1923-05-16

JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That this House do agree to concur in the appointment of a joint committee to consider the following matters;
1.	The forms of bills and the best means of affording information and assistance in the consideration thereof at all stages of legislation in both Houses of parliament;
2.	The better distribution of the work of legislation between the two Houses [DOT]
3.	The practical operation of the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 10, respecting the attendance of senators and members of the House of Commons, and the expediency of making any alterations in those provisions;
And that Messieurs Boivin, Charters, Euler, Hudson and Millar be members of such committee on the part of the House;
That a message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours of the above resolution;
That the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous
pleasure of the House that the motion be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON 'West York): There is a newspaper despatch to the effect that Colonel Balfour, formerly an assistant to Sir Henry Thornton in the management of the Great Eastern Railway of England, has arrived in Montreal to assume the duties here of assistant to Sir Henry in the management of the Canadian National Railways. It is also stated that a Mr. A. J. Thomas, who as well was a former assistant to Sir Henry Thornton in England, has come to Montreal to take office here. Will the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) inform the House whether these statements are correct, and, if they are, what Canadians are being displaced?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM 'Minister of Railways): I have no information in reference to the matter except what I have seen in the press.

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will my hon. friend get that information? There is another matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the government. I see, according to the press, that Sir Henry Thornton has made a certain speech on the subject of immigration, in the course of which he declares that four things are absolutely necessarv in connection with immigration. The first he gives is a capable Minister of Immigration who will coordinate the efforts of the people.


Mr. FIELDING:: That is all right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask the Minister of Railways whether Sir Henry Thornton is speaking for the administration and whether any changes are in contemplation.


Mr. GRAHAM:: So far as the government is concerned, I can assure my hon friend that there is in office at the head of the Immigration department just the kind of minister that is referred to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, you do not agree with Sir Henry Thornton.



DR. A. M. LOWE CANADIAN CITIZEN IN NORTHERN CHINA CAPTURED AND MALTREATED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LADNER:: Have the government received any information regarding a Canadian citizen, Dr. A. M. Lowe, a prominent merchant of Vancouver, and a native of Victoria, British Columbia, who was beaten, bound and made captive in northern China? If they have, do they intend to require an explanation of the Chinese government?


Hewitt Bostock: This question has already been asked and answered at a previous sitting.
ADULTERATION OF MILL FEEDS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: With reference to the numerous complaints that have been received by the Department of Agriculture regarding the adulteration of mill feeds, will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) introduce at the present session the contemplated bill which he referred to on 23rd February? Possibly we are nearing the end of the session, and I have not yet seen or heard any intimation that the bill will be brought down.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Speaking for myself, I have not so far decided whether it would be advisable to introduce the bill at the present session.
We have had a good many bills of a similar character, multiplying restrictions manifold; and while I am personally willing to put further restrictions upon the people, I am not at all certain that it is advisable to impose them too heavily and too frequently at such short intervals. I am, however, quite willing to be advised by my colleagues and by my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) as well with respect to the advisability of introducing the bill at this session. I may observe that I have it all ready.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. BOYS:: What is the intention of the government with regard to the 24th of May? Is there any thought of adjourning next Wednesday night over the week end?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government proposes to follow the custom of previous years and observe the 24th of May as a holiday, but I think it would be advisable for the House to sit on Friday.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 15, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Robert Forke.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):: Budget pronouncements, Mr. Speaker, are always important in the life of every parliament, and this budget has been no exception. Before proceeding to deal with the budget direct and the matters that I shall refer to briefly this afternoon in connection with it, I desire to say a word or two with respect to the minister (Mr. Fielding) whose duty it has been to prepare the budget and who has just brought down his seventeenth financial statement in the parliament of Canada. It has been my great, pleasure, and indeed my good fortune, to have been associated with this hon. gentleman for a period of over one year. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that the relationship has been most pleasant, that I have acquired a great deal of information that I did not formerly possess as to the management of the affairs of government, and that I have learned to respect the opinions of the hon. gentleman
2796	COMMONS
' The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
whose duty it is to prepare annually a financial statement for the people of Canada. I hope he will continue to bring down our budgets for a very considerable number of years, and I am sure he will always retain the love and respect of all parties in this parliament.
The science of government, Mr. Speaker, is rather a difficult one. To the uninitiated it always appears to be easy. I have no desire to criticize my hon. friends opposite, indeed I have watched with a great deal of interest their efforts to solve our social and financial problems in both the federal and provincial fields. Undoubtedly in those provinces in which they have the responsibilities of government they are finding much more difficulty in their administration than they anticipated. Let me say that I for one would have no objection in the world to seeing my hon. friends of the Progressive party occupying the treasury benches for a term of four or five years in order that they might have an opportunity to put into practice some of the principles which they advocate so zealously in opposition.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. gentleman
should know what that is like.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has had a similar experience, and, frankly, I may say that it does not seem to affect me in the same way as it does him. I wish my hon. friends who may displace me all the success in the world.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman know anything I promised in opposition that I did not redeem in office? If he does I should like him to give it to the House.


George Perry Graham: Farm implements, I
should say.


Arthur Meighen: I did that.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend has had the advantage of having been a member of this House a great deal longer than I. I have never attempted to criticize his administration because I did not come directly in contact with it. But I am speaking of the things whereof I know, and I may say frankly to my right hon. friend that although perhaps on other matters we were never very far apart, on one fundamental issue, I always disagreed with him. He may say that now I have seen the light I am not prepared to go as far as I advocated in former years; but I may inform him that I am still prepared to go all the distance I was always prepared to go when the occasion offers and [Mr C. A. Stewart.]
the time is opportune. But my right hon. friend and his government have made it exceedingly difficult for any administration succeeding them to offer the measure of tariff reduction that I think this country is entitled to and some day must have. What I started to say was that when we have to tackle the job of government, when we are responsible for the budgets to run the country, we have to view everything not from a sectional standpoint but as it may affect our people throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. That is no new observation, nor do I offer it as such, but I want to deal with our national affairs from that standpoint.
My hon. friend (Mr. Bird) who preceded me last evening intimated that both parties in dealing with public affairs were not just exactly honest wifh themselves or with the people. Well, if the time ever comes when my hon. friend is entrusted with the responsibilities of office he will find that perhaps he will not be able to be so drastic and so radical in his administration as he expresses himself to be when in opposition. I have no serious criticism to offer my hon. friends except in one or two instances. I know somewhat of the responsibilities of carrying on the war, and therefore I am not finding fault with the tremendous financial burden that has followed from the war. But we have to deal with that burden, it is an everyday problem, and for a population of scarcely nine million people the preparation of a budget to meet the ordinary expenses of administration to the extent of $372,000,000 is rather a serious obligation on any government. Not only that, but if the government is fair to the provinces and to the municipalities it must make that burden as light as possible upon all parties concerned, because we cannot forget that our war obligations entail huge expenditures. I have heard those expenditures criticized on the ground that they were not in every case judicious, that great savings might have been effected. And in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party, who cited to us the other day the conditions in England, let me say that during the war there was a vast difference between taxation in Canada and in England, in this way, that in England much heavier taxation was levied to meet war expenditure than was attempted here.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman give figures to show that? I dispute his statement. I say we paid a larger proportion of our debt than England did.

The Bridget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend will not deny that taxation so far as incomes and profits were concerned was levied to a much greater extent in England than here.


Arthur Meighen: It was on the moderate incomes, not on the higher, and on profits not so high.


Charles A. Stewart: But my right hon. friend levied little or nothing on profits.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, far more than
they did in England.


Charles A. Stewart: Not in
comparison with the profits that were made. Of course, that is a matter of opinion, but on the whole I think that in England, irrespective of whether it be applied on a per capita basis or generally, a greater proportion of taxation for direct war purposes was levied during the period of the war than ever was attempted in Canada. That, in part, answers some of the criticisms of my hon. friend who leads the Progressive party.


Arthur Meighen: But it is not correct.


Charles A. Stewart: I leave my right hon. friend to deal with that if he speaks in this debate. Not only in agriculture, in business and in commercial life, but in every line of activity we had inflation in Canada during the war period. I am not blaming our predecessors in office for that; inflation was prevalent in every country. But some of our problems to-day are resultant from that inflation. My right hon. friends of the Progressive party have laid great stress on the fact that agriculture in this country is in a critical state. I am vitally interested in agriculture, indeed, outside the business of looking after some of the departments of government I have no other interest, and therefore I know something about our agricultural conditions. I do not deny that they are critical, but I do deny that this is the most strenuous period through which our agriculture has passed. In my own experience of less than forty years I have known worse conditions agriculturally than we are going through to-day. The economic condition in Canada is not altogether responsible for all our difficulties; if it were, similar difficulties would not prevail in other countries. I challenge my hon. friends in any part of the House to name any country to-day in which agriculture is in a prosperous condition. It is true that in the United States we have the reverse side of the picture; we cannot say of the United States, as we have to say
of Canada, that as a result of the agricultural depression there is depression in industry as well. While the present conditions are bad, we have had other periods just as bad, and I will name one: the period between 1890 and 1896 was characterized by just as much depression in agriculture as exists to-day and that depression was just as severely felt. We recovered from that, however, and made splendid progress in later days.
Now, what is the main difficulty that we have to face to-day as a government? As a result of the war we have to provide a huge annual budget. We have been extravagant in many directions in Canada, and we have not been alone in that respect. The conditions through which we passed induced it and encouraged it. One of the most difficult things to orevent in any country is a condition of inflation, something we fondly call prosperity, a condition that leads to extravagance, large expenditure, and unfortunate speculations that afterwards we must pay for. The war placed a tremendous burden of taxation upon the people. In addition, our provincial governments through force of circumstances, have been extravagant in their expenditures, ha'e in many cases expended beyond the legitimate bounds in many cases. Perhaps the province of Quebec, from which my good friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) comes, is an exception; they have not gone as far in that direction as the other provinces. Our municipalities, too, have expended beyond legitimate bounds. So that to-day we have the problem of paying the accumulated debts and the borrowings that we made against future prosperity. I do not wish to paint a picture that will indicate lack of hope, or the impossibility of improvement, or the impracticability of our emerging from these difficulties with credit to ourselves. I do not think that states the case at all. Nor do I wish to be classed as an optimist who has no good reason for his optimism.
We have, then a public debt, as the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) pointed out the other day, amounting to $450 per capita. My hon. triend was more than generous >n his estimate of the earning power of the Canadian family of five, which he placed somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000 per annum. He stated that each family must make provision for $100 to meet its share of the public debt. That is a very heavy drain. But we have in Canada vast resources which are yet unt niched, great areas of cultivable land, valuable mineral districts, large timber properties, pulpwood areas, and
2798	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
so on, all awaiting development. We have a splendid heritage; let us hope that we shall be able, notwithstanding the tremendous burdens that we have undertaken, to emerge successfully from our difficulties.
The situation becomes a serious one from the point of view of taxation. My hon. friends of the Piogressive party say that we have not gone far enough m the way of reductions. While the depression began, perhaps, with agriculture, it has spread to other lines of business and has made itself felt there. If my hon. friends had to raise money to meet Canada's obligations and to carry on the public service, they would have to exercise due care with respect to the position in which we find ourselves. And what is that position? As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) enunciated yesterday, for at least thirty years bus'ness and industry have been built up in Canada under a system of protection. The statistics show that the number of businesses operating in Canada have increased in the last ten years from 14,000 to almost 35,000; tha^ the investment has doubled and the number of people employed has more than doubled. Rightly or wrongly, representatives of these various businesses have lepeatedbr stated that they cannot compete with industries across the line and elsewhere unless they are given reasonable protection.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask a question?
Mr. MARTEI.L: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Mr. COOTE:: 1 would ask the minister-


Charles A. Stewart: Who is first?


Arthur Meighen: I would ask the minister whether he thinks it was right or wrong that these industries have been built up under a system of protection?


Charles A. Stewart: I can answer in one word' I think it was wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Why then is my hon.
friend starting to build up another by the same system, namely, artificial silks?


Charles A. Stewart: I say it was wrong; I believe that industry would have prospered without the extreme protection offered in many cases.


Arthur Meighen: That was not the question.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend says it is out of the question.


Arthur Meighen: No, I said that was not the question. But I will leave the first one and take his answer. Will he answer the second now?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend asks me if silks are to be protected-


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not.


Charles A. Stewart: -to the extent of 30 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: No, 1 did not say that. I said if it was wrong-


Charles A. Stewart: I have got my hon. friend's question; will he permit me to answer it? There has opened up in Canada an industry for the manufacture of silk. Let me say to my hon. friend that I have grave doubts whether we need so much protection for the silk industry. But at the same time, unless we are prepared to reduce with one stroke the protection that exists upon silks, then in fairness I think we should let the industry start on the same basis as those already existing.


Arthur Meighen: It is the duty my hon.
friend is putting on that I am asking about. If it is wrong to encourage industry by protection, why is he starting in now to encourage another?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend, of course, will say that the logical answer for me to make is to reduce both, and then see whether this industry would start or not. He will agree that if it is necessary- and those who are engaged in the industry say that it is necessary-that that industry should have protection at the moment, then in fairness to the man who wishes to start a new industry of a similar or almost identical character some protection should be afforded so long as the government are prepared to leave that protection on. So far as I am concerned, I want to know definitely the reason why it is necessai-y that so heavy a protection is required for any industry in Canada. But let me go back to my original statement. I do not believe and I have had nothing to convince me, that so heavy a rate of protection is required as is given to many of the industries existent in this country today. But it is also true that many industries that have enjoyed protection have built up their business under that system. We find ourselves in peculiar conditions in Canada to-day, depressing conditions not only with regard to agriculture but business as well, and much as I would desire reductions in many lines, particularly on the commodities

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
that enter so much into the lives of our people, reductions that would mean something considerable in the cost of living to the people ot Canada, it is not my desire nor is it the desire of this government at this moment to jeopardize any of these industries while they aie passing through such a trying period as they are to-day. That I think is a fair answer to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I see it has some bearing on the first, but what bearing it has on the second beats me. If it is a wrong system, why recommence it with respect to any industry?


Charles A. Stewart: I think I have answered my hon. friend's question fairly. I have said on the other hand that I consider the conditions serious, and I think he and any hon. gentlemen who know anything about business conditions in Canada will agree with me that this is a serious time in the business life of Canada. My hon. friend may say that that is the result of a change of government. I have sometimes heard him say that the Liberal party are responsible for a great many misstatements made throughout Canada. Let me say this to him: I do not believe the Liberal party, or the Progressive party, or any other party, was responsible for his difficulties on 6th December over a year ago. Perhaps he may apply the same remark to me. I have no complaint to offer for the treatment that I received. The people of my province desired that someone else should take the reins of government, and I was quite willing that that should be done. I am wTatching with a great deal of interest the results of the new order of things in my province. I am also watching with a great deal of interest the effect of the new order of things in the province of Manitoba. I do not say that in any critical spirit, but with the hope that perhaps they may be able to give a better brand of government than we were able to give in the past.
With regard to the condition of industry in Canada, I do not think the government would have been warranted in going* a great deal further in the way of reductions than they have gone in the budget brought down to parliament on this occasion. I have no doubt that we shall be criticized, in fact, we have been criticized already, because we did not go a great deal further in making reductions. While I believe that the tariff plays a very important part in the lives of the people of Canada and in the economic condition of our country, I do not believe that it is entirely responsible for all our difficulties. Sometimes
we turn our eyes away deliberately from the real facts. In many cases we are forgetful that inflation is responsible for a large part of our difficulties. We are forgetful that the drought in western Canada is also responsible for a fairly large amount of our difficulties, forgetful, too, of many other things that have contributed to the present condition. We are forgetful of extravagance, for instance. We must get away from that because I see in the future the strongest kind of competition coming from every part of the world. Our transportation systems have made competitors of all our neighbours, whether they be near or far. Furthermore, and here I think my right hon. friend will agree with me because I have heard him make the statement repeatedly almost every country in the world has been increasing its protective duties. That makes it incumbent on those who are charged with the responsibility of government to go somewhat slowly in the direction of reductions, but as a member of this government I want to say this: We are going in that direction, slow though my Progressive friends may think our progress. They may say that it does not amount to anything. Well, if that is the case, it should be a grain of comfort for the protectionists. Our Progressive friends may attack us on the ground that we are not going far enough, but I say to them that if they had upon their shoulders the responsibility of office at a time like this they would consider very seriously before making further reductions. I hope that in the very near future, however, it will be possible without injury to business to make reasonable reductions in the customs tariff of Canada. While perhaps I am not thoroughly convinced that more reductions could not have been made, I for one believe that we have gone as far as we reasonably could have been expected to go at this particular time, bearing in mind the conditions prevalent in Canada.
I want to associate myself with the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture yesterday that he did not understand that the statement made by the Minister of Finance on the tariff was a finality. I did not so understand it, nor do I think the Minister of Finance meant to convey that idea. If my hon. friend were sitting where the Finance Minister sits and were being daily interviewed by business as well as agricultural interests throughout Canada, and listened to the varied cases presented, I think that they would say with all the information before them that the Finance Minister had gone as far as he thought it was safe for him to go at this particular time.

2800	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
I want to deal for a moment or two with the question of immigration. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was anxious to know when there would be a change in this particular department. Well, I have made some statement with respect to that. I have the responsibility of quite a number of departments, and I would not worry a very great deal should my leader decide at any moment to make changes. Just let me cover the situation as it exists so far as immigration to this country is concerned. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is unwise to place people upon the land in Canada. I argued some weeks ago in this parliament that there was a vast difference between the man who came here with a respectable amount of money and settled on the land, a man without any encumbrances hanging around his neck, and the individual who had accumulated a great deal of debt had taken upon himself large obligations for its repayment. If the man of that first class I mentioned is properly located, I said then and I still think, he will have a fair chance for success. I do not anticipate that there will be a very great difference between the price of the commodities that he must purchase for use in his business and the selling price of the products of his farm. Of course, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, the price of most of his products is regulated by conditions in the markets of the world, while the prices of the commodities that he uses are usually regulated by conditions at home. That situation will continue, but I still think that in the reorganization and readjustment of business, in the readjustment of labour that must take place, freight rates will play a very important part in the matter of cost and they are bound to play a much more important part in the future. A reduction of freight rates will count fully as much, in my opinion, as even a drastic reduction in the customs tariff to-day in the lives of the people of Canada. What my hon. friend pointed out yesterday certainly could be done and if followed up by a reasonable reduction in the customs tariff the things hoped for will come about. They undoubtedly will come about if the statements of my hon. friends opposite are to be taken at par as to what they propose to do in the future, and also what may be expected in a reasonable way from this government if we remain in office.


Mr. HANSON:: I agree with what the minister has said as to the effect of a drastic reduction in the freight rates. May I ask
[Mr. C. A. Stevrart.3
him what efforts this government are making at this time to bring about that desirable condition of affairs?


Charles A. Stewart: If it is true, and I am accepting the statement as true, that the increased cost of labour to the railways represents more than 60 per cent of the advance in the cost of operation, and that there has only been so far a reduction of less than 20 per cent in that cost-I am speaking now of a government owned institution where there are no profits going to the investment but rather a loss incurred-it will come about in a reduction of labour costs. Let me ask my hon. friend, does he think that the government of Canada, or any other government, can regulate the cost of labour upon railways or upon anything else? I do not think they can, nor do I think they would be warranted in trying to do it. These things will adjust themselves, they will be bound to do so. I have been accused in Canada of preaching deflation, but I have no thought that living conditions will be worse for labour even if a further reduction is made in the cost of labour on our railways and in other lines of activity. But that reduction will undoubedly come. One of the reasons why it has not come earlier is, perhaps. that in the country to the south of us there is an inflation which is probably unprecedented in the history of the United States. That will undoubtedly go on for a time. But it is causing considerable uneasiness in Canada because it is attracting many of our best citizens from the Dominion. However, I hope and predict that they will come back to us when the period of inflation in the United States comes to an end.
Dealing with immigration let me say this. Take the statement, if it were made, and I do not believe in newspaper statements on all occasions, #iat we need co-ordination in immigration work, well, with respect to that let me enumerate some of the things that I have been endeavouring to do, very imperfectly perhaps, possibly it may be said that I have made a very serious failure; but I do not believe that the government of Canada would be warranted in borrowing large sums of money to attract people to Canada and through the medium of loans placing them on the land; I believe they should be attracted in a legitimate way. I believe somewhat with my Progressive friends that the best immigration agent you can have is a happy and contented settler; and with that thought in mind and keeping it constantly

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
before me, I have endeavoured to so arrange conditions that the settler will write back to the country from which he came advising other people to come and settle in Canada. I do not think anyone will quarrel with me about that. But certainly you could not invite labour to come to Canada when, as last winter, you had unemployment in every city in the Dominion, when various Canadian cities were telegraphing us to know what we were prepared to do in conjunction with the municipalities for the relief of unemployment. I think you will agree with me that it would not have been wise, in view of the conditions which then prevailed to invite immigration of that character. Therefore we set about co-ordinating the activities of the transportation companies and our own activities in Great Britain and on the Continent for the purpose of bringing to Canada people whom we thought we could assimilate, and they are coming forward to a much larger degree than they were 'one year ago. Our port reports for the past three months indicate a one hundred per cent increase over last year. We have not as large an influx from the United States as we had a year ago, but probably it will come later. Let me say to my hon. friends opposite, and especially to those who are agriculturists, that while conditions are bad in Canada all they have to do is to cross the line and they will find out that agricultural conditions are even worse in the United States where they are having, as I pointed out, perhaps the greatest expansion in a business way in their history. Now, that does not tend to make it easy to attract settlers from that country.


Mr. KELLNER:: Does the minister claim that agricultural prices are lower in the United States than in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: No, not in every case but freight rates are higher. The price of wheat and commodities of that character are somewhat higher. These prices always have been higher although they vary very considerably in a period of years.
There are other conditions, conditions of taxation, that my hon. friends opposite complain very much about. There is, for example, inflated land values that agriculturists in the United States have to contend with but which are not found in Canada, and for that reason the higher prices there are more than offset. Let me say to my hon. friends

for I am getting authentic reports from the United States as to the conditions over there -that I can give statement after statement of individuals who, if they were able to liquidate the properties they hold in the United 17Si
States at a reasonable sum, would be willing to emigrate to Canada at once and who will do so as soon as they conveniently can. So that the prospect for immigration seems to be reasonably reassuring. No matter what may be done in the future in respect to immigration I do not for one moment believe that it is necessary for this country to embark upon a scheme that will involve the borrowing of huge sums of money for the placing of people on the land. I agree very much with my hon. friends opposite that it is better to make the settlers we have happy and contented if that is possible. However, it will not be possible for a few years until they have recovered from the serious depression through which they have passed and the obligations which they undertook during that time.
I have tried to point out in a very brief way some of the difficulties that we must encounter in raising the revenue in an equitable manner. The one complaint made by hon. gentlemen opposite is that the budget is not equitable in its character. It is complained that the duties do not bear heavily enough upon luxuries and that commodities in general use in Canada are too heavily taxed. But the point must be borne in mind that we have in this country no large class of rich people in comparison to the population; that most of the business of the country is carried on very largely by the savings of the people; that most of the deposits in our banks do not represent the money of the wealthy but are rather the accumulation of the saving of the middle-class people. An hon. geptleman who spoke yesterday referred to the taxes as bearing too heavily upon the consumer. Well, I presume we are all consumers in that respect. I made the statement once in the province' of Alberta, in dealing with this question, that if we are to succeed in paying the public debt of Canada every individual in the country will be required to contribute to the public revenue according to his ability. There can be no question about that, and if it is inequitable, then I would like to sit down with hon. members and consider wherein changes can be made, because I think that in a country like Canada you cannot go to the extreme in taxing capital, as has been advocated by some hon. members. I am very much interested in the experiment of public ownership, but our hope for the future depends upon the development of our natural resources, and the individual who has not capital cannot develop these resources. While we are bringing people to Canada for the
2802	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
purpose of labour in Canada, and offering them an opportunity in that line, we must bear in mind that it is desirable to attract to Canada capital in a very large way, for the development of these resources. You cannot start a new industry upon labour alone, you must have capital to develop it. If there is need for assistance it is in the earliei stages of development, and if an industry cannot exist after being assisted in the early stages, it should go out of business.
But, hand in hand with the development of Canada we must have the importation into Canada of people and capital as well. The mineral resources of Canada alone will pay the debt of Canada a thousand fold, if properly developed and preserved for the people. Some complaint has been made that we are not conserving as we should the mineral wealth of the country. I have given considerable thought to this matter, and I ask, what have we done in the development of oil alone?-that, perhaps, is a concrete case which might apply to all developments. We have not taken the public funds for the purpose of developing oil, but my hon. friend who preceded me will agree with me that we have made it as easy as possible for capital to come in and start the development work in the search for oil; and if it is discovered, I think the public, after all, are entitled to a fair share of the profit. So far as coal production in Canada is concerned, the provinces that lease their natural resources are taking a toll on coal production-perhaps we should take more. In the case of the timber we are doing the very same thing. The day has long since passed when governments were in the habit of handing out to private individuals the natural resources belonging to the people -where I think they properly belong-and permitting them to be exploited in the interests of private individuals. The hon. member also said that the inheritance tax should be increased.


Mr. BIRD:: Does the minister think it is a /;ood thing for the people of Canada that we should fail to balance our budget year by year?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil). I agree with the hon. member that it would be good busi-, ness to balance our budget year by year, but would it be good business to undertake to pay off in one or two or three years the railway debt of Canada? I think the hon. member will agree with me that it would not. I do not think we should transfer to posterity any more than is absolutely necessary, but I think my hon. friend should bear in mind the fact that we have a unique condition in Can-
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.
ada, and that we should make taxation as light as possible, having in mind, of course, the fact that we should not delay 4 p.m. too long the repayment of the public debt. I think it is advisable not to tax too heavily at the moment. If the proposition I submitted a moment ago had been followed in the earlier stages, there would have been no difficulty about being able to tax sufficiently to pay all the running expenses of Canada, but under the railway conditions that exist to-day-because we are collecting more than enough for ordinary expenses-I doubt the advisability of attempting to clear off by taxation the rising deficits that have occurred the past year or two. We hope conditions will improve and that it will be possible in a year or two to make revenue and expenditure balance each year, and that we shall not carry to posterity an increased public debt.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the minister tell me how he anticipates that the people are going to be benefited by having coal and oil mergers developed in Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: The people will undoubtedly profit by the royalties collected. The Alberta government are collecting a tax of ten cents a ton on coal. Perhaps the people are entitled to more from that commodity; however, that is the tax they have decided to impose, that is what they think fair and reasonable when they allow private individuals to do the development work and carry on the industry. I think that is as it should be. I do not believe we should go entirely into the business of public ownership in connection with all our public utilities and public resources, but we should preserve for the people what they are entitled to from the vast wealth in these resources. I think on the whole the provinces are attending to that feature pretty well.
I have tried to show, Mr. Speaker, tha1 under the circumstances we have made an honest effort to cut down wherever possible in the customs' tariff. Looking to the future when business conditions are different, perhaps greater reductions can be made. But, whoever happens to be Minister of Finance, charged with the responsibility of levying taxation, will always have to bear in mind the conditions of the moment, and not the conditions of the future. Because, unless we increase very rapidly in population-and I hope we shall-and unless our railways begin to produce balances on the right side of the ledger, then the present conditions ate

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
bound to recur. I think that the spirit of recklessness that was abroad, has passed away, and that the people realize that due caution must be exercised in the preparation of our budget.
My hon. friends opposite have seen fit to move an amendment, and I have no particular quarrel with their doing so. But in that connection I wish to say something which I intended to say a moment ago with respect to the income tax. I am not altogether satisfied with the income tax as it is constituted. The one man who pays to the utmost limit, who has no escape from the income tax, is the salaried man and, perhaps, he contributes more in that regard than any other individual. On the other hand, I think my hon. friends will find, if they examine the matter carefully, that the income tax hits fairly heavily the man who has a respectable income from all sources, no matter how large it may be, and that he contributes, according to the money he has a pretty respectable proportion, as things go, in the way of taxation. I may say that one hope for the future in Canada is that we have not yet adopted a direct land tax. In the provinces this has been done in a very moderate way. But it leaves an opportunity for the lands of Canada to be developed, and for a livelihood to be obtained from them; and for the next decade or two agricultural conditions will be the barometer by which business and other conditions will be judged in Canada; that is bound to be the fact. That being the case, I think we should leave that field of taxation entirely in the hands of the provinces and the municipalities themselves, for they will need all that the land can stand in the way of taxation for the carrying on of their own affairs.
With regard to the inheritance tax I want to say just a word or two. For years I have had not only a desire but a hope that a very great increase in the inheritance tax might be placed upon estates by the provinces themselves. I know that the statement is made that you cannot collect this tax. Let me assure the House that there is no desire on the part of the federal government at this time to invade this field. I do think, however, there should be as little restriction as possible on the opportunity of a man to make wealth But if he has enjoyed prosperity and has accumulated vast wealth, then there is no reason whatever why the province in which he has acquired it should not in a much larger way than has been the case in the past take for its own benefit, particularly for educational purposes, a greater inheritance tax. But that is outside the field of federal taxation, and I make this statement merely irt answer to my hon. friend, with whom I agree entirely.


Mr. HOEY:: Would it not be far more equitable for the Dominion to impose the tax and split it fifty-fifty with the province? If the province imposed a heavy tax a man might leave shortly before he died, settle in some other province, and so avoid paying his share of taxation to the province in which he had made his wealth.


Charles A. Stewart: I must leave that to the Minister of Finance. I brought up the matter simply because it was mentioned in the discussion yesterday and because I agree most heartily in the principle, no matter how the tax may be imposed. I have heard the statement made that it would be impossible to collect the tax if you went beyond a certain point, and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) pointed that out in connection with the cigarette tax the other day. It is possible, in connection with many of the taxes, that if we went too far we might fail of our object; and in this particular case, if we exceeded a certain limit it is not improbable that the distribution of the estate might be made before the tax could be collected. At best, taxes are bound to be heavy on the Canadian people, although I am hopeful for the future, judging by the experience of the past: and looking back over a period of twenty years, I think that Canada, irrespective of what particular government has been in office at any time, can congratulate herself on her progress. In all lines of endeavour huge strides have been made. It has been said that in Ontario particularly, agriculture is lagging and indeed is dying out. The statistics do not show that. They do show, it is true that there are fewer people on the land; but they reveal as well the fact that one individual on the land to-day, with modem and improved machinery and equipment, can produce very nSuch more than five or six persons could twenty-five years ago. And that is being demonstrated. Manufacturing industry and agriculture in Canada are running about equal. I do not think that is necessary. I believe that agriculture should lead in a very large way, and I am prepared as one member of this government, so long as I have responsibility as a minister, to assist in every way possible, and to encourage legislation that will in every respect assist, this industry and promote its interests. After all, agriculture is the basic industry upon which the wealth
The Budget-Mr. Harris

and the prosperity of Canada is built. While I say that, however, let me make it clear that I have no desire to interfere with business or industry, believing that it should be encouraged in every way and that industry should be enabled to establish itself, and believing that in every legitimate way it should be fostered. Our aim should be to have industry and agriculture progress in Canada in order that we may have a well balanced condition of affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to cover as briefly as I could a few of the criticisms that have been offered in this debate, and I commend to the good judgment of the House the budget which has been brought down this year by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: In rising to contribute a few remarks to the debate on this budget, to which we have been giving so much consideration, I want to request the Minister of Finance to listen, if he will, to two or three words. First of all, let me congratulate the hon. gentleman on the vigour and energy he has shown in presenting to parliament his seventeenth budget. At this session, particularly when he has to consider a review of the Bank Act, I am sure that the Minister of Finance will receive the greatest sympathy of hon. members in all corners of the House. But I do not think that his colleagues on this account can be relieved of responsibility for the consequences of the budget which the minister has brought down. It is my earnest wish that the minister may be spared a good many years to serve this fair Dominion, not in his present capacity, but on this side of the House. I say that advisedly, because in looking through the budget debates of previous years I find that that hon. gentleman on former occasions has been a very able critic. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we were to take some of the criticisms of the present Minister of Finance, of budgets brought down in years that have passed, and if we were to submit those criticisms in toto from this corner of the House, we might feel that wp had done justice to the present debate. In confirmation of this assertion I am going to ask hon. members to listen while I read a few words that fell from the lips of the minister as member for Shelburne and Queens. In 1920, the minister is reported at page 2,509 of Hansard as follows:
The Minister of Finance to-day gave us some tariff changes which we shall be better able to understand when we read them in detail in Hansard. Let me say, however, that I am sure there must be deer* disappointment on the part of a great many members of the House who were, or are, supporters of the government, to find that the tariff reform which they are
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.
getting-if you call it tariff reform-is of such a moderate character. We must not forget that the government have for the last two years been, shall I say, coquetting with this tariff question, jollying their friends along and promising that something was going to be done. If I might use a quotation:
"They promise, prepare, propose, postpone
And end by letting things alone."


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: budget? In other words, what has the budget done to help him out of the predicament in which he now finds himself? Is there anything in the budget that can be held up to prospective settlers? Is there anything in the record of this government during the last fifteen months which will make the people of other countries say: "That will be a good place for me to settle, a good place for me to bring up my boys and girls?" Is there anything in the budget, anything in the record of the present government, to encourage people to come to our shores? It is time we rose to our responsibilities; it is time we had a little bit of statesmanship here. Let us bring governmental institutions to the same businesslike basis as that upon which ordinary business institutions are run, and in the end we will solve many of the problems which at present face the people.
There is one other paragraph in the budget to which I should refer if I am not to be remiss in my duty to the good old Conservative party-tariff stability. I congratulate not only the Minister of Finance but the Liberal party as a whole in coming to an acknowledgement of the absolute necessity of tariff stability. I expected to see with one accord the whole party to my left rise to their feet, but perhaps they will do it with a vengeance when they once get started. It is quite easy to criticize the protective principle; those who have not reviewed the conditions prevailing in Canada from Halifax to Vancouver are wont to agree with many of the policies enunciated by people who are desirous of having in this country a certain amount of free trade. When I think^ of free trade I am reminded of an industry that I have observed for quite a number of years. It happens to be located in the heart of the riding represented by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have there an industry which is indigenous to this country, its raw material being drawn from our own natural resources. It comes under paragraph 9 of the tariS schedule, wood and woodenware products. I am going to give a reason why I feel that it is necessary to have a reasonable tariff as applied to many industries of that nature. These people manufacture such things as clothes-pins, wash-tubs, patent pails and rolling-pins. We have in Canada at present but nine millions of people. The raw material for the things these people manufacture-and I have mentioned only about four of them-is capable of being manufactured into a great number of other lines of goods. If we had a population close to this industry which would absorb the whole output of any one of these articles being the sole 
product of industry, the whole attention of that manufacturing plant could be concentrated on that one article, and it would not be necessary, perhaps, to have a tariff against similar goods entering Canada. Take any one article you wish-the rolling-pin, for instance. There are more Mrs. Jiggs' in England and the United States than there are in Canada. But take rolling-pins; if that factory were able to do nothing else but work three eight-hour shifts a day in the manufacture of rolling-pins alone, and if there was a market for the product close to the factory which would absorb all the rolling-pins turned out, then it would not be necessary to have protection against that article. I am not going to dwell on that, because twenty or thirty per cent of the material in the Library of parliament deals pro and con, not with tariff stability, perhaps but with tariffs in general.
I am sorry to note in the budget speech the paragraph that has to do with reciprocity. The people of Canada gave notice to the governments of Canada that they did not want to put themselves in the position-oh, I was going to use the expression, of beggars waiting for crumbs in the way of reciprocity to drop from the industrial table of Uncle Sam. It is well known to the powers that be in the United States that we have a Liberal party here which is pledged to reciprocity. Why make the people of Canada feel badly in the thought that they have on record in black and white, embodied in this budget, a request-to my mind, and I am speaking for myself, a begging request-that Uncle Sam should drop a few crumbs of reciprocity from his industrial table? If he should do so, he would only give us something from which he would receive the majority of the benefit; otherwise he would not give it. I submit in all sincerity that it is bad business. It will not be good for the young people of Canada to feel that we lower ourselves-I hesitate to use that expression; but to feel that we put ourselves in a begging position so far as Uncle Sam is concerned.
I must hurry on, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to take up too much time. I have some sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) who has suggested on a number of occasions that twenty minutes is sufficient for the average speech. At that rate I have about one minute to go.	[DOT]
A great many committees of the House are sitting at the present and are doing a lot of good work. They are accumulating a great deal of useful information, and I am going to refer to one item of information I gathered from one of these committees on Thursday

The Budget-Mr. Hams
last. It has to do with a subject which I am sure is of vital interest to every citizen of Canada, of particular interest to my hon. friends to my left who come from the prairie provinces, as well as to the hon. members for Quebec city. It has to do with cattle shipped from Winnipeg to the port of Quebec for export to Glasgow and Liverpool. Anyone who has sat in the Railway Committee room and looked at the map hanging there, instead of perhaps listening to the orations that have been delivered from day to day, must have been impressed with the shortness of the route from Winnipeg to the port of Quebec and with the possibility of our taking a great deal of the products of our western provinces over the Canadian National down to Quebec, and from Quebec to the markets of the world. It impressed me that way as I sat in the Railway Committee room some two or three weeks ago. I recognize, and we all know, that the transcontinental railway now known as the Canadian National Railway is a white elephant on the hands of the people of Canada. But we are Canadians, and we can rise to the occasion and take hold of that expensive organization that is on our hands now and use it to the best advantage, and here is one opportunity in my humble opinion for us to make use of it. The rail haul via the Canadian Pacific from Winnipeg to Montreal is 62 miles longer than the Canadian National route from Winnipeg to Quebec city. The grade over the Canadian Pacific to Montreal is much harder-I use that word for want of a better term-than the Canadian National grade from Winnipeg to Quebec. Why not, then, ship the 60,000 cattle, which we expect to ship to the Old Country in the next open season, over the Canadian National to Quebec city, and from there to the markets of the world? I merely bring this point up on the floor of the House, not because I hold any brief for the city of Quebec or for our western friends; and I hold absolutely no brief for the cattle industry of this country. I suppose you would expect me to be a ' little narrow and sectional and think only of Ontario or perhaps one of the Yorks where I come from, but I feel that in short-circuiting Toronto and Montreal in this way we would be doing something of benefit to the country as a whole.
I want to enlarge on that for a moment if I may. There is also some 18 hours shorter travel for cattle going over the Canadian National route to the port of Quebec. There is also that 24 hours' delay avoided going down the river from Montreal to Quebec.
What is needed now is a recommendation perhaps from the Agricultural Conditions committee or from some department of this government that the shipping interests shall give the same privileges to the port of Quebec, so far as shipping space and facilities are concerned, as are given to Montreal, and to see to it that perhaps some of the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine-I know some of them were used in 1921-be diverted to take care of this particular traffic, and more particularly to see that no influence emanating from the city of Montreal shall in any way interfere with this flow of trade on that railway-that great white elephant which we still have on our hands. Any remarks I might make in regard to the cattle industry will in my humble opinion apply in the same degree to other products from the western provinces, such as flour, which may flow to the markets of the world.
In view of the fact that I have said this much for the province of Quebec and for our friends from the West, I want to ask their indulgence for a moment while I say something which more particularly concerns the people of Ontario and our western friends, but which in my humble opinion concerns also the whole Dominion of Canada, and that is the canalization of the St. Lawrence river.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: Someone says, "hear, hear." I do not bring this matter up with the idea of saying that to-day or to-morrow we should immediately go on with the canalization of the St. Lawrence river; but what I do say is that when the Prime Minister of this country receives a message from the United States of America asking his consideration of this great project, the people of Canada should have the benefit of a good and fair debate on the pros and cons of the issue as it was submitted to the First Minister. They should have that debate, so that public opinion could be roused throughout the whole Dominion of Canada, and when that public opinion was sufficiently roused and sufficiently instructed as to the pros and cons and the wisdom of going on with this great piece of engineering work we would be in a position to act on that public opinion. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in the interests of Canada if some of the academic questions which have been discussed on the floor of this House, such as the single transferable vote, proportional representation, and things of that kind, which do not matter to the same degree as such projects as the canalization of the St. Lawrence, should be put to one side in favour of bigger issues.
The Budget-Mr. Harris


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: Somebody says "louder."
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture in his oration last night, in his monthly instalment of amusement given to this House, mentioned something about the crack of doom. Now I have always been taught to believe that when the crack of doom is heard an angel shall descend from heaven, and placing one foot on the sea and one foot on dry land, shall proclaim to the people of the earth that earth shall be no more. Mr. Speaker, when that day cometh, I imagine that the hon. member who said "louder"-I do not know who it was, but I think it was the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam)-will probably rise in his place and say, "Louder! louder!"	,


Mr. PUTNAM:: I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I was able to hear him distinctly, and made no such request.


Joseph Henry Harris: I most humbly beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, but I heard the word drift across from some quarter of the House and naturally thought it came from over there. Was it the hon. gentleman who wears the hat (Mr. Leger)? Perhaps he comes from some part of the country where the sea joins the dry land and will therefore be quite close at hand to receive the message of the angel on descending.
When I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was dwelling on a subject which is close to my heart, and that is the canalization of the St. Lawrence river. At the present time we have, as all know, the Welland canal nearing completion, and there is an absolute necessity of reducing the cost of bringing the products of the western farmer to the ocean and to the markets of the world. The cost of getting the grain out of that western country absolutely must be cut down, and if it can be shown to the people of this country that the potential wealth of electrical energy to be developed from the St. Lawrence waterway will be quite sufficient to pay the cost of that whole development and not saddle the people of this country with any extra cost, then I submit that all arguments pro and con should be submitted and public opinion and enthusiasm be roused. It is questions of this sort that should be given consideration by the people of this country. I do not need to dwell further on the subject. All hon. members know the magnitude of that fall and flow of water down the St. Lawrence, and can imagine the millions of horse-power that could be developed and the vast possibilities to follow. I do not want to appear as a dreamer, but I ask the earnest consideration of this House for 
projects of this kind rather than academic questions.
Before resuming my seat I would like to say something with regard to two or .three expressions of opinion I heard in this chamber. One of those expressions emanated from the Progressive side of the House. I did not discover who uttered it but hon. gentlemen will remember the remark was something like this: "The breezes are blowing in the mulberry trees". The speaker seemed to have in mind the idea that part of this country should belong to the United States. He said: "The breezes are blowing in the mulberry trees. How long will it be before these breezes shall turn into a hurricane and sweep these western provinces from us"? Mr. Speaker, that is a wrong attitude, in my humble opinion, to take with respect to the issues in this country. The greatest feat of statesmanship to be accomplished, I think, during the next decade, will be to keep Ontario and Quebec united with the western prairies separated as the eastern provinces are from the West by a thousand mile gap. We in Ontario, and I can speak for the hundred thousand people 'hat I represent, are ready to stand to a rntn with the rest of the country in repelling onslaughts upon the Dominion such as were hinted at in the remarks referred to. There was also a sort of doubt cast by an hon. member from Quebec, the other day, in speaking about Great Britain, as to whether or not this country really belongs to the British Empire. I do not want to indu'ge in any flag waving because I did no soldiering myself during the Great War, but let me say to the hon. gentleman in question, one of the gallant men who fought in the period from 1914 to 1918, that the British Empire, in my opinion, has been the greatest agency for good in the whole wide world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. HARRIS' I do not want any applause for that, it may seem too much like a recognition of flag waving, but I wish to say that it is absolutely imperative that we stand shoulder to shoulder in defending this great country of ours from all assaults, let them be from within or from without, and to preserve it intact in the interests of the civilization of mankind
As far as the budget is concerned I shall say nothing more than to apply to the action of the government the wo*"ds quoted in this House by the Minister of Finance on a previous occasion:
They promise, prepare, propose, postpone
And end by letting things alone.

The Budget-Mr. Kellner


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Not being possessed of a voice like that of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris)
I have moved from my customary seat to a position near the centre of the chamber. Like other hon. members who have spoken I would like to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) for the manner in which he presented the budget to the House. I understand that previous budgets have received considerable commendation because of the manner of their presentation and I think it would be entirely unfitting if we did not extend the same courtesy to the Minister of Finance on the present occasion. There is one point about the budget which seems to be causing a little confusion. That is as to what is meant by "stability." I would like to be possessed of the same powers of oratory as the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat in order to be able to tell you what, in my opinion, this term means. I think that in the West it means "low tariff"; in the East it stands for "protection"; at any rate that is what this term has usually meant in the past and no doubt the same definition will continue to be applied to it.
I discovered in a western paper a characterization of the budget which perhaps, describes it more correctly than I could do. With the permission of the House I will read that article. It says:
Upon the receipt of Mr. Fielding's budget in lake Winnipeg there was tremendous excitement and enthusiasm among the fish. A flounder dashed in with the great news-"the duty on machines for making fish meal had been abolished." A mud fish refused to belierve it and got entangled in acrimonious debate with a catfish. The whole colony of whitefish stood on their ears and wiggled their fins for joy; the suckers received the news open-mouthed, and then proposed that a message of thanks be sent to Mr. Fielding for taking such a burden off the backs of the poor fish in the West. Carried swimmingly.
The foregoing excerpt is taken from the Manitoba Free Press under date of May 14. Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of hearing many of the speeches so far delivered in this debate; I have been obliged to spend a great deal of my time attending one of the committees. Consequently I hope that in what I say I shall not be threshing over matters which have already been brought to the attention of the House. I have had the privilege of listening to only one or two speakers so far but I would like to make a few comments on some of the statements made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) last evening. I must express a little sorrow that the minister, before
giving his speech to the House, did not run t through a cream separator in order that we might grasp its substance more easily. Personally I have not had time to read it all and I am afraid I shall never get that opportunity. The minister endeavoured to impress upon the House that he knew all the troubles that were afflicting agriculture and the remedies for them. He sought to pose as an authority on what kinds of live stock the farmers should keep and he was in no way backward in advising us respecting the manner in which they should be kept, the kind of crops we should grow, and the sort of immigration policy the country ought to pursue. In a word it would take a goodsized encylopaedia to contain all the information and advice which the minister handed out. The hon. gentleman wound up his long address with the bald statement that bad farming is practically responsible for all the ills of the western country. The minister also endeavoured to discredit the amendment moved by the Progressives to the budget, and stated that the reductions in the British preference for which we are asking were less than the government are proposing. I wish to deny that statement most emphatically. The minister gave a table professing to bear out his statement. I have a table which contradicts in some respects the rates given by the minister. Let me quote from it:
Rate under Rate under Present Government Progressive General rate proposal amendment tariff
Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centGray cotten fabrics and fabrics of flax .. ..	12*	124	25Stair linen sheets, table cloths, etc., of cotton or linen	20	18	15	30Woollen yarns.	20	18	15	30


Arthur Meighen: Is my hon. friend quoting the relative reductions under the amendment and the budget as respects the British preferential tariff?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Of course the hon. gentleman is aware that cotton fabrics now come from the United States. It is from there that we experience competition in cotton fabrics. It does not matter in that case what reductions are made in the British preferential tariff.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I admit that, but the Minister of Agriculture stated last night that
2S10

The Budget-Mr. Kellner
the government's reduction in the British preferential tariff would be more than under our proposed amendment. It would be a greater reduction, of course. I have a long list of items here, twenty-four in all, and they are all in the same category. The following is the list of these items, with the present rate of duty, the rate proposed by the goverment, the rate under the Progressive amendment, and the general tariff.
Present Government Progressive General rate proposal amendment tariff Percent Percent Percent Percent
Ribbons	
22$	201	17$	35Furniture	20	18	15	30Boots	
17$	15}	15	30Screws	
22$	20$	17$	35Cutlery ....	20	18	15	30
Then we get into a line of importations. The first one is iron and aluminum hollow-ware. Hon. members may have noticed that the minister stumbled a bit when he came to that item last night, and I could not help wondering if he quite realized what hollow-ware was. I think I should tell him that it is material for making up caskets and they make it in two different forms, iron and aluminum. They bury their old political pledges, the ones which they never expect to resurrect in the iron casket j it is heavier, and they stay firmly in place. But matters like the tariff, which they expect to bring back and use from time to time, it is much more convenient to place in the aluminum casket. This list continues:
Present Government Progressive General
rate	proposal	amendment	tariffPer cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centLamps.. .	. .. 20	18	15	30Sewing	macnines.	. .. 20	18	15	30Hats and	caps 22*	201	17*	35Gloves and	mitts. ..	.. 22*	20*	17$	35
I took a great deal of pleasure this afternoon in listening to the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) in his address when he told us that he had no very great objection to the Progressives assuming power in Canada, and he also made the statement that in the provinces where they are now in power they are not making a very great amount of headway. Let mo tell him that in mostly every province it was the relics of a poor Liberal administration that put them into power, and it is going to be pretty hard for them, or any other government, to make very much of a showing for a little while at least. He made a very strong plea for capital, and I do not blame him, because hon. members will remember that in the last federal election capital showed itself to be just a little frivolous. In the beginning of the

campaign it got in behind the Conservative party and tried to elect them, but before the campaign was very far advanced it switched and got in behind the Liberals and did elect them. Now I think members of the government to-day ought to feel as though 5 p.m. they owed a great deal to the capitalistic interests of Canada. The minister also talked about an inheritance tax, and said he thought it should be a part of the provincial taxes. I do not know whether I agree with that policy or not, but it seems to me that at the present time all the millionaires that we have in Canada seem to die either in Montreal or Toronto. I think probably we make them out West, but when it comes to crossing the Great Divide which the member for East York (Mr. Harris) so very touchingly described a few minutes ago, they always end up in Montreal or Toronto, and the inheritance tax is collected in those cities. I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing the minister's statement of last night I omitted to read an extract from the Toronto Globe of April 17th, which I ask permission to read at the present time. It says:
In Wednesday's Globe, April 11, is a message from Hon. Mr. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, in which he blames the raisers of the scrub steer the off-type hog and the dunghill hen-
A class of animal that is very well known to hon. members of this House; we have often heard of it. The article continues:
-for the complaints in regard to the condition of agriculture at the present time. If the Minister of Agriculture will travel through any part of Lambton county, Ontario, and I have no doubt any other county as well, he will see for himself the kind of stock kept on the farm and he will hear from men who know their business that the farmers are facing difficult problems.
There is not one man in one hundred who can start on the farm under present conditions and pay for his farm if he lives in the way any civilized man ought to live. The lifting of the British embargo may help stock raisers. It is to be hoped it will, but the best market by far for the Canadian farmer is just across the border.
And I have yet to learn that our Liberal government has taken any step to secure that market for the Canadian farmer. If our government realized the seriousness of the situation, they would remove the duty on all the necessities of life and on all farm implements. If Canada had free trade with the United States, this country would prosper as never before, not only the farmers, but every class in the country, and, to my mind, that is the only way to make Canada the country it ought to be. At present we have apparent prosperity in our large centres of population, but if present conditions continue the pros-

The Budget-Mr. Kellner
perity of our cities will vanish. The Globe in the same issue makes the statement that the prosperity of the whole country depends on the success of agriculture-scrubs, steers and dunghill hens included, I presume. The Globe says-
The Globe in the same issue makes the statement that the prosperity of the whole country depends on the success of agriculture: this being so, and there is no denying the fact, it is up to the Globe to use its whole influence for the removal of the obstacles that are throttling agriculture.
The Liberal party should put into practice the platform adopted in 1919 or hand the reins of government over to our Conservative friends who are the fathers of protection in Canada.


George Perry Graham: That would be bad.


Arthur Meighen: We would rather get
them another way.


George Perry Graham: Hope springs eternal.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think it would be well not to read the rest of the article. I am sure I could not expect any applause for it; so that I will desist.
I desire to offer a few remarks on the budget from a personal point of view; I want to criticize it as I see it myself. I do not know that I shall have the entire support of all Progressives in this section of the House in my stand on this budget and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to have it known that I am speaking only for myself and that part of the West which I represent. When this government took office I think the people of Canada had more hope and greater expectations of its members than had ever been entertained on the accession to power of any former government in Canada. Just previous to the return of the present government we had experienced a period of very great inflation followed by a time of depression. We were still suffering from that depression when hon. gentlemen opposite took over the reins of power. When the armistice was signed there was a lull in the activities of the country. I believe that the people were of opinion that the devastation of war having ceased they could afford to rest on their oars. But very soon we were told that it was necessary for Europe to be rehabilitated, and the people were requested to get to work immediately and produce even more than they had done during the war. It is our op'.mon now that this request was made probably because certain persons who controlled the destinies of Canada wanted time in which to set their house in order so that they might be prepared to meet the shock which they no doubt knew would come. It has been a great pleasure to me in listening to the discussion of this budget to learn that at last we have
reached bottom and have got as far down the abyss of financial depression as it is possible for us to reach. That at any rate is the good news which we have been given.
In my opinion our financial troubles started at the frontiers of our country long before they began in the more urban sections. In the far East and the far West we felt the pinch many months before the people suffered in this section of the country. And that is ever the case. The people living in those out-' lying communities are never as prosperous as the people in sections like this, and a smaller loss brings them down to the bread line sooner. They are further from the centres of wealth, so that any reduction in the value of their goods is more keenly felt and takes a greater percentage from their profits. Probably that is the reason that we in the West have been more insistent in bringing to the attention of the House the deplorable conditions in which the country finds itself to-day. I hesitate to mention this matter to-day, for I was among those who a few weeks ago were classed as calamity howlers for having referred to the matter at all. We were told that this was one of the things we should not have go out to the world; in fact we were given to understand that it was just about the lowest depth of degeneration even to mention it.
It seems to me, though, that it is a rather poor policy for us to shut our eyes to the unrest that is becoming more pronounced day by day. There is no doubt that people are sinking in financial morasses from time to time through no fault of their own, and they are getting into a frame of mind which this government or any other would do well not to disregard. They seem to feel that human sympathy is dead and that depressing calculations are their only outlook. If that is the state of mind of the Canadian people to-day I think it is high time that these matters were brought to the attention of the House in no uncertain way. This present depression is even influencing social and religious life. A few Sundays ago I sat in Chalmers Presbyterian Church in this city when their budget was brought down, and I gathered from the statement submitted that day thit this year there had been paid into the church more money than ever before in one year find that the revenues were greater than in any past year. On the other hand, however, from every remote section of the countrv it appeared that missionaries had to be called in. Retrenchment is the order on the frontiers of western Canada and in foreign lands, and I believe this is due largely to the fact that a great
The Budget-Mr. Kellner

volume of the money that is collected is taken up in paying interest charges and meeting similar obligations. And this is the same in everyday life in all occupations. [DOT]
Now, these were largely the conditions that prevailed when the Liberals took office. But the people seemed to have an unusual amount of faith in that party at that time. No doubt the promises of hon. gentlemen when they were in opposition were still ringing in the * public ear; the people were still listening to speeches of the kind made in this House in regard to war graft that had gone on, besides graft in connection with the merchant marine and things of that sort. The people hoped that when this government took office it would be the champion of the working classes. I believe that the people had a special confidence in the Prime Minister who seems to have had a reputation as a man of democratic tendencies and one who had especial sympathy for the weak and those who needed help. If I doubt not the people of the country trusted him to a very large extent. But I am afraid that to-day that trust and the hope they entertained then have gone.
The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), speaking last night, said that there was no difference so far as he could see between the Liberal and the Conservative parties. I do not think he carried the argument quite to its logical conclusion; I would enlarge on his statement to this extent, that in my opinion, it does not matter which one of these parties is in power, it does not govern the country anyway. I believe that this country is governed largely by unseen hands, by different financial institutions; and it matters not who for the time being occupy government benches, they get their orders. And so far they have been carrying out those orders. At all events, the faith which the people had that a better state of affairs would ensue on the accession of this government to office no longer exists; and if Liberalism means anything to-day I believe it means something shady.
There is just a little too much selfishness at work in this country of ours. There seems to be a supreme desire on the part of some of those who are controlling our destinies to get just a little more than it is possible for the country to let them have. The manufacturers say that it is essential that the prices of goods be kept up; they tell us that it is not wise to monkey with the tariff. They say that if we bring in goods from other countries in competition with them they will have to close their factories with the result that employees will be thrown out of work.

The financiers tell us that we should keep interest rates up and get back to the gold basis as quickly as we can; while the merchants claim that their sales are small and that prices must be maintained because they are not doing a large business. Then the railway companies come along and declare that freight rates must not be brought down, that they must be kept up in order that dividends may be paid. And I do not think that anyone will doubt that the professional men of the country have gentlemen's agreements to keep up their charges, and that they are doing so.
On the other side are a large number of people paying these excessive charges-people who live neither in Montreal nor in Toronto 

and their purchasing power has been so greatly reduced that commercially they are of little benefit to the country. They are asking for cheaper money, for lower tariffs, for the lessening of taxes on the necessities of life; to all of which this governmenet turns a deaf ear. I think the government's real policy is probably brought out a little clearer in some of the speeches we hear in this chamber from their supporters rather than in the budget proposals, and a= far as I am able to size up their policy from such speeches it amounts to about this- Work harder-cut down expenses

raise a lot. more goods and send them to some foreign country to be sold at about two-thirds the price they will bring in Canada.
The charge is made that poor farming is largely responsible for conditions as they exist in the West to-day. I think the charge is very unfair. Going back to the days of the war, when we were asked for greater production, I would put this question to hon. members: What country anywhere in the world produced in anything like rhe same proportion as western Canada? And is there a farmer in any other country to-day who produces anywhere near as much as the western farmer does7 One hon. gentleman in speaking during the debate on immigration, I think it was the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), stated that it was the farmer's own fault that he found himself in the position he occupies to-day. "Why," exclaimed the hon. gentleman, "he does not live in a sod shack like he did in the days when I was a bi y; he lives in a real house now. He is spending far too much money. He even climbs into a Henry, steps on the gas and runs around like other people do. The farmers of the West to-day are overstocked in land in machiueiy and in other things." I should like to compare the ad-

The Budget-Mr. Kellner
vancement of the farmer with the advancement of people engaged in other occupations to-day. Would hon. members who feel that way about it care to go back a few years and view the life that professional men then lived? I think they will fmd that then there were very few of our professional men living in modern houses such as they are able to afford to-day; most of them would be found above a store or in similar quarters. May I also call the attention of !he House to the fact that from the standpoint of intelligence the professional man is uot by any means outclassing the farmer? We have quite a number of lawyers and doctors in this chamber, and I want to ask you: If you had a very difficult case to argue which one of these distinguished gentlemen would you engage? Would you rather do as the Dominion government did, go down to Toronto and hire a lawyer at $400 a day, and perhaps go across the line and hire two or three more at a similar rate? I lemembe'- in the days when I was a boy on the farm back in Ontario we had a doctor who used lo visit our farm, a distance of eight miles from his home, and he did not drive a McLaughlin Six or any car of that kind but a horse and buggy. He made those eight miles for $2.50 a trip- just about what a doctor to-day will charge for writing a prescription.
The difference between what those engaged in the various professions are earning and what our farmers earn was plainly brought out before the Banking and Commerce committee the other day, when the manager of the Weyburn Security Bank told us that they had received reports from two hundred and forty of the best farmers in Saskatchewan which disclosed that their annual revenue above operating expenses had been $600. Now, in nearly every instance that would represent the wages of two people, in many instances the wages of several people-the farmer, his wife and family. For a whole year's work they got the magnificent sum of $600. No doubt that meant getting up about four o'clock in the morning, milking the cows, feeding the calves and working until probably six or seven o'clock at night, and then doing the same chores again before going to bed.
Mr. PUTNAM; I suppose the hon. gentleman does not overlook the fact that those two hundred and forty turners each made $600 over and above living expenses?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: No, I had not overlooked that. I am quite willing to concede that in these cases they did make their living and
$600 in addition according to the evidence of the manager of the Weyburn Security' Bank.
I was very much surprised to hear this for I did not think it was possible. However, would the hon. member w:sh to compare that income with, sav the income of Mr. Tilley when he was acting for the government in the Grand Trunk arbitration-$400 a day and expenses? That is just a little bit too much of a spread. While the farmer had his living during the twelve months he was making his $600, so also had Mr Tilley when he was making his $400 a day.


Harold Putnam: If I might answer the hon. gentleman, I do not think the comparison at all relevant. But I have heard that the ambition of the Noble Foundation Farm did not differ from Mr. Tilley's.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I might advise my hon. friend that that farm is in the hands of a receiver at the present time.


Mr. GOULD:: Absolutely


Harold Putnam: I sai'1 the ambition of that concern did not differ from the Tilley ambition. The only difference is that one had luck, the other had not.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I do net think "luck" is the right word there. One had an organization behind him to see that legal fees did not go too low; the other had no such organization to see that his grain prices did not go too low. I think that is probably the crux of the situation.
In discussing this budget a good many hon. members try to ridicule representatives of the West because we come here and ask for lower tariffs. They try to make out that we do not 'altogether know what we are talking about and that it would not be a good thing for us to have lower tariffs. I may tell this House that these hon. gentlemen can never make protectionists of the people of western Canada. Neither can they convince western Canada that the people in that part of the country should submit to the excessive interest rates that they are paying to-day. They cannot convince them, either, that it is their duty to pay the high freight rates they are paying to-day. When we ask for lower interest rates it is not going to do us any good to tell us we have the best Bank Act in the world, and say, "You farmers keep your horny hands off it." And when we tell you that we want lower tariffs, it is not going to do any good to get into a discussion of tariff stability or anything of that kind. When we ask for lower freight rates, it will not get you anywhere to tell us that the present rates are just
The Budget-Mr. Kellner

as low as they can be and permit the payment of dividends. I think there is a spirit abroad in the West to-day that will not be much longer denied. When we see the transportation companies and the elevator companies exploiting us from coast to coast in weights, in grades, in transportation rates, it is only natural that we should feel just a little bit strong on some of these questions. We cannot be intimidated, either, by being told that we do not know what we are talking about; the dissatisfaction which prevails in the West will, I am sure, never die out until times are made better. If this House cannot conceive of anything that will enable us to get on our feet, then I say to you in all sincerity, do not do anything to increase that flame. If conditions are such in this country that we cannot live together as one family, by ail means do not interject anything into this House that will keep us from being good neighbours.
I have often thought while sitting here in this House that those who have control of the government frequently lose sympathy with the people. It has often been given as the reason why Rome fell that she had disregarded the soul of her people, and I am just a little bit afraid there is a tendency in this House and in this country at the present time to disregard the soul of the Canadian people. There is nothing that will inspire men to the same degree of feeling as a fight for their existence, and that is what the West is fighting for to-day. We are rapidly losing our homes in that district, and it has been well demonstrated that if there is anything that will inspire a man to action it is to see his home going.
Before I close I would like to call the attention of the House to the very awkward and unsatisfactory position which the Progressives are in at the present moment in this House. We realize that we have little to expect unless we are well enough organized to go out and win enough support to carry the government of this country. At the present that is hopeless, for we have no organization in the East at all. Probably it could be accomplished in the very near future, but at present it is out of the question. Norw, we are forced to this position of affairs: Should we defeat this government by some manoeuvre or another -and no doubt, we could do it-what in the name of common sense have we to expect, from the Tories? So we are forced to sic here; we take the ridicule of the press quite frequently, but we are helpless to better our position, for if we did switch parties the

chances are we might get the worst of the switch.


An hon. MEMBER:: It could not be any worse.


Mr. FORKE:: Do not be so hopeless. There is a chance for us yet.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: In conclusion, I think it would be well, if this country wishes to avoid broils and internal strife, that more attention be paid to the demands which come from the West. The representations made should not lightly be passed by; we should not merely be told it is our own fault. There are many of us who have been through the mill. We have seen the homesteader go in there and work as hard as any man possibly could, exercising all the frugality that any man could be expected to exercise, and the blame is not his; it is that of the method by which our business is carried on in this country. It is my opinion that that method must be changed; otherwise it is very doubtful whether the boundaries of our country^ can be maintained as we know them to-day.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: The Budget-Mr. Fontaine

hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). He would have liked, I suppose, despatching our Canadians to be killed across the seas; he would have felt some satisfaction in forcing upon us a new conscription act.
Let the hon. ministers pursue their good work. The Canadian people do not expect that the present government will succeed in remedying, in a few months, the wrongs perpetrated by the Borden and Meighen governments, during their ten years in power, with their policy of wanting to sacrifice the very last man, the very last dollar to save the Empire. Nor do the people expect that they will immediately change deficits into surpluses, the wretched times into a golden age, but they do expect the government to improve the financial conditions of the country by practising a strict economy, by ceasing to meddle in European affairs and by initiating a policy essentially Canadian, and for the Canadians.
I wish to say a few words, Sir, on the immigration question. I fully realize that it is a serious and embarrassing problem; indeed, the question before us is whether we shall disburse large sums of money to bring hither immigrants from Europe, when many of our best Canadians emigrate to the United States. I know full well that the greater half of our territory is yet to be settled; that we have an abundance of natural resources, which only await willing hands to develop them; I realize that we have a territory that can feed 100,000,000 people and that we number hardly
8,000,000; I am aware that we have a railway system which is a burden to the country, and does not pay for its upkeep because we have not the traffic nor the necessary population to feed it; I concede that it was immigration which built up the wealth and developed the United States which, at the time of their proclamation of independence, in 1775, consisted only of a few thousand people, while to-day they have reached the enormous number of 112,000,000. Notwithstanding all this,
I wonder whether, in the present financial conditions we are placed in, the time is propitious to disburse money to bring over immigrants who, perhaps, will swell the number of the unemployed in cities. I wish to protect the Canadian workman, he is the one who needs most protection because he is the most affected by the present crisis. For the last few years, there has been a shortage of work, salaries have dwindled down to such an extent that many of our families in Hull and elsewhere are forced to cross over to the United States to earn a living. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, to witness our young men, capable and vigorous, cross the border to enrich

the United States citizens when we have here a country just as advantageous as theirs. Let the government find means to keep on this side our population rather than spend money to bring over immigrants.
I realize that the government mean well, they want to place these immigrants on the land so as to develop agriculture, but I fear that these people who, for the most part, have not been brought up on the farm, will make but a short stay on the land and eventually find their way to the cities, displacing the Canadian workman. Would it not be wiser for the government to make use of this appropriation to keep our people here instead of disbursing money to bring in strangers who have neither the characteristics nor the ways of Canadians. I would suggest that instead of spending millions to promote immigration, the government begin immediately the construction of the Georgian bay canal which will open up the country and will give work to our people for a number of years to come.
I also wish to make a few remarks in regard to the Civil Service Commission: when the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) submitted to this House his resolution to abolish this Commission, I happened to lx sick and could not give my views. I ain opposed to this Commission as it stands today. I maintain that it is unconstitutional and I fail to understand why the government tolerate a Commission which has more power and more prerogatives than they have. Let candidates pass the Civil Service examinations for the positions of copyists or type-writer;, but let us return to the Act passed under the Laurier government-that will be satisfactory. According to this Act, the Commission only exercised its control over the inside service but I cannot conceive how the commissioners should be in a position to judge of the qualifications of candidates to positions in the outside service, for instance, a lock-keeper, a postmaster, a carpenter, a labourer, etc. This is so much the case, Mr. Speaker, that for these kinds of positions, the Commissioners are advised by a committee of citizens gathered a little everywhere in Canada. Do nor. imagine, however, that the members of this committee-amongst whom I see the names of defeated candidates at the last general elections-do not favour their friends; therefore we have a recurrence of patronage, though in a roundabout way and under different control. Why not leave the appointments to the government who would in turn be advised by the members who, at least, are responsible to the people. I was quite astonished

The Budget-Mr. Church
to hear the Conservatives say, at the time this discussion took place, that the Commission must not be disturbed as it would lead to a return of patronage. These good Tories have become over-scrupulous; yet they are the ones, who, in 1911, when they came into power, dismissed 3000 employees because they were Liberals and replaced them by their political friends. They had appointed commissioners to make an inquiry throughout the whole country, and, Conservatives seeking positions had but to come before these Commissioners to have Liberal employees dismissed, stating that they had taken part in the political campaign. In my own place, the city of Hull and the county, many were dismissed through such means. If only the government of the day had been satisfied with replacing those employees who were dismissed! But things were much worse than that; in order to please their friends they crammed all the departments to overflow: 12,000 new employees were appointed. It was at that stage that American experts were called in, the [DOT] Griffenhagens, to establish the famous classification, which was carried out with a great deal of partisanship and injustice, to such an extent that 15,000 employees appealed from the ruling of this classification. I congratulate the government for having appointed a committee of inquiry who will re-establish the facts and will, I hope, facilitate the amending of the Civil Service Act.
Before closing my remarks, I wish to remind the government that last session this House adopted unanimously a resolution which I had the honour to move, asking to adopt an old age pension act. ,1 fully understand that the financial situation of the country is such that it is difficult to even comply with just demands, but this legislation is so necessary, it commends itself so strongly that it should be the first to be taken into consideration by the government. I do not wish to repeat the speech I made last year on this subject, but allow me to remind you, Sir, that the Canadian people expect that the government will move in the matter. I have received hundreds of letters, from all over the country, asking me to follow up this project, and even lately, I had the honour to join a Nova Scotia labour delegation which waited on the Prime Minister. They came here to impress upon the government the necessity for this old age pension and ask the government for immediate legislation to that effect. I was very much pleased with the encouraging reception that the Prime Minister gave this delegation and specially in hearing him say that it was one of the subjects on his pro-1791
gramme, that he had at heart the carrying out of this project and that the legislation in question would certainly be brought down as soon as the government's finances permitted.
Before I resume my seat, I wish to state that I shall vote against the amendment of the Progressive leader (Mr. Forke). I place very little faith in their policy which only favours the western provinces. If we want the country to progress and Confederation to be maintained, we must have a policy which favours equally all provinces and all classes. It seems to me that the old eastern provinces have done their share of sacrifice to develop the West. If to-day we are overburdened with taxes, if we have a system of railways which shows a large yearly deficit, it is because we have built two transcontinentals so as to help in developing the West. If the government were to accept the Progressives' suggestions and establish free trade and abolish the duties which are the main sources of our revenues, where would they get the money to meet the $140,000,000 of interest which is due yearly? Where would they get the money to administer the affairs of the country? They would be forced to have recourse to direct taxation, and again it would still be the old eastern provinces who would have to pay the larger share, since they have reached a higher degree of development than the western provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Liberal party and its leaders. I approve of their policy; I shall therefore vote with pleasure for the budget as brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto!: Mr. Speaker, the small attendance in the chamber during this debate evidently indicates that now the session has entered upon its fourth month members are about prepared to go home. In my opinion no good object can be gained by delaying the session.
First of all I want to congratulate the veteran Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) on the budget statement he presented the other day. The minister has served a great many years in public life and is admired and respected by everybody.
I must say that I admire the manner in which those who have so far spoken in this debate have presented their case. There is room for differences of opinion in a big coun-
2.818

The Budget-Mr. Church
try like Canada, but up to the present those hon. members who have spoken have displayed good feeling and a spirit of fairness which have won the respect of those who have listened to them.
Bearing in mind that this is the 105th day of the session I am sorry there should have been so much delay in bringing down the budget. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Finance has a good many outside matters in the French and Italian treaties to attend to and that he is really overworked; but I think it would be better if this government in future would copy the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Old Country, Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, who presented his budget speech in the British parliament on the 10th day of the session. If this government emulates that example in the future I think it will be a step in the right direction.
In my opinion the tariff is not a political question, and I would urge that an authority be set up in this country that could act in an advisory capacity to the government, in relation to this particular problem. The tariff should never have been made a political football by this or the other political party in Canada. It is not a political question in any sense. It is an economic question, a business question, a question of trade and commerce; and more than that it is a great national, patriotic question that concerns every citizen of this country. Neither is the tariff an academic, or what you might call an abstract question, or an abstract theory; it is a national and economic necessity.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), who yesterday made an able and very fair speech, characterized by courtliness of manner, spoke of the tariff question as being a study in national psychology. I do not agree in that statement. I believe the tariff question is a great problem which concerns everybody and for that reason should not be approached from the party spirit, or with a view to reaping party advantage. There has been a tariff in Canada ever since Canada has been a country. There are those who would like to abolish the tariff; and if I understand the purpose of the amendment it aims to practically eliminate the tariff. Even as far back as 110 years ago we had something in the nature of a tariff.
The Liberal-Conservative party has always been a consistent protectionist party. From the days of Sir John Macdonald every Con-
servative government we have had have been protectionist, and the party preached the same gospel of protection in every part of Canada. In the last election the leader of this Party Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, preached that doctrine whether it was in the Maritime provinces, in central Canada, in the prairie provinces, or on the Pacific coast.
Wherever he went he preached the gospel of moderate protection adequate for the industries of this country. After all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, it was not any political party that made Canada a nation. The people themselves had something to do in bringing that about as well as the government. In my opinion, however, it was the National Policy that made this country the great nation which it is to-day. You may criticize the National Policy if you like, because it has some defects, but when you criticize the defects of the National Policy do not forget its virtues. It is owing to those virtues that Canada has achieved her proud position as a great industrial nation.'
The present Minister of Finance has been responsible for the inauguration of seventeen budgets and if you take the seventeen tariffs introduced under them they are what economic writers would not hesitate to call protective tariffs. Eighty-five per cent of the products of Ontario have a home market in the near cities and towns, and the producers obtain the highest price that can be realized in fair competition on this continent to-day. That home market is not one that is here to-day and away to-morrow. It is a steady market, and is to be found in many cities and towns along lake Ontario, lake Erie, the upper lakes and in the district south of the National Transcontinental in Ontario. An election is pending in Ontario now, and I say that I do not believe the farmers of Ontario believe in free trade, nor do they believe in reciprocity. If it were not for the protection which the farmers of Ontario have had, in view of the hostile tariff commonly known as the Fordney-McCumber tariff, the farmers of Ontario would be 100 per cent worse off than they are to-day, and the province would be suffering from under-production, unemployment, depression, and rural depopulation to a greater extent than at the present time. That remark applies to eastern Canada as well. A very distinguished statesman, Hon. J. Israel Tarte once said that platforms were made to get in on and not to stand on.
My Progressive friends, for whom I have every respect, had a platform in the late election, not only in Ontario, but in other

The Budget-Mr. Church
parts of Canada, which was commonly called a free trade platform, and they made good their promise by placing the principles of that platform in the amendment which is before the House to-day. While I do not believe in the principles which they enunciate. I give them every credit for their sincerity. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond) preached the gospel of adequate protection for the industries of his great city of Brantford. Tint* city is a great industrial centre, in common with other cities in Ontario such as Toronto, Hamilton, London and others. Why? Owing to the principle of adequate protection for the industries of the country. In 1878 the city from which I came had to open soup kitchens. These soup kitchens had to be opened to meet the wants of the large number of men out of work. Many people emigrated to the United States, and the Mayor of Chicago said that that city had become at that date the third largest Canadian city in the world. There was a great deal of unemployment at that time. We had many vacant houses and stores, and evidence of distress on every hand. When the policy of protection was adopted it stimulated the growth of Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford and other places, and the trade and commerce and the population of these cities have greatly increased. Toronto has doubled in population every ten years. The post office receipts for the city of Toronto were over $5,000,000 last year, and the receipts from customs, inland revenue and other utilities, to say nothing of banking, industry, trade and commerce have increased prodigiously. Toronto is only one of the many cities which have made industrial strides as a result of protection. Geography has taught the people of Canada a lesson in more ways than one. It has taught them not to leave themselves at the mercy of a foreign country like the United States in regard to fiscal affairs, especially when the people of that foreign country are the wealthiest and most prosperous, ambitious and industrious people in the world to-day.
Every country in the world is increasing its tariff. Not only the various countries in Europe, and the United States, but Australia, New Zealand and the countries of South America are all increasing their protective tariffs. Can it be argued that all these countries are wrong and that the Progressives in Canada alone are right? I maintain that, as a result of the Great War, more protection will be required to meet the changing conditions in the years that are to come. Sir Richard Cartwright once said that if his party were returned to power he would remove
every vestige of protection from the statutes of this country. If you examine the seventeen budgets of the present able Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), as I said a few minutes ago, you will find they are all protective tariffs. The tariff resolutions before the House tonight are all of a protective character. The best part in the whole budget speech I think was that in which the Finance Minister spoke of the stability of the tariff. That is an economic principle which is accepted the world over. He said:
There is a thought which does not receive as much consideration as X think sometimes it should be given in public discussions, and that is the desirability of something like tariff stability. Business men do not like to be always threatened with changes in the tariff. There is no finality in legislation either as respects that tariff or as respects anything else. That which parliament can do to-day it can undo to-morrow. Everybody knows that. Everybody must conduct his business in the light of that fact. Nevertheless it is desirable that something like an assurance of tariff stability should be given to business men.
I may say the very able and distinguished Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) has on more than one occasion agreed to that doctrine, and I am glad to say that we have, such an able, patriotic and well liked member of the government in the very responsible position of Minister of Justice, because he has done a great deal to instil a sense of responsibility into the government along the line of stability of tariffs.
I may say, as one of the harbour commissioners in Toronto in 1919-1920 and 1921, that we lost a large extension of a basic industry, the Baldwin Tin-Plate Industry from Wales. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the president of that company. We had a contract signed and sealed by them to lease some thirty-six acres in Ashbridge's bay, in the industrial area.
It promised to be one of the largest concerns on this continent, and they were going to manufacture granite plates, and tin plates.
Some of the directors came from Swansea, Wales, the headquarters of the company. They spent a large sum of money in erecting a factory, machine shops and buildings, and they were going to in time employ 1,800 men. Just as they got under way bad times came, and there was a conflict between the political parties with regard to the great economic question of the tariff in Canada.
Statements had been -made in the House and out of it to the effect that if there were any people in Canada or out of Canada who were contemplating establishing or extending new lines of business in which they felt protection was necessary, they should not do so.


Mr BRETHEN:: Would the hon. member inform the House what the respective prices of potatoes are in the United States and Canada to-day?


Mr. CHURCH:: I am not an authority on the price of potatoes, and in any case it fluctuates considerably.


Mr. BRETHEN:: In the market reports a week ago potatoes were quoted in the United States at $3 a barrel, and I think that the hon. gentleman who is sitting at my hon. friend's right (Mr. Spence) can tell him that potatoes in Toronto have been selling at from 75 to 85 and possibly 90 cents a bag, that is, about $1.50 a barrel.


Thomas Langton Church: As I say, I am not an expert on the question of potatoes, nor am I an expert on small potatoes either. I may say, however, that in the city from which I come it is impossible at the present time to
get good potatoes at the prices quoted by the hon. gentleman. All the potatoes we can get are old potatoes, and. the farmers in the Toronto district have not been growing them to any great extent. They have to import their potatoes mainly from New Brunswick, and I am glad to see them come from that province and as well from Alberta and the West; I prefer to see them come from these provinces rather than from the United States. So that it is absurd to talk about free trade in potatoes; the fact of the matter is that there is no market available in the United States for the potatoes grown in that country, to sty nothing of our own. I repeat, the farmers of this country will agree with the minister in his tariff in so far as it seeks to protect this particular commodity. Now, of all our national purchases during the past year we obtained 69 per cent from the United States, selling them in return only 39 per cent of our own products. In view of that great discrepancy, I think that it is only the part of wisdom that the national policy of Canada should be maintained. Why should the United States be allowed, absolutely free and unchecked, to supply 69 per cent of the purchases of Canada when we can sell them only 39 per cent of our own goods? Why do we give them our market? We should preserve our own markets for the Canadian people. The same thing relates to butter. The farmers of the West, in Alberta and other places, require a home market for their butter. Alberta butter sells at 31 cents in the East. The price of New Zealand butter is 27 cents, and there is a duty imposed upon it of 4 cents. In my opinion the government should try to hold this market for the western farmers by increasing the duty from 4 to 8 or 10 cents.
I sympathize with a great deal that has been said about the West, and no one, I assure the House, would be more pleased than myself to see that great land succeed. I do not agree with the gloomy tone of some of the speeches regarding farming conditions in the West which were delivered in the course of the debate on the immigration policy of the government. No country in the world has such a magnificent record for wheat production as western Canada-the granary of the Empire. The fertility of its soil and the industry of its people are responsible for this great record. Every year hundreds of men go out west to help in the harvesting operations, which extend over a period of about three months. The majority of these harvesters then return eastward. Many of them have suggested to me that it would be a national benefit if either the federal or provincial au-
The Budget-Mr. Church

and the money sacrificed by the exchequer would go straight into the pockets of producers and dealers. He goes on to say:
When it became obvious that the Cuban sugar crop was going to be far below the estimate, prices began to move up strongly week by week until on Tuesday last the price was 30s. 3d. per cwt. or three times more than in January, 1922. This rise was caused entirely because so far as could be seen there was actually going to be a shortage of sugar this year, and the slightest increase in demand might easily cause a panic and send up prices far beyond that.
That was the position, and it was well known in commercial circles. He had information that the increase of sowing in the continental countries of Eufope stimulated by higher prices was as much as from 25 to 40 per cent so that as far as they coaid see by the turn of next year there should be cheaper world sugar and when that came it would be the time to reduce the duty. (Ministerial cheers). But if he were to reduce the duty in this budget the whole of that reduction would go straight to New York, and he was not going to do it. (Ministerial cheers). It would be a very easy thing for him to have proposed this reduction, and said in public that sugar was cheaper by the amount of the reduction of the duty. Let those members who might believe that to be true say it! but he did not believe it to be true, and therefore he was not going .to say it. (Ministerial cheers).
Excise duties on tea and sugar put $200,000,000 per annum into the Old Country treasury. Every half-cent per pound taken off the Old Country sugar duties reduces the revenue by aproximately $25,000,000 per annum. The Old Country sugar duty is four and three-quarter cents per pound. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to take the fraction of a cent per pound off the English sugar duties because Mr. Baldwin said: "The whole of that reduction will go straight to New York."
So when the Minister of Finance takes $2,5O0,0GO or a half a cent a pound off the Canadian duty on sugar the whole of that reduction will go straight to New York and Stanley Baldwin says so.
The excise duties on tea and sugar in the Old Country amounted to $200,000,060 and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a reduction of half a cent a pound in the duty on sugar it would have taken off twenty-five millions from the breakfast table of the sugar consumers of that country. But the British Chancellor refused to make that reduction because he said the whole of it would go straight to New York. I believe the whole of the reduction of 2J millions on the sugar duties which has been made under our budget will go straight to New York also.
Another matter which is much discussed id the cities and towns of the country, especially among the retail merchants, is the tax on receipts. The Finance Minister said that the British Chancellor has retained this tax and that he is going to retain it also. Some labour organizations in this country have characterized this tax as an imposition on the people. Owing to the development of the banking system in this country there are branch banks 
in every city and town. Conditions have changed from what they were twenty-five years ago. Formerly working people received their wages in bills; to-day they are paid by cheque. Most of the workers have a bank account in the district in which they live. They pay all their bills, their rent, their groceries, their food, and so on, by cheque. To-day if you go to a retail man and ask him to send you a receipt he will not do it. He will explain to you the reason for that and then you will not ask him to do it. The result is that this tax is being evaded and the government are losing in each case two cents on the postage. There was no loss under the old way of doing things because receipts were forwarded by mail and required a postage of two cents. To-day you can forward a cheque which requires a stamp of two cents on it up to $50 and by the Bills of Exchange Act in this country a cheque is the equivalent of a receipt. The dealer will explain to you now that your cheque is a receipt and he will not give you a written receipt in payment of your account because it will cost him two cents, and as many of jhese men have several thousand customers it would represent a very heavy tax on them. I am sorry an amendment has not been made in this regard because I consider that the stamp tax should operate on the same principle as the income tax. In the case of the latter the bigger the income the bigger the tax, but the receipt tax is not graduated in the same way. It should be on the same basis as the income tax if you desire to have a receipt tax of an equitable character. In my opinion in the case of both the receipt tax and the cheque tax exemption from these taxes should be given until an amount of $500 is reached. This would give the man of small salary a chance. At present he is taxed to death by the federal, provincial and municipal authorities. He and his. family cannot go to a moving picture show without having to pay a provincial tax, an amusement tax under the guise of a war tax. I contend that the provincial amusement tax is illegal because by section 91 of the British North America Act, Militia and Defence matters are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion. If the legality of this tax were contested I think it would be found that the tax is ultra vires of the provincial legislature. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance has not contested that particular point. As I say, the men of moderate income are taxed to death and I am sorry that some relief has not been given to them in the budget through a modification of the tax on cheques and receipts.

The Budget-Mr. Church
I am glad to see the government giving direct tariff aid to such products as copper bars, hemp, wool and artificial silk in the manner in which they are, but I think the bounty insufficient in some cases especially in the case of hemp. It will be very difficult indeed to get the hemp industry on its feet unless the period of time is extended and the amount made a little larger. The hemp industry needs to be nursed very carefully in order to make a success. The farmers of the district where it is grown will have to be instructed in the best ways of cultivation, and it is going to take a long time to develop that industry. No doubt the reason for this action on the part of Canada is the failure of Russia as a source of supply. But the hemp industry is a peculiar one. It is affected by all classes of weather, and it is a problematic investment for the farmer. The same is not true of the copper bar industry because it is already well established. It is organized and is already functioning and there is likely to be a great deal of work to be done by the smelters. The copper bar industry does not depend upon weather conditions like the hemp industry. I commend the government for the good work they are doing with respect to these industries but I am sorry they did not extend the same measure of protection to wool. If the government wish to establish aid to a good basic industry-there is a combing mill at Trenton which could use a lot of raw material. The result would be we would have another addition to our basic industries and the allied industries which would grow up in connection with it would attract capital, provide employment for labour and give a market to the farmer. I would not advocate sending milk out of Canada to be made into butter and then brought back to the Dominion for home consumption. Yet this is what the government are compelling the farmer to do in the case of wool. That commodity is shipped out of Canada to be combed and then brought back into the Dominion for consumption because our legislation has not been framed with such wisdom as to look after the development of our natural resources. I hope some relief will be given in this direction when we go into committee.
I am sorry that no provision has been made in the budget for old age pensions. Unfortunately the war debt and the railway debt have made it impossible for many years to come to extend aid towards the improvement of the public health and the advancement of humanitarian work. In addition our soldiers and their dependents also have to be provided
for. I think the matter of old age pensions should be taken up by the provinces and the municipalities and an agreement arrived at between them to afford relief in the shape of old age pensions similar to the relief now given in the province of Ontario in the form of mothers' pensions. In the case of mothers' pensions one-half the cost is borne by the municipality and one-half by the province, and it is one of the finest humanitarian works that I know of.
The railway situation in this country, Mr. Speaker, has been responsible for the great deficits in our finances. Were it not for the railway situation in Canada to-day we would have a good surplus and we would be facing an era of unparalleled prosperity. After granting $900,000,000 in direct and indirect aid to railways we are now met by an overdraft of $74,000,000. How this is arrived at I am unable to say. It is pretty nearly time parliament re-asserted itself with respect to our railways. If we are to have responsible government in this country we cannot allow the National Railway system to go on spending money in a capital way in the manner they are doing. There must be some control over the National Railway Board in respect to their capital commitments. The deficit in 1920 amounted to nearly $36,000,000. In 1921 the deficits on those railways was $16,000,000. In 1922 there was an operating surplus of $4,000,000 as against a deficit of $16,000,000 the year before. For this year the deficit is set down at $74,000,000. Wait until you see the deficit for next year. I am afraid it will greatly exceed $74,000,000. I hope the House will not pass the votes for railway expenditure without, at least, asking for details in connection with them.
It is time responsible government was restored in Canada, so far as the administration of the Canadian National Railways is concerned. The board should have a free hand in the actual administration of the road, but they should not spend money in a haphazard manner and should not be permitted to run up an overdraft of $74,000,000. In my opinion it was not necessary to go outside of Canada and appoint a president. We could have had a Canadian appointed to that position. President Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway is a Canadian and the chief engineer of that road is also a Canadian. The greatest engineers in the world constructed the Chip-pawa-Niagara plant. They are Canadians, they are graduates of Canadian universities, and I think there are a great many Canadians engaged in the management of the
The Budget-Mr. Church

other gigantic power works of Canada. I think we might have found a good Canadian to take hold of the Canadian National Railways. However, not satisfied with appointing an outsider as president we find that they have brought out Colonel N. H. Balfour, as shown in the following despatch:
Montreal, May 15.-Colonel N. H. Balfour, formerly assistant to Sir Henry Thornton in the work of the Great Eastern Railway in England, arrived here to-day to join Sir Henry as one of his assistants in the management of the Ganadian National Railways here. He is accompanied by A. J. Thomas, son of the well-known English parliamentarian, and also a former assistant of Sir Henry on the Great Eastern Railway.
I think it is pretty nearly time that we should find Canadinas to take such positions. If we are going to have any efficiency in the railway system of this country we have got to adopt the principle of promotion. In the management of the New York Central, in the administration of the Great Pennsylvania lines and the Baltimore and Ohio road, the presidents have announced that promotion will be the method in administering these railways. Furthermore in the United States, I may remind hon. members that brakemen have worked their way up to be railway presidents. We find that condition of affairs in the administration of .the United States roads, and the system adopted in that country should be good enough for a road which went behind sixty or seventy millions last year. We should adopt the principle of promotion in the administration of our railways and should not have to go to other countries when so many of our own people are out of work and being laid off by the Nationals.
I believe in Canada for the Canadians. I believe in a national policy for coal and for food, and I believe in a national policy in the administration of our railway system as well as in the administration of our merchant marine, and I cannot understand why we should have to go to England to appoint a president of our railway. Of course, I speak with every respect for Sir Henry Thornton because he has had so far no criticism in Canada, and we hope there will be very little criticism and that he will be given a fair chance. But I am surprised at his recommending the sale of the twenty-seven smaller ships of the merchant marine. I believe that with the deepening of the Welland canal these ships will be necessary for our commerce, and in view of the inquiry which has been held into the rates on lake shipping, we should have held the smaller ships, so as to bring them into competition with the shipping combine on the Great Lakes and regulate this mono-

poly. I believe it is a mistake to put them up for sale at the present time. They have not had a fair trial or chance.
There was a combine in regard to lake rates, and the shipping interests fixed rates for themselves and for others. The merchant marine also sat in when the Atlantic combine was at work. I am sorry these ships are to be sold, because I believe many of them could be used to bring coal from Wales and from the Maritime provinces to the head of the lakes and also to carry grain down the St. Lawrence to the seaboard. At the present time a few of them are not of the proper draught, but with the deepening of the' Welland canal, they will have the proper draught. I am sorry to see the head of the railway system of Canada make the recommendation which he did without proper inquiry or giving a fair trial to the merchant marine.
I believe in the principle enunciated by the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin that he should seek new sources of revenue from those not already taxed to make up the deficit. What about a tax on pulpwood exported from Canada? We exported to the United States in the year 1921 newsprint to the value of $62,820,000. A duty of 10 per cent ad valorem would produce the sum of $6,282,000. Then with reference to water powers, we exported 158,000 hprse-power to the United States, to the value of $8,000,000. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) and the hon. member for St. Marys (Mr. Deslauriers) that that would be a source of revenue. Referring to the question of coal, the bituminous and anthracite coal brought into Canada amounted to $56,000,000.
I believe if we had a rate for Alberta coal and Nova Scotia coal a large part of that $56,000,000 would remain in Canada, and be paid as wages to our Canadian people. The National Railways of Canada quoted a price of $9 per ton, train load, for transporting coal from Alberta. They evidently would rather charge the $9 prohibitive rate and do no business than quote a $6 rate and get the cream of the business. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had adopted such a principle in business and had never taken a chance they never would have been as successful as they are to-day. They took chances and they made experiments with the rates with the result that they captured the trade and made a success of private ownership. They also made sucessful investments in ocean, hotel, land and oil services. If the National Railways will only have the courage to bring down the products of Alberta to the central provinces

The Budget-Mr. Church
and use the merchant marine for that purpose,
I believe a large volume of business will come and the deficit will be wiped out. I do not agree with the gloomy view taken by some hon. members in the speeches which have been made. Agricultural depression is not a local matter; it is a problem which exists all over the world.
Thomas Bradshaw, the veteran head of the Massey-Harris Company, Toronto, and formerly the ablest and best city treasurer Toronto ever had, gave evidence before the Agricultural committee in Ottawa. I believe there is an Agricultural committee in the United States investigating conditions of the farming industry. We have an Agricultural committee in England and we have a similar committee in Canada holding inquiries with a view to improving the condition of the farmers. I agree with Mr. Bradshaw, and I will quote from his evidence. He says before the House of Commons special committee on Agriculture:
This committee has been investigating agricultural conditions in Canada with a view to discovering what, if any, steps can be taken to improve the position of the farmer, and in concluding this evidence, it may perhaps* not be out of order to express just a few thoughts along these lines.
Now, I returned from Europe not very long ago, and was over there for quite a little time, and therefore had an opportunity of finding out what the people were saying about Canada, how they were feeling.
In the first place, it appears to me that it is most unfortunate that so much emphasis has been laid upon, and publicity given to the so-called agricultural depression in Canada. It seems to me that it has had a bad effect upon our own people, in putting them in a state of mind where pity rather than self-help occupies their attention; and it has greatly weakened Canada's position abroad. She does not now appear a desirable home to emigrants, as compared with Australia and South Africa which have been painting their own charms in no uncomplimentary way; her credit has been undermined, for who cares to deal with a nation apparently thought to be approaching bankruptcy; and her future jeopardized, since the seed of doubt once sown grows vigorously.
I know this from actual experience, because while I have not been in the agricultural machinery business very long, I have been connected with the business of loaning money to the farmer since 1897, and I have been up and down the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, on the actual farms, talking to the farmers and making loans to them, and I am still associated with two or three companies making loans to western farmers, and I have had an opportunity of knowing just exactly how they are situated.
As a matter of fact, agriculture at the present period is no more depressed than it ha9 been at other times in the past, and, moreover, it is far from being a local condition. It is as widespread in the East as in the West; it affects the United States as well as Canada; it is a feature of agriculture in the eastern hemisphere as in the western. An "Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation" has been sitting in England and has just brought in its report upon agricultural conditions in Great Britain. In passing, it may be noted that it is evident from its report that artificial restoratives are few.
By Mr. Caldwell:
Q. What was their report, was it rosy?-A. No, it was not rosy, it was not good, but at the same time it was believed that the only way conditions could be improved was by what I think we have all got to do, and that is, we have to work hard, have patience, and have courage.
I find that the report of the Agricultural committee is backed up in a report along similar lines brought down in the United States by the Anderson committee of the senate and congress, a joint committee that had been investigating agricultural conditions in the United States. They have gone into the question thoroughly, having made a most extensive inquiry at Washington, through a joint agricultural committee of congress and senate, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Sidney Anderson, the member for Minnesota. They investigated the problem of rural credits, the question of rural depopulation, the matter of high prices, and so forth, and submitted an exhaustive report. In that report they reached the conclusion that there is not a single factor in the complex modern price structure which can be said to be primarily responsible for the spread between producers' and consumers' prices. The report goes on to state:
The growth of cities is another factor in higher costs to their inhabitants. The congestion of traffic and physical difficulties that attach to city delivery are increased as population grows.
They find practically along the lines of the British committee that agricultural depression is world wide and can bo little helped by legislation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my regret that in the budget which the minister has submitted to the House on this occasion he has deemed it fit to make reference to the question of reciprocity. After all is said and done, I do not believe that the people of this country believe in reciprocity. A vote was taken upon this question in the year 1911 when the public of Canada expressed its opinion in no uncertain voice, and if the Minister of Finance had left that reccmmendatic n out of his budget I think that the statemtnt which he has given to the House and ',o the country on this occasion would have commended itself better to the people. The amendment moved by the Progressive party also refers to reciprocity with the United States as outlined in the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911 Reciprocity with the United States is impossible. The Harding administration are going to the country next year, and with the farmer bloc in the United States they nave decided that free trade and reciprocity would be impos-
The Budget-Mr. Reed

sible. I do not believe that it would commend itself to the judgment of the American people. We know what happened to the Taft administration. Reciprocity would carry just as many .American states as President Taft carried at the election of 1912. Vermont and Utah were the only two states that voted for the author of the reciprocity offer. The presidential election resu'ts that defeated Taft were associated with congressional election results that would hive destroyed reciprocity. There has been no mandate from the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, for any overtures in the direction, of reciprocity, and I do not believe that this reference in the budget will meet with tbp approval of the Canadian people.


Mr. W. S. PEED (Frontenac):: I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first occasion on which I shah, have spoken in this House, and before I say anything else I want to contribute a word of commendation to what has been raid regarding the hon. Minister of finance (Mr. Fielding), with whom I would couple the name of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). These two hon. gentlemen, practically throughout their business careers, have been more or less all the time before the public of Canada, and in my opin on they have certainly rendered this country a great service.
I would refer first of all to the rural mail system, not particularly by way of complaint, because I think it is generally recognized that existing conditions in Canada to-day will not permit of that complete service which the people would no doubt desire. There are a few connecting links in the county that sent me here which we should like to see completed as soon as financial conditions will permit. I want it to be understood, however, that I am not pleading for the county of Frontenac alone: the same privilege which I ask for that county I should be pleased to see extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific wherever it is needed.
I do not think I need dwell further on this subject, but I might say a word or two on the question of immigration, principally for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the House the state of things as they prevail near my home. I do not know the conditions as they are in the cities, but I can say that in the rural part of my riding there is not one man to every hundred acres, and with such a condition we cannot very well carry on the business of the country. I am glad therefore to hear the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) inform the House

of his intention to do something to improve this condition.
So far as public works are concerned, we know, of course that a gre?:t deal of money has to be spent in this department, and I think I speak for all hon. members when I say that we have called upon that department from every co mer for assistance in regard to the works that have to be carried on in connection with harbours, wharves and so forth. But I think we have a minister who is capable of di-,charging the duties that are before him.
I want now to refer for a moment or two to the railway situation, but I shall not deal with that subject at any gieat length; it is needless for me tc go over the ground that has been covered by the last speaker (Mr. Church). I believe that, with the present minister, and with the board as it is constituted to-day, this department of the public service will make good, and I think it is the duty of every Canadian to do what he can towards this end.
During the course of this debate we have heard a great deal about tie national debt, and I think that those of us who have been following the trend of events know what is responsible for our obligations. I may be wrong, and if I am I ara ready to be corrected; but I thought I heard it stated across the floor of the House that the interest alone was $140,000,000
Now, from east to west there are many problems with which the Canadian people must grapple. We have heard a great deal about the wonderful natural resources of British Columbia, its great timber, its fish, and so forth; but I must confess that never having been either in the East or in the West, I am really ignorant of western conditions In the course of the debates of this sessior we have noticed that the members from British Columbia, irrespective of their partv affiliations, are all agreed on the gravity of the oriental question and the proper way to deal with it.
Now I come to Alberta. I am sorry that, we do not hear any very good reports from the members representing that province regarding conditions in the rural sections. Some day I intend to take a trip to the West, but I do not care to go where conditions are so difficult. I hope they will improve. Nor are the conditions what we would expect them to be in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When we recall the illimitable coal measures, the vast wheat fields, the great cattle ranches and the rich, natural resources of these western provinces, it is apparent that something must

The Budget-Mr. Fortier
be wrong when their economic condition is so unsatisfactory. We hope to hear better things of the West as a whole in the near future.
In the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec we find some of our most important urban centres and our principal industrial development. Consequently there is not the same dependence on agriculture as we find in the western provinces, and therefore the depressed condition of our basic industry has not reacted so severely on the people generally. Lastly, we have the Maritime provinces. Their distance from the central and western portions of the Dominion places them at a decided disadvantage commercially, and naturally we want to assist them in every possible way
In all we are a family of nine provinces, each with its advantages and also corresponding disadvantages, and it should be the purpose of our administrative authorities to so legislate as to give an equal chance to all of us. Wise legislation will accomplish this purpose. But whatever may be done for our social and economic advancement, our paramount duty is to see that our rising generation are afforded such educational opportunities in our schools and colleges that they may take their place and in due time assist in the development of this great Dominion.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, those years of the Great War were the cause of a deep disturbance both in the economic and national life of our country. As we gradually emerge from the gloom of this never to be forgotten period of our history, we more vividly realize the extent of the spontaneous sacrifices made, resulting from the participation of this young country in the greatest world war of all times.
The Liberal party became heir, in December 1921, to a rather burdensome estate. Called upon to take charge of the administration of affairs in this country, the present government found itself facing an enormous public debt which the years following the war had but increased through considerable yearly loans so as to meet the ever increasing deficits. Moreover, our predecessors had further added to our obligations, the burden of state management of the National Railways which yearly showed large deficits. Ail the taxes that a country may be burdened with, our predecessors had imposed.
Yet, all the sources of revenue and all the heaviest levies bearing upon the Canadian subject, henceforth, taxed to the utmost limit,
could not balance our budget. Briefly, this was the situation of our finances when the present government took hold of power in December, 1921.
Two things were absolutely necessary to the good administration of affairs in this country: a strict economy and moderation, that is to say a gradual return to pre-war conditions. I think the present government has practised economy and this accounts for the success of this administration which has already begun to greatly improve our financial situation by solving the problem by which we shall soon see the end of our deficits. We now fully hope, in the near future, to see the return of those prosperous years of the Laurier government.
The late government, during the years that followed armistice, up to the end of their term in office, had borrowed nearly $1,000,000,000. The interest alone of these war loans amounted to about $50,000,000. We cannot take into account the fiscal year of 1921-1922, as being the first fiscal year of the Liberal administration for the greater part of it was under the administration of our predecessors. The first fiscal term which could be attributed to the present government would therefore be that of 1922-1923. It is true that during that period the Minister of Finance admitted that he had been constrained to borrow the sum of $49,000,000, however, we have grounds to console ourselves to some extent, in the fact that this loan was not any greater, for it only makes up the amount required to pay off the interest on the loans made by our predecessors, from armistice day up to the time they were driven out of power. The present estimates attest a considerable decrease in expenditures and the management of our railways which are on the mend, allows us to hope that the patriotic efforts of those at the helm of the country will succeed in restoring our financial equilibrium. I have faith in the comforting forecasts of the Minister of Finance and I again state it is only through these principles of economy and cautiousness that the government may overcome the financial difficulties which have, up to date, seemed to us insurmountable Guided by these wise principles, the government has already made an effort to reduce the irksome burden of taxation. True to its programme, it has already brought on tariff changes in a downward revision of duties. I especially rejoice in seeing that, at this stage of the session, offers are made by the Liberal government to the United States toward a resumption of the negotiations for a trade convention such as we were intent on

The Budget-Mr. Fortier

securing in 1911. I think that had we not rejected the offer of our powerful neighbours, in 1911; had we ratified this advantageous trade convention for the exchange of agricultural products with the United States; Canada would certainly be more prosperous and would even be more united than it is, to-day. This exchange of agricultural products with our neighbours would be to the advantage of both countries. Had we carried out this trade convention of 1911, I again state that we would now be better off than we are at present, however, since the Minister of Finance, in the eloquent speech he made the other day, declared that the wish of Canada was to carry out this trade convention with the United States, we do hope that our neighbours will not lend a deaf ear to our offer. If we, to-day, read the newspapers which reach us from across the 45th parallel, if we listen to those in authority in the United States who have expressed their views, we can say that the appeal made by the Minister of Finance will not be a vain one, and that to-morrow perhaps, we may, for the exchange of certain products, carry out this trade convention which will certainly be to the advantage of both countries, but especially to that of Canada, the pre-eminently agricultural country, which feels the want, in consequence of the development of its great natural resources, of engrossing the friendship of our neighbours and bringing about a trade treaty with them.
Canada has not its equal so far as its natural resources are concerned. Its farms, mines, forests, fisheries and industrial products forever increasing, place her henceforth in a position to seek advantageously trade relations with American countries, Europe and all the dominions of Great Britain. It is to the Liberal party's credit to have granted this British preference which increases the exchange of our products with those of the Mother Country, and which has been a great aelp in maintaining and developing, especially in our old provinces, one of our important agricultural industries: the dairy industry, destined to bring wealth to our farms in this part of Canada. It is again to our party's credit to have further increased this British preference and thus anticipated the wishes of the Canadian people. It is with the object of furthering our trade and industries, so necessary to the work of reconstruction, that our government is negotiating a trade convention with Australia. This government, moreover, has happily negotiated a new trade convention with both France and Italy. France of late years has been looking to our country; we are

continuously present in her mind, and as the ancestor, she comes to us with the tender feeling evoked by long separation. Should not we, her descendants, united to her people by the ties of kinship, respond to such overtures from the old Motherland, and proclaim that we have sought her in the course of our national existence, with the sincerity which springs from true hearts and inspired by our historical motto "Je me souviens." France came to us in those never-to-be-forgotten days of June, 1921, when the Fayolle mission, composed of the most illustrious Frenchmen, landed on our soil to officially present to the government of Canada the venerated statue of France, by Rodin. This statue now rests here, in the capital of Canada, under the roof of this parliamentary building, and one may say that the image of the old Motherland shines brightly from the promontory of Ottawa, on all the horizons of the Dominion of Canada. Has she not since made, to the Canadian nation, the highly apreciated gift of 250 acres of land on Vimy ridge? This patch of French soil, made illustrious through the heroism of the sons of Canada during the Great War, now encloses the glorious remains of those who have fallen on the battlefields. The government will erect there a monument commemorative of the great deeds of its children. In the centuries to come, this sacred spot across the seas will for ever remind the sons of New France grown old of the grateful feelings of the older Motherland. After this event the souvenir of which is very dear to us, France still remembered us and we remembered her through this trade convention which Parliament has just ratified. This treaty would give new life to business and would help us to bear up with fortitude through this period of after-war by relieving the financial situation and helping us to carry over the enormous deficits of our National Railways.
One of the most important tasks to which the present members of the government must give their entire attention, is certainly the management of our National Railways. A gigantic enterprise which, last year, showed a deficit of $67,000,000, a deficit borne by the tax-payers of this country. However, by devoting their energies to the great task of managing a railway system which is the largest in the world, the government must rely on the public's good-will, their united effort and on the sympathy of all the citizens of this country.	[DOT]
I congratulate the Government for having appointed very able men to fill the important posts of directors of the National Railway Board. I especially congratulate them for

The Budget-Mr. Fortier
having placed at the head of the board, Sir Henry Thornton, a man of wide experience, an able man, one who possesses to a high degree the genius of administration, and who, I feel confident, will make a success of the important work in connection with the National Railways. With such men, backed by a public-spirited administration-which should give us the assurance of a fair trial being given to public ownership,-I am certain that our railways will become one of the most important items in the assets of the State and will constitute one of the most reliable means of contributing to the development of our country.
In a young country like Canada, with an unlimited stretch of land, natural resources of incomparable wealth, it is necessary that the railway should closely accompany and sometimes precede the important work of colonization. Take for example the prairie provinces. The immense plains of La Verendrye remained unsettled as long as the railway had not encircled with its steel ribbon the matchless wheat fields. From the valleys of the Red liver and the Assiniboine, the settler found his way to those rich lands that now grace the prosperous cities of Portage-la-Prairie, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Calgary and Edmonton. Saskatchewan and Alberta rose in the middle West as if by enchantment, two provinces which sprang up some fifteen years ago, the happy result of agricultural settlement made possible by the railway. Further away, on the shores of the Pacific ocean, there exists a province, famous for the incomparable beauty of its scenery and the mildness of its climate, rich through its unrivalled national resources. "Splendor sine occasu" appears on its blazon. She finds this splendor in the development of agriculture through the colonization of her fertile valleys. The three transcontinental railways which cross the Rocky mountains are admirably adapted to the opening up of settlements and to the building of towns. Already wheat is begining to flow from Alberta to the port of Vancouver. In the East as in the West the transportation facilities are always the most powerful means of developing the economic resources of our country. In the eastern provinces, in our old province of Quebec, it is through the railways and the work accomplished by Laurier, namely the construction of his transcontinental that we have been able to witness the opening up of this beautiful and immense region of Abitibi. That territory would still be covered with virgin forests if we had not built this railway which was the means of spreading French civilization beyond the Laurentian mountains. It
180J	*
may be said in certain quarters that this is very unwise expenditure. I, however, think that it is absolutely necessary for a young country, and we, the political heirs of those who accomplished this so important task of the construction of the transcontinental, which permitted the rapid development of the Abitibi region, one of the best of the province of Quebec, we should the more appreciate the National Railways. Indeed, is it not the work of railways which has contributed the most to the extension of settlements? Is it not the railways which have contributed the most in settling and enlarging the magnificent county of Labelle? We may, perhaps, have more deficits for a few years, but we should not weaken in the task. So far as I am concerned, deficits do not frighten me, because I am convinced that later on we shall be proud of the great achievement accomplished by the railways. Thanks to them, Canada made progress and I again state, I do not fear the deficits, providing that our railways contribute to the expansion and prospertity of our country.
I therefore state that all the provinces of the Dominion must lend their most generous co-operation and most effective help to the government so that this important work of the management of our railways may become a financial success and at the same time a powerful lever to the development of the country through colonization. One cannot broach the subject of colonization without awakening in our mind the problem of the day, the recruiting of settlers, or in other words, immigration. Let me, Mr. Speaker, dwell for a few moments on two other necessary elements of colonization, namely, the lands fit for colonization and the assistance to be extended to the settler. The immigration problem comprises three distinct features. The first is to find land fit for cultivation; the second is to provide for the settler; and, the third is to find that settler who will make his home on such lands and will later become a good Canadian citizen. As regards settlers' lands, they are almost inexhaustible in this country, from ocean to ocean, and through all the nine provinces of the Dominion, one can find, for settling purposes, unlimited areas.	,
Speaking before the Canadian Club, at Winnipeg, on the importance of immigration in this country, Lord Shaw, last summer said: "Your incommensurable prairie provinces contain 200 million acres of arable land and up to the* present time you have but one-tenth under cultivation." Could we not say as much for our eastern provinces? In the
The Budget-Mr. Fortier

old province of Quebec we are not lacking in arable lands since at present in all the valleys, right into the heart of the Laurentide mountains, we have any extent of lands fit for cultivation. At present, in our province, the area of arable land being farmed is but 3J per cent. There are, according to statistics supplied to me, over 400,000 farms of 100 acres each surveyed and reported upon which await the pioneer. I do not intend to show by means of statistics the acreage of land fit for cultivation in the nine provinces. These two distinct divisions of our national soil, the East and West, are sufficient to bear out my contention.
The provincial governments come generously to the rescue of the settler when it is a question of land grants in the old eastern provinces, where the settler's hardihood is put to test by the difficulties encountered at the outset. He must cut an opening in the virgin forests and build his shanty. Nothing equals the self-willed tenacity of the pioneer, toiling heroically to extend civilization in the far-off territories where everything breathes of the forest. However, in the midst of his toils he may depend upon the good services of a government which makes of colonization its main work. The surveying of districts, the building of roads and bridges, the help given to school and agricultural matters, are the many sides of protection shown by a government friendly to the settler.
The Quebec government in granting large subsidies, have shown themselves to be the true patron of the settler. The work of the Dominion government is still being performed on a large scale to facilitate the settlement of the immigrant on their lands.
The recruiting of the settler which is the third feature in question, is certainly one of the most important parts of the problem and the one which offers the most difficulties. The various opinions expressed on the subject since the beginning of the session only tend to show that there is a considerable exodus of settlers in the West and especially in Alberta, which is continuously on the increase. To what can this emigration be attributed? To the economic crisis of the country, a crisis accentuated by two poor consecutive crops? To the readiness with which the settler hailing from the United States at the first setback encountered, returns to his native land? To the too extensive immigration of the first decade of this century? Whatever be the causes, the consequences are but transient and everything seems to point to a return to normal conditions, especially after the abundant crop of last year. If we are to place
fMr Fortier.]
faith in the words of experienced western men, conditions have much improved and the farmer, to-day, may look with confidence to the future.
In Quebec our national increase, each year, exceeds the number of deaths by 45,000. Yet men well informed have contended that for the Last eighty years, emigration has carried away yearly from 15,000 to 20,000 people The buoyant spirit of our young men and the narrow circumstances of a portion of the people both make for the desertion which has been bleeding the country for nearly a century.
How should the recruiting be carried out? Shall it be by an appeal to the European nations so that they may cast on our shores the surplus of their population, thrust in our midst at the expense of the Canadian government? Are we to erect at the entrance of the ports of St. John, Halifax and Quebec, another statue of Liberty holding out a large mantle to receive in its folds all the wandering children of the earth? I do not think so. Let us first keep those who are with us, let us make our own people happy; we shall have but to select those who come from the outside.
One of the unquestionable advantages of the government's immigration policy is the settlement of immigrants in all the provinces of Canada. We were, up to the present time, in the habit of thinking that the prairie provinces were the only ones entitled to receive immigrants and settle them on western wheat lands. Now, the immigrant arriving among us through his initiative and that of the government, slatall be able to settle in any part of Canada. Each province has its own advantages and disadvantages. A settler who comes to reside in Canada may have a certain temperament, special aptitudes, certain peculiarities which fit him for one province rather than for another. For instance, one coming from Belgium, France or Scandinavia might, perhaps, prefer to settle in some eastern province rather than the West, while others coming from western United States would naturally settle in the prairies. Nevertheless, all would become Canadian citizens and, hence, they would be equally entitled to the help and protection of the Immigration department. The Immigration Act, which affords an equal measure of protection to the immigrant in whatever province he settles, is fair and equitable. However, since in Quebec, the true evil is to be found not in the small number of settlers coming in, but rather in a regrettable exodus of our citizens across the 45th

The Budr/et-Mr. Steedsman
parallel, I wish to say a few words in regard to the enactment relative to repatriation agencies which are helpful to the province of Quebec, and I would ask the government to make the repatriation regulations more effective, first of all for the purpose of retaining our people who have not yet become the prey of family troubles, and secondly, with a view to bringing back those who have already emigrated. I should like to see the government take all the steps necessary so that our peasant, this courageous and abstemious farmer, should feel himself sufficiently backed up by pecuniary help to hope not only to maintain himself in comfort, but become even more prosperous. Indeed, we must not lose sight of the fact that the large families which constitute a truly national wealth, demand of the head of the family greater resources. The establishment of repatriation agencies in regard to immigration is therefore another good feature of the government's new policy. Our people who at one time went across the 45th parallel never forgot their native country; many of them are awaiting a favourable opportunity to return to live and die among us. Let them know that their brothers in Canada are desirous of seeing them again and extending a warm welcome. The old province awaits them and has paved the way for their reestablishment. The government agents should be among them to let them know on our part that there is room for them in the old eastern provinces, as well as those in the West, and that everywhere their old fellow-citizens await them with open arms.
Mr. Speaker, the session is drawing to a close; I have followed the debates with attention mingled with some anxiety. My country, I had a glimpse of it, thanks to ail those beautiful speeches of eminent men but of very contradictory opinions. As I saw it, it was going through a crisis wherein its future was at stake. The glorious hour has struck for us; we who form the party in power, if we know how to respond to the hopes of the people, the propitious moment to ensure the permanent welfare of this country of ours. It is in a period of such great upheavals that a nation, filled with apprehensions for the future, needs great men, wise statesmen who find the means of ensuring the safety of the nation's future. I feel confident that Providence who guides nations and has entrusted into our hands the government of the country, in this hour of national anxiety, will bestow on our leaders that wisdom which distinguishes great statesmen. I have faith, consequently, that this perilous hour for our country will, in our annals, redound to the
honour of our party, and command the admiration of posterity.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, while I desire to join heartily in the congratulations extended to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) upon the presentation of his seventeenth budget, I regret to say that I am unable to extend my congratulations to the members of my constituency and to the residents of the province from which I come, not only because the budget affords us little or no relief from the protective tariff and fails to keep pace with the feeble efforts of last year to take a step in the right direction, but because the government have now decided that efforts in that direction shall cease and we may look for little more reduction from them. Stability, and the assurance to the protected interests that they have nothing to fear in the future with regard to the tariff, will bring rejoicing in some quarters, but, Mr. Speaker, it will bring disappointment and discontent in other sections, especially in the West, where farming conditions are such as to demand immediate relief if we are not to lose many of the valuable settlers we have at the present time. We have been told to have faith, and faith is a fine thing; but it will not pay the taxes; it will not pay the interest on the mortgage, neither will it feed or clothe the children. To be told now by a government representing a party that has always declared in favour of lower tariff that nothing further in that direction need be expected is discouraging, to say the least.
Now, Sir, in regard to the serious condition of agriculture in Canada to-day, we know that the chief cause lies in the fact that the cost of living and the cost of production have not come down in proportion to the decrease in the prices of farm products. Of course that is not the only reason, but it is the only one I shall refer to in the discussion of this budget. That being so, it will be evident to all that the farmers are producing at a loss to-day, consequently they are going behind; their debts and their difficulties are increasing every day. What is more natural, therefore, than that we should look for a remedy or for a means of balancing our budget? In reviewing the situation we realize that the main cause of low prices for what we have to sell is the lack of purchasing power on the part of the nation to whom we sell our surplus, and as the export price usually controls the local market price the only remedy in that direction is to lower the cost of transportation, the cost of handling and distributing, to the lowest possible point consistent with
The Budget-Mr. Steedsman

efficiency, and to eliminate all unfair profittaking in the performance of those operations. In this respect I am free to admit that the government have already done something; the reinstatement of the Crowsnest pass rates and the passing of the wheat board legislation of last year at the urgent request of the people of western Canada was a step in the right direction. But much more remains to be done, and we will watch with great interest.


Mr. CARROLL:: What does the hon. member think of the attitude of the legislature of Manitoba on that particular question? It is opposed to the Progressive attitude, I understand.


James Steedsman: I would like to point out to my hon. friend that if the farmers of Manitoba at the present time are in such a condition that they think they cannot wait for the operation of a wheat board, it is all the more reason why they should get relief in some other direction. That I understand is why the wheat board legislation did not pass the House in Manitoba. I say that we will watch with interest the outcome of the royal commission and of the special committee that has been appointed to inquire into lake transportation rates, the grain trade, and agricultural conditions generally.
We believe, too, that this government should come to the assistance of the provinces that they may be enabled to extend their rural credit and farm loan policy to the end that the farmers may be able to secure long term credit with cheaper interest rates, with which to pay off their mortgage indebtedness.
Then too, the prairie provinces should be given their natural resources. That has long been a matter of contention, and we think that now would be a very opportune time for the natural resources to be handed over to the provinces that they may get the benefit of such revenue as may be derived therefrom. That would mean that the municipalities in those provinces might be relieved to a very great extent from the tremendous burden of taxation under which they are labouring at the present time, that our school districts might be able to keep open the schools, many of which are closed at the present time, that we might be able to educate our children.
Now what about the cost of production? In looking over means of bringing down costs, what is more natural than that we should compare prices with those paid by our neighbours to the south of us? I do not intend to detain the House at the present time by making comparisons of prices. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) the 	*
other evening quoted sufficient figures to convince this House that prices are considerably lower on the other side of the line. Living as I do within a few miles of the boundary line of North Dakota I am in a position to know that the prices he quoted are absolutely correct, and I could give many more instances as well. I know, too, that our neighbours over the line have always been able to buy the necessaries of life, the implements of production, lumber, building material and everything that goes into building up their homes much more cheaply than we could, and moreover they have always or, at all events, have usually been able to command a better price for the products that they had to sell, and their products are the same as ours. Our products have to compete with theirs in the open markets of the world. Is it any wonder that we come to parliament and ask that the duty be removed in order that we may get the benefit of lower prices and get our raw material as cheaply as our neighbours to the south?
It has been suggested by one hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), that an educational campaign might be carried on among the manufacturers and industrial workers of eastern Canada to induce them to bring down their prices. Well, Mr. Speaker, we think that a more effective way would be to remove the tariff on these articles altogether, and then competition would take care of the prices. It is not particularly that we want to purchase American machinery, because I am sure that the average Canadian would prefer to buy Canadian machinery provided he could get equal quality for the same or very nearly the same price. But we believe that the Canadian manufacturer should be able to compete successfully with the American manufacturer in the home market when he can do it so successfully in the foreign market, especially those companies that have been organized for a great many years and have enjoyed the protection of the tariff during all the years of their existence. When we say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound, when we say that the condition of the primary industries is such as to demand immediate relief, we believe that there are many members sitting upon the government side of the House who will agree with us in that contention, but we are immediately faced with the problem of how to make up the loss in revenue. In that regard I would just like to say that the people of Canada could afford to pay twice the amount collected in customs revenue under almost any system of direct

The Budget-Mr. Anderson
taxation that the government might see fit to adopt and then be money in pocket. What with the duty, and the profits on duty pyramiding every time the goods are turned over, and the increased cost of goods of the home manufacturer, we believe that it would be quite possible for the people to bear that burden in the form of direct taxation.


William F. Carroll: Would the hon. member suggest what form the taxation should take?


James Steedsman: If my hon. friend
will look at the amendment suggested by my hon. leader he will notice what form we suggest it should take. I say that almost any form of direct taxation would be better.


William F. Carroll: But if the hon. member
wishes to be constructive in his suggestions I think he should inform the House the particular form of direct taxation he would suggest.


James Steedsman: An inheritance tax, for instance, a properly graduated income tax, for after all, Mr. Speaker, have not practically all taxes to be paid out of income? Where else can they come from? I hope my hon. friend is satisfied.


William F. Carroll: I would like the hon.
member to be a little more specific. We have a graduated form of income tax now. How would he graduate it so as to fill up the void that would be left after the customs tax was taken off?


James Steedsman: I can only suggest to my hon. friend that he study the platform of the Progressive party-


William F. Carroll: That is a cure.


James Steedsman: -and study carefully the amendment which has been proposed by my hon. leader. In conclusion, I desire to say that I intend to vote for that amendment
On motion of Mr. Kyte the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.
Thursday, May 17, 1923