1924-05-01

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata) presented the first report of the Joint Committee on Printing.

Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to present a petition signed by a number of depositors of the Home Bank in Renfrew asking for reimbursement.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to read a telegram, signed by the
1638	COMMONS
United Church of Canada-Petitions
Rev. C. E. Crowell, on behalf of a meeting of Methodist and Presbyterian ministers, forwarded from Halifax, Nova Scotia, in reference to church union. It is only brief.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member may only present a petition; he is not in order in reading a telegram on the subject.
Mr. L. 0. CLIFFORD (South Ontario): I beg to present a petition from certain members of St. John's Presbyterian church, Port Perry, Ontario, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I beg to present a petition from members of the congregation of Knox Presbyterian church, Woodstock, Ontario, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I beg to present a petition from members of the congregation of Parry Sound Presbyterian church, protesting against the passing of the Church Union bill.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I beg to present a petition from the Presbyterian congregation at Rosetown, Saskatchewan, praying for the passing of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada; also a petition from members and adherents of Rose Plain Federated church in favour of the bill.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: I beg to present a petition from the Methodist congregation at Mistioge, praying for the passing of the Church Union bill.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: I beg to present a petition from members of the congregation of Beeton Presbyterian church, protesting against the Church Union bill; also a petition from the congregation of Tottenham Presbyterian church, protesting against it.


Mr. A. B. HUNT (Compton):: I beg to present a petition from the Marsboro, Quebec, Presbyterian church, praying that the constitution of the Presbyterian church in Canada be preserved, and its rights, etc., maintained in the event of the passing of Church Union legislation.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: I beg to present a petition from members and adherents of St. Paul's Presbyterian church, Elva, Manitoba, protesting against the Church Union bill.



TRANSPORTATION OF ALBERTA COAL

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: I beg to submit the petition of Arthur Robert Ken-

nedy, of London, Ontario, and 28,000 other persons of western Ontario and Alberta, praying that steps be taken by the government to provide for the cheaper transportation of Alberta coal to western Ontario.



FISHERIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to amend The Fisheries Act, 1914.
He said:	The object of the bill is to reduce the license fee relating to salmon canneries. A similar bill was passed last year but was rejected by the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What subsidy has been granted by the Dominion government to the steamship service between Pictou, Prince Edward Island, and Magdalen Islands during the last fifteen years?
2.	What vessels have been on this route under the terms of the subsidy contract?
3.	Was such subsidy contract for a period of years, or annually?
4.	If any, was the payment of subsidy dependent upon vote of parliament or was it by contract?
5.	What was the population of Magdalen Islands in 1911 and 1921?


Thomas Andrew Low: 1 and 2.
Fiscal Year-Vessel	Annual Subsidy
1908-09.	Amelia	. .. S15.000 001909-10.	Ladv Sibyl	. .. 12.000 001910-11,	Lady Sibyl	. .. 15,000 001911-12,	Lady Sibvl	. .. 15.000 001912-13,	Lady Sibyl	. .. 15.000 001913-14,	Lady Sibvl	. .. 15,000 001914-15,	Lady Sibyl	. .. 18.000 001915-16,	Lady Sibyl	. .. 18.000 001916-17,	Amelia	. .. 18.000 001917-18,	Amelia	. .. 18,000 001918-19,	Enterprise	. .. 18.000 001919-20,	Ladv Evelyn .. .	. .. 18,000 001920-21,	Ladv Evelvn .. .	. .. 18,000 001921-22,	R. W. Hendry .. .	. .. 24.000 001922-23,	R. W. Hendry .. .	. .. 24 .000 001923-24,	R. W. Hendry .. .	. .. 24.000 001924-25,	Lovat	. .. 50.000 00
3. Subsidy contracts were annual, except for a 5 years' period, from 1909 to 1913 inclusive; for a 2 years' period, from 1916 to 1917 inclusive; for a 5 years' period, from 1921 to 1925 inclusive; which was afterwards can-

Questions
celled, owing to the unsuitability of the steamer, at the end of 2 years; and for 10 years, from 1924 to 1933.
4.	Both. Subsidy was paid under contract, but a clause in each contract stated that the payment of the subsidy therein stipulated was subject to the amount specified being provided for the purpose by a vote of parliament.
5.	1911, population, 7,662; 1921, population, 7,127.


TAXES COLLECTED IN 1923-24
Mr. RYCKMAN:: What are the totals of the several classes of taxes collected by the Dominion government during the past fiscal year?


Hon. Mr. OOPP:: Department of Customs and Excise-
Customs Import Duties .. $135,098,529.42
Sales Tax	 100,980,102.52
Other Excise Taxes ..	..	22,676,537.33
Excise Duties	 38,604,859.22
Sundry Collections	 1,351,422.17

Department of Finance-
Income Taxes	$ 54,204,027.99
Delayed Business Profit
Taxes	  4,752,680.89
Banks	  928,790.91
Insurance Companies .. ..	700,680.92
Trust and Loan Companies	 252,340.42
The figures are not final but represent receipts to date applicable to the year 192324.
Department of Insurance-
Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as amended by Chapter No. 47 of Statutes 1922. Insurance Companies, (9 mos.
ended Dec. 31, 1923)	..	..	$624,046.71
Mutual Insurance Companies,
(9 mos. ended Dec. 31, 1923)	24,162.69
(Quarter ended March 31, 1924, in course of collection)
Unlicensed Insurance Tax preceding calendar year, 1923..	55,915.10
Department of the Interior-
Royalty Export Tax, Yukon T erritory, fiscal year 19231924 (11 months)	 27,858.54
Post Office Department-
Postal revenue $29,262,232.78 for fiscal year 1923. Figures for 1923-24 not yet available. Department of Immigration and Colonization-
The only tax collected by this department is what is known as the Chinese Head Tax and from this source $312,500 was paid in to the department during the twelve months ended March 31st, last.
Department of Health-
Total payments amounting to $170,347.53 for Sick Mariners' dues for the fiscal year ended the 31st March, 1924, have been received in the Department of Health.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT-SPECIAL INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
Mr. HUMPHREY:: With reference to that part of the final report of the specialy committee appointed last session to inquire into Civil Service Act, and referring to proposed amendment No. 15, part one:	.
Is it the intention of the government to provide legislation this session covering cases where revenue .post offices are placed on a city basis, the staff of such offices can be granted Civil Service status?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I
can answer this question orally by stating that the matter is under consideration.


AUTOMOBILE SHIPMENTS FROM NEW LONDON
Mr. MacLAREN:: What ships were employed in carrying automobiles from New London, Connecticut, overseas in 1923?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: I would call the
attention of the hon. member in whose name this question stands to the fact that it is somewhat vague in its present form. As to what ships were employed in carrying automobiles from New London. Connecticut, overseas in 1923, I think the inquiry is altogether too broad to be answered.


Mr. HANSON:: I assume the intention
was to inquire what automobiles were shipped by Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels.


George Perry Graham: I would suggest to my
hon. friend that he amend his question by pointedly asking:	Did the Canadian Government Merchant Marine carry automobiles. Is that what he wishes to get at?


Murray MacLaren: It will be satisfactory
if answered as suggested by the minister.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


WHEAT IMPORTATION FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. SPENCER:: How much wheat was imported into Canada from the United States for the crop year 1923?


Thomas Andrew Low: For the crop year ended August 31, 1923 the amount of wheat imported (entered for consumption) into Canada from the United States was:	Quantity 90,635 bushels; value

Questions

CANALS AND HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS Mr. WARD:
What is the total amount of monev spent on the We land Ship canal, Old Trent canal, Victoria dry dock, and the Montreal harbour, since the dis'con-tmuance wor^ on the Hudson Bay railway in


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Marine and Fisheries___
Expenditure by the Harbour Commissioner! of Montreal on harbour development, 1918 tc date inclusive, $10,052,658.12.
Department of Railways and Canals-
Welland Ship	Trent Canal
Canal	
Construction. 8 26,626,791 93 Betterments	8 2,314,306 05
(Income).. Maintenance	1,246,370 67
(Repairs). Operation	451,388 76
(Staff).. ..	617,411 09
8 26,626,791 93	8 4,629,476 57
The above expenditure is all subsequent to March 31, 1918, and as there is no portion of the Trent canal system known as the "Old Trent Canal" all expenditure on the Trent canal system is given.


Mr. WARD:: I have before me the answer to this question. It is complete except with respect to the money spent on the Victoria dry dock. I would like to know why that was not included in the answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will make inquiry and give my hon. friend the information.


EXPENDITURE ON HARBOURS-QUEBEC, MONTREAL, TORONTO
Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	What has been the total expenditure by this government from 1912 to 1923 inclusive, on the harbours of Quebec, Montreal and Toronto?
2.	hat amount of interest has been returned to the government by each during the same period?
3.	Have annual reports been received from each of the said ports during the years from 1912 to 1923 inclusive ?
4.	If not, during which of above mentioned years and from which of said harbours were reports not received ?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Department of Marine and Fisheries-
1.	On Montreal by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, $23,903,565.72.
On Quebec, by the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, $7,710,361.33.
As to Toronto harbour, the Department of Marine and Fisheries has no information.

2.	By the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, 810,273,011.40.
By the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, no pa3'ments of interest have been made but the country has been given the use of extensive facilities for handling immigration without payment, while, if a reasonable return were received from same it is estimated the Commissioners could pay a very considerable portion of the interest due on the total of expenditure given above for this harbour.
By the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, no information in the department.
3.	Prom Montreal and Quebec, annual reports have been received each year during the period named.
4.	From Toronto, reports have been received for the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1920 only. Department of Public Works-
Expenditure 1912 to 1923 inclusive.
Quebec harbour	82,072,740	13Lome dry dock	
283,909	01Champlain dry dock	
4,200.355	86Levis	
-.. ..	170,390 54
86,727,395 54
Montreal harbour

dredging
in 1912	 8	4,635 00
Dry dock-subsidy	 945,629 99


S 950,264 99
[Stage Direction]
Toronto harbour	 87,068,366 47

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MILLAR;
1.	How much grain of various kinds remained in the government grain elevator, Vancouver, on August 1, 1922, when the Board of Harbour Commissioners took possession ?
2.	What financial adjustment was made concerning such grain?
Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Wheat, 132,193 bushels; oats, 4,185 bush-sis; barley, 39 bushels and 38 pounds; rye, 1.175 bushels and 40 pounds; oats and wheat, "2.250 pounds; screenings, 788,270 pounds.
2.	No financial adjustment has been made between the Vancouver Harbour Commis-: sioners and the Board of Grain Commis-isioners covering the surplus grain in store When the elevator was transferred to the harbour commissioners.


Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	W'ho was government weighmaster at the government grain elevator at Vancouver on August 1. 1922?
2.	Was he discharged? If so, why?
3.	If not, did he resign, and what reasons, if any, did he give for so doing?

Questions


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	The Board of Grain Commissioners has no person classified as "weighmaster" at Vancouver, Mr. W. S. Mackenrot is senior weigh-man at that point and was in charge of the weighing department on August 1, 1922.
2.	No.
3.	No. He has occupied this position continuously since the above date.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What advances have been made to the Quebec Harbour Commission during the past fiscal year?
2.	Is the commission paying any interest whatever, as contemplated by the Statute, on any advances made?
3.	What teas the amount of the overdraft' the Quebec Harbour Commission carried with their bankers at the close of the past fiscal year?
4.	What is the total of advances made to the Quebec Harbour Commission as shown at the close of its books for the past fiscal year?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Total $449,000.
2.	No interest payments, in cash, have been made, but other departments of government are obtaining free use of valuable facilities, particularly for handling immigration coming to the country. The revenue that would accrue to the commissioners if these facilities were charged for on a reasonable basis, annually, would meet interest at the rate provided by the Statute, on a large portion of the advances made to the Commission.
3.	At March 31 last, $146,988.88.
4.	$11,811,995.68.	.


H. J. SYMINGTON, K.C.
Mr. HARRIS:: What amount was paid H. J. Symington, K.C., in connection with the Great Lakes Rates Inquiry as (a) Fees; (b) Expenses?


Thomas Andrew Low: Total amounts paid from
January 31 to April 12, 1923, are: Remuneration, $9,450; Per diem allowance, $705; Expenses, $471.43.	.


SHEPODY BAY-HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
Mr. DOUCET:: Is it the intention of the government to have soundings made at the head of Shepody bay, New Brunswick, for the purpose of hydro development?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: The matter of
soundings at the head of Shepody bay in connection with hydro power development studies is at the present time under discussion with the New Brunswick Power Commission.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EQUIPMENT RETAINED
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. How many cars belonging to the Canadian National Railways and transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway have not been returned on the first days of each month of the calendar year, 1923?
2. How many cars belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway and transferred to the Canadian National Railways have not been returned on the first days of each month of the calendar year, 1923?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	January 1, 2,206; February 1, 1,968; March 1, 2,068; April 1, 2,399; May 1, 1,414; June 1, 1,964; July 1, 1,748; August 1, 1,525; September 1, 1,691; October 1, 2,050; November 1, 2,757; December 1, 2,526.
2.	January 1, 4,355; February 1, 3,479; March 1, 4,025; April 1, 4,110; May 1, 4,495; June 1, 3,413; July 1, 3067; August 1, 3,981; September 1, 2,940; October 1, 3,399; November 1, 3,889; December 1, 3,545.


HALIFAX OCEAN TERMINALS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What amount of money was expended on the construction of the Halifax Ocean Terminals previous to December 31st, 1921?
2.	What amount of money has been expended on said terminals since January 1st, 1922?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date?
4.	What further expenditures are contemplated by the government ?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, my
hon. friend from Vancouver Centre will appreciate the difficulty of showing:
What amount of money was expended on the construction of Halifax ocean terminals previous to December 31st, 1921.
This would include all expenditure up to 1921. No doubt my hon. friend means the amount of money expended within a certain term of years.


Mr. STEVENS:: The question has reference, of course, to the large modern programme of improvement. You might say between 1911 and 1921, as far as that is concerned.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will
allow me, that will not get him the information which I assume he wants. A plan of development of Halifax harbour was entered upon previous to 1911, and quite a large amount of money was expended on it. Does he desire that information as well, or only with respect to the new improvements? I want to furnish the information required, but I find myself embarrassed in regard to the period to be covered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1 suggest that the motion be amended to read "between the year 1911 and December 31st, 1921."


Hewitt Bostock: Stands as amended.
The Budget-Mr. Lapierre


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	How many cars and locomotives have been purchased in Canada by American railway companies operating in Canada during the past twenty-five years?
2.	What is the amount of duty paid by American railway companies for American rolling stock used in Canada during the past twenty-five years?


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I would
like to inquire about a motion standing in my name which w'as passed on March 31, asking for a copy of the report of the royal commission appointed to investigate conditions among the Six Nations Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: The report is in our hands. I
believe the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) is also interested in this matter. I shall be very glad to put the report at the disposal of my hon. friends, but for reasons that I do not care to disclose we do not desire to make it public at the moment.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W7. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) asked a question respecting an order of the House that had been passed for the production of all papers regarding the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Commission, and an application for the construction of a power dam on the St. Lawrence "iver near the town of Morrisburg. In reply', the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) mentioned that the papers had been brought down two or three days ago and were on the Table. The answer was correct in respect to the second subject, the application for the construction of a power dam on the St. Lawrence river near Morrisburg; it was not correct as regards papers referring to the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Commission The delay in bringing down the latter papers is due to our not yet having received the acquiescence of the United States government.
I do not think any exception will be taken. It is I understand, the wish of the American government that the papers should be brought down simultaneously at Washington and here.
I expect to have the matter settled within the next week.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 30, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday I .was endeavouring by quoting figures to demonstrate the great mineral productivity of Northern Ontario, and I will ask the indulgence of the House to-day if I continue to quote figures in this connection, hoping that by so doing I may make known to the members of this House and to the people of Canada the wonderful wealth which we possess in northern Ontario. I feel, Sir, that we are on the eve of a tremendous development in that north country, and if by making known the wealth that exists there we can attract the attention of the youth of the land I have hopes that we may be able to check the exodus to the United States, for I feel that no part of Canada offers greater inducements to the young people of our country than the great northland.
The northland is comparatively new. The first discovery of silver was made in 1903. I have often heard it stated that the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway was constructed because of the discovery of minerals in the north. Sir, I wish to correct that impression. The Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway was built by the Ross government as a colonization railway, and it was during its construction that the first discovery of silver was made close to the town of Cobalt. Since that discovery, which attracted the attention of mining men everywhere, the area has been greatly enlarged. The prospector moving from the silver country gradually extended his operations until, a few years after the discovery of silver, gold was discovered at Kirkland Lake. To-day the gold camp of Kirkland Lake and Porcupine is one of the most interesting in the world, and we now possess in that north country the second largest gold mine. The production of gold has been increasing very rapidly from year to year, and it is the opinion of geologists who have visited this area that northern Ontario will soon become the largest gold producing area in the world.

The Budget-Mr. Lcipierre
la order that you may fully grasp how great this development has been, I will give you the figures of the production of gold since 1968. In 1910, the first year in which gold was shipped from the northland, the production was valued at 868,488. In 1915 it was valued at 88,501,391; in 1920, at $20,668,692, and for the six months ended July 1, 1923, the value of the production was $8,643,162. This gives a total shipment of gold from 1908 to 1923 of $116,454,125. This has all been accomplished within the last twelve years, and this great development in the north has taken place without any government assistance. The development is comparatively new, and when we consider the financial situation of the country and our transportation problems, it is easy to realize what an important part the development of these mines in the north is going to play in overcoming our difficulties. The dividends paid by the Hollinger gold mine alone from 1910 to 1922 amounted to $19,632,000. In 1922 the Hollinger mine treated 1,400,000 tons of ore, of a value of 812,700,000, and paid in dividends $3,198,000. When we stop to consider how the development of these mines in the north affects the whole industry of the country, it will be seen that the time has arrived for the people of this country to realize what great assets these are, and to assist in developing these great natural resources.
But northern Ontario does not possess mines alone. It offers greater opportunities for agriculture to-day than any other section of this Dominion. The great clay belt lying parallel to the Grand Trunk Pacific is now being rapidly settled by a hardy class of settlers, who find a natural market for their products in the mines. There is no more fertile land in Canada than is found in this northland, and there is room for thousands of more settlers to go in there and take up agriculture.
We have also in northern Ontario an almost unlimited supply of pulpwood and timber. W"e are developing sufficient water power for the needs of our mines, our pulp mills, and other industries, and we have besides a hardy, hard-working and intelligent population. Many of them joined the first rush of adventurers after the first discovery of minerals in the north, and they are now assisting in developing that northland. The district of Nipissing to-day is supporting a prosperous population of over 50,000, and we hope to see during the coming summer the biggest rush since the discovery of the camp.
Besides assisting in the development of minerals in the north there is left still
another great task for this government, and that is to, assist in the development of the iron ore deposits of northern Ontario. Ontario possesses an unlimited supply of ore.
It is sometimes called low-grade ore, but we have deposits of siderite which should not be classed as low-grade ore. The only difficulty we have had with our ore is that it requires sintering; that is, it has to be roasted and the deleterious matter driven off, but once it has been sinterized the ore is fully as of high a quality as the ore produced by the high-grade mines of the United States. We have now arrived at the time when the government must take into consideration the importance of developing these iron deposits. The high-grade ore deposits of the United States are now within calculable distance of exhaustion. Those high-grade ore deposits are now controlled by the large steel corporations of the United States, and every year we find the amount available to Canadian refineries considerably reduced. It is a known fact that the large iron and steel corporations of the United States now have their agents here in Canada looking over our ore deposits, and it behooves the Canadian people to see that Canadians be given the first opportunity of securing control of these deposits. We have assisted agriculture, live stock, and industry generally in this country, and if the government will give the same assistance in this case that it has given to others we can easily create in Canada a steel industry which will contribute immensely to our further industrial development. During the last ten years up to March. 1923, Canada had imported from the United States iron ore to the extent of 10,231,451 tons. During the last fiscal year the amount brought in was 701,993 tons. The reason that iron ore deposits in Canada are now closed down is due alone to the difficulty that exists in sinterizing the ore. At the present moment the large American steel corporations, realizing that their high-grade ore deposits are rapidly approaching exhaustion have commenced to sinterize their low-grade ore, and it has been demonstrated to the satisfactior of those interested in the iron and steel business in this country that Canadian ores can to-day, with slight assistance from the government, be made suitable for the furnaces. Canada requires and will require in the future large quantities of iron and steel. Our 3,500 miles of railway and our shipbuilding plants require the manufactured ore for ships, locomotives, rails, cars and other machinery. Our five and a half million farmers

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre
and our mining mills require machinery, agricultural implements and tools. Canada cannot produce these goods until it develops both its iron mines and water powers, and I might state that on the Ottawa river, in northern Ontario and part of Quebec, we have to-day sufficient water power to attract iron reducing plants. With the iron ore and the water power there, there is no reason why Canada cannot develop a great and flourishing industry. We all know how valuable to a country the iron industry is. I think it is safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that the iron and steel industry is the key industry of the world to-day.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the budget I do not wish to take up much time in discussing either protection or free trade from a theoretical point of view. A number of years ago I had a friend who was a professor of economics, and he made the statement that no one could teach economics without teaching free trade. However, I am not going to occupy any time in discussing the question

in fact it would be needless-nor, in speaking of a low or high tariff, to add anything to the eloquent, instructive and convincing address that was delivered here the other evening by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).
I shall devote the time at my disposal this afternoon to revuewing to some extent the conditions that exist at present in Canada, and I shall say a few words upon some of the difficulties that face us and the possible means for overcoming them. Since the fateful days of August, 1914, we have been living under entirely new conditions. Nations everywhere have been seeking for some way out of the difficulties which now confront them, trjdng to adjust themselves to the new conditions which have arisen, and to resume their normal course of progress. In almost all cases this has been found to be no easy task. Captain Sinclair, speaking the other day before the Canadian Club in the Chateau Laurier, made the statement that throughout the whole continent of Europe the material and economic conditions could be characterized as nothing but shreds and patches. He also made a further statement, that to me suggested cause for anxiety-that in a great portion of Europe to-day moral and religious feeflings have almost ceased to exist. I hope, Mr. Speaker, the latter statement is not true, because if religion and morals go all will go. I hope that the conditions in that respect at least are nothing like as bad as Captain Sinclair portrayed, after having made a tour of Europe 
which lasted almost three years. I think he also made the statement that in Italy the population was increasing rapidly and production decreasing-that there were more feet below the table and less food on the table. Now, that is the state of affairs we find at the present time; thirty-six nations trying to adjust themselves to new conditions, to new physical boundaries not always drawn in conformity with race, or religious belief, or even economic interests. What are these nations doing at the present time? We find them building up high tariff walls, making it more difficult to have a free interchange of commodities, keeping alive the passions, the hatreds and the jealousies that have worked so much evil in that old continent up to the present time. I think every student of history will admit that after wars have passed away, after the din and the tumult have died down, and people have the opportunity to consider just what the causes of those wars were, it has generally been found that they originated in desire for territorial aggrandizement or commercial expansion. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the confusion in Europe to-day is greatly intensified by the fact that the nations there have not cultivated any friendly sentiments in the way of commercial intercourse or interchange of commodities; they have rather built up high tariff walls one against the other. We are getting no light or leading from the continent of Europe to-day.
Now, we are told continually that because other countries are adopting high tariffs we should do the same. But that is one example that I am not prepared to follow. When we come to Great Britain what conditions do we find there? Think of those wonderful islands, think of Great Britain the mother of nations, and her tremendous achievements! In these days I think we are very proud of the Old Land. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read a clipping that I took this morning from the Ottawa Journal. Doubtless most hon. members have read it, but nevertheless it is so good that I wish to place it on Hansard. The article is entitled "Hats Off to Britain." and reads as follows:
Britain's financing stands as a continuing marvel. Before the war there were those who saicf (some said it gleefully) that the people were decadent, that her financial, moral and physical foundations were crumbling, that she was going the way of the great empires of the past. Britain's answer was to fight the most colossal war in history, to pour out blood and treasure unstintedly, to buttress and finance most of her Allies, to write deeds of heroism, fortitude and courage that will live while men remember.
And since the war, what has been her record? While other nations bowed before the aftermath of the Btorm, she has marched from triumph to triumph. Her
MAY 1, 1924	[DOT]
The Budget-Mr. Forke
word her bond as of yore, this " Perfidious Albion " has fulfilled her every obligation. Reeling under a world-wide catastrophe, beset by troubles at home and abroad, dragged down by creditors who either would not or could not pay, she has paid her debts, paid to the last farthing, asked for no favours other than her due, and is emerging from the tempest with honour unsullied and her credit and name unimpaired.
.	.	. .And that credit is being maintained under
the leadership of Ramsay MacDonald. During the past year Britain faced prodigious problems at home and abroad. She encountered unemployment, strikes, and industrial depression. She paid out millions and tens of millions for pensions and doles. She had to maintain a mighty army and navy. And she had to face all the expenditure 'incidental to the administration of an empire which embraces one-fourth of the world's territory, and one-third of its population.
Yet this week she produced a surplus. Produced a surplus of $240,000,000: and in consequence, reduced her floating debt by $175,000,000; abolished her corporation tax; and lightened the food taxes of her people.
Yes, hats off to Britain! In peace as in war she stands as the spearhead of progress. While other peoples have let strife visit them with chaos, she has toiled for peace and reconstruction. In a world of turbulance and hatred she has not been afraid to disarm. And while racial suspicious and greeds and jealousies have been turning the world into a Witches' night, while parliamentary government has been going down all over the world, she has been giving a magnificent example of the robustness of her democracy, extending the boundaries of freedom in her Empire, and to-day, after 1,000 years, the greatness of her dominion knows no westering sun. To-day, indeed, we can say of her, in the words of a celebrated poet:
Set in this stormy northern sea,
Queen of these restless fields of tide,
Britain! what shall men say of thee,
Before whose feet the worlds divide?
I want to point out to the House Mr. Speaker that the nation depicted in these glowing terms is free trade Britain. Some hon. members to my right have stated that Great Britain was not a free trade country, that to some extent she is a protectionist land. In the main there is no doubt that the United Kingdom to-day is a free trade country.


Mr. CALDWELL:: They also stated that Great Britain was a nation of paupers. .


Robert Forke: I think I made the remark
yesterday that conditions in Great Britain were not really so bad as some hon. members seem to believe. I think the editorial which I have just read from a newspaper which is, perhaps, not friendly to free trade ideas, is well worth repeating. The other day I received a copy of a newspaper published in my old home county, in Scotland, sent to me by someone in Toronto whom I never saw. I read it very carefully, as I was interested in the different items of news from a social and business point of view. Trying to read between the lines in order to find out the social and business conditions existing in the 105
locality in which I was born in Scotland, and without prejudice trying to find out just what was being done over there, I could see no great indications of any - tremendous troubles in that country greater than we are experiencing at the present time. Social life seemed to be swinging along pretty much as usual, and, judging from the wage report, I could not see that there was any material difference between the agricultural workers in Scotland and those in Canada at the present time.
I turn now to the United States for a few minutes. The United States is held up to us as one of the great examples of what protection can do for a country, but I would like to point out that the United States has great advantages in climate and natural resources. Perhaps no country in the world has the same advantages as the United States in these respects. Coming to more recent years, the United States was enabled to realize huge profits from war contracts before she ever entered the war, and in no way can you compare protective United States with a country which has been in the same position as warworn and weary Europe is at the present time. I am going to speak more about the United States later. We have no reason to compare the condition of Canada with the condition of the United States. The burdens which are being carried by the United States, with its wealth and population, cannot be compared to the heavy burdens which Canada carries at the present time. Canada entered the war, made sacrifices in human life, money and wealth and in every way incomparably greater than any sacrifices the United States has made. Therefore United States' prosperity and Canada's trouble cannot be compared in any way, through either the tariff or the want of a tariff; that has nothing to do with the question in any shape or form. In Canada we have a rich and fine country with great natural resources. The hon. member who 4 p.m. has just addressed the House (Mr. Lapierre) dwelt upon the mineral wealth of Canada. I had the privilege to-day of listening to an address in the Chateau Laurier by Professor Wallace, of the University of Manitoba. He was at one time commissioner for northern Manitoba and I think also president of the Mining Engineers' Institute. He is a man well acquainted with the mineral possibilities of Canada, and it was cheering indeed to listen to the address in which he stated what he considered to be the possibilities of our future development in that .line. He spoke of that vast stretch of territory to the north which is sometimes the despair of some of us who wish to see Canada

The Budget-Mr. Forke

a united country. Speaking of our mineral wealth, he believed that mining and lumbering and other industries would bring about such vast development in that vast stretch of territory that it would link up what we now call the East and the ' West into one complete whole. Canada has a temperate climate.


Mr. MANION:: Would the hon. member tell the House what Professor Wallace said about industrial development in the prairie provinces?


Robert Forke: I thought the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) was going to ask what Professor Wallace said about the Hudson Bay railway-


Robert James Manion: You can tell that too.


Robert Forke: -and I am sadly disppointed. However, since he has mentioned the subject, I think I will say that Professor Wallace believed the Hudson Bay railway and the whole scheme a very feasible project.


Robert James Manion: What about industrial projects?


Robert Forke: I was going to come to that later on. if the hon. gentleman had waited. But I will say a few words, now that he has called my attention to it. Professor Wallace pointed out that the vast resources in the prairie provinces in the shape of coal would make it quite easy for that country to be. developed from an industrial point of view; and that in time to come industries would grow up upon the prairies, and, that we would have a more diversified production than we have at present. I am sure I do not wish anyone in this House to believe for one moment that I am not in favour of industrial development. I do not think any member in this House would have anything to say against industrial development in Canada. The only fault we have ever found is that an attempt has been made to foster some industries which seemed to be unable to suit themselves to the conditions found in Canada.
With reference to the budget brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance, (Mr. Robb) I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I would like to have complimented him upon the businesslike way and the intelligent form in which he presented that budget. But I have some little criticisms to offer. I think the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in that short speech he made after the budget had been delivered, stated -rather jauntily that it was a matter of bookkeeping whether you had a surplus or 
a deficit. Perhaps it is a matter of book-keeping, which is rather staggering to the ordinary man in the street, but I am sure that there must be something more than just book-keeping behind it. and there must, in a financial statement, be either a balancing of accounts, or a surplus or a deficit. I am not going to enter into any discussion or analysis of that financial statement. I think most of us have a complete grasp of it and know exactly what it means. To some extent at least it is very satisfactory from one point of view, namely, that we have at last turned the corner and are moving in the right direction, and that in the not far distant future some reductions will be made in our national debt. I agree with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) that a financial statement might be made in such a way that all the commitments of the country and its liabilities could be stated so plainly that the ordinary man in the street would understand just exactly what the financial condition of the country was. I know that almost all finance ministers, Dominion and provincial, have a universal habit of making as favourable a statement as they possibly can. I have heard it said that this is done to help the credit of the country and to make the best showing possible, but really I do not think it can amount to very much after all, because when we are dealing with financial people, surely they are quite able to analyse a financial statement and will do so, and really it does not matter very much if in that statement, the very best showing is made, to help the country, I think that all the liabilities for which the country is accountable should be clearly understood by the people; they should not be charged at random to this account or the other, but should be so set out as to be intelligible to the ordinary man who sometimes is bewildered by our present methods and certainly does not know just where we stand.
Let me say a few words in regard to the necessity for economy. We have great national obligations, huge war debts, heavy fixed charges and liabilities in connection with our national railways, all of which must be met. Unfortunately, all governments, Dominion, provincial and municipal, have spent money rather too freely during the last decade, with the result that taxation has assumed considerable proportions. A great deal of the obligations for which the people of Canada are to-day responsible are fixed charges which will have to be met for several years, and we must realize to-day that for some considerable time yet to come the road before us will be a difficult one. This

The Budget-Mr. Forke
increases the necessity for the most rigid economy in the conduct of our public business, whether it be on the part of the Dominion government or the smallest municipal council. Any one who has had anything to do with public business knows that people in office always have demands made upon them which are larger than they can possibly undertake. That is common experience; certainly I know it is the fact in municipal affairs. I believe that society generally to-day is demanding greater services and more conveniences than it is willing to pay for, and that is one reason why people in office should be exceedingly careful about expenditures. I think it was Samuel Butler who said that progress first began when man sought to live beyond his income. On that principle it seems to me that we are progressing rapidly nowadays. I have no doubt there is a germ of truth in the suggestion; because if wTe are entirely satisfied wTith our conditions we are not likely to make much progress. At all events, I think that every one who has anything to do with the spending of public money should bear this truism in mind. There are, however, certain public services that should not be neglected, no matter what our views on economy may be. For example, whilfe the question of public health refers perhaps more particularly to the provincial sphere, I think it is one of the utmost importance. Under no conditions should anything appertaining to the health and the physical welfare of the people be neglected; that would be fclse economy, and I trust that both Dominion and provincial governments will carefully avoid it.
Another important department of public service is the education of our people. I know that a very long address might be delivered on the question of education, and I do not think there is a member in this House who would not have at least some views to contribute to a discussion of our system of education and its results. We no doubt all agree that it is one important phase of our national life that calls for the greatest attention, and	while	economy
should be practised to as great an extent as possible, nevertheless all needful expenditures in this direction must be made. Now, the term "education" is comprehensive, it is very wide in its application; and an important aspect of education is the training of men in engineering, mining and similar industries. Perhaps that is a side of the subject that we never think of, and I would impress upon the House that while our young people are being educated for the purpose 105i
of pursuing various lines of endeavour, the dignity of labour should always be upheld.
I think that ive are going astray a little in this respect. The man who soils his hands in honest labour to-day is not, I think, received with sufficient respect by the great bulk of society. I sometimes feel, as I have no doubt most people have felt, that .when one has done a creditable piece of work, either physical or mental, he has created something which in some way or other will be of service to mankind; and there is certainly a great deal of satisfaction to be derived from that source. I want to see labour dignified everywhere as something honourable, so long as it serves society and contributes to the general happiness of the people.
I want to say a few words about manufacturing, and I confess that I enter upon this ground with the greatest timidity. Of course, a number of hon. gentlemen in the House are accustomed to addressing us on this side on the subject of agriculture, telling us what we ought to do in order to carry on our business. So that I may presume to say something to the manufacturing interests, though I shall be rather cautious in what I say. I have no other wish than to see our manufacturing industries prosperous. In the past few weeks there have been many complaints regarding conditions in connection with these industries. I have received letters from almost every place where manufacturing is being carried on in Canada, indicating how dangerous and critical a position that particular industry occupies at the present time. In these communications I am told, virtually, that it would be criminal to do anything that might tend in any way to injure the business. Now, I am not inclined to take so gloomy a view of the thing, nor do I believe that the manufacturing interests themselves are as pessimistic as some of them pretend,-perhaps I should not use the word "pretend," but hon. members know what I mean. I have watched the agricultural implement people and I want to give them credit for this fact, that since the budget has come down I have not noticed very much *whining on their part; rather, they are buckling down to work, and the first thing we know, the agricultural implement industry will be prosperous in the next year. It has struck me as something rather strange to notice the general tone of the prospectuses that are put out by several manufacturing concerns to-day. The account that they give of themselves in these documents is very different from the one which they give when writing to some hon. members in this House.
The Budget-Mr. Forke

I have no doubt that members of the government get these letters, too. The prospectuses, I say, tell an altogether different story. For instance, I notice a prospectus issued by the Howard Smith Paper Company appearing on the first pages of MacLean's magazine, and the statement is a very bright one. They are selling their bonds guaranteed at 7 point something per cent and they say that they have cheap power, that they cannot supply the domestic demand, and that their export business is growing rapidly. One of the things that bother me a little-and I do not think that I am misinformed-is the fact that this company is selling its products cheaper in the United States than it is selling them to Canadian consumers. I suppose this would be called dumping. We hear a great deal about patriotism and the love of people for Canada, and we are urged to see that Canada shall prosper, and so forth. Yet those people who talk that way turn round and charge their fellow countrymen a higher price than they ask the foreigner to pay. I know very well everything is not flourishing; in the United States also manufacturing concerns are closing down through over-production. I put it another way-not over-production, but under-consumption, lack of demand, inability of the people to purchase the goods that are being produced. We had war industries and over-stimulation; to-day we have industries that are over-developed, over-capitalized, and consequently burdened with too heavy overhead expenses. These are our troubles.
How do some members want to remedy these evils? They would put the tariff up a little higher, in other words charge the people a little more for the goods that even at the present time they are unable to buy. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no other conclusion to be reached: If you are going to raise the tariff it must be for the purpose of raising the price of the manufactured product. I claim that to-day the trouble is not over-production, but inability on the part of the people to purchase the goods that are being produced.
Now a word in regard to the employees of some of our industries. I know' very well what their feelings must be when they get slips in their pay envelopes such as we have received copies of. They are very human, they are people just like you and me. When they open their pay envelopes and find a slip to the effect that if a certain line of fiscal policy is followed the concern for which they are working will be closed down and consequently they will be out of employment,

w'e can easily imagine their feelings. They are going to be afraid of losing their jobs, and therefore when they have the opportunity they w'ill vote in favour of the policy which their employers tell them is the only policy by which the industry can be maintained. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very unfair method to employ. No one presumably is prepared to deny the authenticity of these slips, some of which I have in my office upstairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Hon. gentlemen may laugh.
They may think that an honourable way of doing business; I do' not. It is the very cheapest kind of propaganda, for those engaged in it are not even paying advertising rates. We hear a great deal about maintaining the high standard of living of those engaged in Canadian industry. Of course, we are told that it can only be maintained by means of the tariff. The inference might be drawm that if you want to reduce the tariff, then, as a matter of course you wan' the workers in our factories to accept a lowe-standard of living. But in reality nothing is further from the fact. None of us want to sfee Canadian workmen forced to accept a lower standard of living. What are wages- real wages? What are the wages that the average working man or working women gets to-day? Briefly these wages represent food, clothing, shelter, some luxuries, a little play, and something to lay by for a rainy day; that is what I may call adequate wages for working people. Forty years ago I happened to live very near a large manufacturing centre in Scotland-Galashiels and Selkirk. To-day the people there are carrying on just as industriously as they ever did. It is a lone time to look back to, but my recollection of the people who were working in the large factories in that district at that time is this: The men and women were neatly dressed, and their standard of living forty years ago was just as good as the standard.' of living of our industrial population to-day. Such a statement may perhaps be questioned, but I think it is correct. I am inclined to believe that the standard of living of those employed in the free trade factories of England will compare favourably with the standard of similar w'orkers in any protected industry in Canada at the present time.
To-day a dollar buys less in Canada than in any other country. The cost of living is high, the cost of production is high, and consequently our manufacturers are not able to

The Budget-Mr. Forke
compete in the outside markets. In a word, we are working round in a vicious circle. I know it is quite natural for a man in receipt of high wages to complain if his wages are reduced. But if you increase the purchasing power of his lower wages he will be just as well off. High wages deceive working men, for certainly they do not add anything to his well-being if everything he has to buy is high in proportion. This, as I said before, is the vicious circle. It may work out apparently satisfactorily while one industry is able to charge another industry high prices, but when the primary industries have to sell their products in the markets of the world they find themselves at the bottom of the pyramid and in the worst state of any class in the Dominion.
We have heard a good deal from time to time in this House about a protective tariff compelling American industries to establish branch factories in Canada. Well, I saw a statement the other day-I hope it is not true-that the economic control of Canada is rapidly passing to Wall street.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert Forke: Well, I hope it is not true.
But what are the facts? What are the American industries now located in Canada doing to develop this country? They are owned by American capitalists, and a good many of them are absorbing Canadian concerns. But over and above all, most of these American factories are simply nothing more nor less than assembling plants, established here to take advantage of our tariff. I do not think this is likely to develop our country to any very large extent. I saw a statement recently that 31 per cent of our Canadian industries are connected in some way or other with American capitalists. This perhaps may not be true, yet I think probably it is truer than most people will admit. This, it seems to me, may be termed peaceful penetration. So when we boast about our tariff policy compelling American concerns to establish branch factories upon Canadian territory, the effect may be such as we had never contemplated. I am inclined to believe that our national structure will be built on a much safer basis, on a low tariff basis, on almost a free trade basis, rather than on a high protective tariff resulting in the establishment of American branch factories on this side of the line. American concerns have been assembling in their Canadian plants parts of American-made automobiles for. export to Great Britain, thus securing the advantage of the British preference and putting money into their pockets.

Just a word in regard to our home market. We hear it remarked so often that the Progressive party have no use for the home market. I do not think anyone despises the home market. The home market is good, and we want all we can get of it. I would be only too happy if Canada could provide a home market for all its products at fairly reasonable prices, so that we might all live happily no matter what industry we are engaged in. But surely, surely, hon. members to my right who have been lauding the home market as the solution of our economic difficulties must realize that, measured by the progress we have been making under the National Policy, it will be generations before the home market can even begin to consume any large proportion of the products that are raised in this Dominion year by year. They have high protection in the United States, where there is a population of a hundred and ten millions. Hon, gentlemen tell us that the condition of the American farmer is a great deal worse than the condition of the Canadian farmer, yet in the same breath they say that if we had a larger and more diversified population the troubles of the farmer in this country would be over. The farmers in the United States are beginning to understand that when that country reduces her imports there is a condition which militates against the ^prosperity of the agricultural population. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe the day is not far distant when we are going to see a change of policy in that country from the one that is at present being followed. The United States has prospered not because of a high tariff policy, but in spite of a high tariff policy. They have a varied climate, they have great natural (resources, they have an immense area within which free trade prevails. Just imagine, if you can, the thirty-six nations of the old continent of Europe cutting down their tariff walls and following the example of the United States-because if they did that they would be doing no more than the United States is doing to-day. If that could be done we would have that old continent rejuvenated in a very short time; at least its condition would be a great deal better than it is now. The United States is no example of the benefits of a protective policy.
I want to say just a few words about the policy of the Progressive group in this House. I think I saw it stated in the Montreal Star the other day that the Progressive movement was more than a political movement and that there was a necessity for it from the economic point of view. The editorial went
The Budget-Mr. Forke

on to point out that the condition of agriculture, especially in the West, I think it said, was serious, indeed was almost tragic. I do not want to emphasize that any more than is necessary, but of course the Star had a different solution for these difficulties from that which the Progressives have been advocating in this House. At the same time I think it was a good deal for the Montreal Star to admit that we were not playing politics, that there was something more behind the Progressive organization than a political movement, that it was an economic necessity that brought the Progressives into the prominent part that they have been playing in the public life of this country. In fact, the Star admitted that there was good reason for their existence, that they came into existence because there was necessity for their being- I am paraphrasing the statement of the Star. I hope that we are not going to hear any more assertions to the effect that we are playing politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


Robert Forke: Well I am very glad to be
able to afford my hon. friends to my right a little amusement. We have been the subject of a good deal of criticism from that quarter of the House during this session. It is the privilege and the opportunity of my hon. friends to do that, and if they are at all pleased to do it I am sure that hon. members on this side have no fault to find with it.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The same with us.


Robert Forke: The flowing tide is with this movement. We are confident in the belief that the development of the primary industries will under more favourable conditions make for the prosperity of all the people, and of the secondary industries as well. We want something that will be for the benefit of Canada, not for the benefit of any particular province. We hear a great deal about the policy that was inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald, but we are not living in the Canada of Sir John A. Macdonald to-day. Vast commercial and economic changes have taken place in Canada since those days. A great new factor, a huge producing and consuming power, has come into Canadian life. Twenty-five years ago the western prairie provinces had little effect upon the public life or the commercial life of this country. Let any member of this House honestly ask himself -what effect the crop prospects of western Canada have upon the whole Dominion at this time. Every year from springtime until the wheat begins to roll over the

railways to the markets of the world, every man in business, every man engaged in manufacturing is watching the crop barometer to see what its effect will be on the business life of the whole community. Does anyone say that conditions are the same to-day as they were in the days of Sir John. A. Macdonald? Are we forever to be tied up to traditions of that kind? Are we never to take any step forward? Is there to be no improvement? We have been passing through difficult times; we have been looking for help, for guidance, for a solution of our difficulties, and what are we getting from my hon. friends to my right? A little higher tariff; increase the cost of production, they say, and all your difficulties will vanish. I am well aware, that if you were to obliterate the tariff all our difficulties would not be solved, and I do not think any hon. gentleman in this part of the House will think differently. But we believe that a lowering of the tariff will help conditions materially for everyone concerned.
I repeat that there will be no real improvement until the cost of production has been lowered, and this is where industry can help. I do not believe that the condition of industry in Canada is so terribly bad as. we are led to imagine. I cannot help but think that we have Canadians with enough intelligence, enough natural ability, enough business sense, given proper conditions, to produce in Canada and to compete with any country in the world. Why can we not do it, if we get the raw material and the labour? We are continually told that 'labour is higher here than it is in other producing countries. Well, I have questioned that, because wages have to be gauged by their purchasing power and the purchasing power of wages in Canada to-day is not much better than it is in a great many other countries. Of course, we are always asked to look to that highly protected country on the other side of the line, where wages are just as high as they are in Canada, and we are told that we cannot compete with that country of high wages. Sometimes you hear about "mass production", but we can never ha ve mass production under the present circumstances. If you will allow me to make a personal remark Mr. Speaker: When I was home at Easter the young man I have in charge there said he would like to get a double disc drill. I have two very good shoe drills-farmers will understand what I am talking about, and probably the rest of the House will. But this man is young and quite ambitious and I thought I would like to please him. I went over to the town and asked what was the price of a double disc

The Budget-Mr. Forke
drill. The reply was, $266. Well, I just gasped.
I went home and I said "You had better cultivate ahead of the shoe drills and we will do without the double disc drills". That is exactly the position of the farmers on the prairies; they are unable to purchase the goods that are being produced. Will it help business if you add 10 per cent to the price of that drill and make it almost $300? Will it make industry flourish and prosper to produce another drill that nobody would be able to buy?
I want to be dear on this matter; I want to be fair and honest with my friends to my right, because I think if we could really understand each other, perhaps there would not be so much difference in this House as there seems to be sometimes. I speak more particularly with regard to our implement manufacturers to-day,; I think the trouble with the Massey-Harris Company, for instance, is not the cost of their production, but that they are not able to produce in sufficient quantities to make their business pay, in view of their overhead expense. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion, and we are not able to get that increased consumption until we get prices lowered, and I have been trying to show how we may be able to reduce prices.
I admit that in rehabilitating this country agriculture has to do its part. I am not going to tell industry and business that they have to do so and so and that agriculture can lie down and accept conditions as they are, even in carrying on its own business. Changed conditions require changed methods, but no artificial bolstering of weaklings will help business or the farmer. There must be business methods and industrious habits. I am not afraid of this country suffering from cheap goods. Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor -and I am sure my friends to my right will take his word, he is not a farmer by any means-made the statement the other day that prosperity cannot return to Canada until agriculture becomes prosperous.
Now I want to say a few words about wheat farming. I went down to that mining banquet to-day, and I wondered just on what terms I was there as a guest, and it struck me that perhaps I might be there as a wheat miner; but really I was not there in that capacity. We have very often heard the expression used in this House with regard to the wheat farmers of the West, that they are "wheat miners." I do not want to make any harsh statements about any members of the House, but I think my friends will admit that when they look over to this
part of the House and talk of the wheat miner, it is not very complimentary, to say the least. What is wrong with wheat production? Are we not all anxious to see how the wheat crop in the West is prospering, and how many million bushels are going to come East to grease the wheels of industry? Then why pour contempt on those who are producing that wheat? Mr. Speaker, the people who talk that way do not understand the conditions that have existed in western Canada during the opening up of that great country. It would have been an utter impossibility for that country to be opened up if wheat had not been produced in large quantities, and produced easily. flnat is how that country has been opened up, and that production is responsible for the factories that have been built in eastern Canada to supply agricultural implements to the people who are engaged in raising the wheat. I believe that for many, many years to come wheat growing is to be the one great industry of the three western prairie provinces. I have no hesitation in saying that, and it is no use talking of "wheat miners" in a contemptuous sort of way. If hon. members would only consider what it means to start and fertilize 640 acres-it might be possible to fertilize a five or ten or twenty acre farm -but when farming is conducted on the large scale on which it had to be conducted in the early process of opening up the West, it would be an utter impossibility. Wheat farming, while it does to a certain extent rob the soil, is an absolute necessity in opening up that country and building up industry there. It is that which enables the farmer to build his home and outbuildings, and buy his implements and all the other articles he needs to carry on production. In process of time, of course, there will be change. As I said before, changed conditions require changed methods, and in our older province of Manitoba a change is gradually taking place now, and no doubt in the future there will be more diversified farming carried on.
This brings me to say just a few words with regard to credit. I have not yet had the opportunity of reading Dr. Tory's report in regard to agricultural credits, and I have only this to say at the moment: There is a need for credit of some kind that will carry the farmer over from three to five years. I can imagine conditions in southern Manitoba to-day where the farmers who are aware that they cannot count on wheat as a safe crop may be willing to turn to mixed
The Budget-Mr. Forke

farming, and will need credit to carry them over that length of time in order to enable them to engage in more diversified farming. However, I want no credit that is just going to mean an increase of debt. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that in the West credit has been too easy to get in a great many instances, and it would have been a blessing sometimes if farmers had been refused credit when they were seeking it.
Courage is needed to-day by all sections of people in this Dominion. Whether we are engaged in industry, in commerce or in farming, we all need courage to face the difficulties that are ahead of us, and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but think at the present moment of the rural homes all over this Dominion. When we speak of the standard of living, I certainly do not want to see the standard of living reduced in the rural homes of this country, and I am perfectly sure that my friends to my right who have been speaking so much on behalf of our Canadian manufacturers will fully agree with me in that sentiment. We do not wish to see the standard of living reduced in our rural homes, but that is what is taking place to a very large extent to-day. Out on the prairies-and I speak of the prairies because I know conditions there, though I believe it is the same in other parts of Canada as well-the standard of living has dropped. There is no denying that fact. And if my blood stirs sometimes when I think of it, it is just because I know the conditions. I know what some of the heroic women who have done so much to develop that country have suffered, and it is no playing politics with me, I can assure you. But let us hope that a brighter day is dawning. Nations, must learn, as individuals learn, that they cannot live to themselves alone, that when one prospers all will prosper to a certain extent.
In closing, I think that politically things look brighter to me in this Dominion than they have done for some time past. I think the hard spell is over. But there is one thing I would like to say to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in regard to the customs tariff. To be candid, there is something about that dumping clause that I do not like. Something, no doubt, may be said in favour of it, I know it is a complicated question; but it does seem to me to place too much power in the hands of any minister when he is able at any time to enforce a measure of that kind that may actually amount to high protection, if it is not very carefully handled. I do not know

what can be done, but I do hope that the government will have some solution, and that some undertaking will be given to us before we are called upon to put the final seal of our approval upon the budget that is now before the House. I do not think anything can be said in favour of a minister having the power to put this clause in force at any time he chooses. I do not want the Acting Minister of Finance or any other member of the House to think that I am tccusing them of having made a wrong use of this clause; my only object is to save them from themselves, to avoid placing temptation in their way. I hope that something can be done in that respect.
I wish also to say a word in reference to the amendment that has been moved. I am sure that the mover of that amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) is quite sincere, and that his intentions are good. There may be also some in my own party and group who may differ with me in this statement, but I say that the amendment, as moved at that time, was not in the best interests of the movement which we represent in this part of the Chamber. However, that is my own opinion; I am quite willing to let any other person have any different idea which he chooses to have. I suppose there will be a certain amount of what I may call "unholy glee" on the part of some who think this places the Progressives in a rather difficult position. Personally,
I have felt no difficulty whatever. I am conscious that the course I am pursuing is the right course. It has seemed to me that if I voted for the amendment, which in reality would be a vote of want of confidence that I would have to vote against the budget also. That I think would be a mistake under present conditions. I know very well that out in the country-where it takes some time for information to percolate into all the different sections -some people will wonder why I should not be prepared to support an amendment that calls for a reduction of taxation on the necessities of life. However, I am not afraid, Mr. Speaker, but that with time and with full information, and when the whole statement has been received, I shall have the approval of the great mass of the people.
Now, I want to point out why I believe I could not support this amendment. I do not think that it accomplishes anything, I do not believe that it means anything, because it is only a gesture; and no one could suppose for a moment that it is likely to be carried by a majority of this House. On the other hand, there are two clauses in the amendment that I do not approve of, but disapprove of. One clause asks for a tax on unimproved land

The Budget-Mr. Forke
values. Now, I took the. trouble during my campaign in Brandon of sending out hand bills stating that I was opposed to any plank of this kind. Other members of this House may not have done the same. Nevertheless that is my position in regard to that particular plank and my reason for doing so was this. For several years I had equalized the assessments in the province of Manitoba both urban and rural. I knew the actual conditions of property owners in that province. Nowhere did I know of a single individual who would not be willing to sell his land and sell it immediately at the amounts it was assessed at and as a revenue producer this idea was absolutely and utterly useless-as far as Manitoba was concerned any way.
In regard to succession duties let me say this. The province of Manitoba has a succession duty at the present time and I would be opposed to the Dominion entering into that field until there had been a conference between the federal and the provincial authorities as to the boundaries of taxation. I do believe that such a conference ought to take place, and that there should be no overlapping in this matter of taxation. The boundaries should be clearly fixed showing where the Dominion or the provinces should enter this field. But the provinces are in the field now. They need that amount of revenue and I think they ought to have it. I have spoken in this manner because I really do not know the exact position of all the members in this part of the House upon that question. Each member can vote to suit himself; if he does so there will be no re-[DOT] criminations, there will be no faultfinding. I believe that when a man acts according to his conscience he can always justify his actions.
I have already said that so far as we are concerned there will be no turning back. We have our faces toward the rising sun, and we are seeking to clear away the barriers of special privilege and afford equal opportunity to all. Since I commenced speaking some hon. members have' alluded ?;:>
bargains that have been made. I want to make the statement clearly and without an;r equivocation of any sort that I am under no obligation to any other group in this House, save and except the group that has done me the honour of electing me as its leader and has given me its friendship and its support. I utterly deny and repudiate the idea that there has been any bargaining, or any dealing of any kind whatever, between the members' of this group and those of any other group in this House. I made the statement at the commencement of the present session that the - government
would get the support of the Progressives when they brought in progressive measures. This has been twisted and used in newspapers in all directions, and by hon. members to my right, to prove that I had made some arrangement with the government in regard to their support. I make exactly the same statement to-day that I did on the former occasion- if the government bring in progressive measures they will get Progressive support.
With this statement I shall close my remarks. I have faith in Canada. I have faith that in the future we are going to solve our difficulties. But if there are any in this House who believe that the day of the progressive movement is over in Canada they are badly mistaken. Great changes have taken place all over the world. We have a Labour government in Great Britain to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: YTes, changes in some
places.


Robert Forke: Just have patience. We can look forward to changes in the country to the south of us. I am not a prophet but I predict that there will be vast changes in the economic and political life in the great republic to the south of us in the not distant future. We, Mr. Speaker, have reached no standing place in this movement at the present time. As I have already said our faces are toward the rising sun, and we are going to march forward unafraid. WTe are not going to go back into past history and say that what happened forty years ago must be maintained to-day. We realize that mankind has not made a very good job in the conduct of the world during the last century. When we think of conditions as we find them; when we look at Europe and think of the misery, the degradation, and the sufferings that have occurred, the tremendous blunders that man, in his so-called wisdom, has made in the government of the world, do we feel satisfied that we are moving just as we ought to move? Are we afraid of making some step forward? Mr. Speaker, I look to the future hopefully, and I am not afraid to step forward and to enter upon new and untrodden paths.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I, like hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, must first of all congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance on the brief and concise manner in which he delivered the budget. But that is the extent to which I can go in congratulating my hon. friend. I also sympathize with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his illness, and hope that he will speedily recover his health.
1654	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
Before entering upon the questions I desire to discuss this afternoon I wish to deal with a few points that were brought out by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I notice that in his speech my hon. friend has given evidence of having done very little thinking, apparently he has not thought very much as yet. I also notice that he resents extremely the advice tendered from different quarters of the chamber to the agriculturists. He says that the agriculturists resent that advice and properly so. I wonder if my hon. friend thinks the manufacturers of Canada will accept the advice he has given them this afternoon that they should take off their coats and get to work. I am of opinion that the majority of Canadian manufacturers are already working and working very hard. My hon. friend also said that the men who are workers in the factories will simply vote to keep their jobs.


Robert Forke: I did not say that.


William Foster Garland: I think that
we will find out there are some people, even members of parliament, who vote to keep their jobs. There might be also some parties who vote to keep their jobs.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Speak for yourself.


William Foster Garland: 
Mr. JACOBS:: I will go and bring him in if you like.


William Foster Garland: I notice that
on page J56 of Hansard he said with regard to the tariff :
I have heard our friends the protectionists state, and they had no hesitation in stating, that if we adopted a tariff policy higher than it is now, a policy somewhat similar to that which they have in the United States-although it does not seem to work very well there so far as the farmers are concerned- it would work splendidly here, it would stop emigration, would increase immigration, would give more employment, would raise wages, would raise the price of farm products, and at the same time decrease the cost of living. I think they are too modest in the advantages which they claim their tariff would accomplish. Would it not also cure earache and headache, lumbago and sciatica, remove dandruff and prevent the hair from falling out? Mrs. Lydia Pink-ham's pills would be nowhere alongside an adequate tariff, which, in the estimation of these gentlemen, would be a tariff made up by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

The Budget-
-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
I might say in passing that, being a druggist, I would remind the hon. gentleman that Lydia Pinkhnm's pills are usually recommended for female ailments, and therefore do not apply to this side of the House. But I presume that when he delivered his speech he had taken some of these pills, or was badly in need of them.
With regard to the boasted economy of this government, I cannot as yet see that any economy is being practised by it. We had an item in the Public Works estimates asking for an expenditure of one and a quarter million dollars for the acquisition of the Colonial building in London, England, and another three-quarters of a million dollars expenditure on alterations for the same building. At the time I said that this two million dollars might have been spent to much better purpose in our own city in making the "deserted village" between here and the buildings within the next quarter of a mile appear as if the government owned the land. Instead of taking this course and providing suitable accommodation for various government departments, the administration continues to rent buildings from those who are friendly towards it at election times.
The government also boast of the retrenchment they have effected by reducing the number of civil servants. But I notice that in every case the dismissals are of those in the lower grades. I have yet to find that any of the high-salaried men have been dismissed, whereby some benefit to the country might result. Of course, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) told the unfortunate ones, "We are going to use you well; we have employed you for about nineteen years, and we are going to give you two months' pay when we dismiss you." He, a friend of Labour, would so treat loyal employees after such a length of service!
I am surprised to know that 'last year over five hundred of our technical men reft the service. I am also surprised to know that the members of the technical staff in the Department of Agriculture are not paid the same as are similar staffs in other branches. This, Mr. Speaker, I think is one of the reasons why there is so much discontent in the service to-day. I have already expressed the opinion that the same amount of bonus should be paid to every person who is doing similar work whether he has dependents or not, for undoubtedly civil servants working beside each other and doing the same amount of work should be paid the same remuneration. Nothing is likely to benefit the Civil
Service more than a contented staff. We do not need to go outside this building to find that some of the lower grades, such as those engaged in the char service, have not yet received their current bonus. These are the very people who are most in need of the bonus, and it should be paid to them without
delay.	.
Now a word with respect to the retirement fund established in 1898. This is made up of 5 per cent deductions from the salaries of civil servants; the government do not contribute to the fund at all. According to a return brought down recently, the government had on hand on the 31st March, 1922, to the credit of the retirement fund 88,680,112.76. Now, on the amounts so deducted the government pays only 5 per cent half yearly; but at the same time they do not mind floating Victory bonds and paying those who purchase them practically 7 per cent. I consider that the 5 per cent interest should be raised, for the fund is at the disposal of the government and can be made use of from time to time for national purposes.
With regard to the Superannuation biff,
I heartily agree with the principle, but I defer dealing with this until the measure- is before us for discussion in the committee stage.
One of the most lamentable things that is taking place in this country is our immigration. In answer to a question I placed on the order paper I was informed that the government spent in 1923, 890,171.50 for officials and employees of the immigration staff in the United States, placed there, it must be, to bring immigrants from that country into Canada. I do not know what results have been obtained, but we are led to believe that our people are leaving this country at the rate of about 500 a day, if that is so, there is an excellent opportunity for the government to save 890,000 a year by withdrawing their immigration staff from the United States.
With regard to the policy adopted by the government of bringing immigrants to this country, I believe that there is plenty of room within the borders of Canada for ten times the population we have to-day. I would like to see more people brought from the British Isles, and it would be well in bringing them over to bring some who have money that they can spend on factories and the like to give employment to those who come here. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is going to buy a double disc harrow so that he can do twice as much work with one teamster as he did before;
165S

The Budget-Mr. Denis (St. Denis)
that is the way he is going to help labour. We are bringing Mennonites into this country. There is room for them all but I think we should try first to get people from the British Isles. We should have, to my mind, a restricted immigration. When the party of the present administration was previously in power they brought to Canada large consignments of Doukhobors and settled them on the best lands of the West. And what has happened? Last year t.he Doukhobors went back in a body to their own country, with millions of Canadian dollars in their pockets. They lived, in this country, they were fed in this country, they were protected in every wa3q during the war and otherwise; they were even clothed by the government. Now, if a man has five or six sons in On-, tario, for instance, and he wants to move to the West, he would not get from any government, a railroad ticket to take bim two miles, but to my mind these are the people to whom we ought to give some encouragement-the young boys from Ontario or the provinces further east who have been brought up on the farm. It is unfortunate that the only thought we who are bringing up sons can have to-day is that they are being brought up to become residents of the republic to the south; we cannot see any prospects for a boy in this country. The result is that our young men are going to the United States. A lot of them will come back, but the intelligent, bright young men who go there and make good will remain there; we are really getting only the second rate fellows back. In twenty-five j'ears from now our neighbours to the south will have got all the cleverest men that this country produces.
I do not know that I can say anything further, except that the only consistent course I can follow is to vote against this budget.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: The economic policy, Mr. Speaker, which the present government has been carrying . out, ever since they have been at the helm of public affairs, has produced excellent results. The financial statement which has just been submitted to us by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), allows us to hope for happier days; it assures us that the administration is in better hands, and that, no doubt, we are on the road to prosperity. For my part, Sir,
I am quite satisfied with the budget that file hon. minister has brought down. It answers the wishes of the great majority of citizens of this country, and also responds to their needs. It is the return to the old-time 
and distinctive policy of the Liberal party, the policy to which the country is indebted for its great prosperity in the past.
What is very pleasing to note in this jrnar's budget, is the decrease of the national debt which, under the old Conservative regime, had enormously increased, rising from $340,042.052.03, in 1911 to $2,340,878,983.09 in 192122, the last year of an unfortunate Conservative administration, and, without precedent in the annals of our history. The administration of public affairs wars under the present government during only the three last months of that fiscal year; consequently, the responsibility for that year's administration rests with the late government. In that year, the national debt increased to $2,422,135,801.73. In 1922-23, the first year of the present regime, the debt increased to $2,453,776,868.74, however, for the year 1923-24 ending March 31, the present government have announced that the debt has been reduced to $2,410,162,174.
The heritage which the late government bequeathed to the present one was not much to be envied. However, inspired by the greatest fortitude and a most determined patriotic desire, they courageously buckled down to work. The whole country, to-day, rejoice in seeing that work accomplished for the general welfare of its citizens. To reach such a result, Sir, a strict economy had to be carried out in the administration of public affairs and certain pressing work postponed, such for instance, as the erection of a post office in my constituency, the need of which has been felt for a number of years, and which I have continually been requesting since I had the honour of respresenting the division of St. Denis. This post office is needed, owing to the large increase of population, the commercial and industrial expansion and especially the importance this northern section of the city of Montreal has taken within the last years; it is to-day the most beautiful part of the great metropolis of Canada. Its population is considerable, having over 100,000 inhabitants, and, within a few years, it will reach 125,000. It is the most favourable locality to reside in, both as regards the sanitary and financial standpoint. It is by practising economy, Sir, that the government have succeeded in bringing down the expenses and increasing the revenues to such an extent that, this j'ear, they were able to announce to the country a surplus of $67,750,000. We must rejoice in seeing such results and congratulate the government on this success. I do not ask our friends who sit on your left, Sir, to do

The Budget-Mr. Denis (St. Denis)
so; let them, however, cease sowing falsehoods and slanders throughout the country and especially in Quebec, and, instead of spreading the whisper of death, let them breathe the air of prosperity which the present administration is sowing. I think, Sir, that this air does not suit them accustomed as they are to live in an atmosphere contaminated by all kinds of parasites from whach the country has suffered during their administration.
The most serious side of our opponents' criticism, is the reproach of our having disturbed the tariff and having been false to our last year's pledge of upholding its stability. Whatever they may think,. say or read, they cannot possibly prove such a contention. This government promised to give the country a tariff according to its needs and conditions. Under present circumstances, there are two classes which are in need of protection: The labouring class, which constitutes the large majority of consumers, and the farming class whose industry is threatened, owing to the prevailing low prices of their products and the high cost of implements and the expense of farming. Briefly, the government wished to grant the small wage-earners, the labouring class, as much protection as is offered to the wealthier classes. It is with that aim in view that the government has. reduced the sale tax by one per cent. This reduction may appear to us very small, on first sight, but for those who have a large family, tjiis is quite an item at the end of the year. We find these large families especially among people of small means, workmen, farmers, and not among the rich. The former supply the state with man power which is far more valuable than money, especially in a country like ours, whose natural resources are so rich and abundant, and await but strong hands to develop and make them productive for the state. Similarly, we should be very thankful to the government for its decision to raise the income exemption from $300 to $500 for each child under 18 years of age. It is the duty of the government to promote in every way an increase in the birth-rate, throughout the country by giving the greatest possible protection to those patriotic people. The country needs an increase in population. Immigration contributes to a certain extent, but we should favour the increase which comes from births rather than from immigration. It sometimes happens-and it is a misfortune-that these foreign immigrants have not all the qualifications necessary to
become good Canadian citizens, for instance, those who are sent from reformatories or other institutions of the kind. I would ask the government to be very particular. Canada must not be looked upon as a dumping ground. There is plenty of place here for all good citizens desirous of settling in this country and becoming good Canadians. Blood ties must not be considered in the selection of immigrants, but what must be especiall}' taken into account is their turn of mind, character and their manhood.
What pleased me very much was to find, in the budget, the lowering of duty on farming implements and the disappearance of the sale tax on said articles. Agriculture is the first and most important of our national industries. It is certainly in need of a little more protection. The government became aware of this and I therefore congratulate them. Let us help to make our farmers prosperous, let us increase their purchasing power and I am convinced that the other industries will feel its good effects. As to manufacturers in general, I think they have no cause for alarm. This government has no intention to hinder them in getting a reasonable profit out of their industries, its aim is simply to help those who are in need, and it requests the manufacturers not to be too selfish, but content themselves with what is reasonable and just. In my humble opinion what is detrimental to the industries of a country is the decrease of the purchasing power of a people. When money is plentiful, we buy; when it is the reverse, business is :at a standstill. Protection which can but increase the cost of manufactured products, cannot be the remedy. The secret of a good government is to find the means of increasing this purchasing power. It is the foundation of success. I am convinced that the present government will attain this end.
I had no intention, Sir, of detaining the House very long, but I cannot resume my seat without making a few remarks on the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I am rather astonished, considering our financial situation, to note that our friends the Progressives are asking for the building of this railway which would require a large expenditure. It is true that our financial situation has somewhat improved, however, we must not undertake further outlays without being very sure that they are in the general interest of the country. I think that this railway construction would be a pure loss for Canada, the open season is too short and ice floes block the Hudson strait during almost
1660	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Denis (St. Denis)
the whole year, with the exception of July and August when it is too early to make use of this route for the transportation of grain. I base my statement on reports made by people having lived the year around in those parts, and therefore, well acquainted with the subject. This railway is not to be looked upon as a luxury, but as a means of communication required for the needs of the population and their trade; it is too expensive an undertaking to be left to the whims of any one. The Hudson Bay railway will not remedy the situation from which the western farmers suffer, such as the high rates of freight and insurance. I would advise them to postpone their request, this would save a great deal of money to the country and would avoid placing a new burden on the people.
I shall close my remarks, Sir, by assuring the government of my entire trust in them. I urge them to continue, their Liberal policy and I feel convinced that the country will be grateful to them when the hour for reward has struck. Our friends who sit on your left, Sir, will once more be disappointed, and it will not be the last time.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I take up much of the time of the House, and I am sorry that there are not more hon. members in their seats. No one can accuse me of taking up a great deal of time, and I ask the indulgence of the House this afternoon to bring before it the agreement between the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commission, the railways and this government in connection with the viaduct.
You are all aware that a representative delegation came down from Toronto on a special train recently and met the Prime Minister and the cabinet in the Railway Committee room. It was a very large and harmonious delegation representing the Toronto Board of Trade, the Toronto City Council, the School Board, and several other organizations which it is not necessary to mention.	The delegation asked that the
government honour the agreement entered ;nto in 1913 between the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the city of Toronto. I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and t'he Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) are not present. The reception the delegation got was a very fair one, but the reply to the demands made by the city of Toronto was not just what the city expected to get. The Prime Minister said that he was having difficulty in battling his estimates through

parliament, and that no matter how friendly the government might feel towards carrying out this agreement, parliament had to vote the money, and so tonight I wish to draw the attention of parliament to this agreement. That is why I am sorry there are not more hon. gentlemen in their seats.
I have not been asked to bring this matter before parliament by the city of Toronto, but as I was an old member of the city council at the time these negotiations were going on, between 1908 and 1913, and was chairman of the Board of Works and of the Property Committee of the council, I felt it was my duty to bring this matter before parliament.
Before 1908 the city was in negotiation with the railways demanding an elevated track along the waterfront, and in 1908 the Board of Railway Commissioners issued instructions that the tracks should be elevated. The railways opposed that order and appealed to the Privy Council. They lost their case before the Privy Council, and then they began sparring for time until 1913, when they came forward with a proposition of their own and submittted it to the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto came to an agreement with the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific in that year, and the agreement was signed, sealed and delivered, and approved by the railway board. All interests were satisfied, and the city of Toronto thought they were going to have the viaduct built right away. But another year passed and then the war came in 1914. We all know that the government and the city had their hands full as soon as the war came, and the city of Toronto did not then press for the viaduct. After the war came the collapse of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and then finally the taking over of all these roads by the government. The Canadian Pacific has signified its willingness to go ahead with the agreement; Sir Henry Thornton has also signified that he sees his way clear to going ahead with it; and now it is up to parliament to vote the money so that the government can carry out their share of the agreement.
Some people may ask, what is the necessity for this viaduct? I am going to give to parliament the facts that make it necessary that this viaduct should be built. The whole waterfront is cut off from the city by level crossings. Unfortunately, in the early days of Toronto, when it was a small town called " Muddy Little York "-you know how a railway will come into a small town, and how on every occasion it gets the best part of the town or city, and that is what hap-

The Budget-Mr. Spence
pened in the early days in Toronto. The railways built along the waterfront, and they have to have room to develop. At present they are a hindrance to the development of the city, because they occupy the whole waterfront and the city cannot get access to its industrial areas along that waterfront. There are twenty-two level crossings in this territory that is supposed to be covered by the viaduct. In 1908, I think it was, the Grand Trunk and the city went in together and depressed the tracks from Sunnyside to Bathurst street. Hon. members who have been to the Toronto Exhibition may remember how in the old days they had to cross the tracks to get there, and how nowadays they can walk right into the grounds, the tracks being below. The viaduct will carry out this scheme in the other end of the city. There are fifty main line tracks, averaging more than two at each crossing, and every now and again an accident happens at one of these crossings. There are sixty-nine shunting tracks in the twenty-two crossings, averaging more than three to a crossing. In the summer time we have a wonderful boat business in and out of the city of Toronto, and all inward and outward waterbound freight has to cross these tracks; you can understand what that means.
At these particular crossings theie are from ten to twelve tracks. These have to be crossed in order to reach the coal sheds, elevators, foundries, and fruit warehouses on the waterfront. The whole of the fruit shipments that come across the lake have to be carried across these level crossings, and with the amount of railway traffic that is going on it is a very dangerous proposition. All tourist and passenger traffic to the waterfront must cross these tracks, and the unfortunate thing is that at eight or nine o'clock in the morning, one o'clock in the afternoon, and other hours, when thousands of people are streaming down to the waterfront, trains of the Canadian Pacific railway, and of the Canadian National railway are apt to be coming in or going out on the tracks. It can readily be seen how dangerous these crossings are. Let me give a definite illustration: A man and his wife, accompanied by three or four children come down to reach the waterfront. A train commences to pass and the family get separted. The wife may get safely across but the watchman stops the husband and children. It results in the greatest inconvenience and causes justifiable alarm. Never a day passes but there is a rush to get across to the waterfront before the trains come along and the wonder is that serious accident do not happen.
It is not uncommon for parties of eight or ten persons to be separated, and for those first across to start off in one boat while those held back have to sail on the later one. Such are the conditions which prevail, and these conditions the city of Toronto want to have eliminated as far as possible. There are boats catering to the tourist and passenger traffic which leave the waterfront of Toronto bound for the Thousand Islands, Montreal, Quebec and the Saguenay. Boats also leave for Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Port Dalhousie and other points. Then there is Toronto island to which the people of the city gain access from the waterfront. Part of the island is occupied by the residences of people who go there for the summer, the balance is devoted to providing entertainment for the masses. To the crowds thronging to Toronto island these crossings are a menace and a great source of inconvenience. Surely hon. members can easily see the necessity for the construction of this viaduct. I have been engaged in the fruit business on the waterfront of Toronto for thirty years, and I have had to cross these tracks many times each day. It is heartrending to see the danger which is incurred, and the delay which people suffer, owing to the movement of trains over these crossings. It is absolutely necessary that some relief measures should be provided.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


David Spence: The city's industrial area
south of the railway tracks comprises 998 acres east of Cherry street. This property cannot be utilized because nobody will establish industries in such a dangerous and inconvenient locality. There are 399 acres from Cherry street west to Bathurst street. Now after taking piers, roadways and sidings from the 399 acres there will be 257 acres for lease by the harbour commissioners. That to-day is not accessible to the city, but we hope to get a revenue from that after the viaduct is built. Out of the 998 acres east of Cherry street there will be 650 acres available for industrial development, the balance being roadways, 348 acres. That makes a total of 900 acres cut off from the city of Toronto by the present level crossings where we hope to have a viaduct built. The cost of the viaduct is supposed to be in the neighbourhood of $29,037,064. The city pays $7,421,946. The railway companies own land to the value of $2,496,100 which will be used for terminals, and they are charg-

The Budget-Mr. Spence

mg that to the viaduct. The actual amount to be spent by the railways is 819,000,000. The Canadian National Railways must provide one-half, somewhere around the sum of $9,000,000. We are not asking that this money be all voted this year. It will take five years to build the viaduct, according to the agreement of 1913. It was to be finished in 1916. But suppose it takes five years to complete, it will mean that the government will have to vote for the Canadian National Railways $2,000,000 a year for five years. If it is to be completed within three years they will have to vote $3,000,000 a year for three years, and we are asked to vote that amount in order to honour our obligations, as the Canadian Pacific are prepared to do to-day. I trust the Prime Minister will see that the two or three million which is absolutely necessary will be placed in the estimates. I am glad the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is in the House at the present time. If this amount is not voted the parliament of Canada, the highest court in the land has not honoured its obligations and how could we expect any other corporation to honour its obligations? The sum of $14,000,000 has already been spent by the harbour commissioners, the city of Toronto and the government. That property south of the railway tracks will be useless unless the work is completed. Private companies have spent millions on properties south of the proposed viaduct, and are not able to carry on their business there. They leased the land on the distinct understanding that the viaduct was to be built, and that they would have access to it; and to-day they are leaving their property-all the result of the agreement of 1913 not being carried out. The government will be responsible for any tragedy that happens on these level crossings. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) are in their seats-


Mr. HODGINS:: Have there been any accidents on those crossings up to the present time, and if so, how many?


David Spence: I may say that hardly a year passes that we have not some very severe accidents.
Going to Cherry street, there are three main line tracks, and there are sixteen tracks altogether. Of course the railways take the opportunity of using every possible track for their cars. The trains come down there full speed on the line, and a fellow gets on the track with his coal wagon, and the wagon goes up in the air. We have had a great deal of trouble 
in the past and we hope it will be eliminated by the government carrying out their agreement.


Archie Latimer Hodgins: Do the railway companies do any interswitching in the day time?


David Spence: Yes, but after the viaduct is built they propose to eliminate switching in the day time. They are taking cars in there every hour of the day, and it is not possible to avoid switching during the whole day, and this switching is done at the foot of Yonge and Bay streets, where people are crossing to catch the boats. Hon. members will know the difficulty there is in getting to a boat when a train pulls in between you and the boat. Some of them take a chance by going in between the cars, and some crawl under. If hon. members were to watch them going from north of the tracks to the wharves to catch the boats, their hair would stand on end. It is a ridiculous condition of affairs. We have put up with it as long as we have been able to do so.
I propose to speak in a general way on the budget and deal with the question of expenditure and of economy.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Would the hon. gentleman tell me if the railways have carried out their contract with the city of Toronto, or did the hon. member deal with that before six o'clock?


David Spence: he has gilt-edged securities, he cannot secure a loan. Now, I do say that there should be honour in politics. I believe that there ought to be honour in anything, but particularly in politics; and one should have reason to feel that there is stability in the government. This government should carry out the wishes of the majority of the people, and I say that it should carry out the obligations of its predecessors.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: I see the Prime Minister laughing; let him laugh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am only
smiling.


David Spence: Now, the Speech from the Throne mentioned two specific things, one of which was a reduction in the tariff on the implements of production. That has been carried out. Then they proposed to introduce the single transferable vote. Let me say to the government that that would be the means of introducing more corruption into elections than we have ever had heretofore, and my advice to them is to cease such action entirely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: Hon. members laugh. Naturally they would like to try this innovation in a good Toiy constituency, such as the city of Toronto, with a view of winning a few of the ridings; but it would be impossible for them to be successful in any such attempt, no matter what they might do. So they can laugh away. Something should be done to stop the waste of time in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Spence: Well, if I lost a quarter of the time consumed by my hon. friends to my left I would be ashamed of myself. I have not talked more than an hour this session, but I think I have said just as much as some of my hon. friends to my left who have talked a week. I repeat, something should be done to stop the waste of time in this House. For instance, something should be done to discourage the introduction of such radical resolutions as have been submitted by my hon. 'friends to my left. Why, it is ridiculous. I may just instance three. First the resolution to amend the British North America Act. It amounted to nothing but talk-talk and more talk, and every hon. gentleman knew ' what the result would be. The next was to amend the Criminal Code. The third was to do away with capital punishment. What do you think of such resolutions as

those? Do you think it is fair that the country should keep a bunch of men, supposed to have a certain amount of ability, in this House discussing radical resolutions that do not amount to anything at all? I do not know how the government tolerates such a condition of affairs. If I were the government I would do something to stop the introduction of such resolutions.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about church
union?


David Spence: I am not touching church
union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in protection. I want all my friends to my left to understand that.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Moderate" or
"adequate?"


David Spence: Oh, I am always for moderate protection; that is perfectly all right. I am a strong believer in a protective tariff, and I am more convinced than ever, after watching our neighbours to the south, that we need a higher tariff rather than a lower in order to protect the tillers of our soil and our industries. I want to protect my hon. friends to my left, the tillers of our soil, because I have endeavoured to make my living from them during the last thirty-five years, and I have succeeded fairly well. The reason we need protection is what I will now explain. My hon. friends to my left do not know much about it, and I am going to try to enlighten them. The other night the hon .member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said: You will never go broke getting a bargain. I reply: No, but the man who gives the bargain goes broke. And that is what my hon. friends would like: everybody would be broke but themselves.
Climatic conditions on the American side operate as a substantial protection to the people there who grow fruit and truck produce of all kinds. In the south they can raise from one to three crops a year while it takes our farmers all their time to raise one crop- and they growl while they are doing it. Take in the southern states,-Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, North and South Carolina and Maryland

! will guarantee that the farmers there can raise from two to three crops a year. And yet you are trying to compete with them without protection! Why, it is absolute rot. Take the north shore of Virginia, where prdbably 50,000 acres are under cultivation to potatoes, which supply this country from the beginning of May to the beginning of July. That crop is sold here when the price is good, but when it

The Budget-Mr. Spence
drops the Virginia farmers cease shipping. Then in July I have often sold them carloads of old potatoes, which they plant, and the resultant crop supplies their home market. Can you do that in Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not patriotic.


David Spence: What is not patriotic? It
is patriotic to make money wherever you can. What I mean by that, Mr. Speaker, is this:	If the Americans, being wise to the
situation, can grow two crops each year, they are doing right. It is better for them to so apply themselves rather than sit up growling as you gentlemen do. Free trade might help the western farmers temporarily, but it would kill them in the end, as it would also the truck farmers of this country. For free trade would drive away our population, free trade would shut up our industries and the population would leave the urban centres. Take an area within twenty miles of Hamilton-I would talk of Toronto, because I know you gentlemen do not like to hear of that city Suppose one of the big industries there should close down, it would throw out of employment four thousand people-and we anticipate this will happen-and the shutting down of that industry would affect associated industries, and they too would have to close down. As a result the population of Hamilton would soon be reduced from 110,000 to
50,000.	This may actually occur, because a free trade policy is bound to bring about such a result if it does nothing else. My hon. friend here (Mr. Senn) is a truck farmer and lives within twenty miles of Hamilton. He does not do any growling. On the contrary, he is bringing in his produce and finding a ready market for it in Hamilton, for the city has a population sufficient to consume all the fruit and garden truck grown within forty miles of its boundaries. But what is going to happen when we depopulate this urban centre? What are we going to do? Land will drop in value fifty per cent, because the price of land fluctuates with the price of farm products. You gentlemen need a little more experience. Your mind is too narrow; you are continually thinking of yourselves to the exclusion of everybody else.
Now, let me tell you something of the class of people you have to deal with in the United States. You gentlemen to my left are continually talking about the great market to the south. I will tell you how selfish the people are there. I happen to be in the nursery business. In 1917, for the purpose
of improving their own nursery industry- and I would approve of Canada doing the very same thing-when the United States government saw that the nursery business was being hampered by an over supply of nursery imports from Holland, England and France, they put on a high duty; but they were not content with this, and the next year they put on an embargo, shutting out nursery imports altogether, thus encouraging their own people to propagate nursery stock They have also protected their grape growers; they have forced the people to eat nothing but California grapes, which is the right thing to do,
I would recommend the same course for adoption by the Canadian government under similar circumstances, for protection is the only thing. They put an embargo on Spanish grapes, thus preventing the people eating a better grape in order to force them to eat the California product, which is good enough for them. What do we do in this country?


An hon. MEMBER:: We have a good
government.


David Spence: No, we will not say we
have a good government. We reduced the duty on wine through the French treaty and killed our grape growers-an entirely different thing from what the United States did with their grape growers. We killed ours; they built theirs up.
Now, I am going to say something else that our hon. friends may think radical, too. As I said before, I am a great believer in protection, and I am a great believer in raising money in the cheapest possible way, that is, by customs tariff. To-day we have entirely too much direct taxation, entirely too many kinds of taxation. We have taxation municipal, provincial and federal, and the condition is such that it would poison the mind of the best citizen against any government. I say there are too many systems of taxation, and they are irritating and annoying everybody. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) told us of an instance just before the war when the revenue of this country was $136,000,000. At that time they raised $126000,000 by customs tariff and only $1,000,000 in a direct way; to-day we are raising over $155,000,000 by customs tariff and $199,000,000 by taxation, which is absolutely unfair. You are hitting the people who are trying to make an honest dollar, to accommodate and please somebody else.


An hon. MEMBER :: Who pays the taxes?
The Budget-Mr. Spence


David Spence: Everybody knows who
pays them. You do not get much out of the farmer, though he is entitled to everything that is coming to him, and if you can find a farmer in Ontario between Toronto and Niagara falls south or from that down east who will say an unkind word about me, I will buy you a good treat. I have farmer friends all over Ontario and I am willing to help them in every way I can. If my hon .friends, however, cannot see what is good for them I am going to point it out to them.
Lower the tariff on anything, I do not care what it is, and you kill industry. I will just mention three or four commodities by wav- of illustration. There is barbed wire, for instance. At one time there was a duty of | cents on it, but now the duty has gone forever. Cream separators could be made in this country, but no duty is imposed on them and to-day they are made in the United States. Binder twine-that is a thing that touches the farmer; he is always talking about binder twine; the duty was taken off binder twine and what happened? Before the duty was taken off we had twenty-three factories in Canada turning out binder twine, now we have three, and the price has gone up from 7 and 8 cents a pound to 15 cents a pound. That is the result of taking the duty off and killing your industry. That is what will happen if you drive your farm implement people out of Canada: they will go back to the States and say "Now, we will make you pay for your implements; you will pay it all back with good interest."


Mr. EVANS:: If my hon. friend will permit a question, may I ask, what is the output of the three twine factories now compared with the total output when there were twenty-three factories operating?


David Spence: One-third, I presume. I
must say that I had not looked into that, but I am informed on reliable authority-by an hon. gentleman to my left here-that one-third of what we use is made in this country. That is the trouble with the farmer in the West: He has got his eye southward; for goodness' sake let him get it the other way. They seem to be satisfied, now that they have killed the woollen mills, killed more industry and made it more difficult to sell their products. They have killed the home market, which was one of the best markets, after all- and after a while I will tell you something which will make you understand why. You have killed the farm implement business, at least, you have started on the way, and next year the truth of what we are saying now will 
be shown. That was the case with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) in his remarks on the French treaty:	He told the
House last year what would happen and this year he showed them what had happened. What he said last year was true, and what he said this year was true.
I am a believer in economy. Personally I have always been accustomed to economy. I am not like some people; I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and I have always had to consider economy. I like to see economy practised by the government or a municipality just as I practise it in my own business, but there are very few here who look at it that way or they would not talk so long and so often. Our overhead has increased in this country by leaps and bounds, increased out of all proportion to population. It is caused by too much legislation, too much social welfare, too much spoon feeding of the individual, killing initiative and causing indolence in the country. Is that not right? I think my hon. friends really agree with me but they have not got the backbone to say it. We (have heard about widows' pensions, mothers' pensions and old age pensions, but recently we have heard of a new one. the "out of work pension." That was applied in the Old Country, and I heard somebody here advocate the same thing. Just imagine an out of work pension in Canada-why, nobody would ever work; in fact, lots of them do not work now. I heard of an instance in Ireland where you got 27 shillings when you were out of work as against 35 when you worked-now, who would work?
I do not believe even my hon. friends to my left would work under those conditions.
We have too many fads introduced into parliament, too many dreamy ideas, too much nonsense all the time. Legislators, representatives of the people, should have backbone, but as my old friend Sam McBride of the city of Toronto would say, the difficulty with legislators is that their wishbone is where their backbone should be.
Another way of economizing is by cutting out all commissions investigating this and that, costing $300,000 for this, $500,000 for that, and so on. Members of parliament should be in a position to accept their share of the responsibility for the government of this country and no commission should be appointed outside of this House. You can get men in this House who are just as capable of investigating anything as you can get outside of it, and in that way you will save the country money. I have always advocated, that; in the city council I did the same

The Budget-Mr. Spence
thing, so it is nothing new for me. I never yet saw anything come out of a commission; they are usually told the finding, they bring it before you, and that is all there is to it.
We have too many publications coming from the Printing Bureau, and I would advise the government to look into this very thoroughly with a view to seeing what could be eliminated. There is an extravagant waste of paper; the mail carriers of this country are loaded down with useless material. Seventy-five per cent of what the mail carriers carry around in the city of Toronto is junk that nobody ever reads. My cellar is full of it and every other cellar is full of it in the same way. Unfortunately we cannot bum it because we use oil burners. When we used to burn, coal we could dispose of the stuff, but to-day it is piling up and we have not even anybody to sell it to. I saw in Hansard a question asked by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Pritchard) in this connection, and it was a good question; it brought out some information. He asked:
1.	How many tons of waste paper have been sold by the government during the last fiscal year?
2.	What is the total amount received for same?
3.	What per cent of this amount was obtained by the Department of Agriculture?
The Hon. Mr. Copp answered the first two questions. In reply to the first he said:
The weight of paper sold is not available.
That is information for youl Just imagine a department with a head giving that out. The answer to the second was: $497.36. Well, that is pretty good. The answer to the third question was:
Does not refer to this department.
As usual, no information from the Department of Agriculture. The question was also answered with relation to the Post Office Department, as follows:
1.	350.
2.	$4,199.65.
3.	No information.
With respect to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery-and here is where the extravagance comes in-this was the answer:
1.	722 tons, 1,509 pounds.
2.	$26,558.30.
Now, this is a serious proposition. It is extravagance, and no matter what government is in power, no matter whether this has been going on for the last half century or not, it should stop, and now is the time to stop it. I presume that half of that amount scrapped was never sent out, but was just baled up as waste paper.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Is the hon. member
aware that those figures for the Printing Bureau cover all the waste paper from all the departments of the government in Ottawa, and that the price received is for all the waste paper from every department of the government, not from the Printing Bureau alone?


David Spence: The Post Office Department sold over $4,000 worth, so they must have sold that independently.


James Murdock: That is for waste paper at Brockville and other outlying points shipped into Ottawa to be sold.


David Spence: Anyhow, I think hon. members will agree with me that it is the height of extravagance, and I do not care if my own party were in power I would say the same thing. But you are in power, and it is up to you to remedy it. You would almost think there were good times in the country from the way money is wasted; but when you want any money for something useful there is no money. Last year we bought the Hotel Scribe in Paris, which we did not need, for which we have absolutely no use, for $1,300,000, and now we understand it cost $2,500,000, andithe manipulator, Mr. Aronovici that we heard so much about-well, there is always a fellow in between. My friends to my left object to the middleman. I do not like middlemen in this case, and that is what Mr. Aronovici was. I saw in a paper that came to my office to-day that they expect to spend another $2,500,000 on that Hotel Scribe, so it may take $5,000,000 altogether. I cannot say whether the report is true or not. At all events we know that it has cost in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000, and we know that everything of this kind that is purchased by a government or a municipality always costs more than the original estimate.
Then we have our friend the High Commissioner in London whom I know well-full of vanity as an egg is full of meat. He is of the opinion that he wants a beautiful building in London with a great big stone front, and the great "I Am" walking up into it. Just imagine spending that amount of money there. If the Salada Tea had made it all, I would not mind so much, but the poor taxpayer has to pay for it.
Now I come round to home, to my friends from the West. Ten years ago there were no industries in the West at all. Very little of anything was raised there except wheat. I do. not think there was any dairying done there ten years ago, perhaps five years ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


David Spence: What I am going to tell you, you may not know. Yes, even five years ago,
The Budget-Mr. Spence

and I want to compliment the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan for the way they have developed dairying out there. Their cheese factories are doing splendidly. Their creamery butter is first class; they are producing the best make of b'itter in the Dominion right in the province of Alberta; I know what I am talking about, b< cause I am associated with people who are dealing in butter. Alberta is to be congratulated on the splendid make of butter she is turning out,-and as some hon. member has said, the whole country will have to do the same before the butter situation will be as it should be in this country. About five years ago people from the East, people that I know, shipped poultry and cheese and butter, condensed milk and everything into those provinces. But to-day we are receiving in the East, in Toronto and Montreal, hundreds of carloads of butter and cheese from those provinces, and this year alone Alberta and Saskatchewan shipped to the East over a thousands carloads of turkeys, averaging 20,000 pounds to the car. So I say they are to be congratulated. They are developing an industry out there, and in the near future my friends to my left will be howling for protection just as loudly as they are howling to-day for free trade.


Mr. COOTE:: What did they get for the turkeys?


David Spence: As much as they deserved. That just slipped out; I did not intend to give that answer.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Dundas):: W7hat did you get out of it?


David Spence: To be frank with you, I was good enough to help some of your western friends out with their turkeys. One man came with a carload of turkeys, chickens and eggs, for fifty-six different people, and he had all the stuff from each man packed in one box. I got him a place to put his stuff in, and I sold some of the turkeys for him and it cost him nothing. But that is not the point. The people in the West to-day are aware that they must get proper boxes made to crate their stuff in; they must have proper refrigeration, and kill properly; they must use the proper-sized box. Some have been doing that this year, and they are making a wonderful success of it. This year you have 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country more than the world can use, and there is nothing else for it but that wheat must come down in price to create a demand for it. If you drop anything in price you will generally find someone willing to buy it and take a chance on selling it, but I maintain in this 
case he will lose. I paid 35 cents a pound for western turkeys and paid as low as 23 cents, and some of them should never have been shipped. I do not blame my western friends for that, because they are not fully conversant with the class of stuff that will bring the price. But you are developing this industry in the West, and you people will soon be hollering for protection as loudly as you holler now for free trade, and you will remember what I have told you, don't forget that! The eastern provinces cannot afford to let you men in the West think you rule the country no matter how much we think of you, and we certainly entertain a high opinion of you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: Every farm in the West
is not owned by a western man. Many of you gentlemen have done well on the farm. I will guarantee this: If you take fifty men in the retail business and compare them with fifty men selected from yourselves it will be found that you are doing a great deal better, and yet you are growling at your condition. Business men w,ork from early morning until late at night-in fact they are never through -but you gentlemen only work for a few hours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: I will take that back and
say that you work all day, but you certainly do not work all night. In order to get along in life many men in business have to work practically day and night. I remember when I started-I do not mind telling, I am not ashamed of it-I had a mind to be at the top in my business. I worked all day in the fruit market beginning at seven o'clock in the morning, and at seven o'clock I went to the office and worked there until two and three o'clock every morning. I did that .for three months at a time. I have never been able to get the leisure for a trip across to Niagara. But many of you gentlemen when you work a few months in the spring and fall get an automobile and go off for a hike to Vancouver. You toil not neither do you spin. Now, the point I want to make is this: Take fifty men starting upon the farm and fifty men starting in the retail business, and you will see at the end of ten years the men on the farm will have more money than the men in business. Yet you think business men are better off than you are. I tell you frankly that you have more money than they have. Take any two hundred people in the retail business in the city of Toronto, I doubt whether any fifty of them could square their accounts up.

The Budget-Mr. Spence
The middleman has been accused of being a vulture. I happen to be a middleman myself but I have never been a vulture, or a parasite either. To-day conditions are terrible in this country; business is really bad, and these tariff changes are going to make it worse. The bankers are beginning to make you square up if you happen to have an overhead that amounts to anything. The strong has always protected the weak, and we propose to carry out that policy. In Toronto we have to enact by-laws to prevent people from walking in front of the street cars and killing themselves. Similarly, some of you gentlemen will have to be protected, and we are going to protect you. The difficulty is that hon. members from the prairie provinces think that all the wisdom has been extracted from the rest of the country and deposited in the West. Now that is not so. All the wisdom of Canada is not confined to any part of the country. You in the West have some, we in the East have our share, and the balance belongs to people in some other part of the country. Still hon. gentlemen from the West talk as if they "knew it all" and that we knew nothing. What we require in this country-I am talking seriously-is national unity. We cannot secure that without a real national policy, a policy that will keep Canada for the Canadians, Canadian business for Canadians, but keeping in mind all classes. Let us forget our troubles in future; let us bury the hatchet and help each other. I say to you gentlemen from the West: Stop your growling and get friendly with yourselves. Our population unfortunately is not large; it is a shame that this country is not growing any faster than it is. We really have no internal business, and if we do not retain our population conditions in future will be much worse than they are at present not only for the farmer but for the artisan and the man of business. Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway-he must be a fairly smart fellow, he draws a big salary and must earn it-was asked how it was that the United States enjoyed so much prosperity. He said there was a tremendous prosperity in the United States largely by reason of the internal trade developed in the country and which its enormous population made possible. In Canada our internal trade does not amount to anything. But when that country is filled up our turn will come. The United States will be overstocked shortly and then we shall start in on an era of prosperity, we shall be on the eve of a brighter day.
I was glad to hear the speech the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) made
this afternoon. I congratulate him on the optimism he displayed when speaking of the mineral resources of northern Ontario. That is the kind of speech that attracts population to the country, not speeches of a pessimistic character in which there is so much whining and growling. I do not like to hear speeches in this House like that delivered by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). That hon. gentleman had a magazine-I do not know whether it was the Christian Guardian or the Grain Growers' Guide-but he was quoting a lot of stuff out of it and trying to antagonize the working man, the middleman, and the man who produces pork one against the other. "The producer," he says "is getting only seven cents a pound for pork and according to advertisements you cannot buy the bacon for less than forty-five to fifty-five cents."


George Gibson Coote: I rise to a point of order.


David Spence: Pardon me. When I get through you can talk all you like.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. A
point of order has been raised.


George Gibson Coote: I would suggest the hon.
gentleman is out of order, in entirely misquoting the hon. member for Macleod, that is myself. I never said that bacon was fifty-five cents a pound.


David Spence: Hansard of the 28th of March will show what my hon. friend said.


George Gibson Coote: Very well, read it then.


David Spence: My hon. friend said fiftyfive cents or fifty cents and at the time I said, "No".


An hon. MEMBER:: Quote what was said.


David Spence: Pardon me. When I get through you can refer to Hansard. I said, "You could buy good bacon for thirty cents," and I was laughed at by hon. members to my left. This occurred on Friday night when I had to leave in order to go to Toronto. There was an effort to shut me up very quickly in the discussion because I happen to be a middleman.


George Gibson Coote: I would ask the hon. member to either substantiate his statement or withdraw it.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is no
reason now for the hon. member to withdraw the statement; he has made a sufficient explanation.


David Spence: I practically tell you what I believe to be the absolute truth. If I am
The Budget-Mr. Spence

wrong I apologize. The hon. gentleman can refer to Hansard and see if I am not right. I have the Montreal paper before me where it states that the price of bacon ran from 35 to 45 cents.


Robert Forke: I rise to a point of order. If an hon. member in this House makes a statement which is not in accord with the fact, is he bound to produce the evidence to prove that he is right before the member is compelled to retract?


George Newcombe Gordon: Mr Speaker is not required to answer questions, but the hon. member makes an explanation in which he says he thought it was either 50 or 55 cents, and if that is not correct, Hansard will show. That is not saying that he refuses to accept the statement of the hon. member for Macleod.


David Spence: This is just what I like

to bring out the cold facts. I never hide from anything I say; I am not going to tell a lie; that is something I do not do. I may have bad habits, but that is not one of them, and I think my memory serves me right ninety-nine per cent of the time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wrong this time.


David Spence: If I am wrong I apologize. Get Hansard of the 28th March. That is the thing to go by. The hon. gentleman was whining about the spread between the farmer and the consumer. That is what causes the trouble and statements that are misleading should not be made by any hon. member in this House.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the hon. member, if he does not believe in making statements which are not true, let him read what it is in Hansard at page 829, where I spoke about the price of bacon, and he will find that he has made statements which are not correct.


David Spence: I have here the documents to prove my statements. I say that bacon could be bought at 25 cents a pound, some as low as 20 cents, and some at 30 cents.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member said tonight-


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt an hon. member addressing the House.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member has no
right to misquote me and refuse to withdraw the statement.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt an hon. member who is speaking.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


David Spence: tions and I trust that he will see to it that a sufficient sum is provided for in the supplementary estimates this year to start the work. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. There are many public works that are badly needed in Toronto. For example, we have altogether inadequate customs accommodation and offices that should be concentrated in one building we have spread over a mile in twenty different places. This causes untold inconvenience to business men who have to do business in dark holes where there has to be artificial light day and night. The government is spending more money to-day in the way of rent for customs accommodation in Toronto than would pay 6 per cent interest on a million-dollar building. The customs receipts last year for the city of Toronto amounted to $60,000,000, while the post office revenue was $6,000,000; and I might point out to the government that that city has the best-paying customs and excise offices of any city of the Dominion. Surely we deserve some of the money that is made in Toronto to provide decent accommodation; and the government must realize the reasonableness of the appeal I make to-night for the carrying out of the contract in regard to the viaduct. It has been said that the government cannot afford to do anything for Toronto if hon. gentlemen on this side of the House oppose branch lines-at least something to that effect has been stated. But I do not think that any government should be small enough to deprive the city of Toronto of something to which it is absolutely entitled and which the other party is in honour bound to give, simply because of what any members of parliament might do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad
my hon. friend has raised the point. I have no doubt that those who were present at the deputation the other day will bear me out when I say that I made no such statement as was attributed to me, in one or two quarters, namely, that whatever the government would do in relation to the viaduct would depend upon what might be done in connection with the branch lines. I made no statement of the kind although I see that a part of the press so construed my words. What I did say-and I repeat it tonight-was that it was parliament and not the government that had to vote the money; and as hon. members know, there is difficulty in securing from parliament money for a number of purposes, and the help given in one direction other things being equal is not without likelihood of proving helpful in another.


Mr. CHURCH:: With all due respect to
the Prime Minister, I submit that his reply is far from satisfactory. A contract is a contract even though made with the government or with the Grand Trunk Railway. The contract is enforceable by specific performance and the government can be taken into the Exchequer Court of Canada and the contract enforced in the regular way. The Prime Minister's reply is not at all satisfactory and there is a legal remedy by way of specific performance. I submit that something should be done to adjust the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


David Spence: What the Prime Minister
has stated to-night I understand to be in keeping with the statement that he made the other day. But I submit that he has sufficient power to be able to introduce a bill in this House and at least give it a chance; and I think he ought to take the matter up with his colleagues and advocate it, with his followers behind him. If he will do this I shall very much appreaciate his action. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say, but I appeal once more to the Prime Minister and the cabinet to give this matter the most careful consideration.


Mr. L. J. LOVETT (Digby-Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to this House at the opening of the session of 1922, I have been a regular attendant, an attentive listener, and a close observer of all that has taken place up to the present time. Under these circumstances, it is quite natural that one should form his own conclusions and make his own deductions as to the relative merit or demerit of the business transacted in this House. I have reached the conclusion that fully one-half of the time of the House has been wasted in academic discussions that lead nowhere, besides costing the people an immense sum of money. Sessions that have lasted five months could have been reduced to three, and would have furnished ample time to dispose of the real business before the House. Long-drawn out speeches, occupying anywhere from one hour to two and a half and three hours, have been of too frequent occurrence over matters that are of no earthly interest to the country, but which only serve the purpose of satisfying the vanity of certain members who think they are endowed with great oratorical ability.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is customary in our Mother parliament for members to seldom occupy more than thirty minutes in the discussion of the weighty problems with which they have to deal. This being the case,

The Budget-Mr. Lovett
surely we in this parliament, would have ample time to present our views on any question in the time limit mentioned. I would therefore suggest, Sir, that from now on this session be made a purely business one, and that outside the ministers of the Crown, the right hon. leader of the opposition, and the leader of the Progressive group, all other members, who really desire economy, who really desire that the business before the House be disposed of in the shortest possible time consistent with good legislation, who really desire to make this a real businesslike session, confine their speeches to not over thirty minutes duration.
Having said this much, permit me to offer my hearty congratulations to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the government, on the wise, sound, and able budget which has been presented to this House; and especially do I wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance on the splendid manner in which he acquitted himself in presenting his first budget. I know its contents cannot be considered healing balm to the official opposition, but on the contrary it has rung the death knell to their hopes of a speedy return to power, for they must know that this budget will be thoroughly acceptable to the Canadian people. It is a straight tilt between the forces of high protection on the one hand and those of low tariff on the other. The line of demarcation is clear and distinct. The cleavage between the two parties is clear cut and well defined. The gauntlet has been thrown down and we on this side of the House are not only anxious but eager to take up the challenge when the time shall have arrived to go to the country and meet our opponents on the battle ground of reduced taxation and lower tariff, confident in the belief that the downward revision of the tariff will again restore to the country an overwhelming measure of prosperity.
There are, I believe, three distinct lines of thought regarding our fiscal policy: One of free trade, ideal in theory, but impracticable at the present time, as every sane and reasonable man will admit; one of high protection, which is the god of the Tory party, and which has been tried out in this country under the so called National Policy, but has been weighed in the balance and found wanting; one of low tariff, which by the bringing down of the present budget, has received a new impetus and called into being a real "national policy," which will be far reaching in effect, placing agriculture and all our other basic industries on a sound footing, and at the same time preserving and fostering our manufacturing industries.
No matter what the tariff policy may be, you will always find our manufacturing friends clamouring for more protection, in spite of the fact that they have been pap fed for years and years. Why, Mr. Speaker, their field of vision is so limited, so self-centered, that they begrudge concessions, no matter how small, to other interests in this country. They are so blinded by selfishness that they overlook the fact that the success, expansion, and development of our basic industries is the one thing essential to the success or failure of our manufacturing concerns. We have, in the budget just brought down, a tariff policy on sound Liberal lines calculated to give all interests in the Dominion a fair deal, and in no instance can it be fairly said that hardships have been inflicted on anyone.
The member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in his opening remarks previous to adjourning the debate, leaped at once to the front, and in his warrior-like style endeavored to detract from the real significance of the surplus as stated by the acting minister in his budget speech, claiming that ten millions should be credited to the former administration, as it was derived from acknowledged Imperial book debts, which had been pending for a long time, a settlement of which had been recently effected. Perhaps there is something in the hon. member's contention, but in order that the matter shall be fairly understood, let me remind the hon. gentleman that when the Liberal government went out of office in 1911, they left in the treasury a surplus of some thirty millions of dollars, so if the ten millions claimed by him is deducted from the thirty millions left by the former Liberal government there would be a balance of twenty millions. This added to the twenty millions surplus of this year would give a surplus of forty millions, instead of thirty millions as announced in the budget speech. So I think the hon. member will not find much comfort whichever way he takes it. Let me also point out to him and his party, that if this $30,000,000 surplus left by the former Liberal administration had not been sqandered by his government there would not be to-day the same reason for the existing high taxation. The people of this country have no one to blame but the former administration and their friends for the immense burdens they are now carrying, and it has been left to the present government to tackle the most difficult task, to disentangle the most awful mess, and to solve the most complex problems, that have ever faced any government in this country since confederation. But I am proud to say that this government grappled with the task
The Budget-Mr. Lovett


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with those who have expressed regret that our Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) has not been able to present what would have been his eighteenth budget. I wish also to compliment the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the businesslike, lucid and fair budget that he presented to the House. I say fair, because this budget takes the first step that we have had in the direction of a satisfactory reduction in customs duties since I have had anything to do with parliament, and for a long time before that. In fact, it is the biggest step taken in that direction that I know of since I came to Canada. But the budget is not so outstanding or so acceptable for what it does in itself as for what the government have proclaimed in regard to it. Some of the remarks made by some of the ministers on the other side of the House are in my opinion perhaps even more noteworthy than the budget itself, for we have had one minister, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), state that he hoped this budget sounded the death knell of protection in Canada. Now that is a significant statement, and we hope that his prophecy will be fulfilled. We as a group are not asking, and the people who have elected us have not asked, for free trade all at once. We have never expressed a wish for absolute free trade all at once, although we believe that we should have our tariff reduced to a revenue tariff basis just as soon as possible, and there are reasons for that.
In my discussion of this subject I think I should take a little different line from what most 'hon. members have taken who have spoken so far in this debate. We have heard it said many times that the United States has prospered wonderfully on account of the tariff that protects her industries. I challenge that statement. I lived in the United States until I was a man of middle age, and I have some knowledge and definite opinions regarding this question of whether the United States has prospered on account of the tariff or in spite of it. My own
opinion, which I will present as well as I can, is that the United States has prospered in spite of the high protection which she has carried. I can remember to as far back as about 1868, soon after the war in that country. The United States was in a bad condition at the end of that war, just the same as we are now, and perhaps their condition was even worse. I have seen people in the United States suffer more from the bad conditions than I have yet seen people in Canada suffer, except perhaps where there has been a drought or some other calamity of that kind. But that is not saying that Canada has done as well as she should have. I do not think she has.
Now I want to give my opinions why I think the United States has reached the state of prosperity she has. The first development that I remember distinctly as a boy in that country was the building of the Union Pacific railway across the western part of the United States. That was followed by the building of a railway across the southern part of the United States, a transcontinental line. Then came the building of the Northern Pacific across the northern part, followed soon after by the building of the Great Northern, another transcontinental line, and all of these went through good country. To be quite frank I think the tariff has had very little to do with the prosperity of the United States up to this time, except at intervals, and there were periods when their tariff bore down very heavily on the people. We are in just a similar period now, with the tariff bearing very heavily on the working and middle classes of this country. To some people it is rather a mystery why Canada has not developed as fast as the United States. It is as old a country as the United States. I do not know so much about the early period after 1868. We knew but little of Canada then in the United States, and we had but little chance to learn about it. All I can do, practically speaking, is to take history and hearsay for what happened in Canada until I came to this country. In the United States after the rebellion we started out to develop a country that was just as big in area as Canada is, although more varied in climate. It was a country rich in all sorts of resources, and we had then a population of from thirty-six to forty million people. Now a country with so many people would have a big advantage over Canada with its seven or nine million people, which is what the population has been since I came to this country twenty-five years ago. I do not know exactly what the population of the
The Budget-Mr. Warner

United States was at that time, but it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of thirty-six to forty million people, and with that number you could develop a country much faster than Canada could be developed with its seven or nine millions. Taking it all round, I do not think the United States is a better country than Canada, but they can raise in some parts of the United States things that we cannot raise. In Canada, producing the things we do, we should have prosperity, but we have had handicaps from which the United States has not suffered to the same extent, on account of her big population to start with. Then the United States adopted a policy of soliciting immigrants from all countries. It got many from the British Isles, and a considerable number from the continent: the people arrived so fast that they undoubtedly helped to develop the country very quickly. But I can remember when the United States was handicapped for labour and also suffered greatly for lack of capital. In the period of which I speak nobody talked of the tariff either promoting or retarding development, and yet the tariff was high all the time. But when depression came we noticed the effect of the tariff as we are noticing it in Canada to-day. During the period of which I speak there were times when the United States had to fall back on what it was producing. In the beginning capital came from England, Scotland and Ireland to a greater degree than from any other country. Capital from the British Isles, from France, and from the rest of Europe, poured into the United States for investment, and development was carried on with this borrowed money. The rate of interest was high but in view of the richness of the country not much thought was taken of that at the time. Development went on rapidly-the development of new lands, the construction of railways to those lands, the establishment of new cities. As I have said a large amount of capital poured into the United States from other countries for these purposes. At the time this development was in progress the people were not dependent on what they produced from the soil. They got capital readily for speculation and for future investment and, naturally, everyone spent money lavishly. And things continued to go on in that way. Well, the population grew enormously, and their markets increased. But I can well remember when the exports to what we called "the Old Country" set the price of all that we raised in the United States, and there were periods when it was very hard to stand the price at home which was fixed by the price put on the

products we exported. And that is just the position that Canada is in to-day. I have known wheat, not always of the best quality when compared with Canadian wheat, to sell as low as thirty and forty cents a bushel, and hogs on foot to go at as low a rate as $1.60 a hundred. This brought about a change in the economic conditions, and people began to wonder what was the matter. They began to see that the tariff was pressing on them unduly. I remember 1873 as the period when people first began finding fault with the tariff. And hard times prevailed then. I do know the tariff was not beneficial in its operation then. In my opinion all that it did was to keep those people in a poverty stricken condition until production of various kinds mostly agricultural could get things going again. At any rate, the fight began against a protective tariff, and many people who had been Republicans and had asked for high protection turned round and voted the other way. The Democrats then took office and they were supposed to be a low tariff party. They did cut the tariff down somewhat but they were much like the governments that we have had in Canada -they kept the general level of the tariff very much the same. But during this period we had bank failures, and great business depression outside of the depression in agriculture. Clothing, implements, and other necessities were hard to buy. It was evident that the tariff did enhance the price of things the people needed, and they began to study the fiscal question and to understand it. In view of these facts I am ill-disposed to accept the argument advanced by some hon. gentlemen in this House, that it was the protective tariff that brought an immense population and great prosperity to the United States. I do not believe for a moment that the tariff had any such effect, and I think I know what I am talking about. The* reasons I have described were rather the cause of the prosperity which came to the country to the south. There was the fact that the United States was a country of great natural resources, there was the restless ambition of her people, and the possibility of easily getting capital to develop the country. I do not say that it was the best possible thing that those people obtained so much borrowed capital, but nevertheless it was an instrument in the rapid development of the country. But the argument of the high tariff policy-and the manufacturing industries profiting by reason of it and thereby giving prosperity to the rest of the country-does not explain the great material advancement of the United States; the facts

The Budget-Mr. Warner
are absolutely the reverse of that. The development of the natural resources of the country, and the cultivation of the soil as the republic grew, made it possible for manufacturers to come in and establish themselves and get a market for what they were manufacturing.
I do not know that there is any need for me to progress any further along that line. I simply wanted to express my opinion regarding the effect of a protective tariff on the United States. It does not follow that what happened in the United States can be duplicated in Canada to-day; there were many more people in that country when its period of great development started from forty to fifty years ago than there are in Canada now. Perhaps I may be pardoned at this stage for telling a story regarding the protectionists in this country and the conditions that prevail in Canada after operation of forty to fifty years of a protective policy. There was a coloured man who quarrelled with the rest of the people in his community. He found considerable fault with all the other people and considered that the blame rested with them and not with himself. Somebody questioned him
10 p.m. about it and he said that he wished everybody but himself were dead. He was asked what he would do then. "Well." he said "I would keep store." Now, it looks to me, after forty or fifty years of high protection in Canada that nearly everybody not engaged in industry has been killed off financially so that they cannot buy the goods the manufacturers are making, and the industrialists are trying to "keep store" when other people are not able to buy.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question?


Daniel Webster Warner: If it is for information, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Would the hon. gentlemen be good enough to explain why the farmers in the United States are so much in favour of protection?


Daniel Webster Warner: Yes, I shall be very glad
to do so. I will answer the question at a little length because I want to reply to it in my own way. When land was high in the United States twenty-five years ago I left the country, I wanted to get away from high priced lands. I came to Canada. I found that things looked good enough for me in Alberta to make the attempt to live there. I found no fault with the country, as far as the conditions were concerned, but I was getting to a point in the United States where I could
not make an income on the money that I had in my land, it would not earn interest on the capital invested; and that condition has been growing worse since that time and is a good deal worse now. I went back to the States about six or seven years ago and I found that land that used to be held at too high a price, $40 to $60 an acre, had risen to $300 and $500 an acre, on account of the boom and the speculation in land, and not because the land could produce that much money. On account of the high price of land, and not understanding what was going to happen, people bought land, and many of them paid down the earnings of a lifetime when they were middle-aged, all the money they could get, on the purchase and when the crisis came after the war and the price of produce went down they were unable to pay for their land, and after having paid all that they had saved up in their lifetime many of them had to leave the land. The price of the land was above its earning power; the land would not pay interest on the investment. Then they turned around and asked for a tariff to protect them against our wheat being brought in there to make good flour for them. Just exactly what has happened in the United States is going to happen in Canada if we do not come to our senses soon enough. The price of our land is not yet above its earning value, but the protectionists' of this country want to protect us as the United States farmer is protected on the other side of the line, where somebody else gets the land and the farmer has to go away on foot. When the price of land gets above its earning power and will not pay interest on the investment, no matter what protection you may have, if. you have to depend on the export market, you are not going to be able to protect that farmer. But the United States farmer is in a little different position to-day. He does not get as good a price for the produce he exports at the present time as for that part of his produce which is used at home in case of a few articles and they of course are human. After the bad condition they got into, the politician came along who wanted to make political capital out of the bad condition of the farmers. The position was much the same as that brought by the St. Lawrence and great waterways agitation. They are putting words in the mouths of the people of the West and making them say they want the great waterways. That is what the politicians did to the farmers in the United States who had lost their homes and were unable to pay their way out of the produce they were raising on those farms. I spent five weeks in the United States last summer, and I can tell hon. members that the



The Budget-Mr. Warner
farmers there are beginning to see that they are not getting the benefit out of the tariff that my hon. friend thinks they are. They tell me they have had absolutely no benefit from the Fordney tariff at the present time, and it has been the politicians in the United States who asked for the tariff, rather than the farmers themselves. The same thing is going on in Canada to-day. In my opinion it is absolutely dangerous to make political capital out of either tariff protection or free trade. I have never in my lifetime known any subject which has befuddled, mixed, and that bothered the people as much as the tariff has. It is a complicated affair, and people who are not willing to take a great deal of pains and make a study of it could be made to believe it could do anything, and that is what has happened in Canada. [DOT] I think the time has come in Canada, before we get into a worse condition than we are in at the present time, that people should have some consideration for what is good for the country, rather than for what is good to build up a political party.
Western development as we have had it is a matter that is fresh in my mind. I understand it a little better than the building up and development that went on in the United States, so many years ago, although that is quite plain to me. I left there some twenty-five years ago, and I have been more or less out of touch with conditions. But I feel that I am understanding western conditions and what has happened out West. When I first went into that country we could get land very cheaply. The first land I bought was near the little town of Ed-montort; it cost me a little less than $6 an acre, and I bought quite a good sized farm. On that investment in the land we could earn a good return, and things looked bright to me. My boys were growing up on the farm, and we made money under those conditions. By and by the boom came on and people began to throw money into that country for investment, and to buy land for speculation. They bought land to sell again, and not for what they could make out of it by farming. That spirit ran away with the people for a while. The same thing happened in the United States. They boomed the land, and of course the land rose in price. We have stopped short of the calamity which has befallen the farmers of the United States, as far as the price of land is concerned. We can make something out of our land here. If a man buys land in western Canada judiciously, it is possible in ordinary times to earn an income on the money he puts into it. Farming was not so attractive to people for 
a few years. They wanted to buy a farm and sell it again. They would buy it for an investment, allow it to remain there and increase in value. They purchased the land for the sake of the increased value rather than for what they could get out of the land by way of production. That went on for some time, but it has stopped now, just as it has in the United States. At different periods the same thing happened to the United States that is now happening in western Canada. We are in a condition now in western Canada where we must farm and dig out of the soil what we make, because the money is not coming into that country for future returns on investment or for speculation as it was a few years ago.
It is very difficult for the farmers out in the West now to make any sort of living. It is now that the people are beginning to feel the depression, just as they did in the United States at certain times in the history of those people; and reductions in the tariff are now most welcome. It is simply because the farmers of western Canada have suffered from this depression that they have sent their representatives here to tell parliament that they absolutely cannot stand it any longer. They are unable to dig money out of the ground fast enough to pay for their farms, and to meet their other obligations. So we think that the government has taken a step in the right direction in beginning to reduce the tariff, and we ask that everything possible be done as well in every other way to provide some relief for the people. There are many things that need to be done; one thing alone will not suffice. When money flooded the country we did not feel any depression and the tariff did not appear to the people then as a very great burden; but to-day, labouring under the depressing influence of conditions as they exist in this country, if the people are to be saved, their burdens must be lightened. I repeat, the tariff alone will not do everything; but it certainly will help to a considerable extent, and while I may not live to see free trade adopted in Canada I do hope that I shall live to see the time when we shall at least have a tariff for revenue rather than for protection and just as near free trade as is possible or practical. I know from my experience in the United States that in that country the people were visited with periods of depression just as we are suffering to-day; these times of depression come and they go. But so far as Canada is concerned, I am afraid that if something is not done there may come a time when the depression will come to stay. I do not want

The Budget-Mr. [Varner
to be considered a calamity howler for a moment because I believe that it is possible for the country to get fairly well on its feet if the government will do all that it can. And we have the promise that they will do more next year, or at any rate at some time in the future, than they have done in the present budget in the way of reducing the cost of living. We also need lower transportation rates, so that the people may get their products to market with the least possible delay and at the lowest cost. These are the problems which we must solve. I know something about manufacturing, because, I may remark, farming is not my only interest. I am connected with manufacturing industries and I know that we must borrow money; and when money is borrowed the concern must pay interest on it first of all before it can make a profit. What happens? That interest is charged in the price of the article we produce or taken off the price of the raw material. And there is no other way out of the difficulty; the business cannot be run otherwise. I am just ps satisfied as I am that I am standing here to-night that Canada to-day is paying too much for the . use of money which she has to procure to do business with. It is not only desirable but it will be absolutely necessary to reduce the rate of interest, and if the bankers and other money lenders are determined to maintain a high rate they will meet disaster without a doubt. They have no right to hold up the people and make them pay more than they can possibly afford for the use of money. At present this seems unavoidable. There has been a lot of talk about the banking system, and I believe that conditions in western Canada would have been better if it had not been. so easy for people to borrow money. The bankers induced them to borrow when things were in a flourishing state and the time is not opportune now to force people to pay high rates of interest on their obligations. If the interest that a country has to pay on the money it requires is higher than it can stand, surely it is in the best interests of national economy that the rate should be reduced, but the individual person or company can not do this alone, it will have to come through a concerted action; it seems to me that it would be better for the money lenders to charge a reasonable interest which people can afford to pay than to demand a high rate of interest which it is impossible for ordinary people to put up. The manager of one loaning company in the West with whom I am acquainted informs me that by reason of the judicious placing of his money he has 107j
not lost one cent during the past few years. I cannot remember whether he said it was within the past five or seven years, but I am inclined to think that it was since the war that he said he had suffered no losses, having disposed of his money judiciously, of course. The people to whom he would lend money were those who could afford to pay, while those who could not pay had to go to the wall. Everybody, of course, expects security for money that is borrowed, and it is better that way. But if the interest is 8 per cent and the people cannot afford more than 4 per cent, would it not be better for the lenders to take 4 per cent, even though they might suffer some hardship along with other people until things became normal again?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. gentleman fix the rate of interest by statute?


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not know about
that. My hon. friend is a lawyer and he knows more about these things.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I deny the soft impeachment.


George Perry Graham: You have to draw the
line somewhere.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am not going to say where we should draw the line but I do say that it would be better for the lenders to take a reasonable rate of interest rather than ask for an exorbitant amount. When I was a young man I was not blessed with much money; I was pretty much in the same position as my hon. friend who spoke a little while ago (Mr. Spence). I often had to borrow money from the banks and I know how difficult it was to meet their conditions. In the state of Nebraska where I lived-and bankers are pretty much alike all the world over-there was a legal rate of interest of 7 per cent, and on special contracts 10 per cent per annum. The remarkable thing was that when a man borrowed money the banker deducted from the sum he gave him an amount covering the first year's interest. I can tell hon. gentlemen that it was not a very pleasant experience for me, for I have paid all the way from 10 per cent to 24 per cent; I have been asked as high as 36 per cent, but I never paid more than 24 per cent, although the bankers were operating under a law of the state of Nebraska that entitled them to 7 per cent interest when rate not specified but with an interest of 10 per cent on special contracts. They circumvented the law, and I do not know that the bankers here would not do the same. I am not saying that they would; I do not know whether they would or not. I do not
The Budget-Mr. Werner

know whether we can regulate the rate of interest by statute, but, if possible, it seems to me it would be good business to do so, for if the money is not worth what our people are being charged for it the bankers themselves will suffer because after a while they are going to be like the darkey-they will be trying to do business when there is no business available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If parliament were to fix
the rate of interest chargeable by banks at a moderate figure, would it not tend to drive the poor borrower into the hands of the rapacious money-lender, who charges ten, twelve or fourteen per cent interest?


Daniel Webster Warner: That might be so, but
I would tell my hon. friend this:	I do not
believe that the poor borrower is in very merciful or tender hands at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree.


Daniel Webster Warner: So, after a man is broke
I do not think it makes much difference where he goes for accommodation; he is bound to have a hard time anyway. I am not asking that money be loaned to anybody who cannot give security. It is unfortunate, but the human family is built that way: we do not want to put our money out at interest where we see little prospect of ever getting it back. But it is my opinion that our civilization cannot stand the rate of interest which is being charged to-day, and I fear that if the people are forced to the wall one at a time it will eventually lead to their rising as a body and exacting penalties.
I did not expect to get into this line of argument, in fact I drifted into it. But I think it is important to say this: I believe that restricted purchasing power is a part of our trouble. I do not believe that the tariff is to blame for all of our troubles, or anywhere near all. It was said by my leader (Mr. Forke) this afternoon that it is not worth while for the manufacturing interests or the protectionists to undertake to raise the price of their goods by raising the tariff. That that is not the way out is my honest, sincere conviction. I do not think that the manufacturer can help himself out of his troubles by raising the price of his product. I believe that to-day our manufacturers are suffering simply because the people are not able to buy the manufactured goods that are being turned out. It is this inability on the part of the people to buy, this lack of purchasing power, which is hurting the manufacturers to a far greater extent than outside competition. For example, in my own part of the country the people are fixing

up their old machines. These old machines are not really capable of doing good work, but their owners are disinclined to pay the price for new machinery. Well, if the price is already too high, how are the manufacturers of such machinery going to increase their sales if they advance their prices? I told the House a little while ago that I was connected with a couple of important business concerns. Our experience there is that the most satisfactory results are obtained by increasing our turnover at low prices rather than by securing higher prices on a small turnover.
Although I presume that some may think it not good taste on my part to offer advice to our manufacturers, still, I think I know a little about how to carry on business, and therefore I tell them that many of them would be better off if they would mark down the selling price of their products, reduce their manufacturing cost, squeeze the water out of their capital stock, and get down to a real valuation of their actual operating capital. I do not care how much money I might make on the transaction, no man could sell me watered stock. I have had lots of opportunities to buy watered stock in various companies, but I am not out to make money in this way. I do not know how many of our manufacturing concerns have watered stock, but certainly I am not in favour of such concerns attempting to get a return on watered stock by means of charging high prices on a lessened turnover, which would be the result of their securing higher protection.
There is just a question in my mind whether my advice in this respect would be absolutely sound. I admit this, because it is my opinion that our farm implement manufacturers already have the power and ability to turn out more implements than Canada would be able to buy, even at lower prices. To meet the situation these manufacturers must be willing to do as we farmers have done; when we raise more wheat than we can sell for domestic consumption we sell it in the world's market and take what we can get for it, and the price we obtain fixes the domestic price. I am well aware that our manufacturers would hold up their hands in holy horror at such a suggestion. They say that they cannot do this. But they are already doing it. They are exporting their implements and selling them for less than we can buy them for in Canada. We have the price of our wheat at home set largely by the surplus that we export. If the manufacturers would take their medicine

and do likewise they would bring money back into Canada and so help business, which would be a great deal better than their trying to make Canadians pay more lor what the manufacturers offer for sale. I do not see how our manufacturers would really be benefited if they could raise the price of their product by protection. I do not believe that we farmers could afford to put a price on our wheat and say thalt we would not sell until we got that price; we could not do it. But I do know that the whole Dominion is dependent very largely on the output of the farm, and that agricultural prosperity is at once reflected in every other channel of business. The money that comes in from our produce sold outside is new money in this country, and we are that much better off each year. Although the farmer may lose money on his personal operations, Canada alt. large has that much more wealth at home.
The home market is all right, and I want to see more of it. But my hair is too grey to wait till the 'home market can take care of the extra produce that I want to raise on my farms. I have a note here: Why are our people leaving Canada to go to the United States? There has been a good deal of discussion about this question. I do not claim to be sufficiently well posted to know just how many of our people have migrated to the United States to make their homes there, and I doubt whether anyone else knows either. But there muslt be something in what everybody talks about. I do not know that I can tell in every case just why our people are going to the United States in such numbers.
It makes me feel that some hon. members are playing politics when they talk about people leaving the country on account of the present budget, though it has not yet gone through the House. It seems to me that is a little previous, a little premature. I believe that more people have gone to the United States on account of protection than ever thought of going on account of this budget. Some of the best people I ever lived amongst came from Canada into the neighbourhood where I was, and settled there, and I grew up among them. I liked the Canadians, and I like them now; they have always treated me well. But why were these people going over there thirty or forty years ago? They did not go on account of this budget, that is sure; but they have been going right along, although we have had protection for forty years. Hon. gentlemen cannot afford to make political capital out of the present condition of this country. If we would come here with the best
The Budget-Mr. Warner
interests of our country at heart, thinking nothing 'of politics, nothing of strengthening our party or of whether or not the people would send us back here; if we would simply get down to business and think of the welfare of the country instead of the interests of the party we belong to, we would make more progress. Canada is a big country; it is a rich country and we could have more people; but if we want people to come here we should not be squabbling among ourselves about what keeps them away. We have great natural resources and we should bend our energies to bringing enough people here to secure their development. But when we bring people here we must do everything that is possible to make them prosperous.
It is a fallacy to say that the United States has been made prosperous by its protective tariff; rather it should be said that the United States has been made prosperous in spite of its protective tariff. I say this after living in that country until I was middle-aged, and I know something about it. You will bring Canada to the position you desire much quicker by lowering the tariff so that living will be cheaper and conditions will be more attractive in all lines of activity. And let everybody make up his mind to earn what he gets rather than to make a profit on speculations, increased land values, watered stocks, and so on. The immigrants who come here come, for the most part, to a better country than they left, and the chances of their being prosperous are likely to be much better here than they were in their native land. We could have three or four times the number of people that we now have and still be prosperous, and it would be easier to solve the problems which face us. We want to make living on the land attractive so that the people will make their homes there and stay there; we want to have it so that the people would rather live on the land than anywhere else. I do not know how much it is possible for this government to do, but I believe that the lowering of the tariff would help along that line.


Donald Sutherland: Would the hon.
gentleman favour the lowering of the tariff on agricultural products?


Daniel Webster Warner: Well, the question is all right, and I am glad to have it. I do not know what the hon. member refers to. I do not believe I raise anything that has benefited by the tariff that is on it now.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How about butter?


Daniel Webster Warner: The tariff on butter is only four cents.
The Budget-Mr. Warner


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is it enough?


Daniel Webster Warner: I am not asking for a higher tariff on butter. I am not saying anything about the tariff on butter. But there is a duty of 8 cents on our butter going to the United States, and I would rather see them take off 4 cents over there and bring it down to what ours is.


Donald Sutherland: But they will not do it. What about the tariff on meat?


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not want to get into a discussion on the tariff on meat. But it is not possible to help the farmers of this country by a tariff on butter or meat or anything of that kind, because we are going to raise more and more of those products and send them out to the world market. That will make the price on the home market rather than the tariff having anything to do with it.
With regard to the amendment, I would like to have an opportunity to support some of the items mentioned in it, although I think it will frighten our protectionist friends and those who are asking for protection on both sides of the House. I do not know that there are any of those in this group to the left; it is the only group that does not have protection in mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are one or two of them there.


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not know about them. Now, I am not standing here and boasting of what I have, but I am not a pauper, and I want to say that I am absolutely in favour of increasing the income tax and using any money we have over to pay off our national debt. Where a man has an income of fair amount we know that there is a source of revenue, but if we impose large taxes on the smaller income of the man who has a family we are making it hard for them to get along. It is difficult to get money for business purposes when you have a very high income tax, but if those who have money in this country are patriotic they will put it into manufacturing enterprises and thus help the country to go ahead, rather than hide it away in their stocking. So I say .we should get the money where it can be got, and we should increase the income tax. I do not say that I want to see the income tax continually increased from time to time indefinitely, but we have a debt in this country that we have to pay, and we have to dig it out of this country. The money is not going to be sent in here to pay it. If you take the money from the man who is able to pay. it will help pay our debt. I do not see how you 
are going to pay it unless you take it where it can be got.
There is another tax I would like to heartily support, and that is the inheritance tax. The question is raised whether the Dominion or the provincial governments should impose such a tax, but no matter in which field it lies, I think it would be a good wav of raising money. If a man has raised a family in Canada and they are not able to take care of themselves, but are dependent on what money he has made during his lifetime, they are rather a handicap than a benefit to Canada. I am a little doubtful whether anyone who is not willing to work for a living and make his own way, and' who lives on the money left by large estates, is not rather a detriment to the country. So I say we should take quite a lot of money from the large estates, and let the children do what the parents did, earn their own living and become good citizens. They will develop themselves much better in that way than if they are allowed to spend inherited money in riotous living. Whether the provincial governments or the federal government impose the tax makes no difference in principle.
Coming now to the amendment and the proposed reduction on clothing and the necessaries of life, there is not much of a tariff on food stuffs of such kinds as we produce in Canada at the present time. So far as clothing is concerned, I suppose that the man who produced the wool in this suit I am wearing would not get much more than two dollars for it. I had the figures, but I have not them with me now, and I am doing a little guessing. This suit cost me with two pairs of trousers $75. That is too much protection for me. The same prevails in many other lines particularly in boots and shoes.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Wool is on the free list.	[DOT]


Daniel Webster Warner: That is one on me, if
it is, but I have had scores of petitions and blotters coming to me saying, "Don't blot out this industry; give us protection." So if they have not protection now, they must be asking for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Woollens are not on the free list, but the raw wool is.


Daniel Webster Warner: I know what the hon
member says is true. I have the patriotism of the manufacturer right down in my head real good. An hon. member to my right during his speech was asked why the manufacturer did not use the native raw material, and he replied that the manufacturer could buy cheaper material from the other side

The Budget-Mr. Warner
and get just as much for it when he sold his product, or pretty nearly so. Now that is patriotism with a vengeance.
If the manufacturer would stand right up to his work, and turn out his goods as cheap as he could, if he would do as the farmers are doing in this country, we should be a double team then and we could make this country go; but as it is now the manufacturer-and I know because I am in the business of manufacturing myself-passes along all the expenses of his business to the consumer to pay, or takes it out of the producer of the raw material. He wants the other fellow shut out of the country so that he will not have to sell in competition with him, and he wants to put the people out of business, like the nigger that wanted to keep store after the people'were dead. That is how patriotic they are, in my opinion.
As to the manufacturer of farm implements, there are millions of dollars worth of farm implements piled up in factories and storehouses in this country, lying on the hands of the manufacturers, which would not be there if we had not had protection to the manufacturer for the last forty years. The manufacturer is reaping the result of that policy now, because the people are not able to buy what he has to sell, and he, has to quit business. He has blocked his own game.
I am ready for questions on that. He has blocked his own game, and now he wants protection in order to accomplish an impossibility. He wants to try and lift himself by his boot straps.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the
reason Why the farmer is importing some $13,000,000 odd of agricultural implements as againsit a local sale of some $18,000,000? He can afford to buy the imported article.


Daniel Webster Warner: I will admit frankly I do not know just what implements are being imported and sold. They may be selling them, but I do not know anybody who is buying many of them. If the manufacturer were as patriotic as I think he ought to be, he would pay an excise duty equal to the duty paid on these implements entering Canada, because he can make them as cheaply as the manufacturer he is competing with. And whenever the manufacturer is ready to pay that excise duty, I am willing to give him protection, because we have to raise the revenue to run the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. member
also include an excise duty of 4 cents a pound on butter?


Daniel Webster Warner: Absolutely, if it ever
amounts to that much protection to our business. As far as I am concerned I can promise that. I am manufacturing butter, and I know who pays the bill. The man who produces the cream is the man that pays the bill. I am a farmer and cream producer as well as a manufacturer of butter and I would be the goat for myself as well as for all the rest of the Canadian manufacturers. We have to pay interest and overhead, and he would have to take the loss. I do not want to see that, although it would not hurt our concern personally and it would not hurt the other manufacturer to stand it either, because he passes it on to the buyer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would it hurt the
farmer?


Daniel Webster Warner: It would hurt the farmer, he would have to take that much less for his cream. And it has to be that way; a business has got to pay its overhead or it cannot keep running. We cannot pass on that duty in the price of butter, for that price is fixed in the world market.
Now, I was talking about the amendment.
I have said that I would like to get an opportunity to vote for some of the things in that amendment but when they are coupled with other questions I do not see how I can do so. Talk about your natural resources! We are going to have our premier down here from Alberta in a few days asking for these natural resources. Now, we do not want the Dominion government to levy taxes on these resources if we get them. We want those resources for what there is in them; and if the Dominion government cannot levy, as proposed by the amendment, on those resources, then they are going to be short the amount of money that taxation would represent. I do not know how they are going to calculate the amount. I could not do it offhand, I should have to study the question out and it would take some time before the system would be running properly anyway. But I want to see the province tax its natural resources. We are already paying on land values, and as to this question there is a whole lot of myth. There is a lot of talk by people who do not own land. I own land myself and I know something about the question. We are paying about all we can pay for land at the present time, but that is not my objection to this proposition. I repeat that land value is a myth. I want to tell you this:	I have been
a good deal of my time where land was not
The Budget-Mr. Warner

worth .a cent an acre. Go out into a new country where there is absolutely nothing done. That is the only way that you can put a price on unimproved land values. It has been done otherwise, 'but it is largely guess work. Some of my land near Edmonton is valued for taxing purposes at $50 per acre. Land farther back is valued at less, considerably less; but it all depends on the improvements in Edmonton. I say again land value is a myth, you do not know what you are going to get when you put a tax on land values. I have worked for a tax on unimproved land values, but since I have been studying the question I have been wondering how much there is in it-I really have.
Now, when I consider the items in the amendment I do not think that I can support it conscientiously, although I should like to get some of the things that are mentioned in it. There is another point. We have a government in Canada and hon. gentlemen opposite are running it for us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With you.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am not ready to vote a want of confidence in the government at the present time.


George Perry Graham: That sounds reasonable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That brings a smile to the face of the Acting Finance Minister.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am absolutely conscientious when I say this.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could you not do better?


Daniel Webster Warner: I feel that it would be no benefit to us to defeat the government at the present time. We have their promise that they are going to lower the tariff to a greater extent than any other government has done in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


Daniel Webster Warner: This is along the line that I would like to see action taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Lower the duty on what?


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not care to discuss that question now offhand. I think the hon. gentleman knows better than I do just what is involved. I repeat that I am not ready to give a vote of want of confidence in the government just for the sake of putting them out. Of course it will not be done; I know that amendment cannot carry, still if I am honest and vote according to my conscience, as I try to do, I would want that to carry; but if I voted for it that would mean that I 
wish the government to be put out of business, if I understand it rightly. Now, I am not ready to put them out of business, because I want to hold them to their promises in tariff reductions with a chance to see results. That is the p.oint-we want results, results in the form of legislation that will give greater freedom for development to the basic industries of this country, and we will join our efforts with those of any other hon. members of this House who are ready to work with us on that line.
On motion of Mr. LeSueur, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.
Friday, May 2, 1924