been under the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission. What the United States is going to do, as I size it up, through the control they have over the banks, is to take some step which will place this gambling business also under control. My prophecy is that the banks of the United States will be forbidden to use the savings of the people for the promotion of gambling in futures in the great staple commodities. That is the only cure I see for this condition which has come upon us.
You can observe how it is working out in connection with the sport of racing. We have allowed racing in this country, and it is now
getting away beyond the people's control. We have some legislation bearing upon the subject, and in England also they have some enactments designed to stop gambling of that kind. Men who never raised horses or who know nothing about the breeding of horses are putting up great sums in connection with races, and most of them lose. The same thing goes on in connection with this speculation in the main staples of the country. I do not quite know how it is to be stopped, but it must come to an end by some means. The sugar troubles of the people of Canada, which were emphasized here in the last week or two, had their origin in this scourge of gambling in futures. I wonder how much attention the farmers of the West have paid to the awful exploitation of wheat and their other crops in connection with ventures on the Chicago wheat exchange? It is time that the parliament of Canada and the congress of the United States took some steps in this matter. I would not like to see the state have to go into the management of the grain business of this country, but such a course may be forced upon the people if there is no other relief from the present condition.
It is out of order to refer to what is going on in the Banking committee or the Agriculture committee in the House, but there is one measure to which I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister, namely, the need of a new franchise act which will recognize equality of citizenship between men and women, which will recognize that all are entitled to some kind of representation and that the vote of one citizen is as good as that of another. We have not so far had that condition recognized in this country. Now, the Prime Minister may go to England this summer to take part in an imperial conference. I would like to hear some explanation in this House before the Prime Minister goes as to what may be the procedure in that discussion. Are the dominions to have equal votes with the Mother Country, or is there to be a leader of some kind? Are commitments to be made concerning Canada before we have had an opportunity of discussing them here? To my mind, before that conference is held there ought to be a full and fair discussion in parliament; the whole question should be threshed out *-of what part we are to take in it, ol whether we are to be bound by any commitments without parliament having first been consulted, and also whether one of the results of the conference will not be to give us what has been given to Australia, namely, the right to make and revise our own constitution as we wish.
3060	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
Now, these may not be questions immediately connected with the tariff, but they are questions which concern the welfare of this country, and I bring them up chiefly for the purpose of giving rise to further discussion of them. We have a national system of railways that is going to prove a success. We have a country that will recover itself, notwithstanding the setback it has experienced. While business may not at present be so good, there is a great future ahead of this country. We will get more immigrants; there will be a better settlement of our land, but most of all we must find a way of remedying the grievance of our Canadian West as well as of the Atlantic coast sections. These things are before us and they must be dealt with. The grievances do exist; my sympathy is largely with those w'ho present them. I hope, therefore, that we shall soon have legislation with respect to banking, legislation in the direction of creating a system of credit for the benefit of farmers of the West, and that prosperity will once again come to our country and to all countries of the world. According to this morning's papers there does seem to be hanging over the world the cloud of another war, and we have to devise a fiscal policy for ourselves that will make us independent and able to get along without those nations who would throw the world again into war. Parliament can well afford to give more of its time to the discussion of these things, and to making Canada self-sufficient for her present and her future greatness.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the members who have spoken in expressing respect and good will toward the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I do this notwithstanding the fact that I feel compelled to differ from him in respect to several of the proposals he has put forward.
The budget contains many matters of very great importance to the country, and I propose to discuss very briefly two or three of these. In the first place, the minister asks for authority to negotiate a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States. With that proposal I am in full accord; I heartily commend it. I do not share the view which the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) expressed, that it would find no favour in the country; on the contrary, I think it would find the greatest favour. It does not seem to have been received with entire approval at Washington, and I think that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) was quite right in saying that it

would probably have received a much better reception had we had there a Canadian representative whose business it would be to encourage better relations between these two countries.
The budget provides for a reduction in the duty on sugar, which is all to the good. It provides for an increase in the British preference which is so slight as far as I can see that it will mean nothing to the consumer.
The most significant part of the budget, however, is the reference of the Minister of Finance to stability. A good deal has been said as to what was meant by stability by various members of the government and others. I think that the Minister of Finance is a master of language, and that we can best accept his own words as conveying what he really meant. He says at page 2649 of Hansard:
I think the country should be content to accept the tariff as it will now stand as one as fair and reasonable as can be prepared under all the circumstances, and business men should be able to carry on various enterprises without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes.
I think that is absolutely clear. The minister of Finance regards the present fiscal policy as one which should be fixed. There may be incidental changes, but as a general policy that tariff should be fixed for the present at least, subject only to what may occur in connection with reciprocal trade relations with the United States. Now with that statement I entirely dissent. Apart altogether from the question of free trade or protection, or of a protective policy, I think the time has arrived now when there should be a review of our whole fiscal system, that we should look over the situation that exists in Canada, review what has happened during the last forty or fifty years, and then frame a policy which would be in the best interests of the country.
It was the hope of many in 1879, when the National Policy was adopted that Canada might be made largely a self-contained country, a place where we would produce and make nearly eveiything we required to use or consume. How far we have got in that direction it is not easy to say, but the trade returns of our imports, comparing 1879 with the last fiscal year, show that in 1879 we imported goods to the value of $80,000,000, and in 1923 goods- to the value of $802,000,000, just ten times as much. In the meantime our population just about doubled, so put in another way we now import per capita goods to the amount of $90 whereas forty years ago we imported goods to the value of only $18 per capita. Since then there has been a

The, Budget-Mr. Hudson
change in the value of money, that is, a dollar then would buy much more than a dollar now, but that difference would only account for a small part of the increase. Now that increase in imports is due no doubt to several causes, but there is one cause that I think is well worthy of comment, and it is of much larger operation in the business of the country than is generally appreciated. That is the fact that with scientific discoveries, new inventions, improvements in the arts, the general desire of all civilized people to maintain the same standard of living, to have the same conveniences, the same pleasures of life, the same labour-saving devices and the same transportation facilities, there has been created an ever-widening circle of new wants, making it more and more difficult for any country to supply its requirements from within its own territory. This same rule applies to all countries in the world, all countries at least that are advancing. Take the United States for example, a country with a great diversity of climate, a 5 p.m. great diversity of products, a great diversity of soils, and yet there we find they are importing more and more from the outside world. Notwithstanding even the Fordney tariff they continue to import more and more. We sell them more goods from Canada now than we did a year ago. The Fordney tariff, high as it is, is not sufficient to form a barrier against that economic law. Now countries in that respect vary greatly. We in Canada are subject to very considerable limitations that do not exist in the United States, for example, climatic, geographical, and a limitation in natural resources of some kinds.
In the debates in 1879, when the National Policy was adopted, one of the strongest arguments put forward was by Sir Charles Tupper, and it ran something like this: He said that in England and the United States they had great deposits of coal and iron; in Belgium they had the same; that by reason of the development of these two resources England and the United States had become great and wealthy, and Belgium wealthy. He said: Here in Canada we have vast deposits of iron ore, vast deposits of coal, and by reason of these two things, if we establish a protective policy, something to care for the industries dependent on the production of iron and steel, we will soon ourselves become wealthy and great. Well, that policy was adopted in 1879, and the protective tariffs in respect of those particular industries were then put in force, and what is the result? In the year 1922 there was not a pound of iron ore produced in Canada that 196
was smelted in Canada. During the last few years the production of iron ore has dwindled to the point of practically nothing. Last year we exported a few thousand tons which was smelted in furnaces in the United States, but here in Canada we find that these great deposits of iron ore which were going to provide the wealth of the country are not being developed, or they are unfit for development, or are so situated that they cannot be economically developed. The mills of Nova Scotia get their iron ore from Switzerland, Sweden and Spain. The mills of Ontario get their iron ore from the United States. All the steel made in Canada is made from foreign ore. The machines we make in Canada out of iron and steel are made out of the products of another country, and the same thing in regard to other products of various kinds sugar, cotton and other textiles.
We are not a self-contained country; we can never be a self-contained country. We have to recognize that we cannot live alone, that we are part of a great world, and that more and more as the years go by we will deal with other countries, irrespective of tariffs. That being so, having to buy more and more, we have to pay for what we buy. How are we going to pay for it. In addition to paying for what we buy, we have to pay $180,000,000 or more per year interest on debts due to foreigners in foreign countries. How are we going to pay that interest and pay for what we have to buy? We can only pay by what we export. What do we export and what can we export? We export the same kind of things that we exported in 1879, largely; that is, the products of the farm, the sea and the forest; they may be in a partially improved form, but, generally speaking, we are confined to these three resources. In the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1922, we exported goods to the value of $931,000,000. Of that sum $772,000,000 was made up of products of the farm, the sea and the forest. There should be a deduction made from the total because of sugar, but a clear eighty per cent of the total exports were made up from those three sources. It was true in 1879, and is still true-and it seems to me that the wise policy in Canada is to recognize the fact-that if we are going to maintain our place in the race of civilization we have to depend on those main sources upon which we depended forty years ago. The products of the mine do not represent a very large percentage of our exports. The exports of manufactured articles amount to a small percentage, this part of our trade being hampered by foreign tariffs. Many of our manufacturers

The Budget-Mr. Hudson

complain very bitterly about the iniquity of foreign countries imposing tariffs which prevent them from getting their goods into those countries. That is a condition that may exist for some time. Then, take the country where we have an open market. In the United States we have an open market for at least two commodities manufactured in Canada, namely boots and shoes and farm machinery, and yet we find that our Canadian manufacturers who have had the benefit of this protective tariff for forty years are not yet able to compete in the largest and most profitable market in the world which is open to them. For that reason, I say it is folly to spend any time encouraging new manufacturers, especially by artificial means. I think the minister has made a mistake in including in his budget this year provision for new duties. I take as strong exception to that as I do to the proposal to bonus new industries. I think industries in Canada should be established only on the basis of their own economic strength. My view is, first, that the government should have set their faces firmly against these demands for new duties and demands for bonuses; and secondly, that they should have considered, not merely the manufacturers of eastern Canada, but the producers of Canada as a whole as well. One would assume from the speeches which have been delivered in this part of the House that the fiscal policy was designed for the benefit of only one class of people, and my complaint against this budget is that it entirely neglects the other class of people.
There has been a good deal said about the question of sectionalism in Canada. This has been spoken of by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and by some members on this side of the House. And it is a serious question, much more serious than many members of this House are willing to recognize. So far as the west is concerned, it is reflected in practical solidarity by one party in this House, a party not connected with either of the two principal and old political parties of this country. That solidarity means something; it means not merely Progressivism or Farmers' party, or anything of that sort, but it means that there is a sense of a real grievance out there, a sense that a wrong is being done to the population of that territory, about 2,000,000 people, who think alike to the extent of probably eighty or ninety per cent. What has been done towards examining the source of their complaints? We hear a good deal of discussion about various things. Some hon. members on this side of the House have said

"Why do you talk so much about tariff? You have far greater reason to grumble about freight rates and transportation costs? The tariff does not mean so much in dollars and cents." I would just remind those gentlemen that a tariff is a tax, and an unjust tax means a good deal more than the money exacted. The feeling of injustice is a feeling which produces a great many results that one does n t care to contemplate. Hon. members will remember that it was a tax of something like twelve shillings imposed on one John Hampden that ended in the loss of the head of King Charles I. The unjust tax has a psychological effect which many exactions in Other ways do not have, and that is something which governments of both political parties have failed to recognize. The situation in western Canada in regard to the tariff is different from that in eastern Canada in one respect, at least. In western Canada we produce, generally speaking, one commodity, namely wheat. That is the great source of wealth there. The total value of wheat and wheat flour for export, which is practically all produced in western Canada amounts to $312,000,000-one-third of the total exports of Canada.
The people who produce that get no benefit from the tariff, though they bear the burden. And that is the reason why they complain; that is the reason why they will complain until some satisfactory adjustment is made; and that is the reason why I suy that the government in this instance has failed in its duty in not considering the peculiar position of those people out there. Some of us out there realized the situation; some of us believed that a Compromise might be found in the Liberal platform of 1919. We believed that that might be found acceptable to the people of western Canada in regard to that particular question. As far as one can judge from the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), there is no hope now of those portions of the plank of the Liberal platform being carried out by the present government. That being so, I feel compelled to vote against the government's proposals in this case.


John Lawrence Stansell: Mi.
Speaker, it is with some degree of diffidence that I, as one of the "children of this world" attempt at this time to offer any criticism of the budget, presented by a party that style themselves "the children of light." I can take comfort only in the fact that I have long held the view that saints are created as a result of deeds done in the body, and not as a result of any assertions on their part.
In common with others who have preceded me, I feel that I must extend sincere con-

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
gratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on having spent about forty years in the service of his country, a fact which any man might well be proud of, and on having been able in that time to present the House and the country with seventeen budgets, an accomplishment also worthy of mention. I said that I wished to convey my sincere congratulations. I do not propose to qualify those congratulations by a wholesale condemnation of the provisions of the budget. We realize, I think, that the minister has had a difficult task imposed upon him. Under present conditions it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to please everyone, and I presume the Minister of Finance himself, old parliamentarian as he is, does not expect that the bouquets that we throw in his direction will be entirely denuded of any thorns that might be attached to the stems. Therefore, while commending many features in connection with the budget, I desire to draw attention to a few things that, I think, are not so commendable.
Amongst the exemptions from the operation of the sales tax, I am pleased to notice one feature. I had occasion to make some requests for the exemption of the sales tax as applied to drain tile for farm drainage purposes. I can imagine that it is very difficult in applying the sales tax, where it is neces-to raise revenue, to single out a few articles that should be exempted. In a few words, a should like to point out why, in my judgment, this particular article should be exempted from the operation of the sales tax. It is well known that the condition of agriculture at the present time is such that some encouragment is needed. It has been recognized for some time that much can be done to increase production, and at the same time to increase profits, by the practice of underdraining. The provincial governments recognizing this, have in most cases provided, through the municipalities, an arrangement whereby farmers can secure loans for the establishment of under-drainage. This encouragement is provided by a long-term loan repayable in instalments at a low rate of interest. For the federal government to apply a sales tax to the very same article which the provincial government is, in effect, giving a bounty or assistance to, does not appear to be a sound principle. Therefore, in discussing this matter with the Minister .of Finance I represented that to be my view, and in addition, I suppose, other similar representations have been made. I am glaid to note that in the interest of the farmers, this item has been included in the exemptions.
There are also some further changes, particularly with regard to the stamp tax. I cannot see that the stamp tax as applied last session, or as changed as it has been this session, is a fair one for the poor man. It is more a tax in the interest of the rich than in the interest of the poor, and I will endeavour to show why. Under the present condition of many business men and particularly the farmers, it is necessary, in order that they may tide themselves over the present financial depression, for them to secure loans from banks or other sources. A stamp to the extent of two cents for every fifty dollars must be placed on the note by which such a loan is secured. Therefore, when a farmer has to borrow $2,000 from a bank in order to tide him over a financial difficulty, he is taxed because of his misfortune, on the loan, and then because in the operation of sound business principles, that money has again to be paid out by cheque, he is taxed to the same extent over again on the cheque. Therefore, because his cheques are not of sufficient size to obtain any benefit from the minimum tax of $1, he is doubly taxed on the transaction. In comparison with the man who has means of his own or who deals in money in large volume, he is very unjustly taxed under the present system. In my opinion, the minister would have been well advised to have made that tax on both notes and cheques, not to exceed two cents for each $100 instead of two cents for each $50.
The minister in the presentation of his budget referred to the fact that he did not expect to be able to please his friends of low tariff persuasion by going to the extent that they would wish; neither did he expect to please the official opposition by making protection as high as they would wish. I should like to challenge that statement in particular, because I wish to point out that with very few	exemptions	he	is adopting thetariff that was in force by this party that	lie styles	a high tariff party.
But, Sir, he has gone a little further than that and has even attempted to out-Herod Herod by adding a stability clause which the Conservative party never saw fit to propose. We in this corner of the House have openly professed our faith in a protective tariff, not because we wish to protect any particular industry, but because we believe it is better to use the proper name and call a spade a spade. I was very much impressed with thi clear definition of the terms, "protective tariff" and "tariff for revenue" as given by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). In our platform we ask only for
The Budget-Mr. Stansell

that measure of protection which will enable men and money to be employed in Canada; we do not ask for any more than that. Should any interest or any hon. member ask for more? Should any interest or any hon. member expect less? This stability clause is evidently a stumbling block to our friends to the left. It is perhaps a new Liberal doctrine, one never before propounded, and not at all in my judgment in keeping with the one presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) last year. I refer to Hansard of last session at page 2843 wherein the Minister of Finance uses the following words:
I say, in all sincerity, that this budget ought to commend itself to our Progressive friends, not as a finality, not as something that is entirely in line with their own views, but as something which follows the right direction, and, so far as it goes it should have their cordial support.
There is nothing whatever in that about tariff stability, and I am not at all surprised that my friends to my left are disappointed that this stability clause has been inserted. This new doctrine of the Liberal party evidently has just a little too much kick in it for my friends to my left; and there is a suspicion that like another article of commerce of considerable strength, it has its source in Montreal.
In my opinion the most serious feature of the budget is its failure to balance. I am well aware of the many claims which there are upon the revenue of this country, but it is over four years since the war concluded and it seems to me that the time has come when in the interest of the country we should be able to balance revenue and expenditure. I know, too, that it would not be popular at the present time to increase taxation. But there are two methods by which the budget of the private individual, the corporation of the country itself may be balanced; one is an increased revenue and the other a decrease of expenditure. I fully realize the difficulties that present themselves to public men in positions of responsibility when they attempt to keep down expenditure. But I remember, as well, that this government, before they attained power, urged that this should be done. The war was over, they said, and the government of that day should balance the budget. Yet, after two sessions in office, the present Minister of Finance still tells us that there will be a heavy increase in the debt this year and we must look forward to another increase next year.	This is a matter for
serious reflection on the part of every hon.

gentleman. Surely some method might be adopted of curtailing expenditures in order to make the budget balance. A great deal might have been accomplished to encourage immigration and restore confidence in the country if heroic measures had been adopted in this respect, so that the attention of the world might be directed to the condition in which Canada should be financially to-day. Among the various criticisms which might be directed at the provisions of the budget, I am convinced that this is one of the most serious, and .now, their second session in power, hon. gentlemen opposite should have made some earnest attempt to bring down to the House a balanced budget with a promise of a reduction of debt for the year to come.
Let me direct a few words to a subject of great importance, namely, agriculture. I I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a few nights ago and I recalled a statement attributed to the present Minister of Finance -that responsibility sobers men. After listening to the sober reflections, of about three hours' duration, of the Minister of Agriculture, in which he dealt with various subjects including razor-back hogs and dunghill hens and many other things, from the fear of God to the crack of doom, I wondered in what frame of mind the hon. gentleman was before he sobered up. Among other bits of advice that he offered to hon. members of the farming profession on my left, one thing which struck me was his exhortation to pray for rain. He tendered this as a solution of some of the difficulties of the farmer to-day. Well, Sir, in my judgment, if the farming interest in this country was not considered a fit subject for prayer when the minister arose, the House must have been fully seized of the necessity before he sat down.
There is one subject connected with agriculture on which I desire to say something, and that is the accredited herd system operated under the Department of Agriculture. This is something the importance of which has been stressed many times on the floor of the House, and some criticism has been offered because the valuation has been lowered. In my opinion the valuation was not too high, but the trouble was that in many cases an ordinary animal was valued up to the maximum. The, real need of reform lay in the proper valuation of animals under the system that we had. I am well aware, however, that the process of accrediting the pure-bred herds of the country is one that entails a tremendous amount of money and is a great drain on the revenues of Canada, and therefore I wish to

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
point out something which I think should be done in the way of investigation. The exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) in his address on the budget emphasized the necessity for an investigation. It may not be popular for me to say so, but I am going to state what is a well recognized fact among those who are conducting these tests and who are in a position to know. It is not claimed by the best informed of these men that this test as at present applied is perfect; in fact they admit it is only so to the extent of 90 per cent. That refers, however to the number of animals condemned and slaughtered which are found not to have been suffering from the disease. The test is also imperfect in another way, that it does not determine whether an animal simply has the germ of the disease or whether it is in the advanced stages.
But in my judgment the most pressing necessity is for us to know whether the animals which remain are affected through failure of the test to disclose their true condition. I think it is apparent to every hon; member that great as the danger might be in the condemnation of animals not infected it is slight compared to the danger of leaving animals in the herd in which the disease has not been disclosed by the test. Therefore I would strongly recommend to the minister that before further money is voted for this purpose some investigation should be conducted with a view to finding how accurate the test is as applied to the animals left in the herd. There is only one way in which this can be discovered, and in comparison with the total amount of money expended the cost would be only trifling. A few herds of different breeds in localities where the disease is known to exist should be purchased outright by the government, and after the test has been carefully applied by competent men in the department the animals should be slaughtered and a thorough investigation made to determine whether by any possibility the test falls short of disclosing the disease and thus leaving some infected animals in the herd, which of course would be a greater source of danger because we wTould be enjoying a sense of false security by the fact that we thought every animal tested was healthy. This is a serious danger and the amount of money involved is sufficient to justify an investigation being undertaken without delay.
In view of the discussion that has taken place during the past week it is perhaps advisable to consider the needs of agriculture today. We have been endeavouring in this House and in a special committee to find out just what these needs are. I have no desire
to refer to anything that has taken place in that committee, I merely propose to offer a few suggestions on the point from my practical knowledge of farming conditions. One of the first needs of agriculture is a little sympathetic consideration on the part of other interests in this country. I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that radical views are held by some members of the farming profession as well as by those of other professions, but one of the first essentials in the solution of any problem is the spirit in which the different interests concerned get together and compare notes and view the problem from various angles. I have never yet heard the statement from a man who has made a careful investigation into agricultural conditions that farming as a commercial proposition could be made profitable. Now, this is a serious state of affairs. I am not one of those who preach blue ruin, but I do believe in looking conditions squarely in the face.
Then there is the attitude of some members of the party to my left, and I trust they will bear patiently with me if I offer any criticism of their conduct. There is a tendency on the part of many of us when we wish to accomplish certain objects in which we are particularly interested to voice the most extreme* views in order to make them impressive. I fear the representatives of the farming industry have not been entirety free from this charge. Extreme demands on the part of one class will be met by extremes from other professions and deadlock will result. A disposition to sacrifice a little by way of compromise might furnish a solution for present difficulties. Without such action the situation is almost hopeless.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the hon. gentleman tell me just what the agricultural industry could sacrifice to-day to other industries?


John Lawrence Stansell: The hon. member is doing just what I was endeavouring by a gentle hint to prevent him doing. I am quite in sympathy with the attitude of other members who think differently from me, and I am always walling to extend1 to them full liberty of expression of their opinions. As a farmer, I am prepared to say that farmers have made considerable sacrifices; and I must in all justice say as well that many attempts have been made on the part of other interests and of governments to do something to assist the farmers. These efforts may not all have been well directed but it is the part of courtesy and good judgment to give credit for the intentions behind those efforts-just as essential as it is to paint the dark side of the picture regarding agriculture.
The Budget-Mr. Stansell

Apparently there is a tendency on the part of some to feel that all the difficulties of the farmers to-day are due to the tariff. I am not going to say that the tariff does not play some part in these difficulties, but I do say that there are many other things that can be done to improve conditions-many that can be undertaken by the farming interests themselves. One of the outstanding needs of agriculture at the present time is for provision to be made-possibly by the provincial governments-for a system of long-term loans to enable men with small capital to purchase farms at a reasonable rate of interest and with repayment by annual instalments of principal and interest extended over a term of years, possibly twenty or more. I think that is something that every interest in this country should favour. Such a system would do a great deal to encourage immigration to take up farming and it would also tend to keep young men on the farms. The short loans required by farmers for the feeding of stock and similar operations could very well be handled by our present banking system with perhaps a little adjustment.
Another- thing necessary in the interests of the farmers is better marketing facilities. In some respects provision may be made for these facilities through government assistance, but I believe that in the end a solution can only be found in the efforts of the farmers themselves. A great deal has been done by our colleges and our experimental farms to show us how to produce more, but very little has been contributed from those sources to show how to market profitably what we produce and how to conduct our farming operations at a profit to ourselves. Much of the money that is being expended along this line in these institutions might, in my judgment, be even better expended if some attention was devoted to methods of bringing about a better system of marketing and to demonstrating how the various operations of the farm can be conducted at a profit.
Some reference has been made to the Liberal party, now on the government benches. I do not propose to discuss at great length the Liberal platform of 1919; it does not seem to be an agreeable subject to some hon. members. However, the government has been two sessions in office and it is only fair to look over its record thus far and see how well it is living up to expectations. I will give them credit for some things at least. Last session, through a slight reduction in the tariff on farm implements, which was more than offset by an increase in the sales tax, they succeeded in putting an if in the tariff. But this session
'Mr. Stansell.]
they have more than counterbalanced that by putting a raise into raisins. There is one thing, however, that in the two sessions they have failed to do, and that is to put form in their platform. In direct opposition the Finance Minister now makes a stab at tariff stability concerning which the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) made the most eloquent and probably the best explanation that has been given; he said that tariff stability did not mean that the government were not moving at all-I infer also it did not mean that they were making progress in the right direction-but it did mean that they were not easily upset. Well, it seems to me that the people have a right to demand a little bit more than what is involved in that explanation. It is not sufficient to say that they are making progress in a circle and that they are not easily upset; the people who put faith in the tariff platform of the party now in power have a right to ask when the ship is going to make port. I would like to follow this illustration a little further, because it seems to be very apt. When is the ship going to deliver the cargo entrusted to it? There was also chartered by another party in this country a ship to carry a cargo of political professions very similar to the former. Some of us did not have the faith that others did in the quality of those two ships, which were so nearly alike that it was difficult to distinguish between them. Through certain circumstances the one chartered by the Liberal party obtained the right to make the first voyage. Some of the things that were to form part of the cargo of that ship were the following: Tariff reductions, free foodstuffs, free agricultural implements and instruments of production, and so on; relief from taxation, reduction of debt, relief from government by orders in council, a producers' and consumers' tariff, and a number of other things, all of which were promised if the charterers of the ship were given control of the people's affairs. As to tariff reductions, some have been made, but they have been offset by increases and bounties on other articles. The free list has been entirely abandoned. Relief from taxation, especially the sales tax, has been given by an increase in taxation, and reduction of debt has been dealt with by an increase of debt. Freedom from orders in council has been provided to the extent of increasing the number of orders in council, and the producers' and consumers' tariff-none of us seemed to be quite clear what it meant- has been entirely abandoned. The whole thing was styled as responsible government. Now, this ship was equipped with a chart and

The Budget-Mr. Evans
compass, and provisions were necessary for a voyage of that kind. The provisions have been described as "the letter and the spirit." The provision of the letter was made in Ottawa in 1919 while the spirit had its source in another province. If there has been criticism of this phase of the voyage it is that while the ship was well furnished with the spirit there was not quite enough of the more material thing, the letter. A majority of the Canadian people put faith in that ship and in her ability to deliver the goods.
Many of our friends to the left, having a similar ship, were watching with interest the voyage of the one to which I have been referring and anxiously awaiting the delivery of the cargo. Let us try to imagine the feelings of these gentlemen who have been waiting for delivery of the goods. Well, when a wireless was sent asking for an explanation of the delay-the voyage having been continued for seventeen months but still with no port in sight-the hon. member for Brantford explained what tariff stability was. He told all the anxious ones to take comfort, that "we are still right side up,"-he might have added the two accompanying words, "with care." But in my judgment those who put faith in that ship, those who have been anxiously waiting, are entitled to more than that; they are entitled to know how long it will be before this cargo, including substantial reductions in the tariff, is to be delivered. There are some reports-I do not know how true- that some members of the crew became discouraged. We know that one at least has jumped overboard and is attempting to swim to port. It is not expected that he will be able to bring much of the cargo with him. It is also reported that others are about to follow. One of the officers is reported to be suffering from wounds and is now in the south recuperating. The Solicitor-General, so apt in quoting scripture, has gone to his reward. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) from whom much was expected in the way of providing solutions for all the difficulties of the labouring men and the common people, seems to be somewhat shackled. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the bold Lochinvar from out the West, is apparently otherwise employed. The cargo has proven of no value, and the ship is on the rocks. The captain is indisposed and the mate labors to "Budget." These, it seems to me, are some of the conclusions that must be entertained by those who put faith in that particular party.
In closing let me say that in times past there was another ship chartered by the Conservative party, known as the National
Policy. No doubt that party made some mistakes; no doubt they have not kept a perfectly accurate course throughout the whole voyage, but in the main they have tried to steer a safe course in the national interest, avoiding the rocks of high protection on the one hand, and the shoals of free trade on the other-because under present international conditions I believe that free trade can only be adopted as a theory; it cannot be put in practice-therefore, we must avoid the rocks of high protection on the one hand, and the shoals of free trade on the other. In an endeavour to do so we are not advertising stability in the sense that we believe we have reached the point where no further reductions can be made. We are still ready to subscribe to our platform .even though the measure of protection to-day may not be the same measure required five years hence, but we are ready to subscribe to the policy that we only want such a measure of protection as will keep our money and our men employed in Canada-no more and no less. We do not think that anyone should ask for less.
I realize some of the problems affecting our people in the East and some of the problems affecting also our friends in the West. I believe the majority of right-thinking people and especially, may I add, of the Conservative party, will be willing to meet in a compromise and try to do something towards providing a solution for the difficulties that present themselves to the Canadian people to-day in an effort to avoid the rocks and shoals and to carry the ship of state, though not as at present manned, but as we hope it soon will be, safely on to national progress and prosperity.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: The discussion on the budget has turned mostly on the trade of the country, and I wish to discuss it to-night from that standpoint. Tidings are reaching us from different parts of the country of a movement unparalleled in our history, composed of men and women who have spent years of hard work founding a home and raising a family, and indeed from one end of the Dominion comes news of a section of people, although very small, talking of secession. We may well ask ourselves at this time what there is in the government of the country that is out of touch with the problems of humanity as represented by the
The Budget-Mr. Evans

workers of the country, and is there any way to remedy the condition? Now, bad as times have been this last year on the farms of Canada, the government has seen fit to increase the expenses in the coming year, and to continue the process, begun many years ago, of closing up the last gap of liberty that the consumers of the country ever possessed. Notwithstanding all that the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the fact remains that the country did look to the Liberal party as the party of free trade.
Another fact is established conclusively by this budget; that is that the Liberal party is not a free trade party, that it has abandoned the principle that established it as a free trade party, that it is now in line directly with the party -whose forebears established the national policy of trade penalties and that nothing is to be henceforth expected from the Liberal party in the line of free trade more than from the original party of protection. The Prime Minister says that this is not a protectionist budget. I wonder if it can be called a free trade budget. I think he means it is a budget of stability. But is there anything in it that would lead the public to expect some relief from the burden of taxation imposed by the tariff? He said that economists must take their stand in the practical world as they find it. Who are the economists? Since 1897 I have not known of an economist. I have not known of a professor of economy in any of our colleges or universities who has come out with treatises on this subject in a way to guide the public. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that since that time the mouths of the economists have been closed, and for a certain reason. A theory, he said, is different from practice. We must be careful of capital.
What is capital? Is capital only that which is liquid, looking for investment? Is capital only that which is in the hands of the manufacturer invested in a manufacturing industry? Is there no capital invested in the farms of the country by the million men engaged in that industry? What is capital? Referring to the men who have spent twenty years of their life building homes in the new parts of this country, and who now see everything slipping from them by the unjust conditions placed on their backs, I ask this House, in all fairness, is that twenty years of hard work not a very substantial form of capital?
The Prime Minister says he does not object to our theory, but to the methods we adopt to achieve our ends. He speaks of the great men of the past generation in England who have had their names emblazoned on the

pages of history, and he asks, did they take the same methods and leave their party? I am not acquainted with the lives of all those men, but I do know of one in particular, John Bright, who did leave his party. He left his party, formed the Anti-Corn League and was willing to co-operate with any one for the purpose of taking duties off the necessities of life at that time.
The Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) says that if the world needs anything to-day it needs stability in industry, but, in speaking of industry, he forgot to mention agriculture even once. Does the agricultural industry of this country need no stability? If there is one industry in this country more than another that needs stability at this time, it is that one basic industry on which the prosperity of every other industry depends. The Prime Minister says we must take note of what the United States is doing. That is an old protectionist argument. It is venerable only in its age. There is nothing in it. He says we must let the United States know that if they sell they have got to buy. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we can buy our goods from the cheapest market in the world we are bringing the cost of production on our farms in line with the world's prices. Production will then be made easier and our goods for export will be produced somewhat in line with the world's prices. He blames the untoward conditions of agriculture and the country at this time on the Great War, which has now been over for five years He says that through that, the demand lor grain is gone. I want to inform the House to-night that we have about a 75 per cent better price for our grain than we were getting in pre-war days. Grain is the thing we have demand for, and we can sell it at all times. The wheat of western Canada is the chief producer of the income of this country, and it is the only thing on the farms that we are sure of finding a market for at the present time. We are not grumbling at the prices of that product; our grievance is as regards the price of everything we have to buy in order to raise that product.
The lowering of the tariff against Great Britain is more than offset by the restriction placed upon goods coming in, of having them all unloaded at Canadian ports. This will entail a haul of some 540 miles more by rail. It will certainly deprive our Canadian National Railway of a good part of its income, as it cannot be expected that the goods will come in any volume, at least in nothing like the same volume as at present. But evidently in this case the ear of the government has been

The Budget-Mr. Evans
open to the demands of the privileged monopolies rather than to the needs of the people.
The increase also in the duty on raisins is bound to raise the price of a very necessary commodity. "Oh", but you say, "we will get them from Australia." The raisin and current industry in Australia is still simply in the experimental stage, and in any case the Australian people do not have to sell those commodities any cheaper than the Californian price on which we shall have to pay three cents per pound.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) declared that the trade of Canada is passing through a very serious, a very critical time, made critical by the fact of that trade having been established by a tariff. He blames the tariff for that. Yet the government of which he is a member is giving the same privilege to an industry about to be set up in Canada for the first time for the manufacture of artificial silk. After operating for one year, this industry will be entitled to the same consideration as, he says, applies now to all other industries established under the tariff. In other words, this new calf raised on the tariff cow, in forty years time will still have to be fed from the same source. I have never yet heard an advocate of protection put up a logical reason why a trade penalty should be imposed on any article of commerce, particularly the necessities of life. But even from a protectionist standpoint, is there any logic in encouraging the copper industry by a bounty and, at the same time, placing foreign copper on the free list? I am a free trader, but I am trying to look at this from a protectionist standpoint. I confess the ways of the protectionist mind have been a closed mystery to me for a long time. Evidently there is in this an attempt to please the home producer as well as the manufacturer.
This afternoon a change was made in the duty on sugar. To my mind the sugar combine needs no protection. The same gentle men who to-day control the price of sugar in this country, very largely control the credit to the Cuban producers, and they are able to raise or lower the price of the raw product just as they see fit. As I state, they need no protection.
Some of my hon. friends to my right would like to see, in the words of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Man-ion) a tariff commission, so that we could have a scientifically constructed tariff. There can be no such thing as a scientific tariff. No man who has given any thought to that subject will ever try to reconcile the two words "scientific" and "tariff." He might as well
try to say that the Atlantic ocean was dry as to apply the word "science" to the tariff. Science aims at the vindication of natural laws, while tariff taxes are devised for the express purpose of circumventing natural laws as regards trade. A tariff for revenue is just as contradictory, except where it is levied on goods that are not made at home. Great Britain raises revenue by a tariff, and the Conservatives do not forget to tell us about that; but their tariff is placed on articles of luxury and those which are not produced in Great Britain. The British people, after about seventy-five years of the freest kind of trade in the modern world, will not allow the skinning process to go on that our taxpayers are subjected to.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), speaking the other evening, declared that the tariff is not understood by some of us who undertake to discuss it. He informs us that it is a .study in natural psychology whatever that means. I want to inform my hon. friend that one thing we on this side of the House know quite well, is that the tariff is a privilege given to one class. Somebody has to pay for that privilege and we know very well who pays for it. If it ic-simply the hallucination of a disordered mind, as he suggests, I submit that that state belongs rather to those who fancy a tariff confers a right by law to get something for nothing, than to those who are plundered. It may be said that all citizens, all city dwellers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics and others, are taxed alike to bear the burden of the tariff placed upon other classes; but the doctor, or the lawyer, or the mechanic sets the remuneration for his services according to the cost of living. Even the working man, the labourer, through organization, is able to maintain the same high rate for his services, and still to pass the tariff tax on to someone else. That someone else, more particularly than any other in this country, is the farmer, and since his price is set for him by the open markets of the world, he is not able to pass on to others the unjust burden that the manufacturer of the com modities he needs places upon all other classes. The farm products of this country must be sold in competition with the product of all the cheapest labour throughout the whole world, including Europe and Asia alike. The United States farmers have been disillusioned since the Fordney tariff has been placed against us in that country. I want to read an extract from an editorial I received the other day because nothing better exposes the fallacy of the protective tariff. Look at it

The Budget-Mr. Evans
from any angle you like, it is a fallacy, whether it is to increase prices in favour of the farmers or is intended to raise revenue. This editorial says:
A committee of experts employed by the Fair Tariff League of the United States have estimated that on the agricultural schedule farmers in the state of Kansas gain $260,000 as producers and lose $2,500,000 as consumers, while on manufactured goods the farmers of the State gain $257,000 and lose $30,000,000.
This committee has started a similar investigation in Nebraska and the farmers are beginning to see the nigger in the tariff woodpile. The time has about arrived when the Canadian farmer will no longer be the beast of burden of this nation as he has been in the past and will not suffer the taunts and insults that have been thrown at him by all other classes, including indeed some of the members of this House, simply because he seeks to make known the truth in regard to the conditions that surround him. Even the Minister of Agriculture-*


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What is the trouble with the hon. gentleman?


John Evans: I was going to say that the Minister of Agriculture himself describes the statements of a patriotic minority who seek to make known the truth in this House as so much bluff; he regards it as a game, at which he was playing, some time ago himself. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) also says that the Progressive party has been wholly misled by false literature, and has been making reckless insinuations regardless of the facts. In other words, I suppose he means that they are too ignorant to know better. But the strange thing about agriculture these days is that no one knows anything about it except those who have never been at it, or those who have been at it and failed and have recently taken refuge, perhaps in the Civil Service, or in other branches of business, perhaps on some experimental farm or on some commission, or even, perhaps, in politics.
There is even unfairness to-day in the difference of attitude on the part of the government as between city and rural dwellers. Since confederation everything has been sacrificed in this country to the building up of the cities, and I believe that even in the Civil Service there is great unfairness and partial-it}* as between the country and the city employees. I was asked to mention in this particular the plight of one class of men to-day who are not receiving a fair remuneration for their work, or anything that bears any comparison to the wages paid to a similar class of men in the Civil Service. I refer to

the rural mail carriers. They are entitled to something more than they are getting. They are men who have to brave all kinds of weather and furnish their own outfit, and they are bound down by a contract to deliver their mail on time. I was asked to make a plea for them, and seeing the justice of their demand I do not hesitate to do so, nor do I apologize.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) declared that last year certain manufacturers realized the necessity for the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement and although this was against their own interests, the hon. member said, they were not complaining. As a matter of fact, all manufacturers have been depicted in this House as the most docile class of men, bearing with fortitude the hard conditions that are imposed upon them at the present time and never squealing. Well, why should they squeal? What have the manufacturers to complain of? Their will is dominant in this House. They have been served since 1879 submissively by the government of this country irrespective of party, and the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) declaring that they have been served better by the present government than under his regime, quoted a list of farm implements which have been increased in price in proof of that assertion.
From the Progressive standpoint, the whole controversy that has taken place in this debate,-all the speeches delivered yesterday, able and eloquent speeches, by the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and others-has been as to which party has been serving the big interests the best, which has been most faithful to the principle of protection. Sir Richard Cartwright declared at the Ottawa Convention in 1893, as reported at page 42 of the official report of that convention, that up to that time, after only thirteen years of the National Policy, hardly less than $1,000,000,000 had been filched from the pockets of the people for the purpose of entrenching the oppressors of this nation in power and enabling them to defeat the wishes of the people. What have they to complain of? By a law they were made the wards of this nation in 1879, and by 1897 they had become its masters; and since then the government of this country has been, irrespective of parry, obedient to all their wishes. That $1,000,000,000 represents more than the whole of the indemnity that Germany dared to impose upon France after the war of 1871; the total sum which the victors dared exact, from a vanquished nation of forty millions was taken from the pockets of the Canadian people during the first thirteen years of the Na-

The Budget-Mr. Evans
tional Policy, in a country with a population at that time of less than five millions. Now, Sir Richard was accepted at that time all over the Dominion as the greatest authority on trade statistics.
But let us take the next fourteen years, up to 1907, the date of the second Fielding tariff revision. Assuming that Sir Richard was right in his computation as to the first thirteen years, the years between 1893 and 1907 must have robbed this nation of one and a half billion of dollars, because during that time we increased in population by one and a half millions, and the dutiable items had increased from three hundred and forty to four hundred and eighty; besides it was during this period that certain provinces gave substantial aid to the steel industry and many municipalities aided the establishment of certain industries within their own borders.
But I come to another phase of the question. Is the money cost all that is to be considered? What was, the moral cost in all those years? The right hon. leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday the seriousness of a government scrapping its pre-election pledges. Now, in the same speech of Sir Richard Cartwright I gleaned the following:
It must be obvious to everyone who will give the slightest consideration to the working of the protective system in this country or elsewhere that the moment you introduce that system you make legal provision for corruption on a most extensive scale. The moment you introduce the protective system you create a class whose interests are essentially different from those of the people at large, and who become ready contributors to corruption funds, sharing with their masters the plunder they have been enabled to filch from the pockets of the people.
In the House of Commons debates of April 11, 1890, Sir Richard, in answer to a question from the Honourable Mackenzie Bowell, declared :
The whole business of protection is robbery, legalized robbery, You subsidize the manufacturers, and in return the manufacturers subsidize you. The thing is openly done by both parties to the transaction.
In 1891 when he published Canada and the Canadian people, Goldwin Smith made exactly the same charge. Who will say to-day that a similar debauchery is not practised when politicians will still defend a system of revenue that places one dollar in the treasury and five in the pockets of the protected interests? Previous to 1896 a system of education in opposition to the National Policy with all that it entailed, was carried on by the Liberal party. They educated the people to the evils of the protective system and the benefits of free trade; but after 1897 this educational effort ceased, and since that time a generation of young Canadians has grown
up which sees nothing better in the public life of this country than was described by Sir Richard Cartwright. I think we need go no further to find what is the matter with this Dominion to-day. This is the state of affairs at the present time, and those on both sides of this House who advocate the maintenance of the present system are doing so in face of the fact that people have been driven out of their very homes from the great basic industry of agriculture, and that our workers are seeking employment in another country.
Now, the member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) put the blame on the fanners themselves for their present unsatisfactory condition and said it was due to their lack of method and industry. He even went so far as to declare that the pioneers of to-day were of the ginger pop kind-all gas and no kick. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are thirty-five of those pioneers in this little group to which I belong, and they are not any of the gassy kind either. Some of us furnished our quota to the brave army that fought for the liberties of this Dominion. Many of us who had begun to take life a little easier resumed active work on the farm in order that our sons might fight the battle of freedom. No, we are not of the gassy kind. WTe did not try to hide our boys in the woods or in theological seminaries either. And we are not mentally or commercially helpless, as the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) describes those he is pleading for and on whose behalf he exclaims, "Oh, if you don't leave us alone we shall die."
In this debate the advocates of trade penalties have expatiated on the wealth of our natural resources, and at the same time they whine at their helplessness to make use of those resources. And yet they charge us with seeking paternalism from this government. I say, Mr. Speaker, it would be better for this nation if these people depended on their own industrial ability and ceased whining about the stability of the tariff. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but it does not require much prophetic skill to foresee that there will be no stability in this country until all our people shall enjoy their citizenship in the fullest degree. The phrase has frequently been used in this House, "Canada for the Canadians." Who are the Canadians? Have the agriculturists and workers no part in this Dominion? At last Friday's sitting of this House there was brought forth a plea for the workers at Powell river, British Columbia, and it was found there was no way in which parliament could protect those people from the unjust and unreasonable action of their employers. It is true the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mur-
The Budget-Mr. Evans

dock) made a very fine speech about the decisions of the Versailles Conference; but the workers of this country to-day are like hungry lads outside a confectioner's shop window When these workers are driven to desperation the Minister of National Defence will not hesitate to send the militia there as he sent them to Sydney last year. In the past we have seen empires rise, reach their zenith, wane and pass away. The verdict of history points to the cause as being the lack of interest on the part of the common people in their civilization and their government. Russia is the last case in point where the wedge of privilege was driven in to cause a cleavage and separate the toilers from any interest they might have in their common wealth.
If the protectionist dominions of the British Empire, and especially this Dominion, fell in line with the Mother Country in a free trade policy they would place themselves in a position to share with her the material benefits which the economic blunders of other nations are forcing upon her in the hope of bringing about her ruin. England to-day is the centre, the trading mart, of the world, just as she used to be. Month by month she is increasing her trade and shipbuilding, while we are making the same mistake as the United States did some years ago when she taxed foreign goods and shipping in the hope of making that country the great trading and carrying country of the world. Our short-sighted policy of placing a penalty on the trade of the country has involved this Dominion in a huge deficit in respect of our merchant marine fleet, and the day is close at hand when we shall see the end of that venture unless we reverse our national policy. England is still the greatest carrier of the world. She cares nought for the tariffs of other countries; the mistaken policies of other countries are keeping the cost of production so low in Great Britain that tariff policies of other lands make little difference to her. Canada, under the mistaken policy of protection, has impoverished the industries natural to this country in order to maintain an export trade for industries that admittedly cannot stand on their own feet. I say admittedly, and this, I want to inform my hon. friends, is where the hallucination may be again applied. Our statesmen to-day, ignorant of economies, are refusing, even if they are able, to see the consequences of their own action in the depletion of the farms in every province of this Dominion and the exodus of mechanics to seek work in other lands. The fact is that they have killed their own home market by the shortsighted policy of protection.

Britain will be the first country in the world to free herself from the abnormal load of debt occasioned by the war, in which she placed all her allies in a position to resist the kaiserism and bondage that threatened the world at that time. Britain has now arrested the decline in shipbuilding. Last month an increase was reported in the tonnage built of 24,000 tons over the output for the previous three months, while we in Canada have a modern merchant marine fleet which under present policy we would be well rid of. Britain's exports expanded by $15,000,000 in the same period, and the fiscal year which has just terminated yielded a surplus revenue of $500,000,000, which is being applied to the redemption of the public debt, thus simplifying the problem of national finance for the present year. And most important of all, there is a reduction of 6 pence in the pound in the income tax, as well as a cutting of the corporation tax in half and a lowering of the excise on certain articles. During the year gone by we, on the other hand, have had to increase our national debt and the Minister of Finance is hard put to it to find sufficient revenue for the current year.
Protectionist countries contribute to the cheapness of production in Britain by taxing themselves to bonus importations into that country, and this generosity on our part is so costly that we have in the past been keeping the financiers of Britain and other countries busy furnishing loans to make good the difference. At the same time, our natural resources are not developed as they should be, and we are stifling to death the one basic industry that may be able under other conditions to pay its way-agriculture.
I did hope to see in this budget some consistency regarding the tariff. If we need tariff for revenue, why do we maintain tariff laws and regulations that can absolutely, at the will of the minister, prohibit imports on which revenue may be collected? I am speaking now of the anti-dumping clause with its latest amendments and regulations, all interpreted in favour of those whose interest it is to eliminate competition and not to collect revenue. When we go back to our constituencies what shall we advise our people to do? Shall we tell them to buy foreign-made goods so that we may furnish revenue for the carrying on of government? Or shall we advise them to buy the home-made product enhanced in price by import penalties and help to swell the coffers of the protected industries, the distributing combines, and so on, and give them the increase of power that goes with money to dictate the policy of this country?

The Budget-Mr. Evans
Surely there are plenty of ways to collect revenue besides the stupid, vicious, insatiable method of placing a penalty on all our exchange of goods with other countries.
We have been accused of not coming forward with any policy of taxation. I think our amendment is pretty plain in that respect, but I would recommend, since both Liberal and Conservative protectionists are anxious about a tariff for revenue, the abolishing the antidumping act with all its regulations and thus enable our co-operative concerns throughout the land to flourish. To do this will increase the revenue by the importation of foreign goods on which duty may be collected. Since the distributing combines will not allow goods to be co-operatively distributed, it is a vicious, a feudalistic act on the part of the government to tie the hands of the people by any such unreasonable legislation. Its removal will tend to lower the cost of living and consequently the cost of production, which will be an incentive to agriculture and manufacture alike. If there is one form of protection that our Canadian Manufacturers Association should be careful to cultivate and preserve, it is a national spirit of co-operation on the part of the home consumer. This, however, they have destroyed by refusing to sell except through "legitimate channels of trade," as they term it-through combinations, jobbers, wholesalers, and so on. These bodies have become so tyrannical that I believe even some of the manufacturers themselves are beginning to squirm.
The cost of living to-day in Canada is higher than in the United States or Britain, and it cannot come down until the people have freedom as to where they shall purchase what they need. The distributing combine has gained in strength since they found that the anti-combine bill of 1910 was a still-born babe. I have grave doubts that the present enactment is going to show much more life.
But to return to sources of revenue, I would recommend an even sharper graduation on big incomes than we at present impose. A graduated inheritance tax should be a lucrative source of continuous revenue. The provinces to some extent make use of it. But through the granting of franchises many of our citizens have inherited great wealth that has been created by the community at large. It is only right that the people should share a part of the wealth they themselves have created. It is certainly in the interests of a real commonwealth to diffuse great fortunes; it helps to smooth out class distinctions and to afford equal opportunity to all. Colossal fortunes arc often made these days in, say, oil grants, which belong to the community. We are not
making as much of this resource as we should. When great fortunes are attained simply by luck, and sometimes perhaps by manipulation, it is unfair to curb the opportunities of others by a concentration of wealth in a few hands.
I would suggest, as is done in the amendment, an extension of excise. Heavier taxes on luxuries might be imposed to produce revenue. But to say that revenue can only be collected by giving a monopoly to certain privileged ones, why, I do not think you could deceive a school boy with such a tale.
Withal I would recommend that greater attention be paid to economy. At a time like this when the trade of the country is contracting rather than expanding, it surely does not call for such lavish expenditure on public works, geodetic surveys and the like. Besides taking the estimates for this year, members from Quebec and the Maritime provinces seem to make a business of playing Santa Claus to all their little fishing towns and villages, and the government seem willing that such should be the case, making a business of patronage.
No definite policy seems to be followed in any of our national developments. Too much is done according to political party expediency. The Welland canal was begun at a time when the nation could not afford it and when it was not particularly needed.


Mr. GBAHAM:: Is the hon. member not aware that the Welland canal was started largely at the request of western people?


John Evans: I want to inform the hon. minister that I have been in touch very largely with western thought, and I have never known from any of the organized interests in western Canada, either from the United Farmers of Manitoba or Alberta, from the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan, or from any united boards of trade a demand for the Welland canal. I say that that work was begun at a time when the nation could not afford it, and when it was not particularly needed, while on another project $12,000,000 worth of work and material was left to go for naught and will now have to be redone, I think that altogether history will record the policy of Canadian statesmen from confederation down to the present time as a policy of blind selfishness in conducting the trade of the country along certain channels through certain hands without any thought of the country's need.
The hon. member for Halifax condemned the Hudson Bay railway project, but defended the commencement of the Welland
9 p.m. canal after the Hudson Bay railway project had been abandoned because
The Budget-Mr. Evans

the nation could not go on with it for want of money. Whatever doubt there is regarding the Hudson Bay railway and the navigation of the straits, the time to raise any objection was surely before some $23,000,000 was spent on that work, nearly half of which has been left to go for naught because some people thought their interests would be hurt by its completion.
The statement is often made in this country, it has often been made in this House, that Canada is a hard country to got'srn. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is only hard to govern to the extent that in our national life the wedge of privilege has been driven in between the interests of different classes and areas of this Dominion. If those responsible for the administration of this country would consider the needs of the Dominion instead of the exigencies of party things would be different. To-day independent thought is stifled in our colleges and universities. Newspapers are controlled, credit is withheld, enterprise killed and confidence destroyed. Our natural resources go undeveloped while agriculturists and workers are leaving the country. Canada is a country of great potential wealth, but we cannot hope to create a nation by class privilege. We must view these things with a broad outlook upon the fields of the future, and leave to our posterity the foundation of a true democracy.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason I feel that I should rise now to express my warmest thanks to the hon. members in all quarters of the House who during this debate have said so many kind words concerning myself. I appreciate very much these manifestations of their goodwill, and I give them in all quarters my warmest and grateful thanks.
Now, with regard to the budget debate, so much has been said from this side of the House in review of objections that have been raised and the ground has been so well covered in the magnificent address delivered today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that there really would be no excuse for my occupying the attention of the House in a lengthy address. I have no intention of doing so. I desire to be brief, but there are a few points, chiefly in the speech of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and the ex-Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), to which I should like to allude, but I promise the House that I shall not detain them at any considerable length.

The criticisms offered by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) were in the main kindly and not calculated to make me or anybody else angry. On the whole I have not much fault to find with him. One criticism that he offered was that I was too conservative in my estimates of the revenue for the year. Well, perhaps I was, but will my hon. friend not agree with me that on the whole it is better in forming estimates of the revenue to be conservative than be extravagant in the other direction? I think it is wiser.
My hon. friend again and again in the course of his address argued that we should have armed ourselves-I think that is the word he used-in our French relations, in relation to the United States, in relation to all our trade business with foreign countries, by first increasing our tariff to a high point in order that, as they say, we should have something to trade with. I am not sure that that is a wise policy; but this I am justified in saying, that if it was a wise policy in the minds of my hon. friends opposite, the strangest thing in the world is that they did not utilize that policy when they were in power themselves. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance did not occupy that post for many years, but he had a couple of sessions during which he might have, to use the expression, jacked up the tariff to a high point if he so desired; but he did not do it. He kept on under the old tariff. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition fell into the same line of argument. Why did we not arm ourselves, why did we not jack up the tariff before we went to France and before we go to the United States? I think myself I have a right to point out the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite when they had an opportunity did not do it.
How is it if that is a sound policy it has only been discovered since they have been out of office? I had in my mind the story of two country merchants in the flour trade. A customer went into Jones' store and said to him, "What are you asking for flour to-day?" Jones said "Ten dollars." "Oh," said the customer, "that is pretty high; I cannot pay it." Jones said to him "No; that is all right; it is a fair price." The customer said to him "Why, Mr. Smith's price for flour is $9.50." "Well," said Jones, "in that case I am afraid you will have to buy it from Smith." The customer said "Yes, but Mr. Smith is out of flour just now." When Smith was out of flour, he could quote a low price, and when my hon. friends are out of office they can tell us in pious words what they

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
would have done if they had been in power. But it seems to me that the action of hon. members when they had the opportunity to do something is the best answer to the policy they are advocating to-day. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) emphasizes that line of policy, not only with regard to France, but with regard to the United States. Again and again he tells us that if we want to trade with the United States we must have something to trade with. He emphasizes that policy and he takes up the old line "No truck or trade with the Yankees." That is the substance of it. But not long after he made a speech along those lines the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) suddenly asked this question: "Why is this government not reducing the duty? Why do they not reduce the duties on American automobiles?" Which of these two policies represents the attitude of the Conservative party to-day? Is it my hon. friend from West York, who wants to jack up the tariff against the Americans, or is it my hon. friend from Halton, who wants to cut down the duty on Yankee automobiles? I think I have a right to ask my hon. friend to define which of these two policies is the correct one. My hon. friend from West York gave us quite a lecture on potatoes. I think there is no other item in his review which occupied so much of his time as potatoes. I want to refer to it, first because he regarded it as important, and secondly because it is an amusing incident. The item reads as follows:
Potatoes when imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on potatoes grown In Canada per 100 pounds, British preference 20 cents; intermediate, 35 cents; general tariff, 35 cents.
My hon. friend went on to speak at considerable length on this potato question; he referred to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) as having something to do with it, and he said:
The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), I think has been helping them a little along the line of instructions. I do not know how he managed this; he certainly managed to get them to pick out the one item that would constitute the smallest reason in the world to move an American business man k>
the right direction. But, perhaps, the process of education will go on. He has got them to put a protective duty on potatoes when other countries maintain a duty against potatoes grown in Canada. I do not know why we should not eat Canadian potatoes. I always thought we should. I think Canadian potatoes are very good.
And then, in consequence of his reference to the hon. member for Carleton and Victoria, that hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) said:
Since the hon. member has coupled my name with this, I should like to dissociate myself with it entirely. We want free entry of our potatoes into other markets.
Then the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) continues:
Wonderful! Is the attitude of this hon. gentleman not extraordinary? 1 am not going to debate the matter; but I am going to tell him one thing, that his attitude is just as helpful to the potato producers of New Brunswick as was his vote on the Crowsnest pass case. If he wants to make it impossible to do business, all right; but hon. gentlemen across the aisle-
I believe that he meant the members on this side of the House. Then he continues:
-were learning something, and they put this duty on potatoes. Let us suppose that this duty on potatoes was imposed for some good cause. If there be any good cause, the reason why potatoes should be picked out as a specific instance, must have regard to the American tariff. The one potato scale I know of that is worrying Canada to-day is the American potato scale.
He went on to speak at some length in that direction and said:
Certainly it is a fine point to start with if they are serious in the desire to tackle the question like men of business. Undoubtedly it is a fine trading point as compared with the millions, the hundreds of milllions, of values that come from the United States into Canada; it is small, for example as compared with the millions which we get from them in silks, textiles, iron and steel products, etc. It is simply small and contemptible.
That was my hon. friend's criticism. He referred to it as a small and contemptible item. I have pleasure in telling him that, if that item is small and contemptible, it is no baby of mine, it is not an item of mine, but it is taken from the tariff as he left it when he went out of office. This item he has dwelt upon, which he thinks we have selected as a small, contemptible item, is simply taken from his own tariff in its very words, and we have carried it into the new tariff. While the tariff previously, as my hon. friend left it, had a rate of so many cents per bushel, the law of Canada requires that potatoes shall be sold by weight and not by measures, and we simply convert it from the number of cents per bushel into the number of cents per hundred pounds; and that is the whole question. Nevertheless, my hon. friend characterizes it as a small and contemptible thing, and says that it is a specimen of the way this Liberal government is doing things.
Reference was made to the duty on artificial silk as something which creates a departure from our own line of policy. Let us examine that for a moment. That is a new article which is not yet classified in the tariff. As it is likely to be widely used, it ought to have a classification, and we have placed it in the tariff and so we have to say what rate it would bear in the tariff. Artificial silk is after all silk, practically. It serves all the purposes of silk. It will displace silk as far as
The Budget-Mr. Fielding

it is used. If it be not specially mentioned, it may fall into the unenumerated list which would bear the rate of 17| per cent. My hon. friend opposite emphasizes the opinion that silk is a luxury. We think that artificial silk might properly be treated as silk, and put in the tariff accordingly, and if the rate is a high one, it is simply because of the general principles that luxuries are taxed more highly than cheaper commodities. That is the whole story. From a purely revenue point of view, it is a serious thing, because if we displace silk by artificial silk we will be losing the revenue. In this case, I hope we shall get the revenue, and if incidentally it helps to encourage the industry, so much the better. It is a fair illustration of a revenue tariff which carries with it incidental protection.
I have a number of notes to which I intended to refer, but I am frank enough to say, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister covered the ground so well to-day that I am going to make my speech briefer than it would otherwise have been. In connection, however, with the general criticism, we have heard very much about economy. They all talk about economy. It is the easiest thing to advocate and the hardest thing to accomplish. My hon. friends opposite generally talk about economy. I think possibly my hon. friends of the Progressive group talk of it still more. But if we examine the records of parliament we find that in three cases out of four the suggestions of hon. members opposite do not call for economy, but for larger expenditures of public money. We propose some appropriations for the Militia service, but hon. members opposite say our estimates are too low, and we ought to spend more. I think they find fault anti say that we did not grant enough money for the militia. I do not want to debate the merits of it. I simply state it as a fact. We had a similar experience in the matter of naval service. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia brought down some appropriation for the naval service and again we were told we should have provided more money. We are proposing to add one or two industries to the bounty list, and hon. members opposite say the bounties are not large enough, and that we should make them higher Everybody talks of economy. We all become advocates of economy for the other fellow, not for our own district, not for our own province.	My hon. friends from Toronto
talk about economy; but they are not anxious to cut down the appropriation for Toronto harbour.	The hon. members residing in
Toronto, the hon. member for East York {Mr. Harris) emphasized the fact that we

were not spending money as we ought for the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals. This I suppose, would probably take only a couple of hundred million dollars! What about that? They talk economy, and yet they tell us that we should expend money on deepening the St. Lawrence canals. The last speech delivered to-night, namely that by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), advocated economy; but the only economy he proposed was that we should increase our expenditures by paying more money to the rural mail carriers.


John Evans: I should like to put the hon. gentleman right. I contrasted their remuneration with that of other members of the Civil Service.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman, I understood, said that they were not getting enough, and he thought they ought to get more. If I am wrong in my understanding, I take it back. He thought these men were not well enough paid and perhaps they are not. I am not debating that question, but it is costing the country six and a quarter million dollars to provide for that service, and if you vote only a moderate increase, you add a couple of million dollars to the expenditure. I am not discussing the merits of the case; I am simply pointing out that this cry for economy contrasts very strangely with the attitude of hon. gentlemen when they come to deal with matters in which they have a keen interest.
My Progressive friends are not free from criticism in that connection. They are advocates of economy; but they want more branch railways, and they want the Hudson Bay railway. It is not as easy as it looks to economize. Even in the matter of the Civil Service, although hon. gentlemen talk glibly of economy in that direction, one of the hardest things in the world, as any hon. member who has been in office knows, is to cut down the Civil Service. Those who have no responsibility can treat that matter very lightly; but I can tell hon. gentlemen-I do not need to assure those who have held office-that even in that matter, a policy of economy may very easily cause trouble. I would be as glad as any other hon. gentleman in this House if we could have a larger measure of economy. But Canada is a comparatively undeveloped country; we have great needs; we have in every part of the country many works which call for attention. Some of them possibly can wait; many of them are urgent, and if the wheels of progress are to keep moving, we have to respond to

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
many demands made upon us for public expenditures. I frankly say that it is a good deal more difficult to economize than my hon. friends think. .
Perhaps one of the strangest things in this discussion is that which was so forcibly referred to to-day by the Prime Minister, when he spoke of the criticism being offered that this was a protectionist budget. That is the strangest thing in the world, and if hon. gentlemen opposite will persist in that attitude, they must not be surprised that the country refuses to take them seriously. Why, in nineteen out of twenty cases in which the tariff is touched by these resolutions, it is touched by way of reduction, and in the budget of last year, with very rare exceptions every change that was made was by way of a reduction. Why then do hon. gentlemen persist in talking about this as a protectionist budget?


Arthur Meighen: Was that .not equally
true of the budget of 1919 and the budget of 1920, both of which my hon. friend denounced as protectionist budgets?


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is
not the best witness as to what I have said and things of times past; but I am more concerned in the things of to-day and of the future, than I am in what occurred in 1919. My taste for study does not lead me back to the kings of Egypt as quickly as it does in the case of my right hon. friend.
I would say, as regards the hon. member for West York, whose kindly criticism I accepted in the best of good nature, that he set himself right in the end. He did, perhaps, say some harsh things, but in the end he turned to the Speaker

I am not using quotation marks; I do not say that these were his words, but they are the substance of them -and he said: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking along these lines for some time; but I want to tell you that you do not want to take me seriously; I want you to understand that all this is said merely in a Pickwickian sense, and as evidence of that I want to tell you that these farmer chaps may, if they want to, go after the budget; let them; but as for me and my house, I am satisfied with the budget, and I do not propose to move any amendment. So, if I cannot agree with all that my hon. friend from West York has said at all events I can congratulate him upon the soundness of the conclusion which he has reached.
The Prime Minister dealt with the question of this being a protectionist budget, but I think what he said is capable of being emphasized. He said and very truly-indeed
he gave illustrations of the extent to which reductions had been made-that this could not be considered a piotectionist budget. He dealt with the matter so ably that I will not dwell further upon it.
I turn now to "make a brief reference to the speech of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am sorry that he did not find himself in a more amiable frame of mind. He does not seem to be able to forgive the people of Canada for a little event which occurred more than a year and a half ago. He should cultivate a little more amiability in that direction and leave his grouch at home next time. The first criticism was that this was not much of a budget anyway; that it did not give us as many statistics as it ought to; that there ought to have been this statement and that statement, and this comparison and that comparison. That is a fair matter of debate. Possibly he is right, but at all events he is not universally supposed to be right. A budget which would please everybody would be a marvellous thing. I have no thought that I have achieved that purpose, nor that I am ever likely to do so; but I am glad to be able to say this that, while in the press of the country I have found many criticisms, legitimate enough from the point of view of opponents of the government, I have been rather fortunate to have this compliment paid to me: "Whatever may be said, Fielding did not give us a long speech anyhow." That is something. You know the story in the case of the good old German people where the custom is to say something nice at the grave of the departed. This was the case of a man who had died and who did not have many friends. At his grave everybody was trying to say something nice and they found it a pretty hard job; but one old man said: "Well, friends, he was a good smoker." It is nice to have somebody say a kind word even in the matter of the brevity of the speech. I want to quote, particularly for the benefit of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, what the leading Conservative organ of Canada said on the occasion of the delivery of the budget. I am quoting from the Montreal Gazette on the morning after the budget:
It (Mr. Fielding's speech) was the shortest budget speech on record and took less than an hour to deliver. The effort lost nothing on account of its brevity-
They differ from my right hon. friend there. He thinks it should have been a longer speech.
-and Mr. Fielding did not weary his listeners with a recital of endless figures on Canada's financial position. He gave a short, crisp statement in that regard and quickly got to the kernel of his subject, namely, changes in the tariff, sales tax and stamp tax.

The Budget-Mr. Fielding

I have to make my choice between the compliment that is paid by the leading Conservative organ of Canada, and the severe criticism offered by the leader of the Opposition, who complained that I did not weary my listeners with these long tables.
The leader of the Opposition also emphasized this notion of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) about jacking up the tariff, and the general cry for economy. What now is the financial difficulty in the way of Canada? What are the causes of our embarrassment so far as we have any, because I do not admit that the embarrassment is very serious? What prevents our having a satisfactory budget? Two things. The war, as hon. gentlemen will surely admit, and the railway question. I do not want to debate the question of who is responsible for either of these things. Least of all do I want to blame the hon. gentleman for expenditures on account of the war. But this I have a right to complain of, that while I willingly share with him any responsibility for those expenditures, he discusses the causes of the present difficulties we are in and attributes them to us. He is not fair in so doing. He is constantly talking of the difficulties with which we are faced, and assumes that they have resulted from some conduct of our own. He tells us again and again that we have increased the sales tax and in that way have added to the burdens of the people. He asks, why do you not balance the budget? And many an hon. member on the other side' reiterates the same question. Well, in the budget speech I pointed out what I thought were good reasons for our inability to do this; I stated that it was much better to bear patiently for a year or two the condition we now have, and to have faith and hope and a firm belief that the betterment which we all long for will come in a short while, than to impose new taxation. But if my hon. friend insists so emphatically on the necessity for balancing the budget, why did he not do it in his own day? Only now he discovers that we cannot balance the budget. He says, "You are increasing the sales tax." He did not increase the sales tax in 1921, but he was content to add $92,000,000 to the debt of the country-a much simpler process in a way, but not quite so satisfactory, I think. He did not increase the sales tax in 1922; no, Sir, he preferred rather to add SSI ,000,000 to the public debt. And if things had gone on in that way and the right hon. gentleman had remained in power, heaven only knows what would have been the condition of affairs last year

Heaven only knows what the public debt would have been.	We thought it was
wise to face the music, to recognise the facts, and to meet the obligations that were before us.
I do not stop for one moment to considei who is or who is not blameable for the fact that we have these large obligations; I simply declare that the right thing to do, in the face of them was to increase taxation in some form or other to meet them. We increased the sales tax. If we had been willing to follow my hon. friend's example and to allow the whole burden to be added to the public debt, we need not have increased the sales tax. But we did increase it, and we .did so for good reasons; and having done so we think there is nothing for us to apologise for. We did not balance the budget: we hope we shall be able next year to do so but whether we do balance it or not, we are facing our obligations; our path is in the right direction and we are endeavouring to make ends meet. So that if we have to add something to the public debt it will be because conditions oblige us to do so. In the meantime, we say to the country that the policy which offers them exemption from other new taxes is a wiser policy than that which the right hon. gentleman would recommend.
Now, with regard to the question of reciprocity, when we undertake to consider all that is involved in this question we assume a very great responsibility; and I confess I have some reason to rejoice in the attitude of my right hon. friend, not that I approve of it, but because it is some satisfaction to have a clear issue before one. My right hon. friend says that these resolutions which we have embodied in the budget do not amount to anything; he tells us that they will not accomplish anything. Well, I do not know whether they will or not. I do think, however, that it is desirable nevertheless that the resolutions should be there; I think it is desirable to have a clear-cut statement in the most official form of the desire and the willingness of the people of Canada to enter into a friendly arrangement with the government of the United States whenever that government is prepared to consider any proposals in the direction of reciprocity; and just as it was deemed wise in 1879 to introduce this proposal into the Tariff Act of that day, which proposal was commonly referred to as the standing offer, so I think it is wise to-day to re-introduce that standing offer, not because there is anything new in it, or because we expect that we shall gain anything by it,

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
but simply because we think it is well that there should be a clear statement of the desire of the government of Canada to enter into an arrangement with the people of the United States. The American people, in view of the events of 1911, might be justified in emphatically declaring that they do not want reciprocity; and I would not blame any American who, if he met me, might say: "What is the use of your talking about reciprocity now? You had a chance to have reciprocity in 1911 and you rejected it, so that there is not much use in your talking about the matter at this time." I think there is much to justify that view if any American were inclined to advance it. At all events, we are persuaded that it is a wise policy that there should be at least no room for misunderstanding, but that we should have it clearly and distinctly made known, in the most precise and formal way possible, that this is our desire now.
The right hon. gentleman has taken a new line on the question of reciprocity. He discusses the events of 1911 and takes the extraordinary view that the reason why he would not support the Reciprocity agreement of 1891 is because it lacked permanency. Why, he says, if only we had the assurance of permanency it would be all right.
Mr. MEIGHEN- I did not say that; I said that there would be something to be said for it and much to be said against it, but that it would be a great deal better for us to have some assurance in the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I happen to have before me just what my right hon. friend said, and I will quote him to justify my statement of his position.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, read what I said.


William Stevens Fielding: I have the exact words of the right hon. gentleman, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding on the point I shall quote precisely what he said:
If we enter into a commercial arrangement with them, there would be something at least to say for it, if conditions were such that we knew there would be permanency to such arrangement.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is part of what I said.


William Stevens Fielding: And further, the right hon. gentleman goes on to say:
But I said before there would be something to say for such a treaty if there was any guarantee or hope of permanency.
In other words, he wanted the assurance of permanency. He says:
In that case we would know what to do; investors would know what to do; agriculturists would kaow what to do; ranchers would know what to do; men thinking of going into any line of trade or production would know just what to expect.
Can you not see the great demand there for permanency, for a guarantee, an assurance of permanency?


Arthur Meighen: The minister, of course, left out a part of the quotation.


William Stevens Fielding: If my right hon. friend thinks it important I can, of course, read the whole extract. I did not omit any part that was vital.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Oh yes, you did.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. gentleman has his remarks at his hand, and if he thinks fit to do so he may read what I have omitted; I simply wanted to avoid wearying the House with a long extract. He said further:
But is there any guarantee of permanency or can there be any guarantee of permanency under any conceivable circumstances? I ask that question, and I ask it seriously, because in my judgment it is the root and the heart of the whole situation. There was no permanency inherent in the 1911 treaty. Each country reserved the right to depart from it at its will. That the United States insisted on; that the United States will always insist on.
Will my right hon. friend tell me what is his warrant, his authority, for the statement that the United States insisted upon anything of that kind? That is the material part of the quotation. He states that the United States insisted upon that qualification; I want to know where he got his authority for that assertion?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason-


William Stevens Fielding: Oh no; not the reason, the authority. I want the right hon. gentleman's authority for that statement of his.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is there.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not there.


Arthur Meighen: Not in the treaty that the hon. gentleman made? Was it not provided that it was not to be permanent but was to be cancellable at the will of either country? It undoubtedly was, and in every treaty that was ever made in the history of the country that provision has been embodied.


William Stevens Fielding: In the first place, my right hon. friend is referring to the treaty; and in the second place he is not answering my question. I am not disputing his statement as to what is in the agreement itself; that speaks for itself. But the right hon. gentleman says that the United States insisted upon
30S0
The Budget-Mr. Fielding

that qualification, and I want to know what authority he has for making that statement. We do not want him to tell us what is in the document; we know what it provides. But he says that the United States insisted upon a certain qualification and I say that he cannot give me any authority for that statement.


Arthur Meighen: I should think that something which the United States obtained would be obtained on their own insistence and not on the insistence of this country. Anyone would presume that. Would the hon. gentleman permit me to read what he omitted?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if it will do any good


Arthur Meighen: It is what I said:
Now, mark you, I said there would be something to say for it. There would at the same time be much to say against it.
And I went on to say what would result.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so. But the right hon gentleman went on to say that an assurance of permanency was "the root and heart of the whole situation." He not only says that this condition was in the agreement, but he tells us that the American people insisted upon it. That is the vital point; and he has not given any authority for that statement. Nor can he give any such authority; I tell him there is absolutely no foundation for it. The Americans were prepared to discuss a reciprocity treaty for a term of years if we so desired.


Arthur Meighen: That would not be permanent.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no permanent
treaty in God's world.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I say.


William Stevens Fielding: When the hon. gentleman used the term "permanency" he meant forever, did he? That is not my idea of what in diplomatic affairs the word "permanence" means. However, I again say in reply to my hon. friend that his assertion, that the United States government insisted upon the temporary condition and we had to submit to it, is unwarranted; of my own personal knowledge I say it is not in accordance with the facts. The United States government were prepared to discuss a reciprocity agreement of a broader type if we wanted to do so.


Arthur Meighen: In return for what?


William Stevens Fielding: I will read the essential part of the agreement that we did bring back. But my hon. friend emphasizes the fact that the Americans insisted upon this and

that it was something we had to agree to. I say emphatically there is no warrant for the statement. What happened to the agreement when we came back? Was it not attacked because it was considered to be practically permanent? Was not the burden of every complaint from the Conservative party "You have bound Canada hand and foot?" Was not that the story? It is a new story now. To-day they say they wanted a permanent agreement, but at that time we were charged with binding Canada hand and foot to these horrid Americans. "No truck or trade with the Yankees" was the cry of those days, and now the right hon. gentleman says, "Oh, it would have been all right if we had only had some guarantee of permanency."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Agriculture is very much amused to-night.


William Richard Motherwell: I am.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is perhaps
the hundredth time the hon. gentleman has stated that hon. members of the opposition at that time declared for "No truck or trade with the Yankees." I ask him now for his authority for that declaration. That was entirely an invention of the hon. gentleman's leader of that time.


William Stevens Fielding: I saw it at that time in the press. I never attributed the phrase to the right hon. gentleman himself, but I have been informed and believe that that was the cry of the Conservative party.


Mr. DUFF:: I heard Sir Robert Borden
say it.


William Stevens Fielding: I heard it was stated in Ontario by the chairman of a meeting with Sir Robert Borden sitting on the platform. However, "No truck or trade with the Yankees" was the slogan throughout the country, no matter by whom it was originated.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman think that the statement of some chairman of some meeting is authority for attributing it to the Conservative party?


Mr. BUREAU:: It was in the literature ol the Conservative party.


William Stevens Fielding: If used at a public meeting by the chairman of that meeting with Sir Robert Borden sitting on the platform it is pretty good evidence that it was the slogan of the Conservative party at that time. _ However, I want now to show what was in this agreement that my hon. friend has referred

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
to. Here is a quotation from the letter written by the late Mr. Paterson and myself to the American Secretary of State:
It is agreed that the desired tariff changes shall not take the formal shape of a treaty, but that the governments of the two countries will use their utmost efforts to bring about such changes by concurrent legislation at Washington and Ottawa.
The governments of the two countries having made this agreement from the conviction that, if confirmed by the necessary legislative authorities, it will benefit the people on both sides of the border line, we may reasonably hope and expect that the arrangement, if so confirmed, will remain in operation for a considerable period. Only this expectation on the part of both governments would justify the time and labour that have been employed in the maturing of the proposed measures. Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to be established will be viewed by the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing and promote the commercial interests of both countries.
That is incorporated in the agreement, written by Mr. Paterson and myself, placed there at our request, not because the American government insisted upon it, but because we thought it was not wise at that time to bind Canada for a longer term. We were content to bring the arrangement back for submission to the Canadian people, to let them try it, and in the light of actual experience to determine whether or not they wanted to make a permanent treaty.
There is one satisfaction in dealing with my hon. friend's position in this matter; we have at all events a clear-cut issue. He is opposed to reciprocity with the United States-he does not want it anyhow. His idea is-I do not quote his words now-no truck or trade with the Yankees. That is only another clear-cut way of expressing his position.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; that is very unfair.	*


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I understand that in his speech yesterday my right honourable friend (Mr. Meighen) distinctly declared his opposition to reciprocity with the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: Very good. Then there is a clear-cut issue. Hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party-so far as they permit themselves to be represented by my right hon-friend-are against any trade treaty with the United States. In the name of the Liberal party of Canada I declare to-day that we stand for reciprocity with the United States. I say that when the opportunity comes to make a fair treaty or agreement 

and I say the agreement of 1911 was a-fair and reasonable agreement, and I am glad that our Progressive friends call for a repetition of that agreement in their motion today; to that extent I agree with it-but I say that when the opportunity comes we are proud to declare in the face of the parliament of Canada, whatever the fate of it may be, that this Liberal party stands for reciprocity with the United States when we can get a fair and reasonable agreement. That is our position. We are content to let the people judge between the hon. gentleman and ourselves on that point
Now, I want to conclude. I have spoker longer than I expected to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Stevens Fielding: The budget speech-may I modestly say?-was not partisan, it was not boastful, though I think there was something in it that might justify boastfulness. There was not a line nor a note in it that gave cause of offence to anybody. It stated simple facts in a way beyond dispute. That has not been denied. It was a fair statement of the situation, and it offered a fair proposal to the people. Now, what is it that is offered in the reciprocity agreement? My right hon. friend, by the way, says there has been a change in public opinion since 1911 with regard to reciprocity.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I reverse the statement. My right hon. friend is right. He says there was no change", that is, that the adverse opinion of the people of Canada in 1911 remains to-day. That is more correct. I want to tell my right hon. friend that he is absolutely unwarranted in making that statement. In 1911 blind partisanship led men away from the consideration of an economic question and for party reasons, not for economic reasons, they voted against reciprocity.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister not consider that what he is saying now is "a grouch?"


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Jacques Bureau: It is an answer to a grouch.


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is just a proclamation again of the old faith, and I am proud to proclaim it; that is all. But my right hon.

The Budget-Mr. Fielding
friend has said there has been no change of public opinion. I want for a moment to draw his attention to this. I am told there are members sitting in this House to-day who voted against reciprocity in 1911 and who are to-day subscribing to the resolution of the Progressives which is in favour of reciprocity. I do not say that of my own knowledge, but I am so informed. Last week in the town of Yarmouth a large meeting was held of the fishing interests of the south shore of Nova Scotia and was attended by leading gentlemen from three or four counties. Among these gentlemen were many from my own constituency, including a number of prominent citizens who opposed and helped to defeat me in 1911. Those gentlemen at that meeting declared that what the interests of Nova Scotia most need to-day is the admission of its products into the United States market. Yet my hon. friend says there is no change in public opinion. There is a change in this way, that the time is come when the people will no longer view this question through the spectacle of partisanship; they are looking at it, as it ought to have been loked at from the beginning, as an economic question. The cattle raisers of the West and the fishermen of the East alike feel that admission of their products to the United States market would be one of the greatest things for the commercial success of Canada. That is the feeling in Canada to-day. It is said of the Bourbons that they learned nothing and forgot nothing. I doubt whether the Conservative party of Canada are going to endorse the position taken by my right hon. friend against reciprocity. An economic question will override a purely political question, and although my right hon. friend may still desire to take the Bourbonic view of the matter, I believe there are thousands of Conservatives in Canada who will readily follow us if we go to the polls on that issue and who will stand for reciprocity now, though they did not stand for it in 1911.
Now, about the budget. I have said that it is a very modest budget, an unassuming budget. There are no fireworks about it. It does not offer a great deal; it offers just a simple statement of what seems to be most needed to meet the conditions of the day. First, it offers exemption from those new taxes that my right hon. friend would impose to balance the budget. We do not want to balance the budget with new taxes to-day; we will wait and see, if I may quote that expression again, and hope that we shall be able to balance it next year without new taxes. Then, we offer a wide, comprehensive

measure of tariff reduction. We offer a substantial increase in the British preference. We offer a reduction aggregating $2,500,000 on one household article, sugar-and if you want to do something to relieve the masses of the people in respect to the commodities that they use, what article could be better chosen than sugar? And we make a proposal -I am glad to find that it was honoured by some hon. gentlemen on the other side-to encourage the business of the Canadian ports. Reduced taxation, then; reduced duty on sugar; increased British preference; tariff improvements; simplification of the sales tax-in all these things, simple, unpretentious as they are, you have the elements of a sound, sensible budget, one which, I am bound to say, will receive and has already received approval from the people of Canada.
I know you can have no budget that will please everybody. I know you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. I know that any time you touch the tariff somebody will for the moment think he is hurt. But in all my experience in making budgets I never knew a budget that was characterized by so many evidences of the public favour as have been indicated in the communications which have come to me, as well as by what has appeared in the press. I present this budget to-day as a simple, businesslike transaction, a project of common sense to meet the present situation, and I am sure that it will receive the favourable judgment of the Canadian people.


Mr. McCREA:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
The House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


William Stevens Fielding: There are a number of resolutions in the hands of the committee, but I am quite sure it will not be the desire of the committee to proceed with them to-night I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On- motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m., until Friday May 25.
Friday, May 25, 1923