1923-05-14

WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) [DOT] With the consent of the House, I move, seconded by Mr. Fielding, that on Wednesday, the 16th instant, and on subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the sittings of the House shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Woodsworth.l

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: With the consent of the House, I beg to move that the order for consideration of the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go again into Committee of Ways and Means have precedence over all other business, except the introduction of bills, until disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: Will the Prime Minister tell us when the government proposes to commence Saturday sittings? It is very hard for the ordinary country legal practitioner to remain in attendance in Ottawa while the courts are being held throughout the country. I know that other members of parliament will find it difficult to remain here, and if the session is going to be stretched out to a very great lencth it will cause great inconvenience to many members. Therefore, I should like the Prime Minister to let us know when Saturday sittings will be commenced, and when we may hope for a termination of the session.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend a definite reply. He is, perhaps, as capable of judging of the length of the session as I am. I should certainly say that during the present month the government would not consider the holding of Saturday sittings. Whether such sittings may be advisable or not a little later on will depend on the work which comes to the House from the committees. Mv hon. friend may be assured the government will keep in mind the point he has mentioned.



DELAY IN BRITISH MAILS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Acting Postmaster General):: On Friday last the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) asked a question concerning delay in the transmission of newspapers from the Old Land to Canada and gave an example of one paper that was in transit from 6th April till 7th May. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in replying pointed out the extraordinary conditions that had prevailed during the past season-great storms in the ocean and almost calamities for the railways. Besides, sometimes there are delays at the beginning. A weekly paper is published, say, on the 6th,

but the first sailing to carry the mail may not take place until a week from that date-a week lost to start with. Take the case the hon. member has referred to. He referred to the date, April 6th. The paper was probably despatched by the British post office by the Marloch, sailing from Glasgow on 13th April and due to arrive at St. John on the 21st. This is one of the slower Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, and on this particular trip she had one of the worst passages she ever experienced, and did not arrive at St. John until the 29th of April-eight days over-due. The mails were forwarded from St. John on the same day, but owing to a washout on the line the train did not get farther than McAdam junction, and had to return to St. John. Permission then had to be obtained to run the train east of Moncton and via the Canadian National Lines to Montreal. This was done, but the train did not reach Montreal until the 3rd of May. As a result, the mails reached Toronto Friday evening the 4th. Owing to these delays, these mails reached Toronto at the same time as British mails from the Montcalm and the Canada, thus throwing an immense volume of mail at one time upon the Toronto post office and causing more or less congestion. In this way the particular paper in question was not delivered until Monday morning the 7th of May. The delay in its transmission as set forth above will be seen however, to be wholly exceptional. I might add that on 11th May, the day the hon. member asked the question, the London Times of 1st May was in the reading room -just ten days.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Was the Marloch the first ship that sailed after the date of publication?


George Perry Graham: I would not be sure, but it was the first ship which the British government used for the transmission of mails.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Does the British government not use the Canadian Pacific railway steamships, and did not the Empress of Britain sail before the Marloch?


George Perry Graham: I think not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is my information.
Dr. A. M. LOWE



CANADIAN CITIZEN IN NORTHERN CHINA CAPTURED AND MALTREATED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister a matter which has been referred to me, and with your permission,
Manitoba Grand Junes
Mr. Speaker, I will read this telegram which is from the firm of Lowe, Buswell Company, Limited, of Vancouver, and addressed to Brigadier General Clark and myself:
You will have read in newspapers that Canadian citizen A. M. Lowe was beaten bound and made captive in northern China afterwards released on representations British consul. Urge you take up matter in session demanding explanation from Chinese government and substantial damages for outrage. Doctor Lowe member this firm and born in Victoria, B.C., resident in China two years. Your attention this matter will be very much appreciated.
Has the government taken cognizance of this incident and made any representations in protection and in behalf of Canadian citizens to the government of China, asking for the usual explanations and damages, if such, according to custom, -are deemed warranted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A communication very similar to the one which my hon. friend has just read was received from the same firm by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) towards the latter part of last week and was referred to the Department of External Affairs. I ascertained at the time that the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs had already instituted an inquiry into the incident to which my hon. friend has made reference. My hon. friend will appreciate that conditions are very much disturbed in China at the present time. Mr. Lowe was one of fourteen or fifteen, I think, who were similarly tleated. He was released immediately after his capture, and the government of China made some apology; our government notwithstanding is making representations as to the incident with a view of seeing what reply the Chinese government may wish to make.



MANITOBA GRAND JURIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The Manitoba legislature has passed a resolution, I believe unanimously, asking that it be relieved of the expense of grand juries-indeed, that the grand jury system be abolished. It hae petitioned the government to introduce this year legislation amending the code so as to make the desired change. Does the government purpose doing so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) to reply to this question. As soon as he takes his seat, I will direct his attention to the question.
Questions

WHEAT BOARD LEGISLATION On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: Has the government yet passed its order in council bringing into effect the extension of the wheat board legislation of last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not yet.


Mr. ROBB:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is there a difference of opinion?



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	160	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Edgar Lindsay.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill	No.	161	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Charles Marigoli Hare.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	162	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Esther Levin.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill	No.	163	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Hilda Marguerite Watt Black.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill	No.	164	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Abigal Aileen McCrea Tull.-Mr. Huff.

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

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 
Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Capital, $50,000 divided into 5,000 shares of $10 each.
3.	Honora Charlotte Bellew and Beatrice Frances Ann Bellew, stenographers, Mary Law-lor, spinster, John Brown, contractor, and Arthur Thomas Forbes, bond broker, all of the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec.
4.	No official information of the precise area of the claims held by the Labrador Goldfields Limited under mining leases granted by the Newfoundland government, but if it may be assumed from the published advertisements of this company that their claims are situated on rivers flowing into Stag bay, then the whole of the area covered by their leases is within the disputed territory.
5.	No; the Dominion government neither has waived nor intends to waive any rights of sovereignty which belong to, the Dominion in its own right or in that of the province of Quebec over or within the territory covered by the leases referred to; and it is not probable that the Newfoundland government can acquire any advantage by acts of administration while the boundary case is pendente lite.
6.	No information.
7.	The provisions of the company's act requires a prospectus to be filed and contracts to be referred to, liability for mis-statements is provided for. The government has no information regarding finding of gold on the property of the company.
8.	No information.


RHINELAND OCCUPATION
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What was the cost to Canada for the Canadan army of occupation that was sent into Rhineland?
2.	Did Germany or Canada pay for that cost?
3.	At what date did this occupation cease?
4.	Is the government aware that the American forces on the Rhine did not cost the United States a penny, that the Germans were paying the whole bill?
5.	If Germany did not foot this bill for Canada, why did Canada receive a different treatment than the United States in that matter?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: I and 2. It was estimated by the Overseas Ministry that the cost to Canada for the Canadian army of occupation amounted to $7,350,956.70.
At a conference of prime ministers, and representatives of the United Kingdom the Dominions and India, the allocation of the sums received from Germany was decided upon, Canada's share being $6,314,500. This amount has been paid.
3.	March, 1919.
4.	No information.
5.	Answered by 1 and 2.

Questions


MR. GEORGE WEDGE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	Is George Wedge employed in the transformer house of the Railways and Canals department at Thorold?
2.	If so, how long has he been employed by the Department of Railways and Canals?
3.	Has he always performed his duties satisfactorily?
4.	Is he now being discharged? If so, why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	About ten years.
3.	As regards the department, there have been no complaints.
4.	No.


PORT ARTHUR ELEVATOR
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What was the total amount of No. 1 standard screenings at the government elevator at Port Arthur for the years ending August 30th, 1920-21-22?
2.	What was the total amount of revenue received in each of the above years from all screenings?
3.	Were the said No. 1 standard screenings recleaned in the said elevator?
4.	If so, what was the total revenue for each year:- (a) from the recleaned screenings, (b) from the refuse screenings ?
5.	During the said years, to whom, at what price and what amount did the government sell, (a) No. 1 standard screenings, (b) recleaned screenings, (c) refuse screenings?
6.	Were the said screenings at any time offered to public tender?
7.	Did the government officials mix the grain extracted from the said screenings with other grain in the elevator?
8.	In accounting to the shipper for screenings, as provided by law, was said accounting and payment for the No. 1 standard screenings before being recleaned or only at the rate allowed for refuse screenings?


James Alexander Robb: This question requires information from Fort William, and, I notice, covers a period of three years. Unless we have the report, we may allow it to stand for this week; but if the report does not come along next week, we may have the question stand as an order for return.
Question stands.


COLONEL J. A. SPONAGLE
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was Colonel J. A. Sponagle of Middleton, Nova Scotia, appointed Port Physician at Margaretville, Annapolis county? If so, when?
2.	Did the said Colonel Sponagle serve overseas as medical officer of the 25th Battalion?
3.	Were the said Colonel Sponagle's services dispensed with after the year 1921?
4.	Was the customs officer at Margaretville notified by the department in future Dr. F. S. Messenger of Middleton would be employed instead of said Colonel Sponagle?
5.	Did the said Dr. Messenger have military service overseas ?
6.	What was the reason for dispensing with the services of said Colonel J. A. Sponagle?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	This officer was struck off strength, the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 16th February, 1920.
4.	No.
5.	There is no record of Dr. F. S. Messenger having served overseas with the Canadian Forces as an officer or other rank.
6.	Lieut. Colonel Sponagle was struck off the strength the Canadian Expeditionary Force on general demobilization.


FUNGUS AND INSECT CONTROL
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Whal is the organization of the two services dealing with fungi and insects respectively of the forests of Canada?
2.	What are the relative duties and the relative compensations provided for the technical staffs of the two services referred to?
3.	Does the government consider these two services, namely:-That which deals with fungi and that which deals with insects, of equal economic importance?
4.	Has the department during the last ten years carried out any investigation with respect to damages in the forests of British Columbia, under Dominion control, caused by fungi and by insects?
5.	If so, in what years were such investigations carried out and of what did the investigation consist?
6.	Is it the intention of the government during the summer months of 1924 or 1925 to carry out investigations relative to the causes and control of damage caused to forest trees in British Columbia by fungi and by insects?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	As far as diseases of forest trees caused by fungi are concerned, this work is done in a subdivision of the division of botany of the Central Experimental farm, Ottawa. In the Entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture, there is a definite organization known as the Division of Forest Insects. Officers of this division investigate insect outbreaks of forests and their control in the various provinces.
2.	The duties of a forest pathologist, include the study of the damage due to fungi, the ecological conditions predisposing forest trees towards disease, the taxonomy and morphology of fungi, together with a study of economic control measures possible under prevailing lumbering conditions. The staff of the section dealing with fungi of forests-apart from the general direction of this work by the divisional chief, as far as his other duties will permit, consists of one permanent plant pathologist, with a salary of $2,400-$2,760, and a number of seasonal men of minor qualifications whoes salaries and expenses amount to approximately $8,000. The duties of the entomologists attached to the division of forest insects, are to study the life histories
269S
Questions

of important forest and shade tree insects, the natural control of the same, as well as all phases relating to artificial control. The amount, including salaries, devoted to forest insect investigations in 1922 amounted to approximately $22,100.
3.	It is difficult to make comparisons be-tweeh these two services, but just at present insects are working more injury to forests than fungi. But the injury effected by fungi is frequently less obtrusive, although it may be quite as great as that caused by insects, hence it is not possible to say definitely whether one is of more economic importance than the other.
4.	Only occasional observations as to damage caused by fungi have so far been possible in British Columbia. Certain definite studies of conditions relating to the outbreak of white pine blister rust were made during the past year and a half. Investigations have been carried out, during the last ten years, with respect to damages caused by insects in the forests of British Columbia.
5.	With respect to fungi:	The investigations have been carried on since September, 1921, and consist principally in determining the areas in British Columbia affected by blister rust and investigations of the susceptible secondary host plants, including a study of distances fungus spores are carried. With respect to insects:	Every year practically,
particularly since the establishment of a division of forest insects in 1914. Since this latter year investigations have related particularly to the spruce budworm, the forest tent caterpillar, the fall webworm, various species of bark-beetles, borers, etc. From biological investigations conducted, information of great value was obtained based upon which control operations were directed.
6.	Yes.
MR. GEORGE FRENETTE Mr. HANSON:
1.	On what date was Mr. George Frenette dismissed from the civil service as postmaster at St. Jean l'Evangeliste ?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	How long was the post office located where it stood prior to the dismissal of Mr. Frenette?
4.	Were any petitions received by the Post Office Department pleading for the reinstatement of Mr. Frenette as postmaster?
5.	Did the department receive any official report as to the convenience of the locality of the post office at St. Jean l'Evangelis-te under the postmastership of Mr. Frenette? If so, what was the substance of that report and by whom was it signed, and on what date?
6.	Did the Post Office Department advise the Civil Service Commission that the locality of the post office under the postmastership of Mr. Frenette was inconveniently situated and if so on what date was such advice sent to the Civil Service Commission by the Post Office Department?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for Postmaster General) :: 1.	Office moved from the residence of Mr George Frenette to residence of Mr. Charles Alfred Green on 26th December, 1922, on a report from the member for the constituency, Hon. Charles Marcil, to the effect that die site of the office did not serve the convenience of the great majority of the patrons.
2.	Office moved to a site more convenient to the majority of the patrons.
3.	Since 1st April, 1896.
4.	Yes.
5.	On 16th February, 1923, a report signed by S. Tanner Green, District Superintendent, Quebec, was received, to the effect that 51 families receive their mail at St. Jean l'Evangeliste post office; 12 families are located on high ground on a stretch of three miles north-west from the parish church; 24 families live on the lower level on a stretch of one mile. The remainder of the families who receive their mail are located on the south side of the Nouvelle river, and have their exit by a road close to the residence of Mr. Green. Mr. Frenette's residence would be more suitable for the twelve people on the hill, but Mr. Green's residence would be more suitable for the people who live on the lower level, and also those who are located on the south side of the Nouvelle river. The parish of St. Jean I'Evangeliste, which has a population of 1706 is served by six minor post offices besides the St. Jean l'Evangeliste post office, the latter being the only money order office. Looking at this question from that aspect it may be stated that 606 people occupy territory situated west of the parish church and the residence of Mr. Frenette, or an area which extends eight miles; 549 people live east of the parish church, on a tract which extends three miles to the vicinity of the Robitaille post office. The remainder of the population, 497 people, are located on the peninsula to the southward. Out of a population of 1706, 1046 must pass by Green's door to go to the church, and among the 51 nearer patrons of the office, 39 have to pass Green s door to reach the residence of Mr. Frenette.
6.	The Post Office Department advised the Civil Service Commission on March 27, 1923. to the effect that as the department had decided to remove the office to the vicinity cf Mr. Green's residence in the middle of the village and near the railway station, where it would afford better public service to the majority of the patrons of the office, it was considered that Mr. Frenette's application to keep the post office at the old location, could not be taken into consideration.

Questions


PURCHASING COMMISSION
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Under what authority does the Purchasing Commission operate?
2.	Is such authority, if any, legally sufficient and adequate?
3.	If such authority is legally insufficient and inadequate what does the government propose to do?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Under authority of order in council P. C. 1077 of April 4, 1921.
2 and 3. The points raised in these questions are under consideration.


MOOSE JAW INCOME TAX OFFICE
Mr. HOPKINS:: 1.	Does the government intend to close the Moose Jaw Income Tax office?
2.	If so, why and when?
3.	If not, how much further is the present systematic reduction of the staff to be carried?
4.	What status is it proposed to give the office, and what are the reasons for making the office junior to Regina and Prince Albert?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Staff will be increased or decreased as required to maintain an efficient service.
4.	No change in the status as a sub-district office is anticipated. Economy and efficiency in administration.


CONDEMNATION INSURANCE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Have any steps been taken or orders issued in the past by the Department of Agriculture looking towards the discontinuance of the system of condemnation insurance in Canada?
2.	If so, upon whose request was this done?
3.	Was it carried into effect?
4.	If such an order was issued and not carried into effect, what was the reason for the failure to do so?
5.	Upon whose request or demand was this failure brought about?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Many requests had been received from different sources but action was taken specifically upon resolution from the Western Canada Live Stock Union.
3.	No.
4.	The order was first issued early in 1920 based upon a ruling by the Justice department pointing out that the charges referred to *would appear to require legislative sanction unless justified by well-established usage. Subsequently, however, in the "same year, it was agreed with the various live stock interests, producers and packers both being included, that it would be inadvisable to put the order of discontinuance into effect unless and until a constructive policy could be developed, providing comprehensively for the elimination of tuberculosis in commercial cattle. This agreement led to fhe organization of the Animal Contagious Diseases Eradication Board, for the purpose of working out such a policy. This board met on several occasions and agreed upon a progressive programme which was submitted to the government. This programme the government felt could not be financed by itself alone and that the producers would be expected to assist by taxing themselves in connection with the sale of commercial cattle. This question was referred to the Western Canada Live Stock Union in December, 1920, but in view of the fact that it was found impossible to reach an agreement as between the government and producers' interests respecting the financing of the policy, the programme which had been drafted was, by force of circumstances, allowed to drop. This being the case the order was not put into effect and the matter has not been since presented to the government.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


RAISINS IMPORTED
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	What quantity of raisins were imported into Canada each year during the last five years?
2.	What quantity of said raisins were imported into each province during each of the said years?
3.	From what countries were the said raisins imported?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Total imports or raisins entered for consumption in Canada during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1919 to 1923:
Fiscal year,1919	Fiscal year, 1920	Fiscal year, 1921	Fiscal year, 1922	Fiscal year, 1923Total	Lbs. 34,337,814	Lbs. 37,619,365	Lbs. 24,979,194	Lbs. 27,666,692	Lbs. 32,044,480
Questions

2.	Imports of raisins entered for consumption in each province during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1919 to 1923:
Province	Fiscal year, 1919	Fiscal year, 1920	Fiscal year, 1921	Fiscal year, 1922	Fiscal year, 1923Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Yukon	
Totals	Lbs. 2,064,367 1,563,508 354,975 4,166,425 17,017,553 3,094,971 1,610,234 1,695,931 2,760,432 9,418	Lbs. 1,855,309 1,485,512 249,120 5,523,063 14,298,074 4,827,584 2,577,319 3,239,408 3,558,060 5,916	Lbs. 1,341,931 681,067 194,179 4,145,056 11,534,881 2,810,914 1,214,880 1,381,305 1,662,259 12,722	Lbs. 1,389,220 893,843 129,745 4,393,656 11,455,974 3,218,996 1,741,258 2,041,674 2,401,330 996	Lbs. 1,832,458 1,492,149 242,971 4,703,529 13,537,329 3,517,176 1,810,895 2,191,335 2,706,089 10,54934,337,814	37,619,365	24,979,194	27,666,692	32,044,4803.	Countries from which raisins were imported during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1919 to 1923:Country	Fiscal year, 1919	Fiscal year, 1920	Fiscal year, 1921	Fiscal year, 1922	Fiscal year, 1923Lbs.	Lbs. 9,262	Lbs. 83,838 154,000 420	Lbs. 99,109	Lbs. 105,496 280 2,050 36,70011,200	
98,750	
		18	7 475		
	50				144
				7,787 474,661 1,178,678	
		12,757 383,836	338,381 2,417,724		127,956 930,598 150 194,191 30,646,915
	115,723				
					
		348,551 36,864,941	1,594,161 20,390,188	1,629,784 24,177,923	
	34,210,841				
					
	34,337,814	37,619,365	24,979,194	27,666,692	32,044,480


RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	What progress, if any, has been made toward the negotiations of the new treaty which the government has proposed to effect with the United States to take the place of the present Rush-Bagot Treaty?
2.	Does the government intend to continue these negotiations ?
3.	If so, what does the government expect to achieve thereby which will be of real advantage to Canada?
4.	Is it the intention of the government that the present British Ambassador to the United States shall be permitted to sign Such treaty along with the representative of Canada when same is complete?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Negotiations looking to the conclusion of a treaty to take the place of the Rush-Bagot agreement of the 29th April, 1817, are still in progress.
2.	Yes.
3.	The removal of possibility of friction in matters connected with naval armament on the Great Lakes between this country and the United States.
4.	This matter will be determined at such time as final action is taken.


LAKE OF THE WOODS LEVELS
Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	What is the present condition of the negotiations with the United States regarding the Lake of the Woods levels and the problems incident thereto?
2.	Has any progresis been made within the last year? If so, what?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Negotiations are proceeding between the governments concerned, and satisfactory progress is being made.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all papers,, letters, telegrams and other documents, relating to the Margaree river Salmon Fisheries Association during the year 1922 and the present year, including in particular, all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the membership or ownership of such association, and the distribution of moneys payable by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the association or the members thereof.

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EQUIPMENT ORDERS
Arthur Meighen: For a return showing all orders for equipment placed by the Canadian National Railways since October 4th, 1922, including orders for cars of different kinds, separately stated; for engines of different kinds, separately stated, with prices in each case or basis of prices, and comparison of such prices with last prices at which similar goods were ordered. The said return to contain also names of firms and location of factories, with whom such orders have been placed, and where same are to be filled. Also showing all correspondence and requisitions between officers of the companies and any member of the government referring to the necessity for such orders.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NEW POSITIONS
Mr. RYCKMAN:: For return showing all new positions created and filled as offices of the Canadian National Railways since October 4th, 1922, together with salaries attaching to such positions and the name of the appointee to each. Showing also all salaries raised and all salaries, if any, diminished, of the officers of the Canadian National Railways or Canadian Mercantile Marine, since October 4th, 1922, with particulars as to previous and present salary in each case.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection to the motion on the understanding that it shall also include information in regard to positions abolished.


ITALIAN TREATY
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my
right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, have any objection to the third reading of the bill respecting the Italian Convention to-day?


Arthur Meighen: No.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of Bill No. 153, respecting a certain Trade Convention between his Majesty and the King of Italy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) Bill No. 54 to provide for the investigation of Combines, Monopolies, Trusts and Mergers, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday May 11th, 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.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: 2704	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
only when sitting on the benches over there. I wonder if they have only caught it since they moved over there? It is a very familiar phrase that I have heard denounced and held up to ridicule. The minister continues:
We sympathize very warmly with the desire to have a larger development of the copper industry in the Dominion.
Then there is the matter of hemp. My hon. friend says:
There is another industry to which we are going to extend similar aid. We have been working together to encourage the cultivation of hemp, for which article we are assured the soil of parts of our country is particularly adapted. It is believed that with some encouragement a large manufacturing plant can be established in Manitoba, drawing its raw material from the crop to be raised in the immediate vicinity. Here again is a case where the helping hand ma$r only have to be extended at the beginning.
And so on. No start without the helping hand, and the aid now given. But, Mr. Speaker, if artificial silk is to be helped, why should not natural silk be helped? It is a proper thing to help industries which can be made and ought to be made indigenous to Canada. We believe that, and my hon. friend is perfectly right when he takes that stand in connection with this article of artificial silk-perfectly right. It is a comparatively new thing, and I think it Is going to be a very good thing. But although it is a pretty good thing it is a vefy small thing as compared with natural silk. Yet, if artificial silk is to be helped, why not natural silk? Why, Mr. Speaker, the other day I had occasion in connection with the Italian treaty to bring to my hon. friend's attention this fact, that while in the United States no silk whatever was grown-we all know where it comes from, and the same thing can be said of European countries, of France itself-nevertheless by a protective duty on natural silk they worked up an industry in the United States that during the year 1919 distributed in wages the tremendous sum of $108,000,000. Why not natural silk if artificial silk? Or is this altogether a sham idea and you want to	get artificial things instead of real	things? Or	is it	because the artificial is cheap and the natural expensive? Artificial silk to-day to a very large extent is the only kind of Silk that the poorer people can buy. Real silk costs money, and a good deal of it. Is it to be understood that the reason we have artificial silk and not natural silk here is because the one is really a luxury and the other a comparatively cheap thing, and that in consonance with what was done in the French treaty and other treaties we are to have cheap taxes on
LSir Henry Drayton.]
the more expensive things and heavy taxes on the cheap things? Because that is what this government has been doing. Perhaps that is the reason; I cannot think of any other.
Then again, if copper bars, why not brass works? Why, if we are doing this for labour -and the real justification for protection always is the employment of labour at work which is properly indigenous to a country, and to the greater extent and greater amount that labour enters into the cost of a business the greater the claims it ought to have for protection-well, there is much more labour in turning out brass works than in turning out copper bars. So why not brass works?
Again, if we are to have copper bars, why not glass? First-rate factories now in Canada are practically doing nothing. Why not glass? If copper bars why not steel plates? And if hemp why not flax? The farmer in Canada is interested in the growth of flax. Why is flax to be dropped and hemp helped? Why?-unless it be that there is a total absence of principle in connection with the consideration of any rate, and the consideration that is given rests upon the insistency of the demand upon the one hand or political advantage on the other. So much for these tariff provisions.
My hon. friend makes a change in the sales tax. I am inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, that here again he has yielded to importunity.
I can remember very well when
4 p.m. one of the great complaints made by hon. gentlemen opposite against the customs revenue was that the customs revenue being collected at the source formed part of the costs of the jobber, formed part of the costs of the retailer, and as it formed part of the costs of both, their profits in both cases were calculated upon it. There is an easy way and there is a hard way of handling the sales tax; I quite admit it. We chose the difficult way because we wanted to keep down the cost of living. We wanted to see to the fullest extent possible that every single cent that the consumer had to pay in sales tax went in taxes and was not made the basis of further	and increased	profits.	I admit itwas hard,	but we	were	getting	along very
well with it.
There is another consideration in connection with that very self-same tax. If you make the tax small and spread it out wide enough you can get it so that it merely becomes a	part of	the overhead	and is notpassed on.	That, is	what	we did	in our sales
tax of one-and-a-half and one-and-a-half. Ihe

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
other day I ran across the owner of a large departmental store and he said we had been a great nuisance to them. I said "What is the trouble?" "Well," he said "you had that infernal sales tax on, and it was so small that we did not feel like changing catalogues and the like and passing the tax on. We absorbed it. But we are all right now," he went on "with the increase of fifty per cent the sales tax became so large that we are passing it on." The increase he spoke of was made in the sales tax of last year, and 1 think in a good many cases the sales tax was being passed on I think there is no doubt of this, Mr. Speaker, that the real reason why prices stopped falling down with my hon. friend's last budget, and took an upward curve, just simply lay in the fact that these sales taxes were being passed on. I am afraid that my hon. friend while he is considering himself, his department-and I admit it will be easier for them- while he is considering the retailer, and the retailers all want it, while he is considering the wholesaler, and the wholesalers all want it, is forgetting entirely the position of the rate payer And I venture this prophecy, that the result of this tax will be to increase further the cost of living. It is an absolutely inescapable conclusion as I see it.
I would just like to show how these taxes work out. I am going to take S100 worth of goods. Under our tax of 14 per cent $100 worth of goods goes out from the manufacturer He has to pay a sales tax of $1.50. That amount of $101.50 goes to the jobber. I am going to assume for the purposes of this statement that the whole tax was passed on, ever, when it was small. I am going to assume that what that departmental store man told me was wrong and that everything was passed on; that is, put the case against our sales tax in the worst possible light, and do violence to the facts, for the sake of illustration. The jobber's cost then is $101.50. Now I will put the jobber's profit at-it does not matter what you put his profit at. His profit varies. It may be down as low as 5 per cent or up as high as 25 per cent. Suppose we say 15 per cent; the figure does not matter so long as you stick to the same percentage in all your illustrations. The jobber's profit of 15 per cent would amount to $15.22. Thar, is what he sells at, assuming he passes everything on, and on that he has to pay his sales tax-again 1J per cent. That is now increased to $1.75. That makes a total for which he sells of $118.47. Now, it does not make anv difference what percentage we take for ths retailer, as long as we stick to it. These gross profits vary tremendously. Take 35 per cent.
Thirty-five per cent profit would be $41.46. That would make the cost to the consumer, assuming everything had been passed on undo our tax, pressing it to the last possible extent, $159.93.
Let us take it under the proposed tax, which certainly has the great merit of simplicity, and direct action on the rate-payer, which has no merit. Take goods $100; sales tax $6, jobber's profit at 15 per cent, $15.90. Jobber's price, therefore, $121.90, retailers profit at 35 per cent $42.66, a total of $164.66, as against $159.93, a resultant increase in taxation to the ratepayer of 4 63 per cent. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the trade gets its way and makes more money. The ratepayers pay 4-63 per cent more. I notice that this is no secret, and I am going to read one of the many quotations which you can get as to who wanted this change. There is no secret about it. In this morning's paper I find the following:
Good budget for jobbers
Hamilton. Out., May 12.-Jobbers are particularly pleased with the budget especially in its treatment of the sales tax.
"It's a good budget for the jobbers," stated St. Clair Balfour, of Balfour Smye Limited, wholesale grocer.
"It gives us just what we have been after for a long time. Hitherto with a one per cent tax we had to absorb the sales tax."
They did that under our tax. The quotation proceeds:
"We could not avoid it. Now. however, this tax will be placed on at the point of manufacture and we will be relieved of this trouble."
Asked if this would not resuflt in pyramiding Mr. Balfour readily admitted that this would be the case.
"Oh, yes, certainly," he said, "if the article costs $100 and the manufacturer puts on the $0 sales tax we will collect our profit on the $106."
Why, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend says that he is not bringing in new forms of taxation. Well, I assume he is not bringing in many new forms of taxation, but he is multiplying the results of taxation on the ratepayers by the method in which he deals with that sales tax. I hope that the government are going to get good returns and that the revenues will be largely increased. My hon. friend needs these returns. But I would be very much more hopeful if I saw some way in which the increased profits in the case of this taxation, which is going to the jobber and retailer, could be diverted into the treasury. I am afraid it will never get there.
The receipt tax, he says, is to stand. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have receipt taxes, we have cheque taxes and other things. We have got the niggling taxes that bother us and. bring in the main but comparatively small results,
2706	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
while we have been entirely overlooking taxation on those that can best afford it-the taxation on the consumers of luxuries. This receipt tax, my hon. friend says they have it in England. He is right. He says that no chancellor of the exchequer in England would think of dropping it. Again he is right. But no chancellor of the exchequer in England would ever have thought of permitting taxes on cheques as has been done here-never in the world. Even in the worst days of the war the very highest they went was tuppence on a cheque. There was no ascending scale. There was a recognition that there was no service given, a recognition that it was a nuisance to business, and a difficult tax to administer; and I am going to have something to say about that when we go into committee, but at present I will not detain the House. Now, the position in England and the position here are entirely different. The receipt tax here, on top of those drastic cheque taxes, ought not to be thought of. We are getting far more out of our cheque taxes than we ever get from receipt taxes. There would not be nearly the objection to giving receipts to-day, if the hon. minister would accept the English method, and have a flat rate on cheques and a flat rate on receipts, but while we have not got it, the minister says it has to stand. It is just another of those small things that I do not believe my hon. friend is going to get revenue from. He has not enlightened us as to what revenue he is going to get today. What I do know now is that the chief effect of this receipt tax is that you do not get receipts. You sign your cheque to-day and send it, if you are fortunate enough to be able to send it, and the man who receives it says "Oh well, that cheque will be a receipt for that fellow, I will save two cents;" and the government is out two cents on the receipt and thfee cents on the return postage. That is how it has worked out. I know that to-day you have to ask for receipts if you want to get them. Then again we have the cheque tax still to stay with us. I suppose that my hon. friend feels that he is absolutely consistent in what he does with the cheque tax. This government will not tax luxuries. It is a very luxurious thing to be able to write cheques exceeding 82,500. You need not pay anything more for it. That is getting up into the class of luxury. You need not worry about that. Just as long as you keep the tax down to the cheques of the denominations that most of us are able to write, you pay your little percentage every time and there is no help. This assistance is put at the wrong end altogether. There ought to have been something done with this cheque tax, I admit, 
but the relief is given at the wrong end. The tax on cheques works in absolutely inverse ratio to the rate of taxation we pay in on incomes. The bigger income you have the more money you have to pay. It went up on an increasing scale, and went up heavily. You have super-charges going on all the time. But it works absolutely in the reverse way, so far as cheques are concerned. The remedy is at the wrong end. If the minister had said, "we are going to help small businesses, we are going to help people to-day that require help, and we will exempt all cheques under $500 from the operation of the tax, just leave it to the old rate of two cents, he would have done something. He would have given relief there where relief is far more required.
I think I have already dealt with the cigarette tax, but I wish to mention just one thing that was wrong in connection with it. My recollection was that my hon. friend counted upon an increased revenue of $5,000,000 in connection with his tobacco duties, and on looking the matter up in Hansard, I find that is correct. But instead of getting an increased revenue of $5,000,000, he has lost $1,200,000. He is not going to get that back to-day. You cannot bring down provisions and laws which directly affect business, which hurt business very materially, and say: "Oh, it does cot matter; I will take the tax off this year and you will be just as well off as you were before." You cannot do that. Businesses that are disturbed and disrupted do not come back in that way, and it will be some time, I am afraid, before my hon. friend is able to make good the cost of his error and to get back anything like the old return which this country got from the sale of cigarettes. My hon. friend again is quite right when he said that cigarette consumption did not stop. It did not. He is again quite right when he said that smuggling took place, and that any quantity of American cigarettes, which paid us absolutely nothing, was being consumed in place of our own.
My hon. friend said that there was no revenue from the tax on beetroot sugar. That is quite right. Of course there was no revenue, but I do not think that statement leaves on the House the impression that he would desire to be left. The rate was first brought down at 48 cents. After protests from the opposition, the rate was reduced to 24 cents, and then a further protest was made by the manufacturing company, the sugar refinery. They said: "We have our contracts made for the whole year; we never counted upon this cost; it is unfair to impose this tax." Well, the tax for the whole year was sus-

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
pended, as my hon. friend explain'd, last year, and there has been no opportunity to collect the tax this year. Yet my hon friend says there is no revenue from this tax. Of course there is no revenue because the tax was suspended. The real evil of that tax was not the reason that prompted its suspension last year. What prompted its suspension last year was the fact that manufacturers of beets into sugar would be out just that much money That is not the real evil. The real evil, the real reason why the tax ought never to have been imposed, was that it was a tax upon a first product of the country, of which product we were not getting enough. My hon. friend is perfectly justified in discarding the tax altogether.
I am pleased to see that my hon. friend has taken that niggling tax off soft drinks. He could not have got much money under it, I am sure he did not ; and if the cost of trying to collect it were taken into consideration, he would find his receipts were a vanishing quantity. There 1? just one suggestion I would make to my hon. friend in connection with that tax. He is taking it off now because he thinks it is wrong. If he thought it was right, he would not take it off. If it is wrong, it is just as wrong to-day as it will be on the 1st of next August. Nothing is going to occur between now and August to make that tax wroDg on the 1st of August and perfectly right now. But he does not take, it off until the 1st of August. If the tax is wrong-and it is wrong-it ought to be cancelled now. Further than that, in fairness to a trade that has been harassed a good deal by this tax, as they have to-day to prepare for their summer's trade and they cannot propel ly do that when they have this tax over their heads, if it be wrong, let us get the wrong righted at the earliest possible moment. I agree with my hon. friend that it is wrong and I see no reason why the repeal should not come into effect immediately just the same as our tariff resolutions have come into effect.
The next point that I want to say a few words upon is the resolution as to the United States. I do not know just what was operating in my hon. friend's mind. I am entirely disposed to believe, knowing him as I do, knowing his great ability, that he has absolutely no faith in his proposition; that he knows it is an idle gesture, and that it is meant merely for the purpose of pleasing my hon. friends to my left. No one believes at the present time that anything can be done with that resolution. Why, the Americans are men of business; they are much more concerned in trade and in furthering trade
than they are in reading over piously indicated and beautifully worded resolutions in our statutes. They know where they are just as well as they will know after the present resolutions are made law. We learned something about their acumen when we heard about the French treaty. We found that everything we could get only at such great cost, they got for nothing, and it was suggested that we should employ an American to make the next treaty with France for us. They are business people, and there is only one way of trading with business people, that is, by having something to trade with; and this resolution constitutes absolutely nothing to trade with. In the last few days hon. gentlemen have learned the soundness of that doctrine:	If you want to trade have something to trade with. In carrying out that doctrine, they imposed a duty on currants and raisins. The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), I think, has been helping them a little along the line of instructions. I do not know how he managed this; he certainly managed to get them to pick out the one item that would constitute the smallest reason in the world to move an American business man in the right direction. But, perhaps, the process of education will go on. He has got them to put a protective duty on potatoes when other countries maintain a duty against potatoes grown in Canada. I do not know why we should not eat Canadian potatoes. I always thought we should. I think Canadian potatoes are very good.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Since the hon. member has coupled my name with this, I should like to dissociate myself with it entirely. We want free entry of our potatoes into other markets.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Wonderful! Is the attitude of this hon. gentleman not extraordinary? I am not going to debate the matter; but I am going to tell him one thing, that his attitude is just as helpful to the potato producers of New Brunswick as was his vote on the Crowsnest pass case. If he wants to make it impossible to do business, all right; but hon. gentlemen across the aisle were learning something, and they put this duty on potatoes. Let us suppose that this duty on potatoes was imposed for some good cause. If there be any good cause, the reason why potatoes should be picked out as a specific instance, must have	regard to	the American tariff.
The one potato scale I know of that is worrying Canada to-day is the American potato scale. We get some potatoes from the United
J?08	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
States, and lion gentlemen think that reciprocity in tariff, which they regard as something good, should begin with this article. They evidently wanted to find something to trade with, but it seems to me that they are very bad traders when they begin with such a small item as potatoes. I have not the trade returns fo. 1923, but I find according to the returns for 1922 that in that year the Americans sold us potatoes to the value of $423,113. That is one of the very smallest items, one of the most unimportant, that my hon. friends could begin with. Certainly it is a fine point to start with if they are serious in the desire to tackle the question like men of business. Undoubtedly it is a fine trading point as compared with the millions, the hundreds of millions, of values that come from the United States into Canada; it is small, for example, as compared with the millions which we get from them in silks, textiles, iron and steel products, etc. It is simply small and contemptible. Surely the amount of agricultural products which the United States sends into this agricultural country is of infinitely more value and importance than potatoes. I do not know how it is in the rest of the provinces, but I do know that in Ontario the commodity that is of immediate concern to every thrifty farmer's wife is eggs; and in the year that we import $423,000 worth of potatoes we buy $3,162,143 worth of eggs from the United States.


Mr. FORKE:: The Canadian hens went on strike that time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know anything about that; I cannot speak for Manitoba; but I certainly know that in Ontario this particular preserve of the farmer's wife is being very largely encroached upon, and I know that there is a real difference, in the Ontario farm at any rate, brought about by the conditions which these figures disclose. It may be that my hon friend is interested only in wheat, but in Ontario, I would have him know, we are greatly interested in all of the activities of agriculture and certainly do not exclude that very important item, the domestic hen and her eggs. Now, there is one way of handling this question, and that is, not by indulging in any pious and empty gestures, but by being somewhat manly about the situation. Just let us have a little faith in our own country and in ourselves; let us have a little bit of courage; let us realize that this country is the second largest buyer of American goods. Let us realize also that the Americans are interested in this market;

bearing in mind, of course, that they will do what is best for themselves and their people without any regard to us just so long as we have not enough pluck or courage or determination to do anything for ourselves. In that very year to which I have referred we made, of all our national purchases, 69 per cent from America, selling them only 39 per cent of our exports. If ever a country had arguments ready to hand to be moulded in a cause, we undoubtedly have them. Yet, with our trade blocked, American trade is	allowed to come into the
country untrammelled and absolutely unchecked. Do we suppose that we shall get anywhere by merely uttering pious phrases? Is there any reason why, in regard to the things that we do not get from the British Empire or produce ourselves, we should not at least show our good friends to the south that we are determined to take a leaf from their book and be good Americans in this Scotland of the north, and adopt the American tariff in connection with these goods, at least to the extent of agricultural products? There is a way of meeting the situation; but; as I have said, it is not by means of pious and empty gestures. Now, I have dealt with artificial silk, and I think that something can be done in this direction if proper steps are taken.


Mr. McMASTER:: The hon. member calls Canada the Scotland of the North American continent. Is he aware that about two hundred years ago the Scotch people talked in the same way about trade coming from England after the union?


Henry Lumley Drayton: A whole lot of
things have happened in that two hundred years.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Apparently not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One thing that
happened only two years ago was the Fordney tariff. I wonder whether there is another thought behind my hon. friend's interruption. Scotland is a part of England.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Shame.


Robert Forke: I object to that statement;
Scotland is not a part of England.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well then, I
should have said a part of Great Britain. Scotland is a part of Great Britain; but does my hon. friend think that there is any parallel between Scotland, as a part of Great Britain, and Canada, not a part of the United States?

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


Andrew Ross McMaster: The parallelism is between the thought of the hon. gentleman now and the thought of the Scotch protectionists of that day, who of course soon saw the error of their ways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have dealt
with the silk industry, and I want to congratulate my hon. friend on what he is doing for copper, because we ought to be able to make some use of our mines and keep some of our money in the country that is got out of their exploitation. I onlj' regret that the hon. gentleman has not gone further and seen to it that the languishing trades that use copper were looked after. Let me congratulate the minister also on bringing up the matter- of hemp. Every now and then countries get national opportunities, generally, unfortunately, at the expense of other nations. To-day we have a great opportunity to go into the hemp industry by reason of the unfortunate position of Russia. We can grow hemp to advantage in the Northwest. Experiments have been carried on over a very wide field and I have no doubt whatever that hemp can be made a very highly productive crop to the westetn farmers. If there is anything that we ought to do to-day, I think we should above everything else help agriculture where we can, and this is one real practical way of helping it. We at any rate are of that opinion. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) had on the order paper a resolution dealing with this very matter. If there be any way of enlarging the profits of agriculture in Canada to-day it certainly ought to be taken. Not only will it help agriculture, but my hon. friend is right in saying that it will also help us materially. It will help the country as a whole materially, because I think it was last year that we imported some sixteen million dollars' worth of materials, and their place could be entirely taken by hemp grown in the prairie provinces. Therefore I congratulate my hon. friend.
But I do not congratulate him on the result, because I am convinced that this bounty will never be sufficient to get the hemp industry going. It is a five-year bounty, and then it stops. Just contrast the position as between copper bars on the one hand and hemp on the other. In the former case you have an industry already organized and functioning, with great works at the smelter. But in order to make the hemp industry a success the farmers in the districts where hemp can be grown must be instructed in the best methods of cultivation, which takes time-a long time. Copper is sure, it is not dependent upon drought, frost, vermin or anything else; it is there ready to be manufactured. On the other hand, the hemp industry must overcome the various troubles I have enumerated and an entirely new plant must be constructed. Therefore I hope my hon. friend will take into his serious consideration the advisability of greatly extending the length of time for payment of the bonus and the maximum amount. I think the farmers of the West absolutely require the utmost help we can give them, and if we can get hold of a crop which is really going to be a good paying crop-and it is said that this crop is worth from twenty-five to thirty dollars an acre net at the prices of hemp to-day-if we can render any help in this direction it is something which as many farmers as possible in the West ought to participate in. And there are great opportunities for such an industry. Not only our own domestic trade-which, as I have already pointed out, is large-but the possibilities in export trade are tremendous, and I sincerely hope my hon. friend will reconsider the terms of this bounty and make them more generous so that we may make sure of getting this primary industry well established for the benefit of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to turn for a few minutes to the position of the country and to my hon. friend's plight in connection with his budget. I want to be as fair to him as I possibly can. I do not know exactly which figure he really adopts. He showed increases in customs, post office, Dominion lands, and inland revenue, aggregating $13,-
315,000,	with decreases in excise, investments and other taxes to a total $34,598,000, with a net decrease of $21,283,000. At one point he mentioned that his surplus over ordinary and capital expenditure would be $14,100,000, and that the railways would require $74,500,000. These figures would result in a deficit of $60,400,000. Of course, my hon. friend stated that he hopes something will occur in the meantime, that economies may be effected and that trade will revive, but on the figures given that would be the deficit. On the next page, however, there is another set of figures in which he gives the main estimates, exclusive of railways, at $353,011,255, advances to railways $73,000,000, advances to merchant marine $1,500,000, supplementary estimates $15,900,000, making a total of $443,411,255; with an estimated revenue of $372,517,000; leaving an estimated deficit therefore of $70,889,255. There is a third calculation which may be made and which would increase this deficit, but I do not desire to make it; either set of figures is sufficiently grave-extremely so.
2710	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
It seems to me that if my hon. friend had delayed bringing down the French treaty until after his budget was out of the way, and he perforce had found how he stood, he never would have brought that treaty down. Why, Mr. Speaker, are the reductions being made which my hon. friend has enumerated? The French treaty. Why are luxuries to be more lightly taxed than the necessaries of life? The French treaty. Why is the tax on Canadian still wine reduced from thirty cents to seven-and-a-half cents at a time when we want every single nickel that we can get? The French treaty. Why is this tax on Canadian sparkling wine of three dollars reduced to one-and-a-half dollars? Again, the French treaty. Why is the reduction in the excise estimated at $5,600,000, unless it be the French treaty? I am confident that if my hon. friend had got out his figures first and had seen where ho stood he would not have asked the House to proceed with the French treaty. In a year when we have a deficit of $57,<)00,0u0, five-and-a-half years after the war is over, when the government is deliberately budgeting for a deficit next year of $60,000,000 or $70,000,000, depending on how it is figured, but an enormous sum anyway, is it not indeed tragic to think that this is the time chosen to take off taxes on luxuries? But that is what is done. And why? Well, there was the treaty, there were many political considerations to be taken into account appealing to sentiment here and the like-in a word, party politics. And perhaps party politics after all may be expected to figure largely in a budget which has been dictated mainly by political necessity. Of course, it is unpopular to tax or economize but, if there is a tax that can be justified it is the tax on	the luxuries
brought into this country to the extent of millions and millions of dollars. But our friends had not learned their lesson; they went over with their tariffs as they were. I wish we could get this government imbued with the idea that the business of Canada and the necessities of Canada are greater than the necessity of staying in office or of getting jobs; if we could do that we would have a business budget, something not quite so political in its character. We used to hear statements about the independence of parliament, emanating from gentlemen opposite; how well do they themselves observe it? Let us see what has been taking place. Mr. Mc-Coig goes to the Senate. Mr. Boyer goes to the Senate. Mr. Turgeon goes to the Senate. Mr. Demers becomes a judge. Mr. Stein becomes a judge. Mr. Trahan becomes a judge. Mr. McKenzie becomes a judge.

And at this very minute there is an important judicial office held open, for the purpose, as it is generally supposed, of giving another hon. gentleman across the aisle a job. Besides that, Mr. Pacaud gets rewarded with a job in England-and all this in the short time since my hon. friends attained office. Then, we have had an Acting Minister for the Post Office. The government cannot make up its mind even as to a deputy for that department, so that there is no one really in charge. We have an Acting Minister of National Defence. We have no Auditor General; postmasters are holding office and being paid against the provisions of the law. We have no Solicitor General, no Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court. There has been activity in the appointment of commissions. We have Mr. Congdon's commission, which will enable him to have a very nice trip and to amuse himself -another ex-politician. We have the genial Mr. Pugsley, another very eminent Liberal ex-politician. We have that great and good man, Mr. Duncan Marshall, another commissioner. I will not go through all the rest, of them-we have the grain inquiry started and we have also the Great Lakes shipping inquiry, the purpose of which is to do something which other governments did without wasting time and before the loss actually occurred.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did my hon.
friend say, "what?"


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not catch my hon. friend's last remark.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will tell him what. In the year 1912 there was an advance in lake freight rates which the then government thought worked an injustice to the farmers, and they promptly repealed the coastal laws. That increase, though, was as nothing compared to what we had last year. The crop moved under those high rates; the coastal laws stood-but a commission is appointed; somebody will get some fees.
Then, we are to have another commission on exports of wood. My hon. friend admitted that there was a timber famine in Canada and that every possible effort should be made in the way of conservation. He pointed out in his speech the right of the private owner to dispose of the product of his lands. Here is a threatened famine of timber; the necessity of conservation and the like is admitted, and the difficulty is stated, namely, the right of the private owner to which I have referred. Well, that difficulty will remain exactly the

The Budget-Mr. Forke
same no matter how many commissions pass on it or how much money is spent on it. You will have the question whether a man can denude his land to such an extent as to irijure his neighbourhood, the question whether or not he stands in the same position as the farmer with his casual crop which is produced and harvested from year to year. If ever there was a case in which a private right, as was stated by the Prime Minister the other day, became a public wrong, it is in connection with the waste of timber, and if ever there was a right of interference, here it is. My hon. friend does not offer one word of argument in answer to the statements made by Mr. Barnjum-and what a fine thing it is, Mr. Speaker, to run across a patriotic individual who does not mind spending his own money and devoting his time and energies to the attainment of some great public object. That is what Mr. Barnjum has done. He demonstrates the famine to my hon. friend, and what is the answer? Oh, another commission. And we shall be just where we were before. I regret that there is no action in this connection which would be in the great interests of our country as a whole.
It is the usual custom, Mr. Speaker, for the official opposition to present an amendment to the budget. We have a good deal of sympathy with our friends to our left. They wanted to get in an amendment last year, but they did not have the opportunity, because under the rule-and we think it is a proper one-only one amendment can in such circumstances be moved. This year we want to give our friends an opportunity of moving any amendment they see fit to present. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although this budget is so full of holes that the task of drawing an amendment would indeed be easy, we are going to leave that opportunity and that task to my hon. friends to my left.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the motion that is now before the House I wish to follow in the steps of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and congratulate the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) on the bringing down of his seventeenth budget. Irrespective of the varying shades of political thought prevailing in the different parts of the House, hon. members look with respect upon a man who has occupied so honourable a position for such a considerable length of time in the life of our country. We all rejoice in the fact that the hon. Finance Minister came before us once again, and of him it may well be said that "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated."
I wish I were able to turn now to the budget which the hon. Finance Minister has brought down and refer to it in the same words of commendation and praise, but I am afraid I cannot do so. There are some things in the budget that we can accept gratefully; other things we are not so proud of. On the whole I feel satisfied that we have not very much to be thankful for in this budget.
We have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Sir Henry Drayton). I do not think that we can draw very much comfort from the remarks he has made in connection with this budget. So it seems to me that we must fall back upon the members in this quarter of the House and rally to our own support, bringing forward the principles that we believe to be in the best interests of the whole people of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You still have the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), you know.


Robert Forke: Possibly some time we may get the hon. member for Vancouver Centre CMr. Stevens). While there is life there is hope. I am afraid there will be disappointment in many parts of this country upon the reading of this budget. It has been looked forward to a good deal and much has been expected. It was expected that some relief would be brought to the people of Canada in the different items that were brought down by the Minister of Finance. I noticed a criticism in one of our papers in which it was stated that this was neither a very good nor a very bad budget.. I do not know if that is a fairly accurate statement of the case. It is simply a matter of standing pat,-"as you were." There is not very much difference that I can see from the position we occupied last year.
I want to say a few words, in commencing, in regard to the financial position of the country, and in doing so I would repeat some of the figures that were given to the House the other day by the Minister of Finance. We were told that at the end of the fiscal year 1921-22 there was a surplus of $34,391,696.36 over ordinary expenditure, and that after taking care of capital account and a charge of $97,950,645 for the Canadian National Railways we had a deficit that year of $81,256,818. Coming to the year 1922-23 we again had a surplus over ordinary expenditure of $61,839,000, but capital account and a charge of $92, 190,000 against the railways and a deficit of $6,060,720 due to the Canadian government merchant marine left us with a deficit that year of $49,293,086. I think the Minister of Finance made the statement that in these figures we
The Budget-Mr. Forke

could find some ray of hope because the deficits year by year were getting a little smaller. Well, let us take all the comfort we can out of that situation.
Let us remember, however, the great increase that has been taking place in the public debt during the last fourteen years. Since 1914 there has been an increase in the public debt of over two billion dollars, and we are still adding to it. The time is not yet in sight when we are likely to have our expenditure balance with our receipts. Now that cannot continue. It must come to a stop. In the ordinary business of life if year by year our expenditure is larger than our receipts some day bankruptcy will be the condition that will meet us. And the same is true of a country. I realize that the larger part of this debt was incurred during the war time, and although we think that some steps might have been taken at that time to pay some of the debt as it was incurred by some means that might have been adopted, it is no use going back and criticizing what was done at that time. The debt is here and we have to meet it, and the consideration before us is how are we going to pay this indebtedness.
We hear a good deal about economy, although I think perhaps we are beginning to forget it because I have not heard the word mentioned so much recently. It was very much on the lips of hon. mmebers when we came down here first, and I think
5 p.m. we ought still to keep in our minds the fact that it is necessary to practise economy if we are going to get out of the woods. I saw it stated not very long ago that in Dominion, provincial and municipal taxes the people of Canada pay year by year something like one billion dollars. Just think of it-a population of nine million people carrying a load of taxation of one billion dollars per year. Surely something ought to be done, something must be done, or taxation is going to reach the point where production will cease to some extent at least. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a short extract headed "Britain's Example to Canada:"
In four years of peace the British government has reduced its income from taxation by one-third and has cut its ordinary expenditure by one-halfin four years of peace, Canada has increased its revenues from taxation by about one-tenth and has effected a minor increase in its expenditures.
Great Britain has reduced its taxes. Canada has raised its taxes. Great Britain has reduced its expenditures. Canada has increased its expenditures. Great Britain has reduced its debt and thus its annual interest charges. Canada has increased its debt and also its annual interest charges. What Great Britain has done the United States has been able to do as well.

Great Britain has adopted a policy of economy in every branch of manufacture. I know the railways can be blamed for the poor showing that we have been making during the last few years, but at the same time I do not think there has been much evidence of economy in the public business of our country during the last few years. The Minister of Finance may find a method of extracting money from the people, and I am willing to admit, Mr. Speaker, that he is most ingenious in his methods of extracting money from the pockets of the taxpayers. That is perhaps his business, but there ought to be some means of practising economy in order that so vast a sum will not be needed to be raised year by year. If the money is found, I think the government will find means of spending it. I do not know just how this economy is going to be brought into play. I have often thought that perhaps the only thing would be to have a stated sum of money appoi-tioned to each minister and he would have to pare his estimates down to come within that sum. I think that is the only possible way, because when a minister sits down to draw up his estimates he will think he absolutely cannot do with anything less than he has asked for. I know that the provincial governments have been practising this sort of economy. They have simply had to make up their minds that there was only so much money to spend and they had to bring down their estimates to suit that amount. That is one method of practising economy in this young and, I hope, growing country. The limit of tax-paying power would be reached, and as I said before that will in time limit production.
I have a few figures here on the growing cost of government in this country which with your permission, Mr. Speaker. I will read. Take civil government-I shall mention only a few departments, and I do not do it in a spirit of criticism but simply to bring the facts before the House at this time. The Department of Agriculture in 1912 had 1,320 employees, and in 1922, 731 employees, but the salaries rose from $943,368 in 1912 to $2,392,309 in 1922. In the Department of the Interior in 1912 there were 720 employees, and in 1922, 1,342 employees. The salaries in 1912 were $862,023 and in 1922, $2,402,680. In the Post Office Department in 1912 the number of employees was 596, and in 1922, 788. The salaries in 1912 were $543,1S8 and in 1922. $1,348,218. I will not take up time reading reports from the other departments, but I will give the totals:
Employees	Total salaries
1912, 8,371	 % 7,805,373
1922, 11,878	 19,271,985

The Budget-Mr. Forke
I know that the expenses of government have gone up enormously during those ten years, but the population of the country has not increased greatly in that time. We know that the expense of civil government has grown out of all proportion to the increase in our population. I do not know how we are going to remedy it. Speaking from this side of the House, I have realized how unable one who not on the inside is to criticize the different departments, the different estimates and the different expenditures as they come before the House. I believe that that could be done and done more economically if it were done from the government side of the House. But I want to make this prognostication: I believe the government that does it might as well make up its mind that it is going to be out of it for a few years at least. Nevertheless I would like to see governments that had the courage to undertake that housecleaning that I think is very necessary at the present time.
Another question that I think is largely associated with the government a,id the expense of running the country is the question of distribution. I believe that our machinery of distribution is much too complicated and is not at all suited to our modern civilization. I think the cost of distribution is altogether out of proportion to the services rendered. We have a good many parasites between the producer and the consumer and when I say this I include manufacturers and all those who are doing good, useful and productive work, no matter what line of business they are in. I am very well aware that distribution is a very important part of the business of the country, but I think it could be shown conclusively, without fear of contradiction, that the increase in the cost between the producer and the consumer is altogether too large on any given article of commerce at the present time. It would not have been difficult for me to bring figures to show that the cost to the consumer is sometimes one hundred per cent and even two hundred per cent higher than the price paid to the producer. That same argument will apply tc manufactures, just as it applies to agriculture and other industries of the country. A great deal of wastefulness characterizes the whole system and I believe our economic system lends itself to abuses of this kind, and that under different conditions a great many of the wrongs and injustices could be righted.
In regard to the budget itself, need I say that I am pleased with the few changes that have been made in it? I am not going to particularize the different items mentioned by
the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). Perhaps before the debate is closed all these matters will be discussed at very great length. Therefore, I will content myself with dealing with matters in a general way and leave others to particularize in regard to the different items. There is a maxim I would like to bring to the attention of the House at the present time, and that is if you do not buy you cannot sell. I think that is something that some of us ought to get into our heads, keep there and think over for a good while, because there seems to be an idea that you can sell yourself rich. That is not possible in the field of economics, and the only way you can be successful in business is by carrying on what you might call a successful trade. There is sometimes an idea that in an interchange of commodities one should get the better of, or have an advantage over the other. That is not the true spirit upon which commercial business should be carried on. The true idea would bo an interchange of commodities that would benefit both parties concerned, so that we must make up our mind that if we are going to carry on business it will be to a certain extent by carrying on a certain trade.
I am very glad there has been a slight reduction in the British preference in the budget presented to us. Needless to say, anything connected with British trade with Canada interests me a great deal. While a good Canadian, I always look across the Atlantic ocean in my mind's eye, and still have a warm feeling for the Old Land with her many troubles, and any little connection we can have with the Mother Country is something that always brings pleasure to me indeed. I have an item in my hand which I wish to quote to the House. It reads:
An increase in the flow of trade east and west between Great Britain and Canada would be reflected in an increased prosperity from Halifax to Vancouver. It would mean increased shipments through the ports, increased traffic for the railways, increased demand for Canadian produce abroad and increased purchasing power for the Canadian people as consumers at home.
This stimulus to trade would help to meet the objections raised by protectionist members that a reduction of the tariff would mean a decline in the national revenue. Canada cannot prevent the United States from erecting tariff obstacles to the flow of trade north and south; but this Dominion can take a step towards stimulating trade east and west by substantially reducing the tariff on British importB.
I will read another short extract in connection with the British situation. I think we ought to have sympathy with Great Britain in her troubles and trials at the present time. This quotation reads:-
Look at the British situation as it is. Forty-three millions of people can live in the narrow area of the
The Budget-Mr. Forke

United Kingdom only as long as they can sell abroad their manufactures and their minerals and in return buy food, of which they can produce at home only a few weeks' supply annually. Their resources are increased by the accumulations of capital of other times and by the earnings of their shipping and foreign investments.
But if the foreign markets, go, if they cannot sell goods and buy food, reduction of population is inevitable and as it is postponed misery is inescapable.
That is one of the reasons why I am anxious to see every British preference that is possible for this country to give. Another feature in this connection is the fact that we produce in large quantities. Britain is our best market for agricultural products. We are shipping large quantities of goods, and we hope in the future to ship a great number of cattle. One of the difficulties has been the high freight rates which have been charged on the Atlantic ocean. If we could get a certain amount of return charge for those ships which are carrying our produce abroad, it would be possible for the shipping companies to give us reduced freight rates. Whatever is done, I do hope the government will take steps to see that proper and reasonable ocean freight rates are quoted for shippers who are trying to work up a business in the cattle trade. It will not do for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to make a reply to this request that he does not carry transportation in his pocket. We expect the government to pay attention to these things and to see that proper transportaton is afforded for carrying the produce of our country.
I have a few words to say regarding the protective tariff and combines. Protection is an evil in itself. I know my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) would not agree with that statement; but I repeat that I for one am unalterably opposed to the principles of protection. Not only is protection an evil in itself, but there are evils that follow in its train. Protection makes combines, trusts and mergers possible. Although we have a large country, we have a very small population, and it is not very difficult for people within the confines of Canada to form a trust, or merger, or combine for their advantage if they are assisted by a protective tariff. I do not want it to be thought that I am against combinations as such. I believe a combination can be formed for the interest of all concerned, for economy, efficiency in business, and that it can be to the advantage of both producer and consumer. But I maintain that human nature is human nature always, no matter whether it be amongst manufacturers or consumers, and if you place a combination in a position where it can take advantage of the
IMr. Forke.]
public, it is only human nature that it is very likely to do so. A protective tariff lends itself to that system of things. The public to-day have plenty of evidence of combinations not to the advantage of the consuming public. Any one who has read the newspapers can testify to that fact, and those who have been following the work of the different committees of this House can, I am sure, bear ample evidence to the truth of that statement.
Canada is a land rich in natural resources. If you take into account our natural resources, Canada is, per capita, the richest country in the world. Then why should we as a people have trouble to make a living? I wonder why there should be so many poor people in Canada. Why should we not be the happiest, and most prosperous people on the face of the earth at the present time? There must be some reason why this condition of affairs exists. We want a policy that will encourage our basic industries and make available the latent riches of the country. We have the riches; we do not need to create them; all we have to do is to make them available for the use and benefit of the people who dwell in our land.
I should like to recall a promise of last year's budget and to say just a few words in connection with the promises of 1919. I know that is becoming almost a hackneyed phrase in this House, and it should not be repeated too often; but it seems to me the time is opportune to call the attention of the government to some promises that have been made in past times. One of the most disappointing things in connection with the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance was when he began to use the words "finality and stability of tariff." Not very long ago there was a by-election in the constituency of Moose Jaw, and at the Liberal convention to nominate a candidate to support the present government, there was passed a resolution of which I will quote just these few words:
That this meeting re-affirms its endorsation of the tariff policy as laid down by the Liberal Association in Ottawa in August, 1919.
The election took place and, of course, hon. members know what the result was. Let me read this short extract from the Manitoba
Free Press:
It now appears that the Progressive candidate in the Moose Jaw by-election will have a majority of well over 1,500 and careful observers both in the East and West interpret the result as containing an important lesson for the government, namely, that more attention must be paid to the needs of the West. The tariff was one of the main issues in the election and the

The Budget-Mr. Forke
result represents the insistent vodce of this part of the country for substantial relief from the burden which the tariff imposes on the Western fanner.
I will read these few words from the Lethbridge Herald, an independent Liberal journal:
Had the Liberals done something substantial to carry out their Ottawa platform, they might have made inroads upon the Progressive strength in the rural sections, but the Progressives were able to convince the electors that practically no attempt had been made to carry out the tariff planks of the Liberal platform, particularly. This was a handicap to the Liberal candidate, and accounts largely for his defeat. If Ottawa will only now interpret western sentiment, as represented by the Progressives, to be genuine, it may be able to do something substantial to meet it and recover some of the ground lost in the West by the Liberals in recent years. If the standpat sentiment, however, is permitted to prevail, there is little possibility of a change in sentiment on the prairies.
I might read a little more, but I think that is sufficient. I should like to say to the government that, as regards the West and, perhaps, over a large part of Canada, that is the handwriting cn the wall,


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Make that East as well as West.


Robert Forke: It has just been suggested to me that I might say East as well as West. It is the handwriting on the wall. We have had promises and promises, and some other method must be taken to implement those promises than waiting upon the government to do so. I said there were changes for which we were thankful, and other speakers may deal with them as the debate proceeds. I will say once again that there is a feeling of disappointment, I know, particularly in the prairie provinces at this time. I have had ample evidences of that fact since the budget has been brought down. We hear of people leaving Canada to-day; we hear that our manufacturers are not able to compete. As one who wishes well for Canada, as a lover of Canada, I do not like to repeat those statements. There must be a reason why our people are leaving us to-day, and there must also be a reason why our manufacturers are not able to compete and to hold their own in the business world. Living as I do in my home very near the international line, I am going to state what I know to be facts. Perhaps they are not always pleasant to hear, but we might just as well know the truth. Everyone who is living by agricultural work on the northern side of the international boundary, knows very well that the farmers on the south side of the line are receiving higher prices for their produce than Canadian farmers are getting. That is a fact there is no disputing. I do not know whether I would
grumble much about it, because I cannot help it. But there is another side of the matter when you consider that everything the Canadian farmer purchases, he has to pay just a little more for than the man living on the south side of the line. Perhaps our situation may explain that fact to some extent; but the fact that confronts us is that our agriculturists get less for their produce, pay more for what they have to buy and their overhead i? larger than is the case on the other side of the line. It costs something to be a Canadian sometimes, in money, in dollars and cents. I do not want to be misunderstood, so I should like to make this statement. I said in commencing that I am British in sentiment. I am thoroughly Canadian from first to last and I will sink or swim with my country to the bitter end. But I do not think it is any part of patriotism to hide facts that are, perhaps, working to the detriment of the prosperity of our country as a whole. I have no pleasure in repeating these things; still I think they ought to be said, and the people of this country ought to know the fac+s of the case.
Why is Canada a dear country to live in? As I said before, it is a country of great natural resources, one that produces in great abundance all the common necessities of life; yet it is one of the most expensive countries on the face of the globe to-day in which anyone can live. Why is that? It is simply because we are living under artificial conditions and are not pursuing the true and the natural lines of business and economics. The mechanic, the labourer, the professional man, the business man. must have a high remuneration in their respective spheres if they are to make a'living in this country; and I declare that we are going to have hard times and experience great difficulty in competing with other countries just so long as that high cost of living is maintained and just so long as Canada in consequence remains, as she undoubtedly is, one of the most expensive countries in the civilized world to-day. The manufacturers complain. Well, I have great sympathy for the manufacturers, notwithstanding that a good many people sometimes entertain the idea that because we talk low tariff we are opposed to manufacturing industries. I only wish that those industries were able to carry on successfully. But I believe, Sir, that some of their troubles are attributable to the very fact that I have been labouring, namely, the high cost of living, which we have to contend with. If a mechanic, an artisan, or a factory worker wants to build a house for himself he is met at the
The Budget-Mr. Forke

very outset with a tremendous estimate of expenses; if he wants to buy a suit of clothes he is called upon to pay an exorbitant price. So that the worker must have high wages; and this process continuing, the vicious circle is completed and in the end the manufacturer finds himself confronted with a high wage list.
In the past it has been a very common thing whenever any industry has got into difficulties for those engaged in it to journey to Ottawa and secure a little more protection for that particular enterprise. No doubt this protection was well intended; the idea was to help the business along for the time being in the hope that in the not very distant future it would become successful and prosperous, when the assistance given in its time of trouble could be withdrawn. Looking back however, over fifty or sixty years we are perfectly convinced that this argument will no longer hold water; we know quite well that once assistance is given it is retained.
Now, Sir, that cannot continue; we have reached the limit. I repeat that the cost of living must come down and production must be made cheaper, although I know very well that the statement is often made that this cannot be done. But some people believe that with efficient methods of conducting business, with up-to-date machinery, with conditions all as they should be, and given the skill, the energy, and the business abilities of the Canadian people, the cost of production can unquestionably be reduced and the cost of living consequently lowered to the benefit of the consumer and of the whole population as well. There are many people who hold this view and I am one of them. I do not like to make the statement, Mr. Speaker, but I fear that if the cost of production cannot be decreased, then some of the industrial plants in this country will have to go out of business. I should be sorry to see this done; I want to see them rather increased. But we must face the facts; if they cannot carry on under existing conditions they will have to cease operations.
The taxing of commodities increases prices and lessens consumption, so that you have fewer contracts, less work done, and consequently unemployment. If you can buy two suits of clothes at $50 each instead of one suit for $100 the manufacturer employs twice the number of persons who can make clothes; and that argument is easily demonstrable. The higher the price of material and the greater the inability of people to purchase, the greater the unemployment. I believe that the cause of unemployment in a great many instances in this country is due to the fact

that people are not able to purchase goods that are already manufactured. The business man complains, and surely he realizes that wfcen business is slow he must necessarily suffer. Surely by this time the business man of Canada must begin to realize that he is in the same boat and sinks or swims with the great industries throughout the Dominion. I have here a small clipping from the Montreal Witness, which with the permission of the House I will read.
Is it not a little cold-blooded, is it not a little insolent-
This is the Witness's language-
-for comfortable people in other walks of life to snarl at the producers upon whom they are living and tell them to stop croaking? If this supercilious and, let us frankly add, dangerous, attitude means anything, it means that the farmers have no ground for their demand to be released from the burdens which make their life that of slaves to the ruling part of the community. These people find themselves bound to the soil-to hard unpaid-for work for the men and harder work for the women-while every one who is free moves away, either to skim the cream off a fresh acreage or to some other employment, often some other country, where to be a Canadian is a commendation to employment.
Whatever may be said about question of employment or unemployment, the manufacturer and the farmer are in the same boat; if times are dull they cannot make business pay. It is not easy for them to pull up stakes and leave the country, or enter into some other occupation at home. I should like very much indeed, Mr. Speaker, to see a closer bond of sympathy between the agricultural community and the manufacturers of the country, and no spirit of hostility ever induces me to speak in the strain in which I sometimes do speak. Last year a great stream of wealth poured down from the western prairies through eastern Canada to the Old Country. I want to tell the House that this is what kept the wheels of industry moving at that time. It was not protection; it was no system of economics; it was because a certain amount of wealth had been created from the soil and went to grease the wheels of industry in Canada. But we are met face to face with this condition: If it should be found that the remuneration of those who produce that wealth is not sufficient to procure them a decent livelihood, is it not probable that the stream may cease to flow at no distant date? I want to point out to the House, therefore, that it is in the interests not only of the West but of all Canada as well that the agricultural industry should be placed upon a footing where it will be advantageous to the people engaged in it. I say this with no sectional feeling. No hon. member in this House who

The Budget-Mr. Forke
hears statements made by gentlemen representing every part of the Dominion can fail to realize that there are difficulties in all walks of life, and that every part of the Dominion has its own peculiar troubles. I do believe, however, that there is not a proper estimate of the great wealth that is yet to come from the western prairies if the right conditions are brought to bear upon that great land.
I am very proud of this Canada of ours; but all the same I cannot but believe that a great many eastern Canadians do not understand the potentialities that lie in the development of that vast land, an empire in itself. No one can fully estimate these potentialities, which may be realized in actual wealth in the not distant future, if the proper conditions are brought about in the interests of those who are trying to develop that part of our Dominion.
I do not know whether all my hon. friends agree with me on the question of immigration. However, whatever may be said on the subject, I think it will be agreed that if we can so get conditions in Canada that people will believe that this is a good country to live in, and will come in great numbers, our great difficulties in taxation and our railway troubles will to a very large extent disappear. I realize the perplexing problems which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has to cope with to-day; I realize the tremendous amount of money that must be raised, year by year; and it is in no spirit of opposition, in no spirit of criticism that I offer the remarks I make to-day. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather have stood up in my place and endorsed the budget. Nothing but a sense of duty and a sincere belief that the welfare of our country makes it absolutely essential that a different course should be taken has induced me to take this stand.
The hon. member for West York referred to ideals and sentiments. Well, there is undoubtedly a good deal of sentiment in human life, and, after all, hard as business may be and matter of fact, we cannot ignore sentiment in everyday life. It is perhaps a bold assertion for me to make, but it does seem do me that the civilized nations of the world have an altogether wrong ideal. I do not know what we are heading for but commercial rivalry and industrial war. This does seem a hard thing to say, but such must be the inevitable result of present-day conditions. I believe that the building up of high tariff walls engenders hatred, jealousy, and distrust
among the nations of the world. In all solemnity I express my belief that the last great catastrophe that overtook the world had its source in commercial rivalry, in the idea that Germany wanted a place in the sun, a full share of all privileges from the commercial standpoint. This has not anything particularly to do with my argument; I merely interject it by the way.
We have heard from time to time in this House considerable criticism of the speeches delivered from this quarter of the chamber descriptive of western conditions. I do not think that these conditions were in any way overstated in relation to certain parts of western Canada. While some isolated statements might be taken exception to as perhaps not giving an exact impression of prevailing conditions, yet upon the whole what was said was well within the facts. We talk a good deal of what our immigration policy is to be, and thousands of dollars are to be spent on advertising to attract immigrants. But.Mr.Speaker, I wonder if we realize sufficiently the great volume of correspondence that flows between Canada and Great Britain day by day and year by year, those who have come out here telling their friends at home just how things are going with them in Canada? I can assure you, sir, that if the letters sent to the Mother Land were full of news of prosperity and good times we would have a tremendous volume of immigration, and no advertisements would be needed to induce people to make their homes in the Dominion.
I hope that I have not said anything that will in any way hurt the feelings of those who I have no doubt have the interests of Canada just as much at heart as I have. What I have said has been uttered in all sincerity and in the full belief that it is in the best inter-, ests of Canada that I should be frank in expressing my opinions. Let me lepeat that I have the greatest love for this my adopted country, and that I have no thought at any time but what is for the advancement of my fellow citizens.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mi-. Johnston):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
Whereas the tariff policy of the government, aa indicated by the Minister of Finance in his budget Speech, and particularly his pronouncement in favor of tariff stability at existing rates, and the consequent intimation that the government contemplates no further appreciable tariff reduction, constitutes a repudiation of the tariff planks in the Liberal platform of 1919 and is inconsistent with the Finance Minister's statement last session that the changes then made were a step in the right direction;

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
And whereas the fiscal policy of the government as now brought down is based on the principle of protection, and in this respect is indistinguishable from that of their predecessors in office;
And whereas the condition of the primary industries and the position of consumers in general is such as to demand immediate relief;
Therefore, be it resolved: That while recognizing that changes in the fiscal policy should be made in such a way as to give industries affected a reasonable opportunity for readjustment, this House is of the opinion that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound, and that every claim for protection should be heard publicly before a special committee of parliament.
And, further, that the best interests of Canada will be served by:-
(a)	An immediate and substantial reduction in the tariff, particularly on the necessaries of life and the implements of production.
(b)	An immediate increase in the British preference to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
(c)	Reciprocity in trade with the United States as outlined in the proposed Reciprocity Agreement of 1911.
And, further that the loss of revenue, if any, which might result from a reduction in customs duties should be made good by?
(a)	The readjustment and extension of the income tax to bear more heavily on unearned incomes.
(b)	The increase and extension of excise and other taxes on luxuries.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) and also to concur in the general lines of the amendment which has been presented. I would, however, like to point out that in the opinion of the group which I represent, the mere bringing about of a larger measure of free trade does not really touch the root of the trouble to-day. The leader of the Progressives has stressed the need for greater economy. We believe that we should have economy in our different, government departments; we believe that there should be elimination of all duplication, elimination of all effort that is not really productive in character. At the same time we do not believe that, essentially, economy will solve our problems to-day. Rather we would point out that the necessity is to touch the real sources of wealth; not merely to cut down our expenses, but to recognize that if we adequately administer our natural resources, with the equipment we now have there will be sufficient to carry on all the administrative machinery of this country and at the same time provide for the needs of individuals and their families. We believe we ought to get down deeper than the question of free trade or the question of economy and ask ourselves whether the time has not come in our industrial and political history when there ought to be

some radical social adjustments in our whole economic system.
The budget has been said to be a disappointment. I do not know that some of us had expected it would be very different from what it is. I am not so sure but that it is a good thing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has come out frankly and stated that he would like to see the policies incorporated in the budget made more or less a permanent policy for Canada. We understand now more clearly, and I think the country understands more clearly, that the present Liberal government is committed to very much the same kind of policy as that of the government that it superseded. In fact, it is very interesting to some of us to find the members of the Conservative group congratulating the Minister of Finance on having learned the principles which they have advocated so long. Essentially the budget reveals an intention to perpetuate the old policies. There is nothing to indicate any radical changes in the policy of this country; we are still going on what has been known for a great many years in Canada as the National Policy. There is not even any indication of a gradual alteration; rather, as I have said, the Minister of Finance has thrown out the suggestion that the manufacturers and others ought to be assured that there will be no great changes. The people generally are looking for light at this time, they are wondering in what direction the light will break. I think we may say it is clear that the light is not breaking from the quarter occupied by the Liberal party. In the Liberal manifesto issued in October, 1921, publication number 11, we read that the tariff policy-
-advocated placing implements of production and food on the free list, thus benefiting labour both as producers and consumers.
That promise seems to have been entirely forgotten; indeed, in some instances at least the duty on the necessities of life has been greatly increased.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about raisins?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes-raisins. I have the following telegram from the Women's Labour League:
Sugar resolution protest forwarded yesterday. Latest advice on budget housewives note proposed increased duty on raisins will increase finaJ cost at least four cents per pound. Raisins and currants are household necessity and we feel present duty of two-thirds cents per pound high enough and government should find ways and means of raising necessary taxes without penalizing the housewife.
I should like to quote an oft quoted passage from an address by one who stands very

The Budget-Mr. Woodmorth
high in the opinion of a great many men across the floor of the House, and, I think, in the opinion of the country at large-Wilfrid Laurier. In a convention speech before he came into power he said:
If every cent collected through the operation of the protective policy went into the treasury it could be borne, but for every dollar that goes into the public coffers two or three dollars go into the pockets of the protected manufacturers. .	. . We will relieve
the people of protection, which is a fraud, a delusion and a robbery. For it is a robbery to take money from one man and give it to another.
It seems very strange that the Progressives after all these years have to advance this plank of free trade and urge that protection is essentially evil in itself.
With regard to the general attitude of the government toward our larger public questions, I should like to read also a note that was sent to the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few weeks ago. This comes from the Montreal Unemployed Workers' Association:
We note that almost half of the budget will be applied in payment for past wars and in preparations for future wars and it would appear to us that something could have been expected from the government for the preservation of life and the building uip of a higher grade of citizens. While the government, evidently, has no regard for the welfare of the workers of this country, we note their great interest in cattle and farm stock. To such an extent are they interested in the latter, that nearly three millions of dollars is voted to wipe out disease and in improving the type of stock. We cannot be blamed if we come to the conclusion that we as human beings in the working class are considered of less value than cows, horses and pigs. We do not say that the grant should not have been given; on the contrary we believe that it is a good investment, but at the same time we feel that the unemployed workers are entitled to some consideration.
The Minister of Finance seems to be very much concerned-chiefly concerned, shall I say?-over the question, how shall we raise the necessary money, and how can we so raise it as to give occasion for the least protest? It would appear as if there were some larger and more primary questions that should be asked at this time. We are running a vast machine and it seems as if it takes all the steam that we can generate to keep it going [DOT]-there is no power left to pull the load. We must admit that with our small population we have altogether too extensive governmental machinery. I think of this large House here, with the Senate across the way; I think of all the departments that we have at Ottawa, of our provincial governments, in some cases with two Houses in a province, <5f the many departments connected with them; of the county machinery in some of the provinces, the municipal machinery, all on an elaborati scale. The fact is that our comparatively
small population cannot begin to carry such a load as this, and the people are beginning to get out from under it. It has been said by one of the members on the government side that you cannot blame ambitious young men for going over to the United States, that you cannot blame people for seeking the higher wages over there. I am not sure just what their position ought to be from the patriotic standpoint, but I take it that we who are here charged with public responsibility are att empting to do the most patriotic duty possible when we try to get at the real evils underlying the present condition of affairs.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, when
the House rose I was trying to point out that the time had come in the history of this country when we should be concerned not merely with the questions of how to raise a certain amount of money, and how to raise it with the least protest, but that rather we must face some of the more fundamental questions which are before us. A great many of the citizens to-day are looking for the government to take stock, as it were, of the actual situation, in which we find our country, and to introduce those measures, however radical, that are really necessary to meet the present situation. I ventured to point out in passing that we could hardly look at the legislative and administrative machinery of government of this country without recognizing that we are organized on altogther too elaborate a scale, involving an expense heavier than our population really warrants. Our federal, provincial and municipal organization is very elaborate and very costly, and in some way we must cut this down. Just where reforms are to begin is a question. In this House, the highest legislative body in the land, we might well set ourselves to the task of reorganizing our governmental machinery. But further than that, much deeper than that, is the question of the organization of the whole economic resources of the country and their proper administration. I have tried to secure from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics some estimate as to the wealth of Canada. The officials gave me a rough approximation of the value of our developed resources. It is almost impossible to form any estimate as to the value of the undeveloped resources, the value of the water

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

powers and so on, but the statement furnished by the bureau was as follows-
Farm values in 1921	
Buildings	
Implements	
Live stock	
Poultry	
Animals on fur farms	
Mines and forests	
Fisheries	
Steam and electric railways	
Canals	
Shipping	
Telegraph and telephones	
Urban real property	
Manufacturing machinery	
Stocks of raw material to manufacture
goods	
Stored products of farms, fisheries and
mines	
Household furnishings, clothing, carriages,
motors, etc	
Specie	
Imported merchandise in store

137.000.	000
200.000.	000
191.000.	000
4.115.050.000 666,835,335
789.513.000
500.000.	000
800.000.	000 193,603,304 250,000.000
Total for Canada	$17,215,205,639
Surely, when we talk about the poverty of Canada, we cannot be thinking of our vast natural resources and the equipment to work those resources. I would call your attention in this statement to the one item, specie, which amounts to only about 1 per cent. We are making a great deal of fuss these days about whether or not we have gold. According to the statement of the Bureau of Statistics, the gold that we have in this country amounts to only about 1 per cent of the entire national wealth. It is really a negligible quantity, and when bankers are trying to impress upon us the necessity of a return to the gold standard, whatever that means, we may very well bear in mind that the actual amount of specie we have in Canada does not matter very much one way or another.	4	[DOT]
Next, having given a statement of our physical assets, as it were, I should like to turn and ask: What about our annual production? Again these figures are supplied by the Bureau of Statistics:
Estimated gross annual agricultural revenue,
1921	$1,396,233,000
Fur industry, 1920-21	 10,152,000
Forestry, 1920	 306.661,000
Fisheries, 1920	 49,241,000
Minerals, 1921	 172,431,000
Manufactures,	1920	 1,830,145.000
That is the net value added in manufactures.
Transportation and communication, 1920.. $ 603,134,000 Professional (very rough estimate).. ..	200,000,000
Wholesale and retail trade (very rough estimate)	 600,000,000
Total production	$5,167,997,000
Let me note that with a capital of $17,000,000,000 as given by the Bureau of Statis-

tics, we produced, according to the estimate of the bureau, about $5,000,000,000, or about 30 per cent. The value of production per capita is $585, or, taking a family of five, $2,925. That is, keeping in mind the immense amount of unemployment and under-employment, the very small percentage of efficiency in our productive and distributional processes, the over-lapping, the lack of proper organization on the one hand and over-organization on the other, the general anarchy that prevails in our industrial, commercial and financial world-taking all this into consideration, the fact is that we yet produce for an average family something like $3,000 a year.
I want to come a little closer in our study of one particular industry where the figures are more readily available than in some others. That is the manufacturing industry. The figures in connection with the manufacturing industry of Canada in 1920 are as follows:
Value of products	$4,019,371,860
Cost of materials	 2,189,227,028
Net value of products	$1,830,144,841
Total wages and salaries	 814,412,677
Leaving a balance of	$1,015,732,164
I should just like to ask the question: For what and for whom is that immense balance? I note that, according to these figures, the average salary is $1,773, and the average wage is $1,102.
Let me give another note supplied by the Bureau of Statistics. The fixed capital invested amounted to, say, $3,500,000,000, and the value of the products to, say, $4,000,000,000, representing a net production of $1,800,000,000. The par value of securities of joint stock companies engaged in manufactures amounts to $2,743,520,823, of which $1,591,076,596, were held in Canada and the rest outside of Canada, so that dividends, bond interest, etc., were paid in these proportions. Altogether Canada's indebtedness outside of Canada has been estimated at about $400,000,000,000. According to those figures, in the manufactures of Canada in 1920, salaries and wages accounted for 44-5 per cent of the value added by the process of manufacture; fuel and miscellaneous expenses, 26-9 per cent; interest on capital investment at 6 per cent, 11-3 per cent; leaving a balance of 17.3 per cent for profits, discount charges, depreciation and other unprovided-for expenditures.
I should like to turn for a moment to the other side of the ledger and ask concerning our national debt. These figures also are furnished by the Bureau of Statistics for the

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
year ended March 31, 1922. The net public debt amounted to $2,422,135,801, or, per capita, $275.60. I turn to the provincial governments. There we have both direct liabilities and indirect liabilities. Of the direct liabilities, the per capita figures are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 17 10
Nova Scotia	
42	96New Brunswick	
77	69Quebec	
24	71Ontario	
69	86Manitoba	
119	74Saskatchewan	
60	63Alberta	
108	12British Columbia	
115	52
Further than that, our municipal debenture or bond interest by provinces is as follows- I again give merely the per capita figures:
Prince Edward Island	
$12	28Nova Scotia	
36	64New Brunswick	
27	95Quebec	
80	55Ontario	
91	94Manitoba	
94	77Saskatchewan	
52	26Alberta	
97	21British Columbia	
183	21
I am going to take Manitoba, my own province, as an example of particular interest to myself. The national net public debt per capita is $275.60; provincial direct liabilities $119.74; municipal debentures and bonded debts $94.77; a total of $490.11, or roughly speaking $500. A newspaper editorial, commenting upon a similar set of figures, says:
It is common knowledge that the net national debt has been increased approximately eight times during the last decade with very little increase in the population. President Gooderham, of the Bank of Toronto, in his statement at the annual meeting of that institution, said that the total debts of the federal and provincial governments and municipalities amounted to $4,000,000,000, or about $500 per head. This is a staggering statement when it is borne in mind that the greater part of this indebtedness is now bearing more than five per cent interest, which means that the average family is bearing an annual interest charge of at least $100 a year for public expenditure alone.
Then we find this situation: Illimitable natural resources in Canada. No one doubts it. It is not necessary to go into an enumeration of what they are. Further, we are well equipped with an elaborate system of production and distribution; we are, on the whole, an industrious and resourceful people. And yet for some mysterious reason we have unemployment on the part of a considerable section, anxiety on the part of a still larger group, and general dissatisfaction. What do we find the government offering us in view of all these circumstances? Well, they are taking a tax off candies and putting a little higher duty on raisins. Is that a proper solution for the immense problems that we face at the present time?
I should like to-night, as well as I may, to present this question from the viewpoint of labour. We have had the problem outlined this afternoon from the viewpoint of the farmer. Labour, as yet, in this country is poorly organized politically. We are very few in number in this House, aDa yet it is clearly manifest to all that labour is by no means negligible numerically across the country, and one day its voice will be heard more effectively than it is to-day. The viewpoint presented to us by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) this afternoon was very largely that of free trade. Now, I would suggest that free trade came into existence as an economic gospel at a time when there was real competition among the trading classes of Great Britain. At that time undoubtedly it was in the interests of the manufacturers, the traders, and perhaps the public at large in England that there should be a very large measure of free trade. But there have taken place most remarkable developments in the economic field since that time. All our large industries have been built up, our great combinations and trusts have been organized, and our governments themselves have been induced to take a larger part in the economic affairs of the countjy. So that it is very doubtful indeed whether, except in a very limited degree, free trade will solve our problems. I, for one, am heartily in agreement with it, the underlying principle, but I doubt whether it can be carried out under existing conditions. Even if it were, as it has been in free trade England, there are still unemployment and social difficulties. I doubt, therefore, whether it is a real solution of our problems. So far as labour is concerned, socialism is the economic gospel of the labour movement, as free trade is, or was, the economic gospel of the trading classes of Great Britain at the time when political Liberalism came to its best development. In Great Britain, however, we have had in recent years new political ideals and alignments. A good many in this House like to stress the part that Great Britain has played, and to point out to us the example that Great Britain affords us. Well, I am content to follow their lead, and to-night I should like to indicate the policies that are being advocated these days by the opposition party in the British House of Commons.
The great British National Labour party starts out on this programme:
To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the

The Budget-Mr. Woodswortk
l>3sis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
It has been said in the past that socialism, whether of a co-operative variety, or the Fabian type, or state socialism, was altogether an academic question. Someone stated on the floor of the House the other day that it would never find any place in any Anglo-Saxon [DOT]country. We cannot be quite so sure of that when it has become a matter of practical politics in Great Britain. A few weeks ago the following resolution was introduced into the British House of Commons as an amendment, I believe, to the budget:
That in view of the failure of the capitalist system to adequately utilize and organize natural resources and productive power, or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the populations, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, this House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the gradual supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.
This resolution was introduced by Mr. Philip Snowden. Now, whether or not the members of this House can agree with such a resolution as that, it does seem to me highly desirable that we in the various dominions should know what is taking place in the Motherland, and that we in the opposition in some of the Houses in the dominions should try to bring before the public of this country what some of the leading people in Great Britain believe will be the solution of our social problems. You will notice that this is a very moderate resolution indeed. In some countries the labouring classes in desperation have rushed in, have overturned the present system, and are attempting to set up another. The British Labour party does not propose to do that. It offers at; least an alternative solution. Whether or not the country is in a position to adopt the alternative remains to be seen, but at least it is put forward as a possible solution. The far reaching character of this resolution was clearly set forth by Mr. Lloyd George in an article which was published in our papers of April 21. I should like to quote a paragraph or two from that article because Mr. Lloyd George is a critic of these labour proposals, and so, perhaps, his estimate of the seriousness of this resolution may be regarded as being moderate. Speaking of the Socialist vote, Mr. Lloyd George said:
At the last election the aggregate socialist poll reached the imposing figure of 4,251,011 votes. The party that secured a majority of members in the House of Commons polled only 5,467,871 votes. Mr. TMr. Woods worth.}
Ramsay Macdonald states categorically that he knows that independent Liberal members-exclusive of their leaders-favour nationalization and a capital levy. If that be an accurate statement of the views of the majority of these gentlemen and of those who elect them, nearly one half of the British electorate are already prepared to assent to Socialism in easy stages -which :s the purport of Mr. Philip Snowden's motion.
On that assumption we are on the eve of greater and more fundamental changes affecting the lives of every class and condition of men and women than has yet been seen in this country. Hence the new sense of struggle with which the political atmosphere is palpitating, Capitalism is to be arraigned before the supremo court of the nation, condemned, sentenced and executed by instalments-Chinese fashion. The composition of that court is not to-day favourable to the prosecution. But who will be the judges after the next general election?
Again:
The men and women who have no property for the state to se:ze constitute an overwhelming majority of the electors of the country.
And again in suggesting how to avoid trouble:
The second and more important is the rooting out of social evils which furnish the revolutionary with striking and indisputable object lessons of the failure of the capitalistic system as an agent of human happiness.
I take it that we are in this position-either we have to advance to some radical programme of this kind, or we	have to
say there must take place such fundamental changes as will do away with the gross injustices which now exist.
Mr. H. G. Wells says:
The great war has struck a blow at the very foundation of our civilization. It has shattered the monetary system which is the medium of all our economic life. A rotting down of civilization is spreading now very rapidly and nothing is being done to arrest it.
And this fate is not threatening civilization; it is happening to civilization before our eyes. The ship of civilization is not going to sink in five years' time or in fifty years' time. It is sinking now.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that certain hon. members are prejudiced against some of those who hold what they regard as radical views. Perhaps few of us realize how radical are many of the critics of the social system, how clearly they recognize that if Socialism, as they have pictured it, is not to come into existence, then almost equally radical changes must take place in society. I believe a great many members of this House are loyal adherents of the great Catholic church. Might 1 then quote a statement written for the Halifax Evening Mail by Dr. J. J. Tompkins, Vice-President of the St. Francis Xavier University? He says:
The average Conservative citizen who does not feei the pincli of want, as so many of the exploited poor do, or who is not actively engaged in "industry" has not begun to realize the grave import of these facts
indeed, the facts themselves have scarcely dawned upon his consciousness. Such a man would probably

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
be startled to read in a recent cable despatch the proceedings of a meeting of Catholic bishops and priests presided over by Cardinal Logue. Describing the conditions that menaced society, one of the speakers said that by degrees workingmen had been delivered helpless and isolated to the hardheartedness of employees and the greed of unchecked competition; that the mischief had been increased by the rapacious usury of financiers; and that to these evils was added the custom of doing work by large contracts which concentrated many branches of business in the hands of a few individuals.
It followed as a dreadful consequence, therefore, that "a small number of very rich men had been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke little better than slavery itself". The remedies are proposed in language equally frank and outspoken: "We should not shrink from the application of Catholic social principles however startling or revolutionary they may appear to persons long adjusted to prevailing circumstances. We must make up our mind* that the wage system has to go. The wage system is degenerating into industrial anarchy before our very eyes. It is doing more than Socialism to restrict ownership. The worker must be made a partner so that he may get a proper share of the income earned by his work."
Many ecclesiastical authorities as well as. those representing various types of social work and economic thought, have united in bringing before our attention the indisputable fact that to-dav we are face to face with a serious crisis. I have spoken of this world situation because I believe that we in Canada are simply part of a larger world, and that our troubles are simply systematic of the troubles that exist in the whole body politic. For that reason I crave the indulgence of the House while I explain how we of the labour movement believe that we have arrived at the present stage of development in our economic and political life.
Going back to the England of one hundred and fifty years ago we come to a great change, which is known to historians as the industrial revolution. Before that time the great majority of workers produced by means of a few simple tools all that was necessary for themselves and their immediate neighbours. Then came the introduction of machinery and the application of mechanical power. That changed entirely the course of the history of Great Britain and of the world at large. It ushered in a completely new era, so different from the past that students of economic history have called it a revolution. The use of machinery meant greatly increased production. Commodities were turned out sufficient not merely for the local markets, not merely for the immediate county, not merely for England herself, but for the whole world. England became the workshop of the world. Not only that, but processes of standardization were introduced, which meant that the people generally began to consume much more nearly the same
class of things, and therefore the market could be supplied much more readily. Things went well so long as England was the only workshop in the world; but gradually other nations began to introduce the modem type of production-France, Italy, later Germany, later the United States, and last of all the Orient, so that to-day we have the same kind of system prevailing throughout the greater part of the world.
Now, I submit that while this system may have been fairly tolerable and, indeed, beneficial in Great Britain while she was the only country that manufactured in this way, this same system may prove anything but desirable when a large number of countries have adopted it. However, I want to give the system its full due. Undoubtedly it has led to the development of what we regard as our modern industrial civilization. Here in Canada until a few years ago the large majority of us lived in the country or in small rural towns where we had very much the same type of production that prevailed in England one hundred and fifty years ago It is within the memory of most of us that these changes have taken place in Canada. The trouble is that a good many of us are still thinking in terms of individualistic production. Our ideals are still those of the individual producer, as our institutions are largely those that prevailed before this great world change took place. The industrial revolution has affected most profoundly farm life as well as city life, it is only making itself manifest to-day. To a considerable extent the farmer is still an individual producer, and yet the farmer would be helpless to-day without his machinery. Our western farmers would be in a sad plight without the railways that bring his supplies and take away his goods. In fact, as soon as the farmer steps off his own farm he becomes a cog in this vast machinery of production and distribution However, he is still to a limited extent the owner of the tools of production and so perhaps he has not quite so clearly realized the character of the machine as has his industrial neighbour in the city.
The machine was applied to transportation, and we have our transcontinental railroads and our transoceanic steamship lines. These have really brought all the different parts of the earth into one great community. Still, we sometimes talk as if we lived a narrow national life. The fact is that industry and commerce and finance have spread away beyond the confines of narrow national boundaries. Whether we like it or not we
%

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
are to-day living in an international community. That is the point we must remember. One of the difficulties is that we are still thinking in terms of the parish, in terms of the little country, in terms of one continent, instead of in world terms.
Not only was production fundamentally altered in its character, but the industrial revolution wrought a very decided change in the economic status of the worker. As long as a man, with his own hands and a few tools, could provide for his own needs, he might have been said to be a free man. If he did not produce, it was his own fault; if he did not make his living, it was his own fault. But when the big factory was set up and in order to carry on his work of weaving he had to leave his hand loom and to go to the factory then he ceased to have that freedom which once he possessed; he became simply a wage worker. He had no control over his tools of production; he had no voice in the management; he had nothing to say with regard to the disposal of his product. The owner of the factory claimed to own the product because he owned the machinery, and thus the hitherto free workman of Great Britain was reduced to being simply a hired man, a wage earner, or as he himself sometimes bitterly puts it, a wage slave. There is a good deal of truth in that expression ; for whoever controls a man's livelihood really controls his life. I could make this position of the industrial worker understandable by our farmer friends if I could picture a great syndicate coming into the West and buying up several thousand square miles of territory and proceeding to organize it under scientific management. The individual farmer would become simply a tenant, a hired man. Possibly he would be compelled to give up the little home in which he had been brought up and to go and live at some central point from which the farm operations would be carried on. He would have nothing to say as to the disposal of his product; from then on, he would be reduced to the position of being forever a hired man and his children forever hired men. That is the position of the industrial worker. In this connection I should like to submit that perhaps the farmer is not so very far from reaching that position. Statistics from the southwestern states so long ago as Roosevelt's commission, on agricultural conditions showed that in increasing numbers the farmers were becoming merely tenants. Out in the West a year or two ago a farmer, who had the impression that we wanted to nationalize the private farms- which was not our idea at all-said, "After

all, I would be quite willing that the state should own the farms; I would rather have government ownership than bank ownership."
Undoubtedly tins new form of production, with its concentration of capital, has led to some very important and valuable results. It has been largely responsible for what we term modern civilization. Whether this is capable of being perpetuated remains to be seen. Mr. John Maynaid Keynes, in that epoch-making book of his, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", points out some of the advantages of the concentration of capital in a few hands. He says:
The immense accumulations of fixed capital which, to the great benefit of mankind, were built up during the half century before the war, could never have come about in a society where wealth was divided equitably. The railways of the world, which that age built as a monument to posterity, were, not less than the pyramids of Egypt, the work of labour which was not free to consume in immediate enjoyment the full equivalent of its efforts. Thus this remarkable system depended for its growth on a double bluff or deception. On the one hand the labouring classes accepted from ignorance or powerlessness, or were compelled, persuaded or cajoled by custom, convention, authority, and the well-established order of society into accepting. a situation in w'hich they could call their own very little of the cake that they and nature and the capitalists were co-operating to produce. And on the other hand the capitalist classes were allowed to call the best part of the cake theirs and were theoretically free to consume it, on the tacit underlying condition that they consumed very little of it in practice. The duty of "saving" became nine-tenths of virtue and the growth of the cake the object of true religion. There grew round the non-consumption of the cake all those instincts of puritanism which in other ages has withdrawn itself from the world and has neglected the arts of production as well as those of enjoyment. And so the cake increased; but to what end wras not clearly contemplated.
Mr. Keynes says there is coming a fundamental change-and that is what I should like this House to recognize; we cannot reckon on the old system going on as before the war.
He says:	,
The wiar has disclosed the possibility of consumption to all and the vanity of abstinence to many. Thus the bluff is discovered [DOT] the labouring classes may be no longer willing to forego so llargely, and the capitalist classes, no longer confident of the future, may seek to enjoy more fully their liberties of consumption so long as they last, and thus precipitate the hour of their confiscation.
I have said that so long as England very largely held a monopoly of this new method of production, so long as she was able to invest and reinvest her capital abroad, the situation was not so bad; but after a while when the colonies began to set up this self-same system, and when even the Orient did the same, the conditions became fundamentally altered. They needed larger markets in England and hence said: If we can only get free trade, that is all that is required. But to-day

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
where are we to find new markets? The United States is after larger markets. All the countries of Europe are after larger markets. Japan and China are after larger markets. Where then are these larger markets to come from? Before, as Mr. Keynes points out, the man who owned the tools was able to control a large part of the product. He gave in wages to his workmen a very small part of what they produced, and as long as he could keep the balance for himself and invest it in some other country he was all right, but when he had nowhere else to invest it then came the difficulty. His factories became idle and his men unemployed.
Why? Fundamentally, because the workers had not the buying power. That is the real trouble to-day. Men who are not socialists, leading economists like Mr. J. A. Hobson, have told us for the past twenty years that what the world requires is to distribute a larger measure of buying power. That is what some of the economists have been trying to tell us in the Banking committee in the last few weeks. We need buying power. Unfortunately the whole financial system has been built up so long on the older basis that we haye become hypnotized by the older ideas and do not seem to be able to perceive the newer ideas clearly. Ever since the war the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has been telling us we ought to produce more; then when our warehouses are full they are at a loss to know where to find the markets. A good many of my farmer friends are beginning to realize that when they produce more as they are advised they too will be faced with the same problem. When the Argentine produces more largely, when Russia and the other countries of Europe begin again to produce wheat more freely, where are our markets coming from? Thus we come to the strange anomaly as we have it to-day in all parts of the world, a plethora of produced articles and yet at the same time a vast mass of impoverished, unemployed workers. Surely something is fundamentally wrong, and unless we can seriously tackle this problem here in our own country as they are attempting to do in some other countries, I do not know that we can hope to make very permanent progress.
This vast capitalistic system set up rival groups of manufacturers, traders and capitalists-that increased in power until the successful competitors became organized on a national and even an international scale. I am not going into the perplexed question of the causes of the late war. Undoubtedly as a great many thinkers have recognized, it was fundamentally a struggle for world markets.
If we had any doubt about that
9 p.m. question before or during the war, surely the Peace Treaty and the events since the signing of that treaty must have revealed to us that the great nations are dominated by great competing industrial and financial concerns striving to get possession of world markets, concessions and mandates and all this kind of thing, in order that they may control the situation for themselves.	.
We have had in the building up of these competing groups, of course, the great problem of combination. As I have said if we could have free trade it would be a good thing, but as I tried to show on the floor of this House the other day, the fact is that in our great combinations we recognize a development which is bound to go ever forward. Someone has said in Great Britain, either the trusts will control the nation or the nation must control the trusts. If we can control the trusts and let them go on with their work, I suppose it is all very well, but the trusts have become too firmly established, too monopolistic in character, to permit them to remain under private control.
Perhaps more serious than the monopoly which has taken place in the industrial field and the vast extension of large scale commercial operations throughout the world has been the more recent control of finance. There is to-day a monopoly of credit. I do not intend to anticipate the debate on the control of credit which must come in connection with our banking system, but I would say that the evidence which has come before the Banking committee has revealed to us that in this country as in other countries a comparatively small group of people control the whole of our financial machinery. In Canada some seventeen financial groups can say practically where and what shall be produced. Further than that, they can say at what price things shall be produced. I am not going to elaborate those statements. I think they can be proved when there is opportunity so to do.
This great system which has grown up, industrial, commercial and financial, which, for want of a better term, we commonly call the capitalist system, has had not only its great economic results, but also its social consequences. One of these is that those who own so largely the resources of the world exercise a predominating influence over all our educational agencies-our schools, our universities, our churches, our press and so cn. I repeat that those who own come inevitably to exercise a very great influence in all these various educational agencies. I hope, every member

of production. Why do farmers produce wheat? Fundamentally not to sell; they produce wheat to be made into flour to feed hungry men, women and children. Why do we produce coal? Fundamentally, not for profit, not to sell, but in order that we may use it to warm our homes and to run our factories. Why do we produce furniture, clothing and all the other manufactured articles? Fundamentally, not to sell, but in . order that we may use them in our every day life. Our contention is that we have gone on and on and on in this system, each man producing simply to sell, producing as much qjg he can, producing irrespective of the real needs of the people, until we have forgotten the primary reason of production. We say that we have to get back to fundamentals so to organize our productive and distributional processes that we shall produce in order that the people may use.
We have come very near to a place when either we must face a collapse in our financial system or we must bring about radical readjustments which will in themselves amount to a practical reconstruction of the system-one thing or the other. Take for example our financial system to-day. If we go on and on piling up debts as we are doing, it is absolutely impossible that we shall ever pay them. One cannot observe the way the debts have been pyramided-to use a word that has been common in the Banking committee-during the past few years, and hope that this can be a stable system. There must be either a collapse or such radical change in the system itself as will be really revolutionary in its character. The old parties have their policies. Labour offers an alternative policy. I should like to suggest the practical lines along which labour in Canada proposes to proceed even at the present time in order to keep things going. The party which I have the honour to represent suggest the following fiscal planks in their platform:
6.	Regaining for the use of the people of the natural resources of this country which have been so recklessly alienated by incompetent or venal administrations.
7.	Public ownership and demount;c operation of public utilities, and, as soon as possible, of essential large-scale industries.
8.	The nationalization of the banking system.
9.	Abolition of fiscal legislation that leads to class privilege: (b) Removal of taxes on the necessaries of life; (c) Taxation of land values; (d) After exemption of small incomes, a steeply graded income and inheritance tax.
10.	A capital levy for the abolition of the war debt.
I am not going to argue these points tonight. That can be done at some later time when our numbers will enable us to do so more effectively. But I should like to call

attention to the fact that our taxation, as it has been in the past and as it is proposed by the budget before us, rests most heavily upon the ordinary people of the country. As far as I can read that budget, if there are modifications, the modifications are made in the interest of the moneyed people, in the interest of luxury, and not in the interest of the necessities of life which are most used by the large majority of the people of Canada. Taxation is the taking of wealth for the purposes of carrying on the government; it is taken from one or the other group. We claim that the government is taking a very large amount from one particular class to-day. Why should we not have some such arrangement as a capital levy for the abolition of our war debt, a levy on the actual property that is owned to-day by a limited group. At the beginning of my speech, I cited the large natural resources that we have in this country. Some people say that these lands and natural resources ought to be held inviolable; that they belong to one particular group, and that the rights of this group can never be challenged. Any one who has read such a book as the History of Canadian Wealth, any one who knows anything of the way in which the large resources of this country have been alienated, must recognize that the present owners have by no means given an equivalent for what they claim at the present time. From the standpoint of law itself, private property has never been recognized as being inviolable.
I wonder if I may quote just a sentence or two on this point from legal authorities of Great Britain. Blackstone says:
It being received and now undeniable principle in law that all lands in England are holden mediately or immediately of the King.
Again Williams on Real Property, says:
The first thing the student has to do is to get rid of the idea of absolute ownership. Such an idea is quite unknown in English law. Xo mar is in law absolute owner of his land. He only owns an estate in them.
Again Cope says:
All lands or tenements in England in the hands of subjects are holden mediately, or immediately, of the King. For in the law of England we have not any subjects' land which is not so holden.
David Lloyd-George says:
I remember as a law student that the first thing I had to learn was that there was no such thing as private property in land.
With reference to the great estates that exist in England, the proposal of the British Labour party is to boldly recognize that these are fundamentally public property and should be administered as such. In this country our land is, to a considerable extent, held and

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
worked by small owners, and we need not
worry over that. But we have other resources that are held by big syndicates, the great mining properties, the great water powers, all the machinery by which nearly all the goods of this country are produced. These resources are held by certain groups who claim an absolute private ownership in them. We assert there is no reason why the government should not tax these-tax them as heavily as it pleases, tax them even to the extent of partial or full expropriation. May I point out that during the war thousands of our men went overseas. Some of them went under a measure of conscription; they were told that their lives were owned by the state. I would say here, as I said a year ago, that if it is right to conscript men it is right to conscript wealth. There is no difference between the principles involved. I should not say that- there is an immense difference between the two. Surely men are worth infinitely more than natural resources, than mere wealth. Undoubtedly they are, and yet we have reversed the valuation. We have claimed that it is right, to require men's lives but we hesitate to say it is right to require a portion of men's wealth. Our whole policy is built upon the idea that we must leave the dividends to the big companies, that we must leave the interest and dividends to the banks, that we must leave the big profits to the great trusts. These things are inviolable according to our present way of looking at matters. But we tax the ordinary necessities of life and make it so that many families in this country hardly know how to make both ends meet. We labour men claim that the whole policy must be reversed, we assert that when it comes to a conflict between the welfare of a majority of a people and what are called property rights, that the welfare of the people must have first place.
I am not going to prolong this argument. Perhaps there are some in the House who think that I should not have presented this case to-night, or at any such length as I have done. I have done so, because I believe that there is a growing body of public opinion throughout the country that is seeking a way out of our difficulties, and that that body of public opinion has not hitherto been able to give voice to its ideals in the house of parliament. I can recognize how easy it is for these men, who perhaps, come from the better classes of the business and professional men to see almost everything from one particular angle. They are themselves fairly well fed, fairly well housed, fairly well-to-do, and so
they look at the situation from the standpoint of their particular class. But there are other groups in this country who because they have had altogether different experiences are thinking along altogether different lines. It is not because I want to "knock" our institutions that I make this serious indictment of the existing situation. It is because that it is well that parliament should know what all sections of the community are thinking about these matters. I have ventured to go into the subject more thoroughly because if a good many of the leading economists in this and other countries are right we are facing, not a situation which can be rapidly passed over, and from which we can hope there will be a return to normalcy, but rather a new epoch in our history. We are producing in a collective way and yet our institutions, economic and political, are lagging behind our method of production. The result is not satisfactory. We cannot claim that justice prevails between man and man. We cannot claim that we have evolved a civilization in which under the existing system there is any prospect of a permanent peace.
Before I close I should like to quote one or two sentences from one of the great writers of the Far East, Rabindranath Tagore. He
says:
We have seen that in spite rf its (civilization's)
boasted love of freedom, it has produced worse forms of slavery than ever were current in earlier societies slavery whose chains are unbreakable, either because they are unseen, or because they assume the names and appearance of freedom.
And again:
And this nation may grow on to an unimaginable corpulence, not of a living body, but of steel and steam and office buildings, till its deformity can contain no longer its ugly voluminousness-till it begins to crack and gape, breathe gas and fire in gasps, and its death-rattle sound in cannon roars.
I ask you to have the strength of faith and clarity of mind to know for certain that the lumbering structure of modern progress, rivetted by the iron bolts of efficiency, which runs upon the wheels of ambition, cannot hold together for long.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we are facing to-day the necessity for radical changes. Members of this House again and again have pleaded that on the ground of patriotism we should do this, that and the other thing. I think we may claim that the vast majority of the people of this and other countries are earnestly desirous of doing the right thing. I am not seeking to impugn the motives of anyone, I am not seeking to suggest that anyone is particularly responsible for the condition of affairs that prevails to-day, but I would urge that every thoughtful man who realizes these conditions must set himself definitely to their

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
solution. Although some of us may be beneficiaries of the system, the thing for us to do is to recognise that either we must make changes or within a very short time we, as other nations have done, may pass through a period of great suffering if not of chaos. I would therefore plead that even at this session of parliament we frankly face the situation, and attempt the necessary changes however radical they may appear.


Mr. JOHN PRITCHARD (North Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I remember one hon. gentleman charging the Progressives, a few weeks ago, with being academic in their speeches. I assure you that it is my purpose to-night to be exceedingly practical. I have been sitting here for some months listening with a good deal of patience to the speeches made from day to day. I heard one remark during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne offered by a member of the government. It was intended, I think, as a compliment to the seconder of the Address, and I noted it. It was that this is a good school. On that occasion he also expressed the opinion that members of parliament were up to and even above the average in morals. I believe he was stating the facts. Notwithstanding all that may have been said, disparaging and otherwise about the speeches that had been delivered in this House, I have come to the conclusion after carefully listening to our debates that no man even of average intelligence can be long a member and not receive a good deal of information.
I do not feel inclined to upbraid any particular group, for I feel that as members we are all here with one common object in view, no matter where we sit. But I believe there is a wide difference of opinion in regard to the policy that is best suited to promote our national interests, and before I sit down I hope to state some of the facts that I think have a bearing on this point.
One of the difficulties that we in this corner of the chamber have had in debate has been to establish the fact of the actual condition of agriculture in the Dominion, and I have noticed that some hon. members who are not farmers have not been inclined to accept the statements made by a number of my colleagues. Perhaps we may show a similar disinclination in regard to matters which may be brought forward by hon. members in other quarters of the House. I was convinced before I became a member of parliament of the wonderful ability possessed by many of our public men, of their remarkable grasp of the actual conditions of our country, and that 
when I came here and listened to them I would find I did not know very much. I will admit that this has been borne out by my experience here. But since I have sat in this chamber I have been struck by the fact that some of our most prominent members have made statements on the floor that I have good reason to believe were not altogether correct. While many of us may not have had the advantages of a university training, we have had the inestimable advantage of a good training in the school of practical experience. Theory is all very well, but I have noticed that when a man speaks on a subject on which he has practical knowledge it is pretty hard to beat him in debate.
Now, the question of policy bulks largely in this debate on the budget. For forty years we have been following a certain fiscal policy, and if we look at the result we can come to but one conclusion-that there is something radically wrong with its policy. As I stated last session, we have a vast country with only a sparse population. And yet in the estimates for the current year there is a million and three quarters set aside for unemployment-a condition of affairs which naturally was emphasized during the debate on immigration, when many hon. members in this quarter of the House objected to the initiation of any policy which would bring in more immigrants to swell the ranks of the unemployed. I have considerable patience with those who took that stand, and I agree with them that conditions here should be improved before we ask more people to come in. On the other hand, we admit that we want more population, we want immigration. The question then arises: How are we to make conditions better so that we will be justified in adopting a vigorous immigration policy? We are all anxious to improve economic conditions, the only trouble is how to go about it in the right way.
We find to-day, as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has just shown us, that our labouring men with their well-organized unions have advanced the price of the labour, but conditions continue unsatisfactory, for we find unemployment, want, and actual poverty among our working people And we do not find our manufacturers altogether satisfied although they are able to control the price of their output. Labour has demanded of the manufacturer higher wages.. In turn, the manufacturer has demanded the higher price for his products, until we hear in this House-in fact it was stated only this afternoon-that this is the dearest country in the civilized world to live in. I believe this is true. Now, you may put wages and com-

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
moditv prices up twice as high if you like, but will you be any better off?
Then what about the agricultural class? We as farmers claim that the fiscal policy of this country for the !ast forty years has not been in thi best interests of agriculture. That has been proven on this side of the House beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is being shown from day to day in the special committee on Agriculture what the farmer is making to-dav If the working man in the city is not getting wages enough, what about the working man-the farmer-on the land? I find that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Lave paid on an average to every man, woman and boy in their employ five dollars a day for the past year. Suppose we take half a section of wheat land in western Canada, yielding 23 bushels to the acre. It takes five people-his wife, a boy, and three men-to harvest and handle that crop. Supposing he pays the same wages as the men receive from the Canadian Pacific Railway', he finds that it takes every bushel of wheat to pay his wage bill alone. How are we going to employ' men to work on our farms in competition with the railway companies under such circumstances? How are we going to compete with the manufacturer who being able to control the price of his output can pay' his men five and six dollars a day? How can we go on the labour market and expect to hire men to go on our farms and stay there in the face of such competition?
I had a striking illustration of this last session. One of the finest types of immigrants one could wish to bring to this country struck this city a few weeks before I returned home. I do not care if you bring out ten thousand immigrants, you could not bring a finer specimen-a young man twenty-one years of age, of good character and fine physique. He came and worked on my farm, which was situated on the edge of a town with railway employees across the street. That young man was satisfied with his condition, he appreciated everything we did for him, but he was studying conditions and he saw it was quite impossible for a farmer to keep a man on the land when these protected industries were able to pay twice as much in wages as the farmer could afford. These are the conditions. Now, the fanner has no control over the price of his output. He has to sell his output in the markets of the world. Some hon. gentlemen try to tell us that we should build up a home market and that in that way we could get a better price for our products. But those of us who have been growing farm produce know that
after all we depend largely on the markets of Europe; we would very soon glut the market if we attempted to sell all our produce in a country of 8,000 000 people. So that the home market really' does not cut any figure at all.
I have heard a good many arguments to the effect that the man living near the city could get better prices for his products, but that statement is hardly correct. Those of us who have been farming know that a man who is some distance from the city can produce stuff and put it on the city market just as cheap or a little cheaper than the fellow who lives close to the city. Take the case of milk; right in our own locality, one hundred miles from Toronto, considering the cheapness of our land, the low freight rate to the city and the amount of stuff we can produce compared with what the man near the city can turn out, we can undersell the man on the more expensive land adjoining the city of Toronto, which is our chief market.
We have reason to believe that conditions can be improved. It is asserted that we should have better tariff arrangements. If there were not so many burdens on the men on the farms, and if they had some of the advantages that men in other callings are getting, we in Canada could hold our own with any country in the world. We have a country of wonderful resources; we have a people who are resourceful and energetic. It is true that we have a national debt, but after all it amounts to only 30 per cent of our total assets. It has to be admitted that our debt is large, but there is a cause for that debt which we do not care to enlarge upon at this time. The war was very far-reaching in its effects; we are still suffering from the reaction, and it behooves us as Canadian people to take a lesson from our men who went to the front. Surely we are possessed of some of the courage that those men possessed. If we get busy' and endeavour by every means in our power to produce, to create wealth, we can pay off our debt. We often speak about our resources, and undoubtedly they are very great indeed; but we have no greater source of income than our farming lands. Our forests, which have been a great source of wealth, are becoming depleted; our fisheries may fail; our mines may fail. But after we have used our farms for hundreds of y'ears, they will still be there, a national asset. I believe that we have to-day no other source of revenue equal to the farm lands of this Dominion. If we would develop our agricultural industries we would have no trouble about our cities, but the policy of

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
this country has been to build up the cities first and thereby build up our country. My policy would be this: Look after the agricultural industries of an agricultural country, and then we will develop the towns and cities. We have been demanding too much off the agriculturists. Time would hardly permit me to enumerate all the different burdens that are placed upon them, but if I mention one or two it may make some hon. members realize that I am on safe ground. I was thinking of our educational institutions. We boast of having the best educational institutions in the world, and we are proud of them. I do not wish to suggest anything that would impair the usefulness of those institutions, but I wish to point out-and I am thinking now of the burden that is placed on the farmers-that if a man wants to enter a profession and undertakes to get a university training, we, the people of Canada, pay practically half the cost of that man's training in the university. Now, we are producing a lot of splendid men in our universities every year. But to me the sad part of it is not so much the expense these men are to us on account of their training as the fact that hundreds of them, after they have finished their courses, go across to the other side of the line to be an asset to the United States. To my mind that is a tremendous national loss. We are expected to carry untold burdens for all classes of our people that we have no right to bear. If something was done to eliminate some of these the farmer would have more encouragement and there would be more men going to the land. With our immigration policy the trouble is to get men to go to the land; if we would make conditions more favourable on the land we would have no trouble getting our immigrants to go there.
I submit that it should be our policy to do that. If we can get six or eight million people on the land we shall solve all our national problems. If we can make conditions right so that people will be induced to go on the land, we shall have that many more people, as has been said time and again in this House, to shoulder the national debt, that many more people to produce on areas that are now practically lying idle.
We talk about helping our immigrants, and there is great lament about those who come here with nothing. I sometimes think of the men who came into this Ontario when it was all bush, without a dollar, without experience, without anything. Who helped them to make this country what it is? Our Ontario boys growing up during the last thirty years, who 
in many cases started without anything, have complained that when the immigrant comes here, the alien, we begin to pay him money out of the public treasury, so that the man who has had to make good for himself has not only to hoe his own row but is asked to help the other fellow. We do not think that is fair to the man who is struggling on and trying to make his way in this country. The returned men are much in the same position- these men of whom we speak in admiration and on whom we shower praise for their wonderful sacrifices. These men are asked to assume their share of the responsibility of the debt of this country; they have to help to pay it. I mentioned this before, but I will mention it again lest the minister might forget it: I refer to the case of a returned man, one of our own Ontario boys, who went West and settled on the land there, and he was positively refused the same chance that was offered to the alien coming to this countiy. I am pleading at this time, in this city, for help for that man out in Alberta, and I am going to continue the fight; if I do not get anything I will keep at it just the same. When a returned man has the courage to go on land in the western provinces surely he ought to get treatment equal to that handed out to the aliens who come to our country. I could deal with this question at some length but it is not my intention to take up the time of the House.
I am not a pessimist. I do not feel for one moment that we are up against the inevitable or the impossible. We are here in this House to do a man's job. I think I heard one hon. member of this House say some time ago that the farmer should have stayed at home and looked after his organizations and after his market conditions, and leave parliamentary affairs alone. We would have been satisfied to stay at home and do that work. We did stay at home and worked hard and we talked and pleaded, but the members of this parliament would not listen. We kept on pleading until we got tired, and that is why we are here now representing the farmers of Canada in this parliament, and if the different parties in this House will not listen to the words of warning that have come from the rural sections of this country there will be a still larger deputation sent here, for the voice of the people must be heard. We have a problem before us, and we feel that the farmers are fit to deal with that problem. We have done hard things. We would not be worthy of the name Canadian, we would not be worthy to be called brothers of the men who went to the front, if we were not able now to grapple with the financial

The Budget-Mr. Stork
situation of this country after what our boys have done in the Great War in France. We are able to do it gentlemen, and we are not going to stop the fight in this parliament until we have brought about a better economic condition in this country that will help pay off our national debt and put the country's finances on a better basis. It is up to us'to do it. As I said before, it is a man's job, and I have confidence that the members of this parliament will be equal to the occasion. We are not going to stop the fight until the body economic of this country is in a very much healthier condition.
As we have sat here listening to speeches for some time, we have been impressed very much with one idea which I must mention. There seem to be two forces at work in this parliament. There is a strong financial force somewhere at work, and another force at work in this parliament in the interest of the common people of Canada. I am satisfied that the former force has had too much influence in this parliament in the years that are past, and that influence I am satisfied is iust as active to-day as it ever was. This is not a new condition in the British Empire.
I have a book here that was written not long ago and if you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker,
I will make a short excerpt from a speech made at the Brotherhood Congress in London, England, by the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson:
Class rule in politics, notwithstanding the existence of a broadly democratic franchise, is still a reality. What are called the possessing classes, through their social influence, the power of money, their practical monopoly of all the higher branches of education, and their control of the press, contrive repeatedly to defeat the popular will on every first-class political issue in which the rights and liberties of the common people are involved.
If that is true of conditions in England, I believe it is also a factor which has actuated too much many of our public men. I imagine that the fight is on, and the fight is between the men of that class and the men who represent the common people of this country, I was going to say; but I do not like that term, so I will say the great masses of our people at home.
I have faith that by the exercise of thrift and economy we will overcome these difficulties. I believe that in our public life as in our private life there is room
10 p.m. for the exercise of economy. I ,	believe that we are all guilty of
extravagance, extravagance in our public busi-. ness and in our private business, and I am satisfied just as much as I am standing here that if we would cut out the unessentials our national debt could be reduced to a minimum. If we will attend to that with the earnestness and the zeal with which the men who first came to this country made this Ontario of ours the country it is, we shall soon solve the fiscal and financial problems of this country.


Mr. ALFRED STORK (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few observations on the budget I wish at the very commence ment to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) upon this his seventeenth budget. I believe, Sir, that Canada is fortunate in the possession of the experience of the Minister of Finance. He has served Canada long and well and his integrity is a national asset. We hope that he may long be spared to grace his position in the councils of the parliament of Canada.
Coming to the budget, I notice with satisfaction that it reaffirms the principle of .reciprocity. It was last Friday when this announcement was made in the House, and we are now beginning to receive evidences of how these proposals have been received throughout the Dominion of Canada and also the republic to the south of us. So far as Canada is concerned I believe the Canadian people will welcome this attempt at a fiscal arrangement with the people to the south of us. The American papers are now coming to hand and many of them are expressing satisfaction that ways and means are being opened up to have this problem negotiated. I wish very briefly to quote from one of the prominent American newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, which commenting on the reciprocity proposals says:
Now, after 12 years, a new start is made. This time probably we shall face bitter opposition by some American farmers who fear Canadian competition, but the wiser of those opponents will see that their products compete with Canada's not in the United States but in would markets. It is the surplus production of any country which meets competition with other countries.
So long as the United States is a producer of surplus agricultural products it cannot avoid such competition, no matter how high our tariff barriers. That has been proved to thinking persons by the utter failure of the emergency or the permanent tariff on farm products to raise the price of such products in the United States.
On the other hand, reciprocity in trade would work to the mutual advantage of both countries. We hope the friendly advances made by Mr. Fielding will find a cordial welcome in Washington.
I notice also that the budget in its reciprocity proposals specially mentions cattle, wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, turnips, onions, hay and fish. It was also gratifying to note that timely attention is being given to the sugar situation.
The Budget-Mr. Stork

The high price of sugar in the United States has caused the people in many parts of that country to embark upon a boycott of sugar. 1 am not in accord with the principle of the boycott, because in a country like Canada, if that principle were adopted by the users of sugar in order to force down the price, it would of necessity inflict a tremendous hardship on those who find the use of sugar a very great necessity. We should be able to find other ways of dealing with the soaring price of sugar rather than to force our people to boycott the use of it, and the timely attention which the minister has given to the rising price of this commodity will commend itself to the people of Canada. I would commend the Minister of Finance for the alteration which he has made in the manner of collecting the sales tax. I think the improvement he has made will commend itself very generally to the people of the country.
I shall deal with some matters of particular concern to the province of British Columbia from which I come. The first matter is the bounty on copper and the manufacture of bars and copper wires. British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, is a great copper producing province. This bounty on the manufacture of copper will give an added impetus to the mining industry and will call into operation a very large concern which has been established in West Kootenay for this particular purpose. It will bring into operation many copper mines in British Columbia which heretofore have had to remain idle.
Another matter which I am very pleased with is the admission into Canada free of duty of machinery used in the manufacture of fish offal for fertilizing purposes. We have several propositions on the coast for the manufacture of fertilizers. The machinery to be used in connection with those plants is of very vital importance. This concession will also encourage the destruction of pests such as dog fish. We have a great variety of fish which play upon the commercial fish, and this will assist in a very great degree in the extermination of the dog fish and other pests.
I notice also that the principle of the British preference is being extended with the object of developing Canadian ports. The minister, in naming the principal ports of Canada, was good enough to include such ports on the Pacific coast as Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert. This government has a very large holding in Prince Rupert. It has the terminus of the Canadian National Railways there. It is a port which has not been used up to the present time, but I notice in

the papers to hand to-day that the first shipment of lumber to Japan is starting from the port of Prince Rupert the middle of next month. There is no reason why the freight to the Orient should not go through that northern port, because we are 500 miles nearer the Orient than any other port on the continent. I find that from the 1st September, 1921 to April 23rd, 1923, there were 3,842,177 bushels of wheat shipped to Japan through the port of Vancouver. This undoubtedly should have gone via Prince Rupert. This would all be Canadian National business. I find from September 1st, 1921, to April 1st, 1923, 14,879 cars of wheat arrived at Vancouver. The Canadian National Railway hauled 5,693 of those cars, and the Canadian Pacific Railway 8,986. By developing the port of Prince Rupert, any traffic that comes into that port will naturally come in over our own railway. I am advised by competent authority that a grain elevator located there would effect a saving of 25 cents a ton in loading and port charges. With a 7,500-ton ship, with a full cargo, a saving of 25 cents a ton in loading and port charges would equal SI,875. That is equal to three days' operation and profit for a ship of that type. This saving offsets any handicap that the northern port might suffer in competing with the Panama canal route on traffic destined for ports in Europe.
So far as facilities are concerned, this government has already in the port of Prince Rupert a splendid new freight warehouse capable of taking care of ocean going business. That is available at the present moment for the shipping and handling of sacked wheat with a very small additional expense in connection with loading facilities.
I am glad to see also that reciprocity is reaffirmed in this budget. It is true this question was before the country in 1911, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the contest as carried on in 1911, was not fought out on the merits of the case. The people of Canada have had twelve years in which to reflect, and at that time the slogan was "No truck or trade with the Yankees." To-day I think the boot is entirely on the other foot. The Fordney tariff says "No truck or trade with the Canadians." The United States for years admitted fish free into their country. Canada insisted upon maintaining a duty of 1 cent a pound on fish coming into Canada from the United States. The Fordney tariff apparently says. '"Well if you like it, and if you believe in the principle of 1 cent a pound on fish, we will meet you on that issue, and we will impose a duty of 2 cents a pound on your fish coming into American territory." The Americans are ap-

The Budget-Mr. Stork
parently trying to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that they can get along very well without Canadian fish. I do not know how long it will take them to find out to their own satisfaction whether they can do so. It may require a long or short period. However, I am persuaded of one thing, and that is that while they are trying this experiment in the United States they are certainly demonstrating to the Canadian fisherman that they cannot get along without the American market. We need the American market. The 2 cents a pound duty on halibut going into that country is slowly exterminating the Canadian fisherman. The situation in British Columbia is most acute, more especially in regard to the matter of fish. We have in that northern part which has handled all the fish trade, the spectacle of American fisherman marketing their fish in British Columbia, and as a rule receiving 16 cents a pound. The Canadian fisherman is immediately docked the amount of the American duty, and he receives 14 cents a pound. An American selling fish in a Canadian port receives 16 cents a pound and a Canadian selling fish in the same port receives only 14 cents a pound. Moreover, when we remember that the port is absolutely free and open to the Americans, we can see the immediate effect unless we are able in some way to bring about a better situation as regards the marketing of fish. Last year there jvere sent east over the Canadian National Railways 1,500 refrigerator cars loaded with fish for the American market. Each one of those cars paid to the railway on an average of $1,000 for traffic charges. The trade is growing by leaps and bounds, and this year the record will be even greater than that of last year.
I am persuaded that this acute situation, as developed there, is due largely to American misunderstanding. The American fishermen who are using Canadian ports do not want this duty. It does them no particular good. The American people themselves do not want this duty, and the Canadian fishermen certainly do not want it. This situation is due very largely to the action and attitude of townsite boomers in the neighbouring territory of Alaska. They have made representations to Washington, and the authorities at Washington have had no evidence to the contrary. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway runs to the fishing grounds. At the present time the advantage of that railroad is largely with the Americans, and Canada has to keep up and foot the bills incidental to carrying it on. The American fisherman uses our ports free; but if he should buy in a
Canadian port for his boat any supplies such as ice, or bait, or gear, or even if he should paint his boat in a Canadian port, the moment he lands back in American territory, he pays 50 per cent duty on everything he has bought on the Canadian side, even though he had free access to the Canadian port.
The present situation is a most unequal one. At the present moment the Commissioner of Customs is on the Pacific coast, and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) has requested him to proceed to the north and to investigate thoroughly the whole situation. I trust when his report is received by the government, they will be advised of all the facts and details in connection with this matter, and that they will give this their immediate attention and endeavour to expedite action.
Everything possible that can be done should be done to negotiate a settlement of this question. Canada has been generous in her treatment of her American cousins. During the progress of the war Canadian ports were free to American vessels, and American ports were free to Canadian vessels. Not long ago the Americans rescinded that agreement as regards themselves and withdrew the use of their ports from the Canadian fleet, but we in Canada have still continued the courtesy and our ports remain open. Very often Canadian generosity is misunderstood.
We are not small or quibbling in our dealings with our neighbours. In fact, in the northern part of my constituency up at the-end of the Inlet, where are located the Canadian town of Stewart and the neighbouring town of Hyder, the Salmon river flows into the Inlet and brings down gravel, sand and silt in such large quantities that it has more or less filled up the American end of the Inlet. In their search for deep water and harbourage, they have, according to the best advice I have received on the question, come over into Canadian territory, and we have now an American wharf built on Canadian soil. We do not object to that particularly; we have plenty of foreshore and deep water, and if our American cousins want to use a little of it, we have no special objection, provided of course, that they will accept our generosity in this respect without misinterpreting it. In view of all the courtesies Americans receive in Canadian ports, when these matters are laid before the American authorities, there should be little difficulty in arriving at an amicable settlement.
I would suggest that we should have at Washington a trade representative. If we had stationed there a man who was thoroughly conversant with trade conditions in Canada,

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft

many of these misunderstandings would not occur. A man stationed at Washington would be able to lend his assistance and to furnish information from time to time that would keep us out of many of these misunderstandings. Our prosperity depends entirely upon our export trade. I see no danger whatever in trading with the Americans; in our trading with them, our nationality is not in danger. I believe it is preferable to keep our young men here at home, to build up Canada, to develop the natural resources of Canada, and by trading and dealing with the United States, we shall be able to keep our young men at home rather than see them proceed across the border to seek a livelihood, and there to take on the duties of citizenship, by doing which they are lost to us and to Canada forever.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I will base my remarks to-night on the assumption that the policy of the government and particularly the policy as outlined in the annual budget, should have a direct and vital relationship to the platform on which the party went to the country. Indeed, it might be said, without fear of contradiction, that no government has a mandate other than the mandate secured from a free and untrammelled electorate. To argue otherwise is to repudiate the first principles of democratic citizenship. Under our system of government it is at once the duty and privilege of the opposition, to slowly, deliberately and intentionally evolve a policy the aim of which is to influence and ultimately to capture a majority vote of the people, and thus enable them to pass from the opposition to the government benches. If we review the history of the Liberal party in opposition from the time of their defeat in 1911 until the date of their victory on December 6, 1921, we are justified in drawing no other inference, or in arriving at no other conclusion than that the party by every legitimate and conceivable means, not only created a low tariff sentiment in this country, but became known as a party that stood for a revenue rather than a protective tariff. I want in this connection to quote two amendments submitted by the Liberal party while in opposition, amendments that speak more eloquently of the attitude of that party towards tariff reform than anything I could possibly say. During the budget debate in 1919, the following amendment was moved, which is to be found in the 1919 Debates at page 326:
The proposals of the Finance Minister are unsatisfactory. They offer no curb against extravagance.

They utterly fail to take any adequate steps to relieve the present high cost of living. They give no definite promise of tariff revision downwards.
That to relieve the present situation, the tariff should be so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof.
To take off or substantially reduce, as speedily as may be expedient and just to all interested, the duties upon all other necessaries of life;
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United States should be accepted, and a general downward revision of the tariff undertaken forthwith in conformity with the principle herein enunciated.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Whose words
were those?


Leland Payson Bancroft: I could not tell the
hon. member who framed them but this is an amendment which was moved in the House by the hon.	member	for Brome	(Mr.	Mc-Master).	Then	in	the following	year,	1920,another amendment was moved which is to be found on	page	2510 of Hansard	and which
reads in part as follows:
That in view of the continued increase in the high cost of living, of the greatly increased burden of taxation, of the hardships which many cf the people suffer from these causes, and the unrest naturally arising therefrom; and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to increase production and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the	power	of	parliament, the	House	is of
opinion that, pending a wider revision of the tariff, substantial reductions of the burdens c f customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance-first, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Who moved that resolution?


Leland Payson Bancroft: The present Finance
Minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, it might be well to pause here and ask what were the motives which actuated the Liberal party in supporting these proposals? Were they actuated by sincerity, or were these mere attempts to deceive the electors and thus obtain power under false pretences? It is not my intention to answer this question, I simply leave it to the members of the House and to the disillusioned electorate. The tariff plank of the Liberal platform in 1919, which formed the basis of that party's appeal to the country, was simply a concrete and condensed statement of the attitude of the whole party, without a single exception, towards tariff taxation during the years when they occupied the opposition benches. That this plank was a chief issue in the last campaign few will dispute. The

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft
then Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) nailed the protectionist flag to the mast, and the low tariff forces of this country quickly and eagerly accepted the challenge. In western Canada tariff reform had been, although somewhat unwillingly, left in abeyance during the war period. Actuated by a sense of patriotism the agriculturists were willing to labour under almost any handicap in order that the nation as a whole might not be retarded in its efforts to win the war. Coupled with this there was a tacit understanding that tariff revision would immediately follow the signing of the armistice, and the fact that this revision was not undertaken, in spite of the report of the Tariff Commission appointed by the late government accounts in no small measure for the failure of the Conservative party to elect a single member in the three prairie provinces. An anaylsis of the vote cast in the last general election is both interesting and illuminating. It is doubtful if there has even been in the history of Canada since confederation a parliament representing such a considerable body of low tariff sentiment as the present one. It is well to remember that the tariff planks of the Liberal and Progressive platforms are almost identical. I have them here, Mr. Speaker. The Progressive platform recommends :
(a)	By immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
(b)	By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
(e)	That the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911, which still remains on the United States statute books, be accepted by the parliament of Canada.
This platform was drawn up in the year 1916 but we have not forgotten it yet.
(d)	That all foodstuff not included in the Reciprocity Agreement be placed on the free list.
(e)	That agricultural implements, farm machinery, Vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils be placed on the free list, and that all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also be placed on the free list.
(f)	That all tariff concessions granted to other countries be immediately extended to Great Britain.
(g)	That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected by the customs tariff be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
(h)	That every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before a special committee of parliament.
Now, the Liberal platform reads in part as follows:
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all
products of wheat the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining,
174J
flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
These two platforms are almost identical and when we remember that the united votes cast in favour of Liberal and Progressive candidates at the general election totalled 2,150,342 as against 971,502 registered for the Conservative party, the truth of my contention is readily realized and the mandate of the elected representatives appears clear and unmistakable. Never did the people express themselves more completely on this matter, never did they seek more earnestly to escape the injustices for which, in their opinion, the protective system is responsible. It is my opinion that the policy of the Liberal party in opposition, culminating in the platform of 1919, was a policy evolved at a time when the needs of the Canadian people were the primary interests of the Liberal leaders and when retention of office and mere political opportunism had not, as yet exercised a baneful and paralyzing influence on the minds of those leaders. In a word, we appeared to have in Canada at that time a Liberal party with a Liberal programme, a party since transformed into a party of Tory reactionaries clothed in the mere garb of official Liberalism.
It might be pertinent to ask, Mr. Speaker: Has public opinion undergone any appreciable change on the , tariff question, and if so, is such a change at all in evidence? Is it sufficiently widespread to justify the present administration in following the tariff policy of their predecessors in office? If not, what is their justification? I submit without fear of contradiction that low tariff sentiment has in no sense diminished rather it has increased since the present government took office. There is a feeling, indeed one might call it a deep-seated conviction, that the protective system is directly responsible, first of all, for the alarming emigration from this country; for the high cost of living in so far as the high cost of manufactured goods is concerned; for the restricted purchasing power of the Canadian dollar, which must of necessity militate against industrial development
The Budget-Mr. Bancroft

and expansion; for the unrest and dissatisfaction so acute in rural Canada at this time; and for rural depopulation, the seriousness of which becomes evident when we realize that we can only meet our crushing financial obligations by the export of our surplus farm products, sold in open competition in the markets of the world.
It might be stated in reply that it is illogical to contend that the protective system is responsible for the high cost of living and for the outflow of settlers owing to the fact that these settlers migrate to a country which has a tariff higher than ours. But we must remember that they have in the United States, speaking commercially, the largest free trade area in the world-110,000,000 people, the wealthiest in the world, trading freely with one another. And while their tariff is high, the amount of customs duty collected is comparatively negligible when compared with ours.
I have the figures of customs duties for the two countries for the calendar year 1922.
I took the calendar year because the fiscal years of the two governments do not correspond, ours closing on March 31st, and theirs on June 30th. In the United States for the calendar year 1922 they collected in customs duties $458,359,415, or $4.17 per head of population. In Canada in the same period we collected $132,167,544, or $14.68 per head *of population. Taking the family unit as five, this puts an annual burden on the supporter of each family in the United States of $20.85, while the head of a Canadian family of the same size has to shoulder a burden of $73.40.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the acid test to which our tariff legislation must be submitted is the results that accrue from it and as these results affect the great masses of the people in their efforts to secure the necessities of life and the tools of production. Therefore in this connection I want to submit a few figures, briefly comparing the prevailing prices in the United States to-day with those in Canada. The figures are the most up-to-date that can be procured, and the commodities chosen are those in which the people as a whole have a direct interest. In February of this year I got a copy of their mail order catalogue from the T. Eaton Company at Toronto and from Winnipeg. These catalogues I think are always admitted to be a fair criterion of prices of general commodities in Canada. In the same month I sent across to the States and got a copy of the mail order catalogue of the Sears-Roebuck Compa"" of Chicago. Some hon. members 
might think that this perhaps is not a fair comparison, that the Sears-Roebuck Company may be a cheap concern handling an inferior line of goods. I want to assure them that such is not the case. I have lived among American farmers in western Canada for some years and I know positively that the Sears-Roebuck Company occupy the same position among the rural communities in the western United States that the T. Eaton Company do in Canada; they have practically a monopoly of the mail order business so far as rural sections of the'western states are concerned, and they hold that monopoly by giving good value. In fact, many farmers in western Canada living near the border send to Sears-Roebuck Company for their goods. The company does not ship to Canada but to the nearest point on the American side, and our farmers go across for the goods and pay duty as they bring them into Canada. Of course, if the customs officer did not happen to be there when any of these farmers came across with their goods they would always wait until he came!
In going through these catalogues, while there is a great difference in the prices, there are a great many lines of goods which I could not use for purposes of comparison; that is, I could not take two suits of clothes and say they were exactly the same. However, I have picked out certain items which I could be sure of from the description in both catalogues. The first I have here is overalls and smocks. This is the description in each catalogue :
Blue and white stripe, heavy weight denim.
I think a great many members are familiar with these articles. Before I go into thi3 comparison any further I want to say that wherever possible I used Eaton's Toronto catalogue for comparison with the Chicago catalogue of the Sears-Roebuck Company because I thought it was fairer to do so; but a great many articles'used in western Canada do not appear in the Toronto catalogue, and in such cases I have had to use the Winnipeg catalogue of the T. Eaton Co. These overalls and smocks are quoted in Eaton's Toronto catalogue at $1.80 per garment; in Sears-Roebuck at $1.48 per garment. That is, they are 22 per cent higher in Toronto. The tariff on denims is 32\ per cent. Another item is men's work shirts, heavy weight drill, black and white stripes. I chose this shirt because it is very popular among working men in this country-I wear one myself when I am at home. Eaton's price is $1.45; Sears-Roebuck's 95 cents, or 53 per cent higher in Toronto. The tariff is 35 per cent. The next article is

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft
women's gingham house dresses. In this line I could not pick out two dresses and say they were the same, so I took the highest and lowest in price-there is a page of them in each catalogue. In Eaton's Toronto catalogue they run from $2.65 to $3.75; in Sears-Roebuck's from $1.69 to $2.98. The difference between the two best ones was 26 per cent higher in Toronto, and in the case of the two cheapest ones 56 per cent higher in Toronto. The tariff is 32J per cent.
Another item is sewing machines. These are also taken from the Toronto catalogue of the Eaton Company. I could not pick out two of these and say they were just the same, so I took the highest and the lowest as with the preceding article. In Eaton's they ran from $29 to $52.50; in Sears-Roe-buck's from $24.85 to $39.75. The difference between the best machines shows 32^ per cent higher in Toronto, and the cheapest machines were 17 per cent higher in Toronto. The tariff on sewing machines is 30 per cent. Warm air furnaces, complete except for pipes and registers. These are both described as having a 20-inch firepot and 12,000 cubic feet heating capacity, the only difference being that the Sears-Roebuck furnace was something like 80 pounds heavier in shipping weight; Eaton's, Winnipeg, $84.50; Sears-Roe-buck, $57.45, or 47 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff, 25 per cent.
I find in both these catalogues specials in paints. Those to which I shall refer are paints for inside and outside use, the kind we usually buy for ordinary work in this country. Eaton's, Toronto, $3.15 per gallon; Sears-Roebuck, $2.35 per gallon; 34 per cent higher in Toronto; the tariff is 30 per cent. Twelve-inch gang-plow, stubble bottom, high lift; Eaton's, Winnipeg, $88; Sears-Roebuck-and this, Mr. Speaker, is at Fargo, North Dakota; they have a warehouse there for some of their heavy implements, and while the price is higher there than at any other point where they stock it, I took that price because I thought it was fairer when compared with Winnipeg, Fargo being only a few hundred miles straight south of Winnipeg; Sears-Roebuck, Fargo, $75.45; that is 17 per cent higher in Winnipeg. The tariff is 15 per cent. 16-16 disc harrow-and most hon. gentlemen in this corner will know that that means 16 discs 16 inches in diameter-complete with tongue truck and weight pans; Sears-Roebuck, Fargo, $45.24; Eaton's, Winnipeg, $54.50; 20 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff 12J. per cent. Three-quarter wagon or general purpose truck-a very popular wagon in this country, the wheels being three-quarters the height of the
standard wagon. Skeins 3j inches by 10 inches; front wheels, 36 inches high; rear wheels, 40 inches; 3-inch tires; Eaton's, Winnipeg, $59.50; Chicago, $49.95; 24 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff, 17-j per cent. Standard two-deck wagon-box. Now, there are different styles of wagon-boxes, involving different costs of construction, but there was a cut in both these cases and the styles were the same. Both boxes are described as being 26 inches high, 10 feet 6 inches long and 36 inches wide. Sears-Roebuck, $22.50; Eaton's, Winnipeg, $33.75; 50 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff, 30 per cent. Self-dumping hay rake, 10-foot size. This is from the Toronto chtalogue; Eaton's, $42.50; Sears-Roebuck, $33.66; 26 per cent higher in Toronto; tariff, 15 per cent.
The next item I have here is that of hay forks. Both catalogues indicated that only one hay fork was stocked, so that there can be no difference in quality. Three-tined, bent handle hay fork, 5-foot hardwood handle, Eaton's, Winnipeg, $1.25; Sears-Roebuck, $1; 25 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff 22i per cent. Four-tined barley fork with guard-this is the kind of fork we use for pitching straw. Eaton's, Winnipeg, $2.25; Sears-Roebuck, $1.65; 36 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff, 22^ per cent. Five-foot mower, vertical lift, complete; Eaton's. Winnipeg, $79.50; Sears-Roebuck. Fargo, $59.90; 32 per cent in Winnipeg; tariff, 10 per cent.
Thresherman's tank pumps, 5-inch cylinder, 5-inch stroke:	Eaton's, Winnipeg, $15.75;
Sears-Roebuck, $10.65. Open top lift pump, -this is the type of pump used for shallow wells- with 3-inch by 10-inch iron cylinder: Eaton's, Winnipeg, complete with 8 feet qf li inch pipe. $8.45; Sears-Roebuck, complete with 4 feet of 1J inch pipe, $5.60. Then, there are wooden pumps, also very popular for shallow wells. I figured this out for a well with a depth of 24 feet: Eaton's, Winnipeg, $20.25; Sears-Roebuck, $13.88; tariff on pumps, 30 per cent.
I found a great difference in harness, but it was impossible to pick out two sets of harness and say they were exactly the same. However, on some parts of harness we could get a good comparison. For instance, on heavy team lines complete, H-inch by 22 feet, the prices were: Eaton's, Winnipeg, $7.85; Sears-Roebuck, $6.37; 23 per cent higher in Winnipeg. Also team traces, 6 feet 4 inches long, with heel chain 2 inches wide, 2-ply: Eaton's, Winnipeg, set of 4, $14.75; Sears-Roebuck, $12.65; 17 per cent higher in Winnipeg; tariff 30 per cent.
The Budget-Mr. Bancroft.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Will this debate be continued to-morrow?


James Alexander Robb: We shall continue this interesting and illuminating debate.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, May 15, 1923