1924-03-13

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the year ended March 31, 1923.- Hon. Mr. Robb.

Financial Statement of the Royal Society of Canada.-Hon. Mr. Robb.
PRIVILEGE-MR. IRVINE On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members of this House to a despatch from Montreal, which appears on the front page of this morning's Ottawa Journal, giving a report of a speech I made there last evening. This report represents me as saying:
Canada's government is like a Ford automobile, and the opposition is like a spare tire, all blown up with wind.
Further on the report says:
We have enough ignoramuses in parliament, and if we cannot send any better we might as well not send any at all.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I do not charge this reputable newspaper with wilful misrepresentation, nor do I wish to impute any malicious intent to the report, yet I do wish to say that I have never on any occasion discussed the personnel of this House; and I wish to say also with regard to the illustration which I gave, that it is perfectly correct; but it was not applied to this government, nor to this opposition, it was applied to party government in general.
GRAND TRUNK GRATUITIES On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: I should like
to ask the government whether a commission has been appointed, as promised by the Prime Minister at the last session of this House, to investigate all the circumstances and conditions connected with the payment to certain officials of the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern railways of sums amounting to some $400,000, these gratuities being voted by the officials concerned to themselves just previous to their transference to the National railways on retirement; and if such commission was appointed, whether its findings have been communicated to the government; and, if so, what its conclusions were.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): In reply to the question of my hon. friend, I may say that I did not catch all that he said, but a commission was appointed to investigate certain matters relating to the gratuities to employees of the Grand Trunk, and other matters. That commission has reported, and I shall have the pleasure in a few days of laying that report on the Table of the House.

The Address-Mr. Raymond



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Kelly for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland, resumed from Wednesday, March 12.
Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, the ground of this debate has been pretty well covered and anything I may have to say will probably be a repetition of what has been said. However, there is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that appears to me rather ominous and threatening to the industrial interests of the constituency that I represent. One reason why I delayed speaking was that I had hoped that there might be some word of explanation from the government which would make the situation appear a little more definite. However, this phrase has been translated to mean-not only in my constituency, but over this country generally- that it is the intention of the government to remove the tariff duty on agricultural implements. I wish to say in this connection that, whatever else may be my duty in this House, I esteem it my first and most particular duty to represent faithfully the views of my constituents, and in doing that, Mr. Speaker,
I must take a firm stand against any further reduction of the duty on agricultural implements, considering the fact that that duty has been reduced several times. A little later we will go into the question of what the duty has been in the past, and we shall find that it is lower now than it has ever been; and I take it. that the present duty should be considered an irreducible minimum; I shall be firmly opposed to any further reduction. I wish to say-and I hope I make it plain enough-that no personal or party reasons will cause me to swerve from that determination. My constituency of Brantford is one that is perhaps not known to many hon. members of the House. But I know that those who know it, love it. When the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) waxed eloquent regarding the beauties of Nova Scotia and made this House resound with his eloquence in praising the Annapolis valley and Acadia, I said to myself: What would he say if he had ever seen Brantford? There are certain things with which each town or city is apt to become identified. We know that wThen, for instance, cotton is mentioned, the mind at once turns to Manchester; if silk or velvet, to Lyons; if lace, to the capital of little Belgium; if cutlery, we think of Sheffield; but when agricultural implements
are mentioned the world over, the eye and mind naturally turn to Brantford. Brantford has been the home of the farmer's toolmaker for more than half a century, and it has produced for the farmer those implements with which he has been able to carry on his business. That is why I said, in a former address in this House, that I think the manufacture of agricultural implements should be considered a key industry in this country and so treated by any and every government. The fertile soil of our far flung, fenceless prairies, the stubborn veldt of South Africa and the distant pampas of Argentine, are all ploughed with plough's manufactured in Brantford. The harvests of Australia, India and sunny France, as well as of this country, are reaped by harvesting machines made in Brantford. Wherever agricultural implements manufactured in Brantford have gone, they have carried the name of Canada honourably and nobly to every part of the world. So that naturally one can understand that any, and I believe every resident of Brantford, when he sees an attempt made to destroy the vital industry, the industrial life of that community, feels rather sensitive on the point, and is willing to do everything in his power to resist such an attempt. From the time of the publication of the Speech from the Throne, the city council of Brantford have passed strong resolutions. I will not take up the time of this House by reading long extracts from newspapers, although I could spend a considerable time in that way if such was the desire of hon. members. The chamber of commerce and the trades and labour council have also passed very strong resolutions, all expressing the hope that no further reduction will be made in the duty on agricultural implements.
When His Excellency uttered those words,
1 was unable to catch his eye, or he might, perhaps have given me a word of explanation. But I know he has been to Brantford and I know he loves Brantford; I know he would not do anything to injure Brantford. Moreover, he graciously deigned to spend a few days in the homely dwelling of one of our plough-makers, and I do not think he would return his hospitality in the way suggested in the Speech from the Throne. You may have noticed that he said that it was the government. I am loath to think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would do anything against the interests of Brantford. In this resolution that was brought before the city council, it is stated that when the Prime Minister was in Brantford before the election, he made a promise and a pledge to the people that if he were returned to power, no legitimate industry should suffer. Consequently,

The Address*-Mr. Raymond
we cannot, upon present evidence, condemn the Prime Minister but we shall not forget his promise. The government, as I understand the matter, is responsible; but I do not wash, until the budget is brought down and the exact condition is before us, to condemn the government, nor to take it for granted that it is going to enact any legislation that will injure Brantford. The government has often been likened to the Ship of state, the chart and compass, and so forth, and I have always had rather a liking for nautical terms and similes; hence I cannot help thinking that, perhaps, on this occasion, when the ship of state is sailing and choosing the middle way between Scylla, the rock of high protection on the one side, and Charybdis, the whirlpool of free trade on the other, it seems as though it had on board a pilot who was taking it just a little too near to Charybdis. It is the pilot I am going to blame, and I say that if the government have on board a false or a wrong pilot, if they are taking advice from a man who really does not know the coast they are on, they had better drop him, get rid of him, and strike for the open water, if they want to be safe. I utter this remark in the most friendly spirit to those hon. gentlemen who are on the ship of state; but I would say this:	When vessels are sailing in a convoy,
if it so happens that the leading ship should drift into the whirlpool or upon a lee shore and, therefore, be wrecked, is it, in such a case, toe necessary duty of every little vessel that is sailing in the convoy or squadron to follow her to destruction? I think it would seem rather that discretion should be used by each captain for the safety of his own ship. As regards my constituency of Brantford, I cannot make you understand, Mr. Speaker, because that would take too much time and I have not language at my command; but there exists between me and that constituency a different kind of feeling from that which exists between any other hon. member in this House and the place which he represents, a feeling of grateful affection that makes me feel I should be doing a wrong, an indescribable wrong, if I did not stand here four square for the interests of Brantford, and that is what I intend to do under the circumstances.
TVith regard to the constant changing of duties, the constant moving of the tariff, the people of Brantford, * the manufacturers throughout this country, have not forgotten that we were told last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), that there was some hope of stabilising the tariff; that he said that instead of having it going up and down and changing, a little off this one year 
and a little on that the next, it was his object to make it more stable, and that it would be more satisfactory under that condition to the business interests of this country. We know that would be more satisfactory to the business interests of this country, and we know that now even this hint that has been passed out in the Speech from the Throne has had the effect of paralyzing business and discouraging capital, it has thrown many places, besides that from which I come from, into a turmoil of apprehension at what may come down in the budget. Just exactly why agricultural implements should be again singled out passes my comprehension. Some say there is a political reason, and that suggestion has been discussed generally throughout the country by the newspapers. It is said that for certain reasons that particular industry should be sacrificed to the good, at all events, of a large section of the community. In this connection I thought it was refreshing to hear the words of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party. I hope they impressed themselves on the mind of every one of his followers and indeed of every hon. gentleman in this House. The hon. member .said that the only sure basis of national unity was equal justice to all, and I would ask him never to forget that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: Those gentlemen who
applaud that statement will, I hope, bear it in mind. I am always glad when Britons applaud the name of justice, for I think it is the main thing; and if those gentlemen mean anything by the words they use they must mean that they will never destroy one industry for the benefit of another. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), in his first session in the House two years ago, uttered a similar sentiment, and I was glad that he did, he said he believed in special privileges for none and equal justice for all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen applaud again, and I should like them to explain, when it comes to their turn-
I do not want them to explain it exactly at this moment-what kind of equal justice they think it would be if one section of the country enjoyed free trade while the rest of the country was under the bonds of protection. I want to be consistent and I want to see hon. members consistent, and in endeavouring to be so I hope I shall be at least as consistent as that free trader who wants to have

The Address-Mr. Raymond
agricultural implements on the free list while at the same time he will not allow the workmen of the country, the mechanics and the labourers who are toiling in production, to use oleomargarine. Hon. gentlemen would prohibit the import and sale of this article and they would make its manufacture in this country an offence. And they try to excuse this attitude by their adoration for the cow. I have heard gentlemen express themselves, in veneration of the cow, in terms that would have done credit to a Hindoo worshipper of that animal; but I do want to put a plain proposition to those gentlemen: What would they think if they heard David excusing his cowardly murder of Uriah by pleading his passionate love for Bathsheba? Believing however, as they do, in equal justice, I hope that justice will characterize the legislation that they will support.
Now,, the agricultural implement industry is one that has not been profitable. It has been shown, and I think it has been stated on the floor of the House, that one of our largest firms in Canada, the Massey-Harris Company lost some three years ago, $1,200,000, two years ago, some $640,000, and this year $370,000. So that if that is a legitimate industry it can hardly be claimed to be making a profit at the present time. And when farmers tell us that they are not in a position to purchase agricultural implements, I ask, what benefit will anyone derive from taking off the duty and letting more American implements come in? There is another great industry situated in Hamilton. While, of course, Brantford is the chief centre of the agricultural implement business, there are agricultural implements made in some fifty other places in Canada, and there is a large factory in Hamilton which has been established there for some years. During the last ten years, taking an average one year with another, beginning with the year 1913 and running up to 1922, both inclusive, the profit they have shown on their capital invested has been less than three per cent, per annum. In view of these facts, therefore, I do not think it can be claimed that any exorbitant profits are being made to-day or have been made within the last few years by the agricultural implement industry in Canada. As a matter of fact, our factories in Brantford have largely been closed; they have been running on very short time for the last three years. Some of them have been running lately, and I am glad to say that the factory of the Massey-Harris Company, which has not been going steadily for
the last year, has benefited by the French Treaty that was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) last year. By means of this treaty these manufacturers were able to get favourable treatment for their implements in France, and they have employed in the last year some nine hundred men, although regular!}' they should be employing fifteen hundred.
Now, I do not think that it is either necessary or advisable to go into the whole list of the losses of these industries. The fact is that they have suffered serious losses, and the men whom they have not been able to employ have naturally gone over to the other side. And the danger of that is that when our mechanics go across the line-and thousands have gone, not only from Brantford but from other cities as well-when hard times overtake the industries in the United States there is a return of workmen to Canada, and it is not the most skilled mechanics that return. The artisans that work in our factories, in other words, are combed out to supply the labour market in the United States, and when any workmen are to be laid off there it is the unskilled class who are dismissed; for the American manufacturers know a skilful man when they find him, and they keep him. The skilful men are not apt to come back. I do not think it is fair to give all the experiments, if we may use that term, in free trade to one industry or one town. I do not regard this as a question exactly of free trade or protection; I do not look upon it in that way. The question of free trade and protection has been argued in this House for fifty years. It began some fifty years ago when the government-then a Liberal government -raised the tariff, which was 15 per cent, to 17i per cent, and they were accused by the Conservative party of that day of being protectionists. When the tariff was raised in 1874 from 15 per cent to 17| per cent there was this about it: it was levied fairly, honestly and equitably as a revenue tariff on the goods imported into Canada. It was not a lopsided tariff that admitted some goods free while putting a duty on others, there was no class favoured in the levying of that tariff; whereas the intention now seems to be to favour a certain class m the levying of the present tariff. All goods came in on a revenue basis and paid alike.
Now, let me tell the House a little of our history in Brantford during the last few years with regard to the duty on agricultural im-
282	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Raymond
plements. Just before the slump came in the price of agricultural products, 5 per cent was taken off the duty on ploughs and binders. This reduction was made for the benefit of the farming population, and naturally it was opposed by the manufacturers, but without effect. At the same time tractors were made absolutely free. As a result two tractor factories went out of business in our city. Since that time a cream separator factory has also gone out of business. When, some two years ago, there was a further tariff reduction of 2i per cent it was felt to be very serious at a time when the farmers were not buying, when business was not good, when the agricultural population of the West said they were not in a condition to buy, and it was very difficult to see whom it was expected to benefit by the removal of the duty. It was hoped then that that would be the last slice taken off the tariff. To-day agricultural implements stand at the very bottom of the list, having the least tariff duty of any manufactured article in this country, averaging between 10 per cent on harvesting machinery and 15 per cent on plows. When that is the case can any further reduction be justified? Would it not be a fatal blow to the industry? Before that blow is struck I feel it my duty as the representative of Brantford-and I hope the representatives of other constituencies where agricultural implements are made will join with me-to resist to the extent of my power any further cut in this duty.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the condition of the western farmer is always attributable to the price of agricultural implements or the duty thereon. I am sure there is no man in this House, I do not care what his business is or where he comes from, that has a stronger or more active sympathy for the farmers in the West than I have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Gawtress Raymond: Well, it seems odd that some hon. gentlemen by the slight noise they make should doubt my word. I hope, however, that as time goes on they will see that I really believe in what their leader says, that the basis of national unity is equal justice; and I say that those who claim more than equal justice-mind you, those who claim for themselves through a selfish interest, or any other interest, more than equal justice to themselves-are doing an injury to our national unity. Yes, I have always felt my heart touched when I have heard of the hardships of the western farmer. When I have heard of a farmer being hailed out until there was positively nothing left upon the land 
for him to reap, the only thing standing there being his harvesting machinery, it has occurred to me:	What a great benefit it would be to
him to take the duty off agricultural implements. When I have heard of a grasshopper plague in the West that has stripped the land of vegetation, I have thought at once: What a panacea it would be for getting rid of them, to take the duty off agricultural implements. When whole sections have suffered from drought, the answer has always been:	Take
the duty off agricultural implements-the one panacea for all the farmers' troubles is: Take the duty off agricultural implements! Now, Sir, do you think it would be effective? Do you think that if that duty were taken off the farmer would be satisfied? I remember one experiment when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made tractors free just a little before the last election. I think the result ought to show the gratitude of the farmer.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. gentleman is a little out in his time. The duty was taken off tractors just a little after the election, not before.


William Gawtress Raymond: I beg your pardon, Sir, but I referred to the election of 1921. The duty was taken off just before that election.


Arthur Meighen: It was about four years before.


William Gawtress Raymond: It was in 1919; that
would be two years before.


Arthur Meighen: It was in 1918.


William Gawtress Raymond: I think most farmers
would remember for two years. If they have any gratitude at all it should last that length of time.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will
understand that I am not disagreeing with him on the question of gratitude.


William Gawtress Raymond: It is on the question of gratitude or appreciation that I am speaking. I say if the duty were still further reduced, even if it were all stripped off, there would still be something else to complain of-and we know there are many other things-and I do not think it would appease all my friends opposite; it might some, but not all. There is rather a homely little illustration given of a mother trying to teach her child appreciation of where things come from, and if it seems too homely perhaps hon. gentlemen will bear with me while I describe it. A little boy had a religious mother, and she was teaching him his prayers.

The Address-Mr. Raymond


Mr. FORKE:: Speak up. The story is too
good to miss.


William Gawtress Raymond: Perhaps my hon. friend
knows the story. The little boy had a religious mother-and I have no doubt the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) also had a religious mother-and she wanted to teach him to be properly grateful for what he received. He was very anxious to have a drum. While she was teaching him his evening prayer he punctuated each line with "I want a drum, I want a drum." His mother began the prayer:
Now I lay me down to sleep-
("I want a drum")
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
("I want a drum")
If I should die before I wake-
("I want a drum")
I pray the Lord my soul to take.
("I want a drum")
After the little boy fell asleep she got a drum and put it by his side, thinking that when he awoke he would be duly grateful. In the morning the little fellow opened his eyes, and on seeing the drum exclaimed. "Where the devil did that come from?" I understood the leader of the Progressive party to say he was familiar with the story, and I hope he will prove more grateful for tariff favours than the little boy was for the drum.
But I think there is even a more serious question-the question of national unity is involved. We have been told that a very serious condition exists in this country, particularly in the West, and that unless something is done there may be secession from confederation. Well, Sir, I am one of those who think that confederation is a great monument to the wise statesmanship of our political leaders, and I for one would be very, very sorry to see it destroyed or weakened by what we may term the interests of any one section of the Dominion, because I believe that the real interests of all the provinces were furthered by those who brought about confederation. I believe those interests can be so amalgamated and welded together that whatever real grievances may exist can be done away with by a little give and take. I think the gentlemen from the West can be satisfied. But when they speak of secession and of doing away with national unity-the basis of which, we must always remember, is equal justice-they must bear in mind that their fellow-Canadians who are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements will not consider that they have received equal justice if their industry is destroyed and other industries are still allowed the benefits of protection. Are my friends opposite
willing to strip away all protection? Do they want to have entire free trade for the country, or do they want it only for the implements which they themselves use? That is the question. When it is reduced to a matter of dollars and cents there is many an honest farmer in the West who pays more taxes on the tobacco he uses than he does on the whole outfit of his agricultural machinery.
I believe that some of- their confreres in the western States are for treating tobacco as they would treat oleomargarine; they wish to ban it, to keep it from the country, to teach us that it is wrong to manufacture, buy, sell or smoke it. What would they do, then? What taxes would be collected from the western farmer if he used no tobacco and had free agricultural implements? I think there would be very little, Sir, because we know as a matter of fact that out of $46,000,000 collected from the personal income tax the fanners of this country pay less than 2 per cent.


Mr. GOULD:: There is a reason.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain it.


William Gawtress Raymond: Well, with your reason I hope you will always couple justice; as long as you do that you will be all right. There can be no justice when all the demand is on one side only. The argument and the attitude of some others is absurd, who, as I say, by way of effecting a cure for hail, for drought, for grasshoppers and so on, want the duty taken off agricultural implements, but who at the same time want the Hudson Bay Railway. How will you pay for it? Why, take the duty off agricultural implements 1 They want branch lines in the West; how will they pay for them? Why, take the duty off agricultural implements! That is about the basis of reasoning, not by hon. members opposite but by those who, I think, inspire them to some of the utterances that they make in this House.
I do not wish to keep the House very long, but there is just another point I would like to make, and it is this: There are these various demands from the West-the St. Lawrence waterway, the Hudson Bay Railway, branch lines, and many other things. What could have been done for them by the government has been done in the way of the Wheat Board, the suspension of the Crowsnest pass agreement, the cheapening of rates as far as possible. All these things have been done, but still, to use an expression of Shakespeare's, the only effect is to make our friends act-
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on.
The Address-Mr. Raymond

Mr. Speaker, you may have read something which I saw recently in the newspaper, because one can find anything in the newspaper that is not beyond the ken of human imagination. It was the story of a bear. I would not swear whether it was the Manitoba black bear, the barren lands grizzly, the Saskatchewan brown, or one of those tremendous grizzlies from the foothills of the Rockies in Alberta, but it was a bear that was apparently very hungry and rapacious. There he was with his large white teeth glistening, his tongue lolling out and his mouth watering. A little boy was feeding him candy. The boy gave him one; the bear swallowed it, and as he did so his tongue lolled and his mouth watered more and more. The boy threw him another candy, and the bear's eyes rolled and he behaved generally in the same way as before. In fact, the bear seemed to get more and more hungry with every piece of candy he got, and finally when the boy had no more candies to throw to him, the bear gobbled him up-and still his eyes rolled, his mouth watered and his tongue lolled out, not I suppose, with a desire to get more candy, but with the appetite for another boy. Now, I am not much good at allegories, but it seems to me that that is a pretty fair account of the way the West of Canada is acting toward the East. So that after we have thrown them everything we have, they will still be more anxious for more. I believe-and I do not say it unkindly or in any unfriendly spirit- that as evidence of that we have only to look back over their demands, chief among which have been free agricultural implements and some lines of railroad that would cost a few hundred millions-and which would be paid for by taking the duty off agricultural implements !
Now, I say this, and I say it most sincerely, Mr. Speaker: We are confronted, as these gentlemen tell us, with a serious condition in this country. The farmers in the West have had a mighty hard time in the last three years. But why blame it on the tariff? Why blame it on agricultural implements? According to the report of the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States there are
600,000	deserted farms in that country at the present time. And that condition is not due to the duty on agricultural implements. Hundreds of banks have failed in the rural districts; in fact, the farmers there are in a far worse state than our farmers are here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much protection.


William Gawtress Raymond: An hon. gentleman says, "Too much protection." But this is not a question of protection or free trade. It is a
fMr. Raymond.]
question of treating all industries fairly, of letting equal justice be the basis of national unity. When one industry is to be destroyed for the benefit of another, I do not think that can be called equal justice.
To resume: I was saying that the farmers are in a bad condition, and they are making these incessant demands. Some of the things they ask for may be desirable; whether or not they are desirable from the national point of view is for the government, I suppose, to say. The Hudson Bay Railway, the branch lines, the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals-all these things will perhaps come in their time, but when in addition to that there is an organized effort on the part of the people who would be benefited to seek to free themselves from taxation, even from the taxation of the tariff on agricultural implements, I say the situation is not consistent, it is not logical.
Some few years ago, within the memory of perhaps some members of this House, a great war was fought in the United States. It was fought upon the principle of state rights, which is another form, Mr. Speaker, of what we call nowadays self-determination. Now, self-determination, while a most valuable, is a most dangerous principle. Self-determination was one of the basic principles of the American constitution, for the Declaration with which the national life of that country began states that every man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you trace that constitution on from that, you will find that the limitations to that constitution have been such as to show each man where his liberty ended and where the liberty of the other man began; in other words, the effect is to curb self-determination. Need I quote any other amendment than the eighteenth amendment to the constitution, the last put into effect, which enforces prohibition in that country? That was put there to curb the spirit of self-determination; and every amendment-I think I am not mistaken -expresses that principle of curbing selfdetermination. The war was fought on the same principle. It was fought to curb national rights, it was only another way of suppressing self-determination. In this country to-day we are confronted with a somewhat similar condition to that with which they were confronted in 1860-1 in the United States, but with us it is a question of economic self-determination. We have a section of this country which comes to 'the conclusion that it must decide for itself just what economic conditions it wants to live under.

The Address-Mr. Good.
I say we are confronted with a problem, and a serious one, of economic self-determination; that is the condition as it exists in this country to-day. The action of hon. gentlemen opposite, their history, the history of their party and of their demands up to the present, show that very clearly, as I think they will agree upon reflection. If we are to have union, if we are to have the confederation saved-and we all want it saved-we must have the principle of compromise; we must have the principle of give and take; we must have men who are patriotic enough to hold up the love of country above their own self interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: All right; if we have men who realize that national unity is based upon equal justice to all, then there is some hope that this vexed question of economic self-determination can be settled definitely and for all time to the advantage of all Canada in the saving of the confederation. What made Lincoln great was that he saved the union. That classic marvel, the Gettysburg speech, means nothing if it does not mean that Lincoln was the saviour of the union and of his country. The question I would ask to-day is this: Have we in this country a man of the sagacity, the wisdom, the courage, the firmness, and the kindness, so to save our confederation?


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Raymond), for the way in which he has interested and entertained us, and for his very frank expression of opinion. Before I proceed to deal with the Address I should like to refer to some of the remarks which he has just made.
At the outset he told the House very eloquently how the implement manufacturers of Brantford sold their machines in all countries of the world; indeed they were famous [DOT] throughout the whole world, were known and used everywhere. Yet these are the people, apparently, who cannot compete in the home market.
Then again, I am afraid the hon. member has placed himself in a rather embarrassing position when he said that he stands foursquare for the interests of Brantford. In his speech he appealed for national unity on the basis of national justice. He said: We must not destroy one industry to benefit another; we must hold up the love of country above selfish interest. I would like to know how he reconciles those very fine sentiments, sentiments
which I think we can all endorse, with the statement that he stands four-square for the interests of Brantford. Is he prepared to sacrifice the national interest, whether it be with respect to unity or any other matter, financial or otherwise, for the interests of one locality or of one particular industry? We in this corner of the House have frequently been charged with being sectional and narrow in our attitude, we are occupational representatives, and are suspected of coming here to claim, demand and get for farmers something in the way of special privilege. I do not think, in view of what has been said this afternoon, that any such charge can be laid alt our doors that would not be much more fittingly laid at the door of the hon. member who has just spoken. I have every respect for the hon. member for Brantford personally. I appreciate the embarrassing position in which he placed himself during his campaign and I sincerely sympathize with him. But I want to challenge emphatically the doctrine which is implied in his statement, "I stand four-square for the interests of Brantford." Unfortunately, I think we in this quarter of the House are not -always immune from criticism along the same line, but so far as the question of oleomargarine is concerned the hon. member will admit that his criticism does not apply to me at all events.
The bear story, which was no doubt extremely interesting and amusing, has a reverse application, and I have often heard farmers use it in that way. When I spoke in the budget debate two years ago I think I made the comparison with reference to a litter of pigs, with the big fellows shoving the little fellows aside. Certainly the bear story can be applied in many other ways than the one in which it was applied by the hon. member.
Further with regard to the local situation I would like to say this: I have never known agricultural conditions in our neighbourhood to be as bad as they have . been in the last couple of years. Last year eight hundred acres of very fine farm land quite 4 p.m. near the city of Brantford went out of cultivation. It was abandoned. Some of it is yet abandoned; and this land is close to that splendid home market, the famous manufacturing city of Brantford. This spring part of my own farm, which has been rented for four years, was thrown back upon my hands, and I have been unable in three months of search to find any man who will take it at any price. I would lease it at almost any figure to any man who would take
The Address-Mr. Good.

care of it for me. There are 130 acres in that part of my farm, with good buildings; it is on a cement highway and within two-and-a-half miles of this famous home market. Yet the conditions which the farmers face at the present time are such as to leave that farm and its equipment idle. I have the buildings insured for $11,000, and I cannot get anybody to touch that farm. I shall have to do the best I can with it myself. Mr. Speaker, that is an extraordinary situation. I do not attribute it altogether to the tariff, very little perhaps to the tariff, but I simply point it out as indicative of the condition of affairs that exists in close proximity to this home market on which we are so often told we must depend.
But in spite of all that I have related I am prepared to endorse what the hon. member has said about discrimination against any locality and against any industry in the matter of tariff readjustment; as a matter of grace, not perhaps as a matter of strict justice. But I think that in any readjustment, no matter what absolute justice may demand, it is wise for us to mitigate the sharpness of any blow, any distress that such readjustment may involve, and I think I speak for the members in this quarter of the House when I express the opinion that we want rather a general reduction on all the necessaries of life.


Mr. MARLER:: How far should that general reduction go?


William Charles Good: I will answer the hon. member in just a moment. I say we want a general reduction. We do not want special privileges or anything in the nature of sops thrown out to us as farmers. The hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Marler) has asked me how far tariff reductions ought to go. I am not prepared to say. I think that there too, the statement that I made with regard to the mitigation of any blow ought, perhaps, to be kept in mind, and that perhaps it would seem desirable not to make too drastic cuts in one year. I am not prepared, and I do not think the hon. gentleman could expect me to answer in detail as to how far that general cut ought to go.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that this general reduction of the tariff-and he said he spoke for himself and those around him-


William Charles Good: I hope I did.


Herbert Meredith Marler: -would be a general reduction on all the necessities of life. Now I ask the question in general terms; and he means, I assume, that so much be taken off

this year, and so much taken off next year, until gradually there would be approximately no tariff left on manufactured goods. Would the hon gentleman correct me if I am wrong?


William Charles Good: The question goes perhaps
a little farther than I would like to go at this stage in the debate. I would be very glad indeed to go into that matter at the proper time. I think perhaps I may refer to it later on in my remarks. However, I have this to say at the moment in answer to the question, that we must have some consideration for revenue needs. We have not yet devised-but I hope we shall at some time in the not too distant future- other and better methods of taxation. Until such time as we have those methods evolved and decided upon, we. shall have to rely to some extent upon customs duties or duties of that sort for revenue purposes. I think if the hon. member will pardon me, that is as far as I would care to go just at the moment in answer to his question.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not take part in the debate on the Address last year or the year before. I had no intention of taking part in the debate this year, but I have been impressed this year with the somewhat different situation which faces us and it is this; the government is in a minority-a very satisfactory position in my judgment, because they have to be guided by the will of the House, and I think they ought to do that if we are going to have democratic government. I take it that the government at least tacitly invites expressions of opinion at this stage in our proceedings upon any legislation which is foreshadowed. That is my justification, and I think it is sufficient, for imposing upon the House at this time, in spite of the desire which I know exists with many to shorten the proceedings, and as they say, to get down to business.
Regarding the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I would like to express a general if somewhat qualified approval. Whatever criticism I feel disposed to make would be based perhaps more upon omissions than upon anything actually contained in the Address. I think, however, that I should comment upon several items in the government's programme.
First, with respect to the allegations of prosperity in this country, for which, as proof, the government refers us to the records of production, trade, transportation, employment and public finauce. I have already referred to the situation in our own district at home. The hon. member for Brantford.


The Address-Mr. Good.
(Mr. Raymond) has referred to the situation in our nearby city. It is sufficiently serious; and I want to suggest to this House that if we examine those records we may perhaps interpret them in a somewhat different way from what is intended by the government in the Speech from the Throne. The statistics of trade and transportation are undoubtedly linked up with the statistics of production, and I- think we will all admit that, so far as production is concerned, the favourable showing which is made this year is due to the blessings of Providence, and not to anything any party or government may have done. We have had, particularly in the far West, a splendid year for field crops. I think in eastern Canada too, the crop this year has been very good, and we have to attribute to this fact the improved records. as to production, trade and transportation. So far as unemployment is concerned, I would suggest that there is nothing particularly consoling in the fact that the figures for unemployment are reduced. That is undoubtedly due to emigration and I would . suggest in that connection it might be wise for us to see why it is that the United States is more attractive than Canada for people who are out of work, why the general business conditions are better in the United States than they are in Canada.
So far as the increase in public revenue is concerned, I want to ask this question: How has this increase been secured? Has it been secured at the expense of productive industry or otherwise? ' Whatever satisfaction we may have with an increase in the public revenue will depend very largely upon how we can answer the question whether the increased revenue we have secured has crippled industry, or whether it has revived and helped industry. Generally speaking, I do not think we should be over-optimistic at this time, though indeed we should be thankful for what measure of prosperity we have had this last year. I made a somewhat extended trip during the summer throughout the western part of this continent, and I can assure the House that, so far as the farmers are concerned-and I think probably the effect has been seen in other industries as well-the industrial conditions are serious enough throughout the whole continent, particularly in the prairie provinces of Canada and in the middle west. I received a letter from a friend of mine in Saskatchewan in October, and I shall quote one sentence from his letter. He says:
Economic conditions are bad. People are losing hope; scores are leaving the country, and nearly always slip out without paying their debts.
We have many hon. members here who know the situation in our western country and can speak with more authority than I can in that respect.
Now the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) pointed out very well indeed that the remedies would be found in three different fields, first that pertaining to action by the individual, second that pertaining to collective action in and through the co-operative movement, and third that pertaining to collective action in the sphere of politics. Here in this House we are concerned mainly, almost entirely I think, with the third field, and I ask the question, what should be done in that field at the present time. First how shall we approach the problem? It seems to me, so far as our attitude of mind is concerned, that we must study the problem fearlessly, patiently and without party bias. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have been very much depressed at times in this House over the party recriminations, the disposition to make party capital out of the most serious and critical national questions, and I could wish very very heartily that we could forget our party lines entirely, and sit down, as we say, around a common table and study these questions from the point of view of the national welfare, and wholly apart from any question of seeking or keeping power. I am glad to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) applauding me. He is a man who can render this country great service, but he must forget his Ioyaily to party.
A second question. Who must study these problems? The representatives of the people? Nay, I think the people themselves. We must give some study to them in this House, but the people outside must get down to a hard, serious, earnest study of many of these problems. One of the basic conditions to be fulfilled, if these problems are to be studied by this House, is that this House shall fairly represent the Canadian people. Does it? Perhaps it does in a measure better than it has hitherto done, but I want to impress upon the House in that connection- the importance of correct representation. I have dealt with this matter before; I do not wish to elaborate upon it now; but I note, with a great deal of satisfaction, that section of the Speech from the Throne which deals with electoral reform, and I trust that that very small measure of electoral reform will enable us to secure, in the years to come, a more
2S8
The Address-Mr. Good.

thoroughly and truly representative House of Commons than we can possibly get under the old system. I hope, however,-and I shall speak at greater length in this connection when the time comes-that we may, as quickly as possible and as sanely as we can, proceed a little further towards that method of election which has alone shown itself capable of giving a truly representative assembly. But I repeat, that we must study the problems, fearlessly, patiently and without party bias.
If a comprehensive study of the recent and still prevailing depression is made, I am convinced that the largest factor in the situation will be found to be the breakdown or the mismanagement or the mishandling of the currency and banking systems of the world. I can cite authorities for that, and therefore I am not placing the statement before the House as having any particular weight because I make it. I believe, however, that a serious study of the situation throughout the world will show that no cause has been more destructive of prosperity throughout practically all the civilized world than that breakdown,-a breakdown which has been very serious in recent years. It has been partly due to the war. Some think it is entirely due to the war, but that I do not believe. It is not essentially due to the war, and for that reason, indeed for any reason, no matter what the ultimate or contributing causes may be, it behooves us to make further and radical study of this most important problem in all its various aspects, because it has many aspects.
I am going to refer very briefly in this connection to the resolution which was debated in this House last year and which was committed to one of the select standing committees for investigation. The investigation was never completed. I want to express the hope that this year, when the matter is reconsidered by this House, an opportunity will be given for a continuation of that very important work.
In this connection also I want to refer, in passing, to a document which I have in my hand, published, I think, annually, by the Montreal Gazette, and entitled The Commercial and Financial Review for the year 1923. This comes from the Canadian metropolis which is so ably represented in this House, in part at least, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). I find here, in this booklet an article written by R. S. White, Editor-in-Chief of the Montreal Gazette, a man who, one would suppose, has some sense of responsibility for what he writes

or says. I want to read to the House part of this article which is entitled In the Field of Finance.
The chartered banks of Canada have encountered one of the most trying years in their experience, and have emerged with unimpaired strength and unabated public confidence.
I do not think I need comment upon that, but I would like to comment upon the fact that a man in his position should make such a statement and publish it. The article proceeds :
The revision of the Bank Act-the law which regulates their operations, defines their powers, designates their responsibilities and prescribes penalties for wrong-doing -was undertaken by the Banking and Commerce Committee of the House of Commons, and after long discussion was completed without radical change in its principles.
I think that is quite true. Now this:
A vigorous onslaught was made upon the banks by the Progressive party, who had nursed their wrath for many months and who attributed the unprofitable results of fanning operations in the western provinces to the failure of the banks to freely lend to all and sundry in need of money. It was proposed by this political party to deprive the chartered banks of the privilege of issuing notes-
That is not true, as every hon. gentleman present knows. The articles goes on:
-and to give a monopoly of the currency to a national bank of issue which, being a political institution, would emit money for public and private purposes regardless of security and without provision for redemption.
What do members of this House think of a man in his position in the intelligent city of Montreal uttering such stuff as that?


Herbert Meredith Marler: What is wrong with it?


William Charles Good: It is not true.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In what respect?


William Charles Good: It is a misstatement of fact. I challenge the hon. member, any member of this House, to find in the records anything of that sort. There was some discussion, informally, about the proposal for a national bank of issue; but no such proposition was made definitely, and certainly there was absolutely nothing, even suggested privately, that would justify this gentleman in saying that it was suggested to create-
A national bank of issue which, being a political institution, would emit money for public and private purposes regardless of security and without provision for redemption.
That is positively absurd.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Probably he was drawing that conclusion from the mass of evidence presented to the committee in regard to the currency. No one could draw any other conclusion from the evidence of the witnesses.

The Address-Mr. Good


William Charles Good: On the contrary no intelligent man could draw such a conclusion from the record of the committee last year.


Mr. HOEY:: You cannot prevent him, of course.


William Charles Good: The article proceeds:
It was not a new proposal nor an original scheme, but one whose futility to establish prosperity had in modern times-
I do not know what the gentleman means by "modem times."
-been exemplified in the assignats of France, the wildcat currency of the land banks of the United States-
May I remark that these land banks were established in 1914. They issue no currency. They do a land mortgage loan business. This man is utterly at sea, and he should have known that before writing such stuff.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us hear the rest of it.


William Charles Good: The article proceeds:
-the ruble of Russia and the mark of Germany. The firmness of the Finance Minister coupled with the sanity of the parliamentary majority caused the rejection of the dangerous fads of the Progressives, and the bill for the renewal of the bank charters for a further decennial period became law very much as introduced.
I will not read it all. He speaks of the amendments that were made and then goes on to say:
Then, shortly after prorogation of Parliament, the collapse of the Home Bank occurred. It was a small institution whose resources did not exceed one per cent of the combined resources of the banks, but the subsequent revelation of the rottenness of the institution was undoubtedly a shock to the public, and the clamour for new banking legislation was renewed in some quarters. Loudest in the outcry were the unfortunate depositors who stand to lose 60 per cent of their deposits, while the poor shareholders are stripped of every dollar of their investment and required under the double liability clause to part with as much more. It was one of the most disastrous bank failures Canada has known, but the disclosure of its mismanagement points to no remedy not already supplied by the new Bank Act. The audit of the Home Bank was palpably inefficient, a very travesty of the word; and it is to prevent the recurrence of this experience that the audit has now been made in fact as well as name. Dishonesty, indeed, cannot be anticipated nor frustrated by legislation-
That is an extraordinary statement to make -that dishonesty cannot be anticipated nor frustrated by legislation. What is our legislation for? What is the purpose of the Criminal Code?


Herbert Meredith Marler: You cannot legislate a man into honesty.


William Charles Good: No, you cannot make a man honest by law.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Well, that is what the
article says.


William Charles Good: I beg the hon. member's
pardon; the article does not say so. What the article says is that dishonesty cannot be anticipated nor frustrated by legislation.


Robert Forke: It can, by putting a lock on the door.


William Charles Good: The article continues:
-but it can be prevented from running a long course and adequately punished when detected; and this has been done.
As for the contention of the Home Bank depositors that their losses should be reimbursed by the other banks or by Parliament, it is so monstrously absurd as to require no argument in rebuttal.
Evidently Mr. White would not agree with the government's action in appointing a committee to investigate the allegations made by the depositors. I submit that any man, no matter what his prominence may be, who prints such mischievous rubbish as that ought to be publicly censured.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It seems to me my hon. friend is using rather extravagant language in referring to the author of the article.


William Charles Good: I can find no terms more appropriate than the words I have used. The article is mischievous, because it goes to a class of people who do not understand the farmers' point of view-nor do they understand the Progressives in this House-and who will be prejudiced against the farmers by this misrepresentation. And I say it is rubbish, as I think I have shown.
In this connection I want also to refer in passing, and as dealing with this particular subject, to some correspondence I have had recently with a veiy prominent ex-Canadian banker now living in the United States. I am not privileged at the moment to divulge his name but I will quote two passages from his letters, one a letter to me and one a copy of a letter which he has addressed to one of the chief Canadian bankers of the present time. He says:
While as late as March last I proposed removal of some of the evils of the Canadian system, rather than a complete change, the Home Bank failure, with three other disasters, calls for more radical treatment than mere grafting of improvements. A decided change of system is essential, whether it be a modified branch system of moderate sized banks or a system without branches.
In the other letter, which is much longer, written to one of our prominent Canadian bankers, the last two sentences read:
When the currency system of the United States was at its worst, it was a pleasure to point to the Canadian system of that time. Now the latter is in ruins, due to secretive management, to over-trading beyond all example, to persistent propaganda and to united influence for monopoly.

The Address-Mr. Good

Now, I have read these extracts not for the purpose, as may be said, of slinging mud at anyone, but to call to the attention of the House the absolutely vital need that exists for re-opening this most important question and giving it further consideration.
The second large factor in the present depression is, in my judgment, the heavy and unsound taxation from which this country suffers at the present time. Heavy taxation would not be so bad if it.were of the right sort, unless indeed the revenue secured were foolishly spent.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is there any sort of taxation which the people would admit to be right?


William Charles Good: I will answer that question in a moment. Let me say that unsound taxation of any degree is incompatible with prosperity; and my opinion is that most of our federal taxation is thoroughly unsound in principle. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) wants to know whether there is any sound system of taxation. I want to commend him as a member of the government for suggesting-and I hope the suggestion will be carried out-that a board be constituted to study methods of taxation, because, in my opinion, if there is not any absolutely sound method there are at any rate some methods that are a good deal sounder than others; and perhaps in time, with investigation and study, the public may be convinced that certain methods are preferable to others and should be adopted. Two years ago I went to considerable trouble to present to the House, in the budget debate a criticism of the present system of federal taxation. I examined the basic questions underlying the matter of the incidence of taxation, and indicated a system which I thought sounder than any other. I have not been done the honour of having that address referred to in any way by any member of the House since that time. I should not perhaps expect recognition, but I was hoping that at least it might be attacked if it was wrong. I propose this year, if I am able, to take that matter up again when the budget debate comes on and to outline in some detail what has been done throughout the world in the direction of securing a better system of taxation than is current in Canada; and I trust, when that time comes, that the matters which I shall present will have some sympathetic consideration by all members of the House who are really concerned about our present situation.

As I remarked already I am pleased to note in the Speech from the Throne the government's proposal to constitute a board to investigate and study various modes of taxation. There is in the Speech little that is more hopeful, if the board's work is not vitiated at the outset by improper appointments. I should like also to suggest in this connection that it is very important to bring about at the earliest possible date a conference between the municipal, provincial and federal authorities who have to do with taxation, with a view to preventing wasteful overlapping in collecting agencies and the like. We have already in some provinces three income taxes, with separate machinery for their collections. Surely this is a serious waste.
I am glad also to notice the proposal of the government to consolidate the revenue collecting agencies. I think they might well go further and consider the propriety of carrying out the suggestions made by Mr. O'Leary in his series of articles in MacLean's Magazine; that is, of further consolidating the various departments or sub-departments which now overlap. This would be a very effective method of economizing.
With regard to civil service retrenchment, the situation is indeed tragic. It is bad policy at any time to have the public service overmanned; it is particularly bad to-day when productive industry is overburdened with taxation. But, on the other hand, with unemployment rife, what will happen to those who are relieved of their duties in the Civil Service? Will they become a charge on the city of Ottawa or the province of Ontario? Some consideration must be given to this aspect of the situation, and I would suggest that, while it is certainly desirable to weed out unnecessary employees, the weeding-out process be carried on carefully, although I do not suppose there is much danger of its proceeding too fast. There is naturally a constant attrition in the service through death, superannuation, marriage and voluntary resignation, and so I am of the opinion that if fresh appointments to the service are held in check a reduction of the staff can be accomplished in the fairly near future without any very serious hardships resulting to the individuals concerned, or to the municipality.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon, friend
elaborate his views a little? Certain employees are temporary, and when a vacancy arises it is very difficult to appoint one of these transients to fill the position, as applications are advertised for throughout the country and

The Address-Mr. Good
whoever passes the civil service examination gets the appointment. It has been suggested by a member of the Railway Commission that we should stop the influx of outsiders and utilize those who are already in the service as temporaries in filling vacancies from time to time, and so gradually reduce the staff. Of course, my hon. friend will understand that I am interrupting him in a friendly way. The trouble is that to fill any vacancy by the appointment of a temporary already on the staff will cost two or three times as much in many instances as to bring in an outsider. Therefore economy does not of necessity go hand in hand with a reduction of the staff in this way.


William Charles Good: I am quite free to admit
that there are a number of practical difficulties in the working out of this policy, but I think the old motto applies, where there's a will there's a way; and although there might have to be a number of exceptions to any rule that may be laid down there is at least some hope of progress in the not too distant future in this direction. I do not profess to have studied the details of the Civil Service sufficiently to be able to make any specific suggestions. However, the tragedy of the situation seems to me to emphasize anew the importance of a radical study of taxation and finance, for in this direction lies our chief iemedy. Apropos of this I would remind the House of one sentence quoted the other day by the hon.' member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) from an address delivered in England by Mr. McKenna. I have since secured a copy of that address, and it is certainly a very frank and definite statement of his views as to the connection between unemployment and financial policy; and this is one of the questions that this House ought to give attention to.
I note with satisfaction the proposal in the Speech from the Throne of tariff reduction. As I have already stated, I hope this will be a general reduction of the duties on the necessaries of life, and that we are not justified in interpreting the phrase, "instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion," too narrowly as meaning only so-called agricultural implements. Overalls are just as important to a farmer as his plow, just as much an instrument of production and just as necessary, and certainly more people are interested in getting cheap overalls than in getting cheap plows. We should try to live up to that well-known motto, the greatest good to the greatest number, and I feel confident that if the government bring down a tariff policy along
m
this line we in this quarter of the chamber will give it our support. I would warn the government, however, of the consequences of making infinitesimal changes-of endeavouring to straddle the fence. I fear that such a policy would be fatal to them, and I hope they will take it to heart that anything of this sort would be totally unacceptable-at least to me.
The paragraph of the Speech from the Throne which deals with the Bank Act is as follows:	[DOT]
The amendments made to the Bank Act in the last decennial revision of the last session provided better guarantees for the public in banking operations; their wisdom has already been abundantly apparent.
This is surely a shrewd and somewhat noncommittal statement. If it means that some improvements were made last session, we all admit its correctness; but if it means that adequate improvements were enacted, the statement will be questioned. I have already submitted to the House opinions expressed by a very eminent banker as to the critical nature of our banking situation. I think the whole matter of our Bank Act needs to be reconsidered and studied in an entirely different frame of mind from what prevailed last year. Personally I am prepared to sit down with any man who differs from me in opinion, and to sympathetically and dispassionately discuss our different views on this matter; but I am not prepared to agree to any policy of blocking investigation and postponing further attempts at improvement. The matter is of the utmost importance, the country is aroused and is, I think, demanding a reconsideration of a number of banking questions that received some attention last session. I do not think public confidence can be restored until this is done, and undoubtedly it is the duty of the government to do everything in its power to restore public confidence. There is nothing worse than the obscurantist attitude-that disposition to hide things, to put the lid on and keep it screwed down.
In this connection I would also call attention to the report of the special committee on Agricultural Conditions with respect to rural credits which was presented at the close of last session. I understand that the government has already had President Tory of the University of Alberta give some attention to this matter. I saw1 Dr. Tory about New Year's time and had a very interesting talk with him, and I sincerely hope that although the matter is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, this report will be brought down in such time that it may receive full attention at the hands of parliament this year.
The Address-Mr. Good

In that connection I must refer to a letter I received not long ago from a man who was associated with Dr. Tory in the work of investigation that took place in Europe in 1913, when the commission went over there to study European rural credits. I refer to President John Lee Coulter, of the Agricultural College of North Dakota, a man who is perhaps better acquainted with rural credits in the United States than any other man in that country that I know of. I had a long talk with him in September, and subsequently have had some correspondence with him. I read this from a letter which I received from him about Christmas time:
I have somewhat followed the Canadian situation. Without doubt stabilization of prices is one of the great fundamental pillars in any structure which hopes to hold up our present civilization based as it is on some exchange. We in this country would not think of going back to any plan which did not include government supervision as a second pillar. There is no longer an/ doubt but that, our long-term land mortgage banks is a third pillar which must hold a permanent place. The intermediate credit system which has in mind loan* attached to agriculture is another one of the pillars of strength which we are just developing. At this time we are particularly studying and experimenting with co-operative organizations of many kinds.
Just one final word, Mr. Speaker, bearing upon the Speech from the Throne, with regard to the estimates. I do hope that the scandalous procedure which has prevailed in years past, and which prevailed last year to some extent, that of bringing down large estimates in the dying days of the session, will be discontinued. If the public outside knew exactly the situation in this respect, there would be a general and terrific protest throughout this whole country.
I regret that no mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of legislation to facilitate the development of the co-operative movement, a movement which, I think, holds out more hope of solving the social problems of humanity than perhaps anything else. I had intended to submit to the House some opinions of eminent men in this direction, but as the time is getting on I shall simply refer to them and say that, there is a general agreement on the part of a great many men of eminence as to the desirability of assisting in the development of the cooperative movement, not only producers' cooperation or co-operative marketing, but consumers' co-operation as well. In 1907 the late Mr. Monk, who was a very progressive and useful member of this House, brought in a bill to assist the co-operative movement. I have here a little memorandum of what happened to that bill throughout a series of years, and I would like tq submit it to the

House. The bill was introduced in 1907 and sent to a special committee, before which the present Prime Minister and the then Governor General, Earl Grey, gave important testimony in favour of the co-operative movement. The work of the committee occupied, I think, the best pait of the session, and it was thought inadvisable to bring the legislation further forward at that time owing to the fact that it was considered desirable to submit the evidence to the members of the House. The next year the matter was brought up again and the bill was unanimously passed by the Commons and sent to the Senate. Apparently the Senate got tangled up in the question of whether they were trespassing upon provincial rights or provincial jurisdiction, and after a somewhat prolonged debate in that House the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for a ruling on the question whether this parliament had any right to go further in this direction. Apparently it took the Department of Justice a long time to give a ruling, for we hear nothing more of the matter till the session of 1910, when Mr. Monk brought it up again. On the 14th of December, 1910, a new bill, redrafted apparently in view of certain rulings of the Department of Justice, was considered in Committee of the Whole and progress was reported. That is the last we hear of it. As you know, in the winter of 1911 there was a precipitate end to that session, followed by a general election and a change of government. Then in 1912 the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) reintroduced the matter, and I think it is very much to his credit that he did. The bill was given its first reading, but got no further, so far as I can find in the records. In the session of 1913-14 he introduced it again; it received its first reading, and, so far as I can find out, got no further. Then the war came on; we were engrossed, I presume, with other affairs, and the whole question was shelved. I submit to the government and particularly to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) the need for some permissive legislation-for that is all we want -permissive and helpful legislation to facilitate the incorporation, organization and carrying on of co-operative activities in this country.
Finally, I would like to make some reference to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). I very much regret to see that he has left the Chamber. I would like to wait for him, but I daresay I shall have to proceed. The hon. mem-
The Address-Mr. Good
ber's address drew forth great applause from the Conservative opposition. It was certainly a very frank preaching of the doctrine which they believe. I think the hon. member for St.-Lawrence-St. George is to be commended and complimented very highly by this House for the unusual diligence that he has shown in collecting and analyzing statistical information concerning Canada's finances. With much of what he said in that connection I would like to express my agreement. But I was amazed at his remarks on the tariff. Here is his argument in brief, as I understood it, and I think I do him no injustice in so condensing it:	First, Canada needs population;
the diversification of industry will increase the demand for workers and therefore attract population-I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative group will give some attention to this,-the tariff will bring about diversification of industry; ergo the tariff will bring us people, enable us to retain them, supply tonnage for our railways, and generally establish better industrial conditions.
What incontestable logic 1 It is not new however. I wish the hon. member were here, but in his absence I will address myself to the group to my right, the Conservatives. I would like them to listen to a similar plea made seventy-five years ago in France, and I hope the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will listen to it. It is "a petition of the manufacturers of candles, wax-lights, lamps, candlesticks, street lamps, snuffers, extinguishers, and of the producers of oil, tallow, resin, alcohol, and, generally, of everything connected with lighting." We have had lots of modern versions of this petition, Mr. Speaker, and I have listened to a good many of them:
To Messieurs the members of the Chamber of Deputies:
We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the production of light that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself our trade leaves us-all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered completely stagnant. This rival, who is no other than the sun, wages war to the knife against us, and we suspect that he has been raised up by perfidious Albion (good policy as times go); inasmuch as he displays towards that haughty island a circumspection with which he dispenses in our case.
What we pray for is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, outside and inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull's-eyes; in a word, of all openings, holes, chinks, clefts? and fissures, by or through which the light of the sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter ourselves we have accommodated our country-a country which, in gratitude, ought not to abandon us now to a strife so unequal.
We trust, Gentlemen, that you will not regard this our request as a satire, or refuse it without at least previously hearing the reasons which we have to urge in its support.
.And, first, if you shut up as much as possible all access to natural light, and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French manufactures will not be encouraged by it?
If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep; and, consequently, we shall behold the multiplication of meadows, meat, wool, hides, and, above all, manure, which is the basis and foundation of all agricultural wealth.
If more oil is consumed, then we shall have an extended cultivation of the poppy, of the olive, and of rape. These rich and exhausting plants will come at the right time to enable us to avail ourselves of the increased fertility -which the rearing of additional cattle will impart to our lands.
Our heaths will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will, on the mountains, gather perfumed treasures, now wasting their fragance on the desert air, like the flowers from which they emanate. No branch of agriculture but will then exhibit a cheering development.
The same remark applies to navigation. Thousands of vessels will proceed to the whale fishery; and, in a short time, we shall possess a navy capable of maintaining the honour of France, and gratifying the patriotic aspirations of your petitioners, the undersigned candle-makers and others.
But what shall we say of the manufacture of "articles de Paris?" Henceforth you will behold gildings, bronzes, crystals, in candlesticks, in lamps, in lustres, in candelabra, shining forth, in spacious warerooms, compared with which those of the present day can be regarded but as mere shops.
No poor resinier from his heights on the seacoast, no coalminer from the depth of his sable gallery, but will rejoice in higher wages and increased prosperity.
Only have the goodness to reflect, Gentlemen, and you will be convinced that there is, perhaps, no Frenchman, from the wealthy coalmaster to the humblest vendor of lucifer matches, whose lot will not be ameliorated by the success of this our petition.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take seriously the arguments that have been advanced from that time down to the present, and I suppose that will be advanced for years to come, on behalf of this policy of attempting to secure diversification of industry by such methods. Nobody objects to diversification, but I want to ask hon. members to my right whether they are quite sure that the tariff is the best thing to secure diversification, and at what price diversification is sometimes secured.


Mr. HANSON:: From what book was the hon. member quoting just now?-was it Aesop's Fables?


William Charles Good: No, I shall be very glad to lend the book to the hon. member, and I am sure he will profit from a reading of it. I have one other quotation I wish to make. It is from Woodrow Wilson's book The New Freedom. He says:
Of course, if we are going to agree to give any fellow-citizen who takes a notion to go into some business or other for which the country is not especially adapted,-if we are going to give him a bonus on every
The Address-Mr. Stevens

article he produces big enough to make up for the handicap he labours under because of some natural reason or other,-why, we may indeed gloriously diver* sify our industries, but we shall beggar ourselves. On this principle, we shall have in Connecticut, or Michir gan, or somewhere else, miles of hot-houses in which thousands of happy American workingmen, with full dinner-pails, will be raising bananas,-to be sold at a quarter apiece. Some foolish person, a benighted Democrat, like as not, might timidly suggest that bananas were a greater public blessing when they came from Jamaica and were three for a nickel, but what patriotic citizen would listen for a moment to the criticisms of a person without any conception of the beauty and glory of the great American banana industry, without realization of the proud significance of the fact that Old Glory floats over the biggest banana hothouses in the world!
Mr. Speaker, I have occupied the time of the House at considerable length, and I do not think I should say more. I do want however in conclusion, to submit to my friends to the right that they should seriously consider whether these desiderata, upon which we are all agreed, are to be secured by the methods which they advocate. We are not in disagreement as to the objects to be attained, but I want to submit again to them, in all sincerity and fairness, that they are mistaken as to the consequences and results of the methods which they so constantly and often so sincerely advocate.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a considerable degree of patience to the last speaker, (Mr. Good). I had hoped to hear from his lips some observations on the very important question of the tariff which might have been described as constructive, but instead of that, we have been treated to one or two more or less humorous observations from a couple of books. My hon. friend poses and spares no opportunity of impressing upon his fellow-members in the House the idea that he is perhaps the greatest political economist in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not at all surprised at my hon. friends calling "order," because the idea is very far from the fact. My hon. friend seeks constantly to impress the House with the idea that he is perhaps one of the leading economists of Canada, and I think we had a right to hope at least that his address to-day might have been pregnant with some presentations of solutions of problems, rather than merely a lengthy dissertation that certain problems did exist, which we all agree is the case.
Since the opening of the House I have been very much impressed with the change that has come over this Chamber. In the 
last two sessions of parliament it has been our habit to address ourselves to the government, situated on the government benches. We have looked to the Prime Minister and his cabinet for such attention as we might properly claim, in regard to demands for changes or consideration of big public questions. But I am impressed with the fact at the moment that while the form of government may still be situated across the Chamber on the treasury benches the substance thereof is really situated in the person, or around the person, of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party, for we have the word of the Prime Mininster in his address the other night that it was quite hopeless to expect him and his followers to carry into effect the policies which he has heralded all over the country as the policies of the Liberal party; to use his own words "We have to have your help," pointing his finger and directing his attention to the hon. members immediately to my left, the Progressive group. The Speech from the Throne has been described as perhaps one of the longest in our history, and I must confess that to me at least it appears to be filled-I do not wish to be harsh, but still I cannot modify my language any further-with meaningless platitudes. There are recited there a lot of pious hopes, and so very indifferently and indefinitely stated that the result is a state of chaos in the minds of the public generally. Even my hon. friends the members of the Liberal party, who held a caucus subsequent to the introduction of this important official document, one after the other confess on the floor of this House that they do not know what is meant or what is intended by the Speech. Not only is that the case, but I pick up newspaper after newspaper, editorial after editorial, and one after the other they all declare that they do not know exactly what is meant. And the most intimate friend of the government, I might say the mouthpiece of the government, the Globe, writes a column editorial trying to explain away, or at least to call a halt to, the increasing marked public opinion that certain things are meant or intended by the Speech from the Throne. But as a matter of fact, as the Globe intimates, the likelihood is, or their guess, I should say, is, that it really means something else. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) in a very excellent spgfcch yesterday-excellent in so far as form and diction are concerned-took to task the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), reprimanding him rather severely

The Address-Mr. Stevens
for using that phrase which personally I do not think was in any sense extravagant, when my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) described the haste with which the leader of the Progressive party hurried to assure the government of his unqualified support as somewhat indecent haste.


Robert Forke: May I ask a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Robert Forke: When and where did I offer the government unqualified support?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just coming to that; -I am rather under the impression that my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party, might properly be said to have displayed indecent haste in denying it. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River did not have the floor and had no opportunity of straightening out the matter, and, as it was left, there might be left on the minds of the members of the House an impression that he had misquoted the hon. leader of the Progressive party. I am going to read the interview which my hon. friend denied that he had given. First, let me read his denial, in order to save him the trouble of interrupting me again. The following appears in yesterday's Hansard- Mr. Manion: I was not referring to that speech at all; I was referring to an interview given by the hon. member's leader (Mr. Forke) some days before to the Winnipeg Free Press.
Mr. Forke: Will the hon. member kindly tell us what that statement was? I do not know what it was.
Mr. Manion: I am not on the floor at present. The statement was made and quoted all over the country in every newspaper through the Associated Press. Does the hon. member deny that he gave an interview to the Free Press?
Mr. Forke: I do not remember any interview.
Now I will refresh the hon. gentleman's memory by reading the interview which was given voluntarily by himself to the Winnipeg Free Press and published all over the country, and which I myself read, as did many thousands of others. The date is Ottawa, February 29, the day following the opening of parliament, and it refers to reactions to the Speech from the Throne having been instantaneous and decisive. Then the statement goes on- Robert Forke, M.P., leader of the Progressive party, when asked to give his opinion on the legislation forecast in the Speech, said: "It is the most hopeful sign I have seen since I entered parliament. While I have not consulted the members of this group, I feel that Mr. King should be enheartened in the task to which he has pledged his party. Lest he should fear that the government will fall between two stools in losing support from his own party and failing to attract outside support from our group, I will say that if Mr. King carries out the promises contained in the Speech from the Throne the Progressive party will give him consistent support throughout the session.
That was not enough. The article proceeds: Mr. Forke explained that he made this statement in order to convey to the Premier the knowledge that in carrying out his programme of reform, reductions in the tariff, decreased transportation costs, retrenchment and a balanced budget, the single transferable vote, the branch line construction and so on, he would not be running the slightest risk of a defeat at the hands of parliament.


Robert Forke: May I say a word in explanation? I remember a conversation along those lines. It was not a stated interview. However, I am not going to deny it. I thought I made it plain that I was speaking for myself personally, without having consulted my group. After listening to what has been said,
I will repeat it again: If the government will come through with Progressive principles they have nothing to fear from this party. I have nothing more to say. .


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to enter into any argument with my hon. friend. He has got himself into a sufficiently ^ difficult dilemma, as it is, and I will leave him there, but I want to say to him that there is scarcely an occasion when he addresses this House that he does not make special claims for himself, for the consideration of this House, which is usually and generously accorded to him. But he takes advantage of my hon. friend's enforced silence-he having already spoken in the debate-to place him in a false light before the people, and that is the reason I am correcting his wholly inaccurate statement yesterday.


Robert Forke: I may say-oh well, let him go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is very uneasy, and he may well be, because his conduct was not that which conduces to confidence in leaders of great parties. Now there is a declaration in the Speech from the Throne which has been noticed by all. It has indeed been the cause of a great deal of uncertainty, a great deal of anxiety throughout this country, and that is the declaration that it is the intention of the government in this session to put the implements of production on the free lists. I am aware that the word " free " is not used in the Speech from the Throne. But my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), who immediately followed the mover and seconder of the Address, interpreted the Speech from the Throne in that way; he interpreted it so that no one in this House could misunderstand his words; and there has not been an utterance from the government benches or from a government supporter, there has pot been a single bit of information given to the

The Address-Mr. Stevens
House contradicting the interpretation placed upon that clause by my leader. I want to direct my remarks particularly to the acting leader of the government (Mr. Graham), and I say that we have a right in this House to place that interpretation upon that clause in the Speech from the Throne. Why is it that not a minister of the Crown has entered this debate with some explanation? It has been called for by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) and by other members on that side of the House. Every one of them, one after the other, has withheld absolute condemnation of- the government and withdrawal of support on one ground only, and that is the indefiniteness of that article in the Speech from the Throne. Yet we have been in this debate for ten days or thereabouts, and not a minister of the Crown has uttered a single word of explanation, beyond the one utterance by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). What was his utterance? What did he do? He turned to the hon. member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), and to the other hon. gentlemen representing that group, and shaking his finger towards them, in cordiality, I believe, rather than in censure, he assured them, reassured them time and again, that he and his government intended to carry out every word and every inference contained in the Speech from the Throne. What I want to say to my hon. friend leading the government at this time is this, that the government owe it to this House as an act of common courtesy to come forward with a clear-cut declaration of what the article means. They also owe it to the country, to every purchaser of agricultural implements and implements of production of whatever character, to say what it means. They owe that to every distributor, every dealer, every agent and every manufacturer. Furthermore, how can a manufacturer map out his programme for the coming months? How can a manufacturer enter into the purchase of raw material on a large scale as they usually do and ought to do? How can a manufacturer enter into the purchase of his fuel supplies, how can he provide for the innumerable essentials that enter into his business, if he is faced with not only the inference but the declaration that implements of production are to be put on the free list?
My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) owes it to this House, and upon him personally rests the. responsibility at this moment, to make that point abundantly clear. Not an hour, not 	; I i*
a moment; should be allowed to pass without that being made clear. It is not sufficient for the members of the government to sit silently in their seats as they have done on two occasions already courting the closing of this debate. This debate would have been closed and a vote would have been taken upon the motion for the Address and the amendment, had the leader of the House and his colleagues had their way, without a single explanation, without any clearing up of the doubt that now rests in the minds of the people. I am appealing to my hon. friend; I make an appeal to him directly because he is usually of a reasonable mind; he is usually courteous. Why is it there is this silence, this ominous silence on the part of the government? Why is it there is not an explanation? My hon. friend said something. I did not catch it.


George Perry Graham: I was speaking to a member of the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Am I to apply to the
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) ? The Minister of National Defence is perhaps more cordial than the genial leader of the House. Will he tell us what is the correct interpretation? He turns his attention away. Let me appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). This is my first opportunity to appeal to him as Minister of Justice, and I offer him my congratulations upon his elevation. Let me appeal to him for justice. In justice to the House and the country, will he intimate what is meant by that clause? Will he make some definite statement whether what the government intend to do is as the county from one end to the other has interpreted the clause, that is, to place implements of production on the free list? That is the question. We are entitled to an answer. If the government do not mean that, in heaven's name, what do they mean? Let them tell us exactly what they mean. It is suggested that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) might answer that.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The hon. member
will get his answer in time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is affected. He is
interested.


William Richard Motherwell: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will he tell us? Is it
intended to put implements of production on the free list?


William Richard Motherwell: The Speech speaks for itself.

The Address-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says:
"The Speech speaks for itself." Will he deny the correctness of the interpretation placed upon it by my leader?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not responsible for the interpretation put upon it, It may mean something different from the interpretation put on it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will he not come to the
relief of his own supporters? Shall I name them again? The hon. member for North Waterloo, the hon. member for Brantford, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and one or two others, I repeat, have withheld their opposition to the government on this occasion for one reason only, and that is the lack of definite interpretation of the Speech from the Throne. The treasury benches are silent. They have been silent for a week, ten days, not taking the country into their confidence, jollying my hon. friends to my left with the vain hope that agricultural implements are going on the free list, afraid to come out and tell the country, frankly where they stand, throwing out these inferences and suggestions in order that they may feel public opinion. If public opinion reacts too quickly and is sensitive and restive under the suggestion then, Mr Speaker, mark my words, you who come from manufacturing centres, the soft pedal will be put upon the free-list talk. Cajole the hon. members of this party to our left who have treated them with a great deal of courtesy and support during this parliament .past this first obstacle in the session, the Speech from the Throne! So juggle the language that the hon. gentlemen will be deceived into supporting the government for what they honestly believe to be their claim and their right, and the intention of the government to give them free agricultural imnlements and other implements of production! After having deceived them to that extent, accept their support to get by the first obstacle! That is the position in which the government leave themselves. Is that a dignified position? Is it a position that calls for confidence on the part of the country? Aside absolutely from the possible effect of their acl'on, aside wholly from the record of the government in any other respect, aside from the Home Bank and one or two of the minister, is it a course that inspires confidence in the governement? Is it a course that is likely to inspire confidence in the people, which is more important, in the country itself and ist future? These are pertinent questions and they are questions
that, I think, are seething m the minds of the people from one end of this country to the other. What are the government doing in this regard? They are holding over the heads of the industries of this country, like the sword of Damocles Panging over their heads by a slender thread, the threat of annihilation of some industries and certainly drastic curtailment on the part of many others. They are nibbling at that thread. Last year they nibbled at it; they severed one strand; they reduced the preferential duty	on woollen goods to such
an extent that they have half ruined an industry, as I will show in a moment. By their action last year and the year before they have ruined one-half of the woollen industry of Canada, as I will prove. And by the threat in the Speech from the Throne this year there is certain ruination for other industries. It appears hopeless to appeal to my hon. friend the acting leader of the government (Mr. Graham). I sincerely regret the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in so far as it is due to ill-health; but it may be that in his absence my hon. friend feels that he is not qualified to speak on this important matter. It is suggested that perhaps the Prime Minister went away without taking his colleagues into his confidence as to what he really did mean by this clause. Indeed, it is rumoured that the clause was slipped in after the whole Speech had been considered by the Cabinet as a body. Of that I cannot speak other than by rumor. But these rumors, fortified by subsequent evidence, sometimes find a lodgment in one's mind and it is very difficult to dislodge them.
Now I may turn to some observations made by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke). The hon. gentleman in his speech dealt very largely with the question of the tariff and its effect on agriculture, and so on. Of course, I do not ask my hon. friends to my left to accept my conclusions, that is hopeless. I do, however, beg of them to give some consideration to the facts and figures I am about to cite, and in the light of those figures to view the whole question of protection or free trade and the interrelationship of industry and agriculture in this country. My hon. friend stated, quite properly, that 400,000,000 bushels of wheat will go from the West this year, most of it to find a market in the old world; and then he emphasized a point which has often been stressed, and which is perfectly true, that the price of this wheat is fixed by the world market. That is the basic argument, I might say, in my hon. friend's complaint
The Address-Mr. Stevens

against the policy of protection in this country. I intend to analyse that situation and place before my hon. friends certain facts which, if they will be courteous enough to consider them, may tend to modify some of their views. At the same time I beg to offer these facts to the government by way of warning against the course they ihave indicated in the Speech from the Throne. I shall try to make my figures as little tiresome as possible.
I have the figures of the total production of wheat in Canada for the last four years, and I find that in 1920 we produced 263,000,000 bushels-I give the round numbers-as compared with 474,000,000 in 1923. Now, we exported in 1920 123,000,000 bushels and last year 242,000,000 bushels. There are two other sets of figures which I will submit before I proceed to an elucidation of the facts. The milling industry in 1920 consumed 61,000,000 bushels, and in 1923 113,000,000 bushels, leaving a surplus in Canada in 1920, at the end of the year, of approximately 79,000,000 bushels, and in 1923 of 118,000,000 bushels. Let the general significance of these figures be borne in - mind, and then let us consider this question. What is the total annual consumption of wheat by the importing countries in the world? It is generally admitted to be about 650,000,000 bushels; that is accepted by all economists as about the figure. That is to say, the countries that have to import wheat for their own consumption consume in the aggregate about 650,000,000 bushels annually. Now, wheat is produced in certain major countries: the Argentine, Australia, Canada, Egypt, India, Russia-which for some years has been out of the market-a few other smaller countries, and the United States. These countries export to the importing countries this
650,000,000 bushels. If your exporting countries have a large quantity of wheat which must find a market in the world market, so-called, in excess of the 650,000,000 bushels there is going to be a very serious drop in the price of wheat. No one will dispute that. What is the situation this year? It is that Canada^ is exporting perhaps 100,000,000 bushels 'more than her normal export, indeed more perhaps than her previous high exports; and she is sending it into this world market. In other words, there is added to the world market by one country alone 100,000,000 bushels above the normal supply. That perhaps is the primary and basic cause of the low price of wheat throughout the world today. When the importing countries find wheat reaching a figure that is above what they consider a fair normal rate then they turn to potatoes, rye and other coarser foods,
[Mr. Stevens. 1
and that fact in its turn reduces the consumption of wheat. That is not a factor this year; I state it merely to show what is the equalizing element in the fixation of world prices.
Now I want to bring my hon. friends' attention to another aspect of the question. As I have already intimated, we consumed last year in Canada in the milling industry
113,000,000 bushels, and for seed and other purposes we used perhaps another 50,000,000 bushels. And we have a large surplus. The point I want to make, which I shall try to state in detail later on, I will now submit in a general way, and it is this. The hope of the wheat grower in Canada rests more in increasing the home consumption than it does in producing more wheat to send to an already over-supplied world market. I do not think there is any escape from that conclusion. Do not let this fact escape our minds in considering the question: the normal consumption is about the same; it does not vary very much. The world consumption of wheat for years and years has been around the figure of 650,000,000 bushels. It is not increasing year by year as consumption in a new country like Canada increases. My hon. friends who grow wheat or who represent wheat growers can ] never expect to overcome the handicap of | that world market by simply growing more | wheat and taking the duty off the implements of production. That is not the solution and it never will be. On the other hand, if Canada can be developed so that the consuming public will absorb another hundred million bushels then the present crop in Canada can be marketed without disturbing the world market, and can be marketed at an advantageous price to the farmer,


Robert Forke: What is the trouble with the wheat growers of the United States? Why are the farmers in the wheat-growing states in such a deplorable condition with a population of 110.000,000 or so?


Henry Herbert Stevens: First of all, the United
States is still a wheat-exporting country.


Robert Forke: You said, a smaller exporting country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such a statement. I am surprised at my hon. friend's pique simply because I took him to task a moment ago.


Robert Forke: We shall see what Hansard says to-morrow.


An hon. MEMBER:: He will cut it out of Hansard.

The Address-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will not cut it out of Hansard. My hon. friend is a little in error. What I said was that there were certain major wheat exporting countries, and then I added the United States. Now I say to my hon. friend, first, that the United States is a wheat exporting country and that the price of wheat is fixed by world market conditions; secondly, that that is not the only reason.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is not the United States a wheat importing country also?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me pass on for a moment. The second reason is, that the wheat growing areas of the United States, which are perhaps ten to twenty years in advance, in time of operation, of the Canadian wheat growing areas, are producing a lower quantity of crop per annum and per acre than we or any other newer wheat growing country is producing. There is no question about that. Now I turn to my hon. friend's question-a perfectly proper one:	Is not the United States
a wheat importing country? Yes, to some extent and for one purpose. They import our hard wheat to mix with their soft wheat for milling purposes in order to produce flour of the requisite quality.	.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but for the purpose of information I would ask him if the great increase in the amount of Canadian wheat milled in Canada has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the export of Canadian flour, or has the increase been consumed wholly at home?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall give my hon. friend the figures if he likes. In 1920 our mills consumed 61,000,000 bushels of grain and produced 13,000,000 barrels of flour, of which they exported 4,700,000 barrels. In 1923-my hon. friend will note the figures-the mill consumption was approximately 113,000,000 bushels of grain-this may not be exact, but it is as near as I can get it; I have not the production-and of the flour turned out 11,000,000 barrels were exported. In other words, the export to-day is about three times what it was in 1920. So the increased production was accompanied by increased export. That brings me back to what I was trying to elucidate, namely, that the chief hope of the wheat producer in Canada is the increased consumption of wheat and wheat products within our own boundaries. I think there is no escape from that.
Now, let me turn to a consideration of the argument put forward, that Canada is a great agricultural country, and if an industry cannot live without protection it has no right
to live at all. I know that is an extreme statement, but sometimes you have to make your statements extreme in order to bring them forcibly to the front. I repeat the statement, that Canada being chiefly an agricultural country, industries that cannot exist without protection should be allowed to sink or swim in competition with the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of my hon. friends says "hear, hear", a little timidly. I do not agree with that view at all. I want to make my position so clear that there will be no mistake about it. I am absolutely convinced that the only fiscal policy for Canada to-day and for many years to come is a policy based on protection of Canadian industries for the upbuilding of the Dominion. I think I can demonstrate some facts in connection with this that will justify my position.


Mr. WARNER:: How do you proceed to protect the wheat grower?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to show my hon. friend how I think he can be protected. He cannot be protected against competition in the world markets; that might as well be admitted at once. There is a possibility, however, of his getting a larger market at home, and by the increase of domestic consumption catching up to the production which is now in excess of the demand. My hon. friend from Brandon used certain figures last week, and I merely want to place beside them some other figures, not to controvert his statement but merely to make a fair comparison. He stated that there had been a tremendous increase in the cost of farm machinery, and he gave us three articles in illustration of this: a plough, a mower and a wagon. His figures indicated that the increase in the cost of a plough to-day over the 1914 price was 82 per cent, of a wagon 51 per cent, and of a mower 63 per cent. These are facts which I do not dispute for a moment, but I have taken the trouble to look into the increased value of farm products. Do not let the House misunderstand me. As I say, I have not done this with the idea of controverting my hon. friend's facts at all, but merely to get a fair comparison. I take the Winnipeg Grain Exchange prices for wheat on October 6, 1913 and 1923:
1913	1923
Wheat No. 1	 81J cents 99f cents
There is an increase of 23 per cent.
1913	1923
Oats No. 2 C.W	 33|	43|
That is an increase of 51 per cent. For butter I am taking the Montreal Export market.
The Address-Mr. Stevens


An hon. MEMBER:: You have switched.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not switched with any idea of deceiving. I am taking the recognized markets the world over for these commodities.
1913	1923
No 1 Creamery Butter....	27} cents 35J cents
Cheese	
13	21Or an average incerase on those four farm products of 44 per cent. There is a discrepancy, and a serious discrepancy-there is no question about it-between those two sets of figures, and I think it perhaps illustrates the difficulty now existing between success and failure on the farm. But let me say in fairness that 1923 does not reflect the price, for instance, of wheat over a period of years. For the sake of illustration I will give the average of the last four years' prices on wheat over the 1913 price. In 1913 wheat was 81 i cents, and the average for the four years just closed, including 1923, is $1.56, or an increase of 92 per cent. This includes, of course, the peak years, 1920 and 1921, and should not be taken into consideration to confuse the present problem. But when my hon. friends are talking about the implement industry let them reflect that the Massey-Harris Company, for instance, has had three years of serious loss. It is true that in the previous years, 1920, 1919 and 1918, they made profits; so did my hon. friends. There was no criticism in 1920 about the price of wheat. So, when we are looking at this problem do not let us pick out the leanest years we have known for a long period on one side, and then pick out on the other side of the argument some	fat year	such as we
had during the latter years of the war.
I want to turn to a specific case. I have under my hand some particulars with regard to what is one of the tragedies that I referred to a moment ago in connection with dickering and tampering with the tariff, and that is the tragedy of the woollen industry of Canada. I have here a great many figures and facts which I am not going to deal with, but I wish to give just a few in order that we may visualize the effect of even a small interference with this trade, and I am going to try to show at least how it adversely affects even the pro ducer of agricultural products.
The normal employment in the woollen industry is 21,800 and some odd. The annual wage bill is $17,000,000 and the cost of material is $34,900,000. In other words the woollen industry under normal conditions-not even at its maximum, but in the ordinary course- employs 21,800 consuming Canadian citizens who receive a wage aggregating $17,000,000, 
and in addition to that there is spent in the purchase of raw material, a substantial portion of which is bought within the country itself, more than $34,000,000. But to-day, since the amendment made by my hon. friends opposite to the tariff effecting a reduction in the British preference, this employment has been reduced to 10,800, or less than one-half what it was a little over a year ago. That is directly attributable to the reduction in the tariff. Let me demonstrate that. I will take first the wages. Wages constitute 55 per cent of the value of the goods-and this is not hearsay; it is actual demonstrated fact without any peradventure, and hon. gentlemen can readily verify it. Now, here is a comparison of the wages paid in Canada with those paid in Great Britain. I have reduced the English rates to the basis of Canadian currency, and the result is the following:
Occupation
Winders	
Twisters	
Spinners	
Heelers	
Doffers	
Overlookers	
Warehousemen	
Blenders, carbonizers, labourers	
Male help in grey room, stockroom and packing
department	
Firemen and greasers.. ..
British rate Canadian rate
15	92	$13	to	$156	34	13	to	155	77	13	to	1.56	52	17	to	205	22	13	to	1517	03	35	to	6012.	.06	19	to	2212	06	18	to	2012 30	19 to 2213.89	30
So that the rate in Canada is just about double, taking it right through, what it is in Great Britain. Ontario has a law fixing a minimum wage of $12.50 a week. In Ontario, therefore,-and members from that province will correct me if I am wrong- under the minimum wage law it is obligatory upon any employer to pay a minimum of $12.50 per week. So that employers in that province cannot get down to the British wages. There is no question of competition there; it is fixed by statute-and practically all these mills are in Ontario. So that the rate is fixed by Canadian statute, approved and supported by the Canadian people, and that makes a difference of double the rate in wages. I have said that the wage value is the equivalent of 55 per cent of the value of the goods; take one-half of that and you have 27i per cent, which is the handicap of the Canadian manufacturer before he is permitted to compete in the open market with his competitor across seas. In other words, the whole of the protection of the woollen industry before it was interfered with by the government a year or two ago was absorbed in the fixed additional wage that must be paid in Canada over and above

The Address-Mr. Stevens
that paid in Great Britain. These are very significant figures, Mr. Speaker, and very important facts.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Since the dinner hour I
have had placed in my hand another illustration of the effect of interference with the tariff by this government during the last two years. I will read briefly this article which appears in one of the local papers, and undoubtedly will appear in all of the financial press, to-morrow:
The Hawthorn Woollen Mills at Carleton Place have gone into voluntary liquidation and will close down. The mill when working full time employed over two hundred hands f,nd paid wages and salaries of $250,000 annually.
Then follows a declaration by the mayor of Carleton Place that he considers this a catastrophe to the town. There is a long statement of reasons why this mill has been forced to close down, and I shall quote very briefly merely to illustrate what I shall more fully emphasize later on:
Mr. Richard Thomson, owner of the mill, has been forty-four years in the woollen milling business.
This is not an institution that has been operated by inexperienced persons but by a man that has spent all his life in the business, and to him, it must be remembered, and to the two hundred employees trained and skilled in this work, and in no other, the closing down of the mill is a question of life. It is not merely a question of closing down a piece of machinery. It means the man's livelihood, and indeed everything which is of value to the individual.
Another factor that must be kept in mind is that there was 140,000 hundredweight of incoming freight, raw material and other things used in connection with the mill's operations, and 12,000 hundredweight of outgoing freight. This I shall refer to at length in a moment. Mr. Thomson goes on t'o refer to the tariff in connection with woollens, and he brings to light the fact which is well known to members of this House, that the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who we all regret is laid aside through illness, did when he was in office a few years ag6, increase the duty from twenty to thirty per cent in order that the woollen industry of Canada might survive, and it not only did survive but prospered during a period of years, until in the last year or two unholy
hands were again laid upon the tariff and the closing down of this mill is one of the results.
Then he refers to the exchange question, and I shall refer to that in a general way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the result of this scrapping of ar_ industry? What are some of the effects of destroying the active operation of an industry of this kind? These are questions we have a right to ask. First, and I put it first, there is the direct effect upon those engaged in the industry, and whether a man is engaged in agriculture, as an artisan in a factory, or as a member of an office staff, that is his livelihood and naturally the stoppage affects him very directly. In this woollen industry there are some 12,000 people thrown out of work, and in this particular industry at Carleton Place over 200 employees are thrown out, with no hope of re-employment even in the near future in connection with this plant. I might add that about one thousand individuals formerly engaged in the woollen industry in Canada according to actual records kept, have gone to the United States. These are the best skilled men in the industry, and they will probably be lost to the industry in Canada for all time, at least, a substantial number of them. As was well pointed out by my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond) this afternoon, when Canada trains a man or woman in any particular industry and that individual leaves the country and finds permanent employment in some other country, that is the loss of a real asset to the country-a decided loss.
This in my estimation is so important a matter that I might be pardoned for digressing a moment from the immediate argument. May I pause to say this? One of the reasons that enabled Great Britain to maintain her supremacy in the manufacturing world after the introduction of free trade was that other countries had no skilled labour, or very little, in the industries such as, particularly, cotton, woollen, iron and steel. I merely cite that in passing. In other words, the value of the skilled artisan is something that not only cannot be measured in dollars and cents; it is something that cannot be replaced except in a long period of time. We have lost those workers.
I come now to a question, a very pertinent question, asked by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) yesterday, and I shall analyze it in some detail. He cited transportation as one of the great problems of Canada. I agree with him, and further I endorse every word he said with regard to the pos. sibility of solving the perplexing question of

The Address-Mr. Stevens
the adverse charge in regard to the mountain scale but I am not going to discuss that at this time. Transportation is one of the important questions, he said. It is. I have checked up several industries, I have made careful inquiry, and this is an established fact; in any class of industry that you may choose, the incoming freight to that factory is from three to fifteen times the amount of the outgoing freight. I want this fact to be seized by hon. gentlemen of this House. In the case of the woollen industry, for instance, the incoming freight to the factory is from fifteen to twenty times as great as the outgoing freight. In other words, such a factory must bring in by freight its raw material, its fuel, coal, its packing materials such as shooks for boxes and cases, its lubricating oils, its spare parts for machinery, firebrick for the furnaces, which is a constant article of replacement, and many other articles of that kind. It is a constant tonnage flowing into that factory. In the case of the woollen factory the proportion is from fifteen to twenty-one. Taking the case of shelf hardware, for another illustration, I have made careful inquiries, and I find that in that class of manufacture the incoming tonnage to the factory, as compared with the outgoing tonnage, is five to one. In connection with, I think it is glassware, the incoming tonnage is approximately four to one, and you can go down through the list with similar results. They range from three to four to one, to as high as twenty to one. The point I am making is this; if you buy an article, whether it is cloth, glassware or hardware, any article of a manufactured character you may choose, from a foreign country, it reaches your seaboard or your boundary point, and from there you get the tonnage on the finished article. If you buy a Canadian article you have not only furnished exactly the same tonnage, but you have furnished from four to twenty times the amount of tonnage in the materials and other things entering into the manufacture of that article. Is that point clear? Is it not a vital point in one of the most perplexing problems facing Canada to-day, namely transportation? I am going to reiterate, and if necessary to weary the House, that this point may be made abundantly clear; and I will go further; if you import an article, assume it comes via New York, it will come in bond over the American railway to the nearest point to the factory. In the case of Winnipeg it would come in bond to Minneapolis, and from there to Winnipeg, and Canadian roads would get a very small haul. Then coming in from New York to Hamilton, Toronto or Montreal, there is only a few miles-
of haul over a Canadian railway. But assuming it comes from our own seaboard, you still have the fact that by the importation of that article you have destroyed an amount of tonnage from four to twenty times greater than the tonnage of the imported article. How do we expect our railways to function under these circumstances? How do we expect this over-railroaded Canada of ours that we hear so much about, where we have too much railway for the population, to get along? How are you going to help freight rates if you take away from the railway companies a very substantial portion of the tonnage to which they are justly and properly entitled? That is my point with regard to the tonnage, and I am not going to labour it further.
Let me bring this same argument back to where I was when I introduced this portion of my remarks, namely that perhaps the main product of Canada that we sell in the world's markets is wheat, or wheat products, chiefly wheat. That article is marketed in competition with the world. Its price is fixed in Liverpool or at some central point usually determined or described as Liverpool. We cannot control that market. There is no possibility of our controlling it. On the other hand, in Canada we consume a certain amount of the wheat we grow. If we encourage the development of industry in Canada, if we increase the industrial population of Canada, then we are going to increase the consumption of wheat in Canada, and lessen the amount of wheat we have for export to this uncontrolled market, and to my mind, Mr. Speaker, there is no species of argument that can overcome that stubborn fact that the only way you are going to catch up with the over-production of wheat in Canada is by the increasing industrial life of this country.


Mr. McCONICA:: Suppose you increase
population by bringing ten million wheat consumers into Canada, and they manufacture in Canada and consume Canadian wheat, do you not decrease the wheat consumers of England or some other country just as much as you increase them in Canada, and is the net result on the world's supply not exactly the same?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that is not the case, and I will explain why. Hon. members laugh. If a laugh is to be logic, I must say I cannot meet that logic, but my hon. friend's question is a most pertinent and sensible one. It is a question that ought to be faced and faced very frankly, and I will try to face it as well as I can. As I understand the point, it is this. If we bring ten million artisans into Canada, increasing the industrial life of this
The Address-Mr. Stevens
country by that process, do we not deplete the consuming market overseas? That is virtually his question. I will answer it very bluntly, and then perhaps in a little more detail. My first argument is this. The standard of the consuming market has been approximately the same for a great many years; that is about 650,000,000 bushels a year. The consumption is distributed over a tremendously large population, and a few drawn from that population makes no appreciable difference. My second argument is that if we were drawing from Europe we would not necessarily be drawing from a wheatrconsuming country. A great many of them would be, but some of them might not be. My third point-and perhaps this is the most significant point-is that for a century at least the natural increase of population in Eurpoe has been largely, not wholly but substantially, absorbed by emigration to the United States, Canada and Australia. So that the natural increase in Great Britain will easily keep pace with any emigration-from Great Britain. I think there is no question about that. You may take the figures as you like. For instance we will take Great Britain. Her population doubled in the last century. Then take France, which is one of the slowest in regard to the natural increase in population of any country in Europe, she has increased by at least ten million in the last sixty years. Germany has increased by easily double her population sixty years ago. Belgium has increased. I think Norway and Sweden, perhaps have not increased very much, but nearly all of the European countries have very largely increased by a natural process, but a substantial portion even of that increase is going to the States and Canada, and I cannot see for the life of me that there need be the slightest apprehension on that point. But I would point out the fact that Canada's wheat growing possibilities are capable of an immense expansion beyond her production to-day. Some hon. gentlemen in this House could give exact figures from memory, but I cannot. I venture, however, to say that we have not 10 per cent of our arable wheat growing lands under cultivation yet. Therefore there is room for an immense expansion in wheat growing. But what I am trying to plead with my hon. friends is that they will realize that one of the greatest hopes, not, .perhaps the only one hope, for the wheat producer of Canada is increased consumption within Canada. I do not think there is any question about it.


Daniel Webster Warner: Is the wheat production not liable to increase more rapidly than the consuming public?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unquestionably; all the
more emphasis on the need for increasing the consumption at home. Let us get down* to concrete cases. Here you take the duty off woollens. You put 12,000 men out of work. You have sent 1,000 of them, at least, out of the country already and more probably will follow. Is any more wheat consumed in Canada because of that? Is this surplus that we have to-day not added to by that very fact? Have you not accentuated the evil? That is the point which I am trying to emphasize. Is there not, on the other hand, an opportunity of minimizing the evil by increasing the home consumption?


Mr. MORIN:: The hon. member said a
moment ago that if the population of Canada was increased, the local consumption would increase, but that would not affect the price of wheat if there was a surplus of production.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not catch my hon. friend's question.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: If the consumption of
wheat was increased in Canada, how would that affect the price if there was still a surplus of production for export?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not speaking so
much of increase of price. What I am trying to point out is this. Canada, this year, has placed upon the world market 100,000,000 bushels odd-I think I am well within the mark in putting the quantity at that figure- more than we put on the world market last year. The world market is, comparatively speaking, a fixed market; but the producing countries, if they continue to increase the surplus that they have for this world market, by that process depress the price abroad, and inasmuch as the price is fixed abroad, the price on the home market is depressed. If you can put on the world market approximately the same quantity as it will consume, then you have an opportunity of keeping that price at a reasonably decent figure. That, however, is not all. Would a million people in Canada, consuming Canadian wheat not be of infinitely greater value to the Canadian wheat grower than a million people in Europe consuming Canadian wheat? Let us look at the matter in a different way. In the city of Toronto, there are probably half a million people. Can we not visualise for a moment the tremendous quantity of tonnage for our railways which my hon. friend spoke of yesterday, the tremendous consumption of Canadian-made goods which they will require? Take a city with a population of a million people and try to visualise what that means in tonnage, in the consumption of other lines

The Address-Mr. Stevens
of farm products, in the consumption of Canadian-made articles and the impetus to an all-round national life for this country. Compare that with the bare shipment of two or three shiploads of wheat to the foreign country. Then answer me which is to the best advantage of Canada. That is the question.


Daniel Webster Warner: Does the hon. member
think it is likely that we shall get as many consumers as that without getting the producing element in greater proportion and thus increasing rather than decreasing the surplus?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot quite catch the point, but I will answer it in this way. I have this in connection with my remarks in any case, and I think it will meet the point. What is required in Canada is a more even balance between the producers of foodstuffs and the consumers of foodstuffs. I must be most weak in placing my argument if I cannot make myself clearly understood.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will agree with my hon. friends that it has been impossible for me to penetrate their minds with this argument. But it surely must be clear to them that it is a distinct advantage to the grower of wheat if, by the increase of the industrial population of this country, there is a reduction in the exportable surplus which must find its sale upon the markets of the world. I am not going to labour that particular point any longer; but in my estimation the fiscal policy for this country should be so framed as to develop and increase and accentuate the development of the industrial life of Canada rather than to pay out large sums of money to bring in additional, inexperienced agricultural producers at this time.


Daniel Webster Warner: Would the hon. member
not have to stop the increase in production if his logic is carried out?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will stop automatically. I will not have to stop it. That is one of the things, in connection with the law of production or the law of supply and demand, that I tried to point out this afternoon. This is what occurs when your foreign market is bare, when it falls below the normal average of 650,000,000 bushels and your price soars. The consuming people in the consuming market to which I referred turn to potatoes and rye, and the consumption of wheat falls until the price of wheat reaches a point at which they can afford to purchase it. My hon. friend need not fear the need of control. That will be done by the natural law of supply and demand.


Daniel Webster Warner: Not if you get double the population raising wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For five years-for seven years Russia has been out of the wheat exporting business. This year, for the first time in five years, Russia sent into Great Britain a very large quantity of wheat. In one month she sent 44,000 tons into the port of Manchester. I have not the figures for the whole of Great Britain. But mark my words, next year and the year following, Russia will again be a tremendous factor in the export of wheat to the world market. I say to the Canadian wheat farmer that if he wants to safeguard his industry, that will be done by looking not to the requirements of that foreign market, but to the consumption in Canada of as much Canadian wheat as possible.
Let me turn my argument, for a moment, to another line. I appreciate that I have been speaking very much longer than I had intended to do; but interruptions called for explanation and reply, and made my remarks more extended perhaps than I had intended them to be. I want, however, to give to the House some very interesting figures in connection with Canada's foreign trade. I have used these figures publicly on two or three occasions, and, perhaps, they will fit into my argument and the position taken by myself and my colleagues in this House. In the last fifteen years the United Kingdom has sold to Canada $1,645,000,000 worth of goods and it has bought from Canada in the same period $5,070,000,000 worth of goods. In that period-I am giving these figures merely in comparison

the United States sold to Canada $7,084,000,000 worth of goods and bought from us $3,830,000,000 worth of goods. I have the figures for eleven European countries, and while I will not give all the countries, I will give the figures in toto. During the last fiscal year we sold to those eleven countries $75,870,000 worth of goods and we bought from them only $36,600,000 worth of goods. In other words, we sold them $2 worth of goods for every dollar's worth we bought from them. I take the trans-Pacific trade as another division. This includes six trans-Pacific countries, the most important. We sold last year to these countries $51,000,000 worth of goods and from them we bought $14,000,000 worth, or approximately three to one. I have gone back over a period of fifty years and I find that the same state of affairs, with certain minor differences here and there, characterizes the whole of that time: throughout the period we have bought from the United States two dollars

The Address-Mr. Stevens
for every dollar we have sold them, whereas in other instances in our trade with Europe, the trans-Pacific and Great Britain, we have sold to these countries from two to three dollars for every dollar we have purchased from them. Now a pertinent question appeals to me in this connection: Is our fiscal policy at the present time so framed as to bring about a proper distribution of our foreign trade? That is the important question. Here are the figures for many years, and no marked variation will be found in them if one goes back over this extended period. What is the effect of all this? The effect is seen in two other sets of figures which I shall give to the House. The average annual excess of exports over imports in our trade with the United Kingdom for that period of fifteen years is $228,000,000, whereas the average annual excess of imports over exports in our trade with the United States during the same period is on the other hand $217,000,000. What is the situation? Great Britain owes us and has owed us annually-and it is increasing-for that fifteen years an average of $228,000,000. Where does she pay that money? Does she pay it in Montreal? Where are the bills settled? Great Britain settles our claims against her by paying them in New York. Now there is a vital significance in that fact, and that significance is apparent, for one thing, in the exchange of four per cent against the Canadian dollar in New York. It was apparent to a marked degree three years ago when the exchange stood at nineteen per cent on one occasion against our dollar. But the main point I am making is that for this period of time we have had this adverse balance of trade as regards the United States and there has been no real advantage from the favourable balance of trade in relation to Great Britain. I say, therefore, to the government and to the people of Canada that not only is it desirable so to improve the industrial conditions of this country that we shall increase our industrial population, so to protect the industries of Canada that they may have an opportunity to survive and develop in the teeth of foreign competition, but it is also highly desirable so to frame our fiscal policy as to divert a portion of these purchases from the United States to such countries as have for so many years been favouring us with their purchases. What is the practical remedy? In a few words it is this, that the general tariff of Canada should be placed on a stable basis and as to farm products be increased. That is the first requisite. In the 20
second place, we should make such treaties with other countries as deal favourably with our goods as will give us an advantage in their markets; and in so far as other countries are prepared to give us such an advantage I would advocate preferential treaties with them, although not preferential treaties that would destroj' Canadian industry.
I have under my hand a mass of figures regarding our foreign trade, and while I do not wish to weary the House with a recital of them I desire to point out one thing. Since the French Treaty was entered into what has been the result? I do not for a moment criticize the making of a treaty with France, but I do think that it is a matter for criticism that we should open our markets to such luxuries as brandies, wines, silks, satins and so forth. We do question the propriety of that. What is the fact in connection with our imports of wines, brandies and whiskey? Our imports fiom France have increased enormously while our revenue has actually fallen in a marked degree. There has been no advantage from the standpoint of the revenue although there has been a tremendous importation of foreign whiskeys, brandies and wines; and besides there has been a great increase in the direction of silk and articles of that nature. There is no reason in my opinion why, in so far as it is necessary to sell these tilings in Canada, we should not encourage the manufacture of them in this country. I know of course the stock argument against this. There is the old well-worn excuse or apology, that if you do not trade with foreign countries, if you do not buy their goods, you cannot expect to sell them your own products. Time will not permit me to do so just now, but on some future occasion I shall show to the House how that policy has affected in a very marked degree certain lines of activity in this country. For the moment, however, let me say that outside of such industries as I have been referring to-the woollen industry, the implement manufacturing industry, the shelf hardware industry and innumerable allied industries of that character-there are many articles that will be trafficked in between Canada and other countries that cannot be profitably or suitably manufactured here. But what I am asking is that we should carefully survey this field and consider the principle of protection altogether without apology. I am tired of apologising for the principle of protection; I am absolutely weary of hearing people offer excuses on behalf of it. Let us clearly state that we are

The Address-Mr. Stevens

in favour of protecting Canadian industries so that those industries may be established here. I am utterly sick of such utterances as those of my hon. friend this afternoon. He tempered his protective speech with the suggestion, of revenue. I say, I am weary of seeing my hon. friends opposite going up and down the country preaching a tariff for revenue and then whispering in the ears of the manufacturers-"Sh-we will protect you, we will not let you get hurt." Let hon. gentlemen come out frankly and declare whether thej' are in favour of free trade or protection. Do they still offer that old excuse that protection is an immoral principle, that it is something to be shunned, something that we should not talk about? In my estimation it is the one sane fiscal policy for Canada for the present time and perhaps for another decade or two at least.
I began my remarks with what I thought was a courteous and certainly a very pressing plea that the government might relieve the country of the anxiety into which it has plunged it by its own action. There can be no question that industry and commerce and finance in Canada to-day are in a very anxious mood. I have been heartened to this extent, that I am told that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is likely to speak to-night or perhaps to-morrow. If he does I hope he will, with his judicial mind, give to the House a clear-cut statement of what is meant by these ambiguous terms in the Speech from the Throne.
There is one thing which I had forgotten to deal with and which I beg to refer to now, and that is the interpretation that has been put upon the proposed lowering of taxation, namely, the putting upon the free list of instruments of production. Does that include other than farm implements? I have a right to assume that it does. There arrived in Ottawa to-day a fellow citizen of mine, the Hon. Mr. Sloan, Minister of Mines of British Columbia. Mr. Sloan comes with a plea, which is of a piece with what has been the policy of the government and their supporters for years-he is come to make a sectional appeal. He is going to ask the government to put mining and sawmill machinery upon the free list. Why? Now, I want my hon. friends to my left to listen to this because it is another example of the camouflage policy of hon. members opposite. He figures that by so doing the great Liberal party will ingratiate itself with the immense lumbering and mining industries of British Columbia.
I say to the ministry, and to all my constituents, that I have absolutely no patience 
with the policy of proposing something in order to get a few votes locally at the expense of the welfare of the whole country. I go further. Without camouflaging my statement in language such as we find in the Speech from the Throne, I place myself on record that I am absolutely opposed to putting mining and sawmilling machinery on the free list unless everything else is put on the free list and we go the whole distance with free trade. The government will never do that with my support or approval, but in the face of my most bitter opposition. Let it be clearly understood that I stand for the protection of mining and sawmilling machinery just as I stand for the protection of other lines. I will tell my hon. friends why. The mining industry of Canada cannot prosper if our industrial life languishes. The only way in which iron, steel, lead, copper, zinc and other minerals can be mined and used successfully in Canada is if our industrial life is prosperous and consuming large quantities of raw materials. Therefore, if we are to protect our industries, as I advocate, then I ask for no exemption for that branch. Let me turn to lumbering. It might be an advantage if the machinery used in the manufacture of lumber could be placed on the free list. But I want reasonable protection for these articles into which lumber enters as an element, and if I want that I have no right, if I am to be consistent, to ask that the machinery of the sawmill be put on the free list; and I will not do so. I say to the government: Turn a deaf ear to this gentleman from British Columbia who is seeking merely to control a few votes by boasting, that he secured for them special privilege as against those engaged in other industries.
Now, will the minister who is leading the House give to us an explanation of just what the government intends to do in regard to this clause in the Speech from the Throne? I say to the minister, basing my remarks upon all the precedents in this case, that they had no constitutional right to predict in the Speech from the Throne that there would likely be reductions in the tariff. It is wholly inconsistent with our constitutional practice, and I do not know of any case where it was done previously.


Mr. McMASTER:: It was done in 1907.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was general. There is a vast difference between saying that the duty on the instruments of production in certain branches of industry are likely to be reduced, and that it is intended to make a general revision of the tariff. No one would object to the latter statement appearing in
The Address-Mr. McBride
the Speech from the Throne. But I want my hon. friend to realize-and I am sorry if I have failed to impress this upon him-I want him to realize that there is uncertainty and anxiety prevailing throughout the country regarding this matter. I have before me editorials from the Globe and other Toronto journals, and from the Montreal and western newspapers, all of which are interpreting this particular paragraph in the Speech from the Throne as meaning that the tariff on agricultural implements is to be substantially reduced. As I said before, how can the commercial and industrial interests of this country function properly under this condition? How can a manufacturer or a distributor place his orders? Therefore I say to the government that we demand-and I think I am fair in putting it that way-we demand an explanation of the clause; we demand it in the interests of the businesses that are affected, and we demand it in the interests of the country . generally. I go a step further. I predict that my hon. friend from Brandon will find that he was altogether too hasty in accepting the clause as a fulfilment of the government's policy of 1919 or of the Progressive platform of that year; or, to put it more specifically,
I predict that he, and his party will get very meagre satisfaction when they review the budget in regard to any reduction of the tariff on agricultural implements. The government is frightened. They show every evidence of fear-they fear the electors, they fear their own personal supporters in this House. They do not desire to put this question to a test.
I challenge them to put it to a test here, and I make the still more hopeless challenge that they put it to a test in the country. Why, at least half of those hon. members who are supporting, or who are supposed to be its supporters, have challenged the government -mildly, it is true, because of the ambiguity of the clause-but nevertheless they have indicated how they stand. And if the government dare to come out with a clear-cut statement, there will be serious defections from among its own ranks.


William Richard Motherwell: Do not worry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture has come to life! I wonder if he will tell us what he thinks about this?


William Richard Motherwell: It looks fine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says. "It
looks fine." One thing is certain, he will do anything within his power to retain his seat 20i
for another year and the salary of Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Cheap.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps my hon. friends think the minister ought to be removed from parliament? I agree with them in that, and I think the country would also agree. In all probability his constituents will agree to his early removal, if he will give them an opportunity of expressing their opinions. But in any case I say we are entitled to this declaration. I challenge my hon. friends opposite to make such a declaration, and I challenge them further to give expression in the budget, within a week if they can or at any time to the clause which is causing all this controversy and anxiety throughout the country.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House at any length. Indeed, it seems to me that hon. members who hold the floor for two and two and a half hours have no regard either for their fellow members or for the expense they are putting the taxpayers to; certainly they are not the type of statesmen who are ever likely to make Canada what we would all wish to see her become-a country where goodfellowship and propriety prevail from shore to shore.
There are one or two points that I would just like to touch on, and I will be as brief as possible. I have in mind the tariff taxation, and railway extensions. Now I am frank to admit that when I came to this House a little over two years ago I was about as hidebound a dyed-in-the-wool high tariff man as there was in this chamber, but after listening to the discussion of the question from the point of view of both sides of the House I must admit that I have changed my opinion a good deal. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) did put up one argument this afternoon that I admit is a hard one to answer when he showed that the government of Ontario fixed the minimum rate of wage for that province and it was twice as high as the wage paid in the Old Country, and that half the cost of the manufacture of some goods was taken up in wages. Well, that applies to the Old Country but it does not apply to the country to the south of us. Why should a man who buys an auto in this country pay a thousand dollars more for it than he would have to pay on the other side? That is a hard question to answer. If a man goes over to the United
The Address-Mr. McBride

States, buys an auto and pays $3,000 for it, he brings it into Canada and pays $1,000 by way of duty. That $1,000 goes toward helping to reduce his taxes, but if he buys the auto in Canada, where does that $1,000 go? It goes into the pockets of those who have taken advantage of the tariff. I am not a free trader entirely, but I cannot help thinking that the people of Canada have stood that sort of thing just about as long as they are entitled to. I will admit that in certain cases industries need protection until they get on their feet, but when they have been given protection for the last fifty years, almost until they have grown whiskers, it is about time the people of Canada stopped feeding them on the bottle.
In connection with taxation, a number of people say that taxation on income is not right, that it is driving people out of the country; that the sales tax is not a good tax, and is helping to drive people to the other side. In my opinion a tax on income is a fit and proper tax. It would be interesting to know how many of the people who are whining about this tax grew wealthy out of the war. If a man of means in this country refuses to pay income tax, it is up to the government to see that he does. We had slackers in the war, and we have them still. These people do not want to pay their fair share of taxation necessary to keep our people who went out and fought Canada's battle and who came back here maimed and broken. As for the sales tax, I know of no way that the government can collect money better than by imposing a tax at the source of production. I think it is a fair tax and that the government will make no mistake if they continue it and properly enforce it. In my judgment they have not a sufficient staff at Vancouver to enforce that tax as it ought to be enforced; however, that is for them to say. Then, there is the tax on liquor. A deputation came to me before I left Vancouver and said, "McBride, when you go down to Ottawa we want you to use your influence in having the duty reduced on liquor coming 9 p.m. into this country." When I asked to what extent they thought it should be reduced, they replied from 50 to 100 per cent, and they added that if the duty were reduced by that amount the government would not lose anything, I said, "Does that mean that the consumption of liquor will be doubled if the duty on it is reduced?" They said yes. "Well," I said "when I go to Ottawa, under those conditions I will use all the influence I have to induce the government to double the duty on liquor." There 
is as good liquor manufactured in Canada as can be brought into the country, too much of the foreign stuff is used.
There is one tax, though, to which I object, and that is the tax on demand loans. That, 1 think, is not a fair tax. If a man puts his own cheque in the bank for say, $20,000, he pays one dollar in taxes; up to last year it was two, but it was reduced, and I was opposed to that reduction. If he puts a demand note in the bank he pays no less than $32 a year. I say that is not fair. It may be in line with what the Scriptures say: "Who hath not, from him shall be taken that he hath." It may be the law of the country, but I say it is neither right nor just. It is giving the man who has the money an advantage to the extent of one and a half per cent over the man who has to borrow it in the bank, and I think that should be changed and changed at once. Indeed, I do not think that the government intended that it should be that way.
In regard to railway extensions, we have a railroad out there in British Columbia that could be an excellent feeder for the Canadian National. It has to pay interest on five and a half million dollars although it' is not earning anything. I am referring to the line from Kamloops to Kelowna. It will cost about one and a half millions to complete that line, and it would be then one of the best feeders the Canadian National could have. Last year in apples alone about 6,000 cars were taken out of that section of the country. When the Canadian National take grain out to the coast it could take fruit back to the prairies, so that if this road were completed it would have traffic both ways. I think it is up to the government to see that that line is built with the least possible delay.
There is another line to which I would like to refer briefly, namely, an extension from the Grand Trunk Pacific into the Peace River country. I was fortunate while coming down here to be on the same train with Sir Henry Thornton, and I went into this question with him very fully. Just here I may say that the government and the people of Canada are to be congratulated upon having a man like Sir Henry Thornton at the head of the railways of this country. Indeed, I find that the men employed on these roads have but two desires since Sir Henry Thornton took charge: one is to give the very best possible service to the public of Canada, and the other to get these roads on a paying basis. I venture to pi edict that with the interest the employees are taking in these roads with Sir Henry Thornton at their head, within ten years

The Address-Mr. Senn
these roads that some people are suggesting should be handed over to some private company will be going a long way towards carrying the public debt of Canada.
But I am getting away from the subject of an extension into the Peace River country. Sir Henry Thornton said he was going into that countiy during the coming summer. What his decision will be I do not know; where he will decide that extension should be I do not know, but I will abide by his decision. However, I do hope that he will connect the Peace River country by the shortest possible route with Prince Rupert taking grades into consideration. I think that the Canadian National Railway will be well advised to build elevators at Prince Rupert and to put an extension into the Peace River country, for that country in a very few years would give the elevators all they could handle. Indeed, as I see it if there were an extension built into the Peace River country from Prince George or some place near there, it would put the western section of the Grand Trunk Pacific on a paying basis.
There has been a good deal said in this House in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and I just wish to touch on that briefly. If it can be shown that that road would be a benefit to the farmers of Manitoba and the district through which the road runs, and that it would carry their grain to the markets of the world at a cheaper rate than they are getting at the present time, I say this government is in honour bound to supply the money to have that line completed. On the other hand, if it is going to cost more to ship the grain by that route the sooner the project is abandoned the better. The government should first figure out what it would cost to put the line in first-class shape and complete it. Then they would have to figure what it would cost to build a wharf and elevators at Port Nelson and what it would cost to put in the breakwater that would be required, and that would be an expensive proposition. They would then have to find out what it would cost to dredge a channel up to the wharf and the elevators, and what it would cost to keep that channel open from year to year. All those things would have to be added to the expense of taking the grain that way. Last, but not least, they would have to find out definitely what it would cost to take grain from that port to the markets of the world. Some people say that would be a hard problem to solve, but I would not think so. I would say that the government should get in touch with every steamboat company or steamboat organization there is and ask them to submit figures as to what they would be prepared to carry the grain for, provided all the necessary loading facilities were supplied at that port. Then when the government got that information and figured out what it was going to cost, they could easily size up whether the grain could be carried cheaper to the markets of the world by the Hudson Bay route or the present route. If it can be carried cheaper by the present route, forget the money that has been spent on that road. If it can be carried cheaper by completing that road, the sooner it is completed the better. Some people have made the statement that it is the sentiment of the people that the road should be completed. Sentiment may be all right in some ways, but it does not pay bills.
I say it is up to this government before any more money is spent in connection with that road to get a definite estimate of what both the road and the harbour are going to cost.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Prior to the introduction of the amendment which now stands before the House, and which was proposed by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but outlining as it does the present condition of agriculture, and emphasizing the need of enlarging and retaining our home market, I feel that I should in justice to my constituents give to the House a few of my reasons for giving the amendment my whole-hearted support.
I wish to view the matter from the standpoint of agricultural interests almost entirely. Let me say that I recognize the fact that the interests of agriculture are almost identical with those of other industries in this country. The returning prosperity spoken of in the first paragraph of the Speech from the Throne, and enlarged upon by the mover (Mr. Kelly) and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre) of the Address, is not at all in evidence among the farmers of the district from which I come, and if one can judge from the expression of opinion by hon. members who have already taken part in this debate that prosperity is not enjoyed by the people of Canada as a whole. We must be grateful to a kind Providence for a bountiful harvest, but while we have reaped decided advantages therefrom our agriculturists are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their obligations. Many of them are having a struggle to live within their income, and dissatisfaction and unrest prevail generally. It is certain that not many of the agriculturists at least in the district from which I come are able to buy those automobiles of which the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) spoke on which there was a duty amounting to $1,000.
The Address-Mr. Senn

This unfortunate condition of affairs is reflected in the migration of so many of our citizens. It is beyond dispute that many of our people are going to the United States, and I do not think we are justified in maintaining that we are gaining as many from that country as we are losing to it. In a trade return which I have in my hand for the year ending January, 1924, the total value of settlers' effects coming into Canada from the United States amounted to $4,640,293, while for the same period the value of settlers' effects leaving this country for the United States amounted to $9,669,731. That seems to be conclusive evidence that the balance of immigration is greatly to our disadvantage.
Speaking from a local standpoint, and I may be pardoned for interjecting local issues In some cases, I might inform the House that a man who owns a moving van in my own constituency has during the last six months of 1923 moved forty-seven families from that immediate neighbourhood to the city of Buffalo. The reason for this exodus is not hard to find. During the year ending January, 1914, I find by this same trade return, that we imported farm products into Canada from the United States amounting to $112,000,000. I have taken the trouble to itemize these commodities, and I find that we imported from that country during that period approximately $49,000,000 of farm products, such as are grown on Canadian farms, and that come into direct competition with our own produce. During that same year I find that we have an adverse trade balance with that country amounting to over $180,000,000. That in my judgment is the reason why people are trekking to the country to the south of us. So long as we send our gold and silver across the line to build up rival industries and to enrich that country, just so long may we expect our population to drift in the same direction.
The amendment of my hon. friend asserts the necessity of taking steps to retain and enlarge our home market. We who sit in the opposition benches are, unanimously I believe, of the opinion that there is only one way that this can be accomplished. I am sure we all feel the same way in regard to that, that we should impose customs duties which will protect our producers against undue competition with the produce of other countries in our home market. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) last night gave a number of figures to the House showing very clearly the relationship of customs duties on farm products entering Canada with those of farm products which are going to the United States, and I agree with him very thoroughly in his contention that the Canadian farmer should 
be afforded the same protection as his American brother enjoys in his own market. Steps are also necessary to retain our markets, but in this connection what do we find? As has been stated in the House this year on more than one occasion, the British preference on woollen goods was increased last year with the result that twenty of our woollen mills have been closed down and many others have been compelled to lower their output. The importation of woollen goods has been doubled, while the total wages of our woollen operators have been cut in half. Many of our workmen have been thrown out of employment. This innovation the Prime Minister last year characterized as a step in the direction of fulfilling his pre-election pledges. If the interpretation which has been placed upon the Speech from the Throne that agricultural implements are to be put on the free list is correct, the government proposes to imperil the life of another large industry and endanger the livelihood of another large number of our Canadian workmen. Eveiy time Canadian workmen are thrown out of employment, and every time a Canadian citizen leaves this country to find employment in the United States, we are lessening the consuming power of our own people and diminishing the home market rather than enlarging it.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent lies close to the large and important city of Hamilton. If I am correctly informed it is the third city of industrial importance in the Dominion; two of the largest implement industries in this Dominion are located there, and the placing of agricultural implements on the free list would seriously imperil their existence if it did not close their doors entirely. This would be a serious menace to the business interests of Hamilton and to agriculture in the whole surrounding community. One of the largest creameries in western Ontario is located in my constituency, fourteen miles from that city, and I hope hon. members will pardon me for giving a local touch to what I have to say. A very large percentage of their products is marketed there. Any possible advantage which the farmers of that district might derive from the lowering of the price of agricultural implements-and I would be very much surprised if there would be any such result as that if we had free agricultural implements-I repeat any possible advantage which might be derived would be much more than offset by the interference with their markets which would result. I must confess that I cannot understand the attitude of the members of the Progressive party in the province of

The Address-Mr. McTaggart
Ontario who sit in this House. Surely they must realize the importance of retaining and enlarging our home markets. I have in my hand a trade return which I received lately and which illustrates fully the value of the home market to our farmers. It is a return which gives the particular commodities of farm origin, the production in Canada of those commodities for the year 1922 and also the proportion of that production which was exported. It starts out with wheat. The figures are as follows:
			Proportion
		Production	of
		in	production
		Canada	exported
		1922	Per cent
Wheat	.Bushels	399,786,000	53.5Oats.. ..	491,239,000	5.9Barley	71,865,000	20.3Rye	32,373,000	31.3Peas	3,429,000	7.7Beans	1,303,000	6.2Corn	a	13,798,000	0.2Potatoes	a	92,009,000	3.0Hay and Clover.	.. Tons	14,488,000	0.4Wool	..Lbs.	18,523,000	46.7Butter	. "	252,501,000	5.98Eggs	$	48,770,000	2.01Beef	677,317,800	3.75Pork	.. "	710,449,872	6.82Sheep and Mutton.. "	90,046,000	2.92
In many instances the amount of imports of these commodities nearly if not quite equals the exports. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent that the home market is the greatest asset which the farmer possesses, and I sincerely hope nothing will be done to curtail it in any way. If we are to have a return of prosperity in this great and growing country we must have stability, and we must have confidence on the part of our people. The two great factors which are needed in this country to-day are increased population and capital to develop our resources. The stage is all s"et for a wonderful national development; we have the resources, we have the agricultural area, we have the transportation facilities, and if we adopt a sympathetic and appreciative attitude towards industry, towards labour and towards agriculture; in other words, if we assure to all classes reasonable markets, we cannot help but succeed. For these reasons, I think this amendment, calling, as it does, for measures to retain and to enlarge our home market, is well worthy of the support of every hon. member of this House.


Mr. N. H. McTAGGART (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, seeing that so much of this debate on the Address m reply to the Speech from the Throne has been taken up with tariff issues, I might say that I do not propose
to take up very much time in discussing the tariff. I have, however, just a word or two to ray regarding the inconsistencies of some of the arguments put forward by hon. members in the case for protection, and I desire to mention some misleading statements which have been made during the course of this debate. The least important, perhaps, of those statements, but the one which surprised me the most, was the statement made by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) in connection with the importation of agricultural implements into Canada. I believe he gave the figures at $4,500,000. Yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) gave the figure in connection with the importation of agricultural implements as $12,000,000 or $13,000,000.
I listened this afternoon with deep interest to the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). I might say in regard to the splendid effort which he made, that I am thoroughly in sympathy with his concern regarding the question of national unity; but I wish to add this, that as regards the major portion of his speech, I am bound to feel that it will, if anything, hasten the day when the question of national unity may possibly hang in the balance. In my opinion, if we in this chamber would apply ourselves to the task of passing legislation which would be in the interests of and fair to all sections of this Dominion, we should have less to worry about the question of national unity. I might mention another misleading statement in regard to the revenue derived from the customs tariff as applied to agricultural implements which come into this country. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River did not take into consideration the fact that the purchasers of agricultural implements throughout this Dominion pay approximately the amount of the tariff on the implement which is produced in Canada. While I do not know what the figures in regard to Canadian production represent, I would point out to hon. members of this House that if they would take the case of the Ford company as an example, they would see that while the revenue derived by way of customs tariff from the importation of Ford cars into Canada is very small, nevertheless, Canadian purchasers of Ford cars pay millions of dollars mto the pockets of the Ford company.
In regard to the argument as to the ruination of our industries if the tariff is lowered on agricultural implements, I have only this

The Address-Mr. McTaggart
to say-and then I will pass on-that the Canadian implement manufacturer is to-day competing in the markets of the world with the foreign producer, and in many cases, I believe, paying the amount of the customs tariff. In this connection, I would like at this time to make a proposition-I make it on my own account entirely-something that prior to this time has not been suggested in this House. If the manufacturer of agricultural implements or other merchandise were compelled to sell his article in the home market at the same price as that which he sells it in the foreign market, I do not think the Canadian farmer would offer any objection.
The question which I wish particularly to deal with to-night is a question which after all, notwithstanding the length of this debate, has not been discussed up to the present time. The question was suggested to me by something which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) said in his speech. He gave figures, showing that for nine months in 1923, I believe it was, approximately 17,000 people per month left Canada and went to the United States. Those figures were so startling that I thought it worth while to take up this particular question from the standpoint of the district from which I come, to examine into it and to see if it is possible to determine the reason, in the main, for those people going out. I might say that as regards the people who left western Canada, the major portion of the emigration to the United States was from that district. I live in an area in western Canada which members in bygone days in this House would remember very well. It is what is known as the pre-emption area. The pre-emption area in Saskatchewan and in Alberta represents about 61,000,000 acres of land. Back in 1908, at the time the Dominion Lands Act was passed, the lands within this area were, in the main, government lands. At that time, the policy of the government then in power was changed, and instead of those lands being granted to railway companies by way of land grants, a decision was reached to turn them over for settlement, part of them to be sold to settlers, and the proceeds from the sale of those lands was to be applied, as members of this House will remember, to building the Hudson Bay railway. The settlement of that area was very rapid after Manitoba and Eastern Saskatchewan were filled; but because of the fact that even in those days it was known that the pre-emption area in the main was an area where the rainfall is consideraly less than in other portions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it was decided that in order to

farm successfully in that district, it was necessary to have more than one-quarter section of land. I see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in his seat, and I am glad he is with us, because I think he was a member of the House at the time that the Hon. Frank Oliver piloted this legislation through the House. There was much opposition at that time to the policy of giving an extra quarter section of land to the homesteader. I am not going to find fault now with the policy adopted then. I will say this, however, that at that time there was an insufficiency of knowledge as regards the character of that country, and on that account the people of that area to-day are unable to carry on agriculture to advantage. The condition to which I refer is this. In 1908 the Dominion Lands Act did not contemplate that there were sections of that area which were perhaps not as good as many other portions of the Canadian West. There were some areas which no doubt were of medium quality, some fairly good, and there were large areas where the soil was absolutely unsuited to agriculture, being fit only for grazing. The Dominion Lands Act, I say, did not take any cognizance of that fact; and because it did not, because there was no classification of lands made at that time, and settlers went on soils which were inferior, we have the present condition. Settlers came in from Europe and from the United States. The demand for homesteads at that time was very great and all these lands were settled upon indiscriminately. The settler who took up a homestead had the privilege of filing or entering for pre-emption, and the purchase price was to be three dollars an acre. At that time there were a large number of grazing leases in that area, and we have many of them to-day. At the time of the greater production campaign during the war there developed this situation:	That area in common with
others in western Canada was unfortunate enough to suffer a period of drouth. There were three or four dry years in succession which hit that particular district, and as a result of the conditions that obtained, many of the settlers on the inferior soil had to move out. This condition has remained unchanged up to the present time. Beginning with the year 1920, however, we were fortunate enough to secure heavier rainfall so that we have had since that time about three or perhaps four very fair crops. But the trouble which began during those dry years has existed up to the present time. To-day there are in that part of the. country many of those settlers who took up homesteads at that time who are today unable to pay for their pre-emption. I

The Address-Mr. McTaggart
refer to those who settled on medium class soils. Those who settled on the better class of soils have in the main settled for their pre-emption and have discharged their responsibilities to the Dominion government; those who settled on the poorer soils have been unable to meet their obligations and to-day they are uncertain whether to carry on or not. The Department of the Interior has been endeavouring to collect the back payments upon these pre-emptions, and from time to time, owing to the energetic effort that is made in this direction, many of these people are compelled to move out of the country.
I desire now to deal with another situation that exists in that area and which is closely related to this matter. I have reference to the question of railway facilities. Because the area suffered from lack of rainfall the railway companies decided not to pursue an energetic campaign of railway construction in that part of the country. To-day we have in two sections of that area a very desperate state of affairs in the matter of railway facilities. I will refer to these two sections at this particular time because I believe the matter is one of great importance and illustrates the general situation. West of Swift Current the Canadian Pacific Railway some years ago built a branch line to the Alberta line and close to the Saskatchewan river. But between that railway and the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the distance in places is as far as from the city of Ottawa to Montreal. I do not know whether I should be safe in saying hundreds, but undoubtedly many dozens of farmers in that district are hauling grain to-day, say, a distance equal to that between Ottawa and Smith's Falls. The Canadian Pacific Railway have a charter to build a line through this area known as the Leader South Cantour Railway, but because they obtain all the trade north and south there seems to be no disposition on their part to proceed with the building of that line. The bill which passed this House last session would have served a very large area south-westerly from the town of Bengough in the eastern part of that section. I believe that when the Branch Lines bill passed this House last year there was general rejoicing in that district, for the people expected that the realization of their dream was imminent. But the bill did not become law and for that reason to-day many of those settlers are moving out of that area. I might mention an experience I had in that part of the country last fall. I drove from the town
of Limerick fifty-two miles through the district that would be served by the branch line projected in the bill last year. I attended a rally that was held for the purpose of talking matters over, and at its close I was amused to learn of the manner in which the people of that district had contemplated impressing upon me the fact that they were so far from a railway. They had planned to compel me to walk back to the railway. I am glad to say that they did not put that intention into effect, but I am sure that I was sufficiently impressed with the long and weary miles over which those people have to haul grain.
There is in that particular area another condition that is responsible for the depopulation of the land. I am not going to deal with this question at great length to-night because it has been dealt with in the House before. I am referring now to the disparity in prices between what the farmer pays for the things he buys and what he receives for the products he sells. Suffice it to say that for most of the things which the farmer purchases the price has either remained stationary or has increased, whereas in regard to the things that he sells he gets no advantage. Let me give an illustration. For the past two years on my farm I have desired to buy a drill. I went to see the agent of a company whose headquarters are at Brantford. He quoted me the price of a new drill. I replied, "The price apparently has risen again, and I don't feel able to buy now." Upon inquiring the price of new discs for my old drill, purchased about eight or nine years ago, he quoted me $7.00, which would be equivalent to 8140 for the complete drill. I do not remember what I paid originally, but I feel sure that that is close to the old price.
I have read the Speech from the Throne with very much interest and with some satisfaction. I am glad to notice that the government is at last apparently going to take a step in the right direction. For many years there has been a flirtation with the god of high protection, and I hope the government will now have the courage to carry out the programme which they have outlined to lessen the cost of living in the Dominion.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.
Privilege

Mr. Meighen

Friday, March 14, 1924