1924-04-14

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the order of the House of the 24th March, referring Bill No. 6, respecting quartz mining in the Yukon Territory to the select standing committee on Mines and Minerals be discharged, and that the said bill be referred to the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. H. HALBERT (North Ontario):: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 571 residents of the towns of Cannington and
Questions

Sunderland and surrounding districts praying that the depositors in the Home Bank be indemnified.


Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 1,441 residents of the city of Fernie and district in British Columbia, praying that the depositors in the Home Bank be indemnified.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56 (from the Senate), for the relief of Theresa Agnes Sprague.-Mr. Kennedy (Glengarry).
Bill No. 57 (from the Senate), for the relief of Terry Andrea Maxwell Bruce.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 58, to incorporate the Confederation Canal and Power Company.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59, for the settlement of certain questions between the governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian reserve lands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: In the answer given on March 24th, 1924, to a question concerning the Canadian National Railways it is stated that "all revenues on inter-svstem company material which is used in operation is included as a part of operating expenses and to that extent cancels the revenue thereon shown in the revenue account."
1.	What i3 the total amount of revenue so charged in the year 1923?
2.	What amount of such materials to be used in Operation as above indicated were shown in inventories at the close of the year 1923?
3.	What rates are charged on coal for the system (a) on shipments from the Maritime provinces; (b) on coal received via Massena Springs, Cobourg and Black Rock (c) on coal from the Brule Mines, Alberta, and (d) how much coal do the inventories show as on hand, and the amount of freight thus charged against such coal, at the close of the year 1923?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1 and 2. Railway accounting methods do not provide for the taking out of such information concerning inter-company material, except at much cost of time and labour and the dislocation of the necessary railway business of serving the public.
3.	(a) and (c) There were no charges at any time during the year on shipments of coal

from the Maritime provinces, or from Brule Mines, Alberta.
(b) Subsequent to May 1 (date of consolidation) coal received for the system via Massena Springs, Cobourg and Black Rock was moved free; prior to that date, between January 1, 1923, and April 30, the following amount of revenue was accrued: via Massena Springs, $158,876.06; via Cobourg, $4,471.51; via Black Rock, $28,463.40.
(d) We have 3,646,711 net tons of coal on hand for the system at December 31, 1923. It is impossible to state the amount of freight, if any, included in this inventory at the close of the year.


THE HOME. BANK
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	In view of the fact that the liquidator's report shows that the Home Bank was never in receipt of income or profits on which taxes could be levied, has the government refunded to the liquidator such taxes paid by the Home Bank?
2.	If not, what is the intention of the government in this respect?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: The answer to the first question is ''no," and, to the second question, the answer is, "under consideration".


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RADIO EQUIPMENT
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the installation of the radio equipment in the Canadian National Railways ?
2.	Who is the director of such sendee and what salary does he receive ?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the operation of radio on the Canadian National Railways during the current year? [DOT]


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	To date management have spent on the installation of radio equipment approximately $26,000, of which sum approximately $18,000 covers the cost of erection of broadcasting station at Ottawa.
2.	W. H. Swift, Jr. The management does
not consider it desirable in the interest of the Canadian National Railways to publish salary.	[DOT]
3.	The estimated cost of operation of the Radio department for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1925," including salaries, travelling expenses, equipment, etc., is approximately $90,000.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. ARTHURS:: What were the total travelling expenses of the Honourable Minister of Labour for fiscal years ending March 31st, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?

Questions
Hon, Mr. MURDOCK: This question will be handled as a part of and answered by the answer to question No. 50.


GOVERNMENT SALE OF WASTE PAPER
Mr. PRITCHARD:: 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 from the Department of Agriculture?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 
DISMISSAL OF JOSEPH L. GAUVIN
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	When, why and on whose report was Jos. L. Gauvin dismissed from the position of collector of customs at Shippigan, New Brunswick?
2.	Was Gauvin present during the whole or what part of the investigation, if any, was held?
3.	How many witnesses testified, was there evidence, and if so, which was given on oath ?
4.	How many testified against Gauvin?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Order in council was passed on January 16th, 1924 on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs and Excise, dispensing with the services of Jos. L. Gauvin for being under the influence of liquor while on duty.
2.	Officer Gauvin was notified of the nature of the charge preferred against him and furnished his affidavit in connection therewith.
3.	Six persons were interviewed regarding these charges and statutory declarations obtained from three.
4.	Three persons.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. WARD:: 1.	What is the total number of Royal Canadian Mounted Police on headquarters staff in Ottawa, and what is the total cost of maintaining this staff?
2.	What number of permanent appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police department since January 1st, 1924, by reason of organization?
3.	What number of recommendations for permanent appointments have been rejected since January 1st, 1924, in the same department?
4.	What section of the Civil Service Act or Civil Service Commission regulation was considered in making appointments?
5.	Are those whose permanent appointments were rejected not eligible under the same section of the act or Civil Service Commission regulation referred to?
6.	What is the total number of civil servants attaphed to the headquarters staff of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Total number 71. Total cost of maintenance, including pay and allowances, quarters, light and heat, approximately $11,673.58 per month.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.	[DOT]
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Answered by No. 3,
6.	36.


DANIEL J. ZINCK
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What is the salary of Daniel J. Zinck, excise and customs officer at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and when was he appointed to said present position?
2.	What is the nature of his duties?
3.	Is the government aware that Mr. Zinck when appointed to this position was seventy years of age or over?
4.	Were there any returned soldiers applicants for the position to which Mr. Zinck was appointed?
5.	If so, why was preference not given to said returned soldiers?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1 and 2. Employment as acting customs-excise enforcement officer, without salary, was authorized 19th June, 1922.
3.	No information.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


RAILWAY RESTAURANT AT GRAND NARROWS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government purchased a building at Grand Narrows, Cape Breton, used as a railway restaurant ?
2.	If so, from whom was the building purchased and on what date?
3.	Was the said building taken down in sections and moved to North Sydney and rebuilt as an express office?
4.	If so, what was the total cost of said work and date of removal?
5.	For what is the building now used, and what is the floor space, and on what property is it located?
Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Purchased from J. C. McNeil on December 22nd, 1922.
' 3. Yes, a portion was used for extending the baggage room.
4.	Work of extending baggage room was completed July 24th, 1923, at cost of $289.49.
5.	Building which is now used for handling express has 590 square feet of floor space and is located on property of the Railways.


SILVER CURRENCY
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What is the value of the silver currency coined by the Ottawa Mint during each of the years from 1914 to 1923, inclusive?
2.	What is the total value of silver currency issued by the Finance department during each of said years?


James Alexander Robb: 1.1914			 $ 843,224 05
1915			 184,548 60
1916			 1,134,301 00
1917			 1,951,168 10
1918			 2,258,744 55
1919			 3,195,878 15
1920			 1,838,371 60
1921			 603,081 80
1922			 Nil
1923			 Nil
2.1914			 734,002 00
1915			 206,000 00
1916			 1,302,000 00
1917			 1,862,200 00
1918			 2,402,000 00
1919			 3,276,044 00
1920			 1,338,000 00
1921			 128,000 00
1922			 24,000 00
1923			 28,000 00


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY TELEGRAPH LINES
Mr. MacLAREN:: What amount does the Canadian Pacific Railway Company pay the Canadian National Railway Company for the privilege of running its telegraph lines over the Canadian National Railways right of way?


George Perry Graham: There is no general arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to run its telegraph lines over the Canadian National Railways right of way, but certain special arrangements have been made, as follows:
Between Levis and the inter-provincial boundary via Riviere du Loup the Canadian Pacific Railway have one wire on the poles of the Great North Western Telegraph Company. For this privilege they pay an annual rental of $732.
Between Hope and Lytton, B.C., the Canadian Pacific Railway has the use of poles

for one wire, for which they pay a rental of $340 per annum.
There are several crossings or similar privileges, for which the Canadian Pacific Railway pays nominal rentals, but there are no other occupancies on right of way to any extent other than those two named above for which they pay.


CANADIAN CONFECTIONERY AND BAKERY SALES TAX
Mr. WARD:: 1.	Did certain bakery firms in the city of Toronto refuse to pay the sales tax on confectionery and bakery products during the year 1923?
2.	If so, what action has the government taken to collect such taxes?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Legal action was taken against the firm of Versailles Sweets, Toronto, as a test case. The department was successful in this action but appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Ontario. The department was successful in this court also, but appeal was again made, and it is expected the case will be tried before the Supreme Court of Canada in May next.
OVERAGES IN LAKES TERMINAL ELEVATOR Mr. EVANS:
1.	What has been the disposition of the overages in the terminal elevator at the head of the lakes, and elsewhere, as adjusted with the government, over the period of years, since this arrangement has been in effect?
2.	What has been the amofint of such overages?
3.	How' much accrued to the government of such overages ?
4.	What was the amount retained between terminal companies ?
5.	What was the value of such overages to the government, as adjusted?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	In accordance with the provisions of subsection 7 of section 95 of the Canada Grain Act, as amended at the second session of parliament in 1919,. the Board of Grain Commissioners determines from its official weigh-up and records the surplus of grain in all public terminal elevators and authorizes terminal elevator companies having a surplus to issue warehouse receipts for such overage after taking into account the amount, if any, to be delivered to the government as provided by section 95 of the act. The board requests the terminal elevator companies having a surplus to deliver to the board either warehouse receipts for that portion of their surplus over one-quarter of one per cent, or a cheque based on the market price for the value of same.
2.	The total overages in public elevators from 1920 to 1923, inclusive, amounts to 95,943,345 pounds of all grains.

Questions
3.	Covering the same period the government is entitled to receive under the above section of the act 22,914,154 pounds of all grains.
4.	The amount retained by the terminal elevator companies for the same period was 73,029,191 pounds.
5.	The value of such overages due to the government for the period 1920 to 1923, inclusive, amounts to $477,152.03.


GRAIN WEIGHING
Mr. COOTE:: What were the total receipts and expenditures respectively incident to the inspection and weighing of grain by the Board of Grain Commissioners for the years ending August 31st 1921, 1922 and 1923?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Year ending Aug. 31,
1921-Receipts, $1,011,678.84; expenditures, $742,314.98. Year ending Aug. 31, 1922-Receipts, $1,263,253.47; expenditures, $847,186.90. Year ending Aug. 31, 1923-Receipts, $1,433,984.32; expenditures, $972,631.16.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	Did the Soldier Settlement Board have any of its officers or employees visit any foreign country or countries in the interest of the board?
2.	If so, what were their names?
3.	What country or countries have they visited?
4.	What was the purpose of such visit or visits?
5.	What was accomplished by such visit or visits?
6.	What was the total cost of such trips?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.	.
2.	2, 3, 4, 5, and 6-Answered by No. 1.


INVERNESS RAILWAY AND COAL COMPANY
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Has the Inverness Railway and Coal Company's line in Cape Breton been taken over for operation by the Canadian National Railways, and if so, on what date and what official is in charge of the operation?
2.	If not, are any negotiations going on in reference to the line being taken over for operation by the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes-April 1st, 1924.
General Manager-Moncton, N.B.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OTTAWA RIVER WATER-POWERS AT CARILLON
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BINETTE*
1.	Does the government intend to help in the development of the Ottawa river water-powers, at Carillon?
2.	Have reports been submitted to the government, either by private persons or companies, and have said reports been taken under consideration?
3.	What assistance will the government give to further said project?
George Perry Graham: In reply to question No. 41, the government has not been
asked to help in the development of the Ottawa river water-powers at Carillon. As I explained the other day, many years ago a lease was given to q company to develop water-power at Carillon. In 1921 that lease was renewed, or rather a new lease was given with very much enlarged powers. At the present time there is before the Department of Railways and Canals an application by a company for a still greater enlargement of the powers given under that lease in 1921, and that is now being considered.


COST OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What has been the cost, to date, of the parliament buildings?
2.	What is the name of the contractor?
3.	What percentage is he paid for his work?
4.	What amount has he been paid, to date, for work accomplished ?
5.	What is the name of architect who drew the plans for the parliament buildings?
6.	What percentage and what amount, to date, has said architect drawn for his work?
7.	What is the name of the assistant architect?
8.	What percentage and what amount has said assistant architect drawn, up to date, for his work?
9.	Has the architect who drew the plans for the parliament buildings, received, over and above his commission, from the government, other amounts as reimbursements for travelling expenses, either for himself or his assistants, also for telegrams, messenger service, etc. ?
10.	If so, under what agreement with the government and under what budget items have these amounts been paid to him?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- PARRY SOUND
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Is Parry Sound on the jnain line of Canadian National Railways, Winnipeg to Toronto?
2.	What are the grades on the Canadian National Railways north and south from Parry Sound and near that point?
3.	Is it necessary to use additional power to aid trains over such grades?
4.	Have proposals been made to reduce or- overcome
such grades? If so, when?	-
5.	Have surveys been made or plans prepared to overcome or reduce such grades?
6.	If so, why has the necessary work not been proceeded with?


George Perry Graham: I suppose my hon.
friend would be able to give an answer to No. 1 himself and try to find out the rest.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.
POSTMASTER St. GEDEON, QUE.


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Was the postmaster at St. Gedeon, Chicoutimi
county, dismissed ?	.
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Was an investigation held in connection with this employee, and by whom?
4.	On what date was this investigation made, and on what date was the report remitted to the minister ?
5.	To whom was the post office assigned, on whose recommendation was action taken, and in whose house was the office placed?
6.	Did the Civil Service Commission by published notice call for applications for this post office?
7.	If so, how many applications were received, and who was their selection?
8.	Has the new postmaster been nominated? If not, why ?
9.	Is the government aware that what has passed at St. Gedeon since the 15th November, in connection with the post office, is a disgrace without precedent?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On account of active political partisanship-
3.	Yes. By Oscar Drouin, barrister, Quebec.
4.	Investigation held 14th November, 1922. Report to Postmaster General dated 8th
August, 1923.
5.	Etienne Coulombe was placed in charge as acting postmaster on the recommendation of Dr. E. Savard, M.P., pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission. Department informed recently that post office was placed in residence of Mr. Louis Parent.
6.	Yes.
7- Seven. Miss Blanche Laberge selected by commission.
8.	Yes.
9.	No information.


DEPARTMENT OP IMMIGRATION
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Does the Department of Immigration intend to transfer to Quebec, this year, the staff of St. John, 
New Brunswick, or employ persons of the city of Quebec or district?	.
2.	Will the said department insist that the whole of their immigration staff, at Quebec, speak French fluently ?


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that
this question was answered last week.


ST. GREGOIRE WHARF
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	In what year was the wharf which serves as a retaining-wall to part of the village of St. Gregoire, Montmorency, constructed ?
2.	What was the initial cost of its construction?
3.	What are the amounts which were voted for the upkeep and repairs of above wharf, and in what year were said amounts voted?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1 and 2. The wharf at St. Gregoire, Montmorency, built in 1912 at a cost of $4,998.37, does not serve as a retaining wall. The construction of the retaining wall was commenced in 1904-05 and continued to 1913-14 at an expenditure as follows:
1904-	05	$6,508	821905-	06	
7,158	001906-	07	
3,270	891912-	13	
5,115	691913-	14	
1,799	07

3.	$3,800 in fiscal year 1915-16.


MR. J. H. R. BYRNES
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Has the Minister of Immigration already received a request for an inquiry regarding certain charges made against J. H. R. Byrnes who had the contract for the immigration canteen and restaurant, at the port of Quebec, for the years 1922, 1923?
2.	If so, does the minister intend to allow said inquiry as requested, in order to permit Mr. Byrnes to refute the accusations, and, if so, when will this inquiry take place, and who will have charge of same?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Verbal representations have been made that Mr. Byrnes would welcome a full inquiry into the administration of immigration canteen and restaurant.
2.	The Department of Immigration have decided to abandon for this season the contract system. The work will be done under the supervision of an officer of the department, which makes such an inquiry unnecessary.	.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EARNINGS
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	What were the gross earnings and working expenses on (a) Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railways; (b) on the Central division; (c) on the Western division for the year 1923?
2.	What are the figures for 1924?

Questions


George Perry Graham: [DOT] 1. The information called for by these questions was brought down on Thursday, April 10, and is to be found in Hansard of that date, pages 1207 and 1210.
2. Not yet available.


BANK NOTE CIRCULATION
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total amount of Canadian bank notes in circulation on January 31, 1924?
2.	What was the total amount held in the bank note redemption fund on the above date?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	1156,865,776.
2.	$6,119,119.


JUDGES, SALARIES AND PENSIONS
Mr. LEADER:: 1.	What was the total number of judges employed in the courts of Canada in the year 1919?
2.	What was the aggregate amount of annual salaries paid for the year 1919?
3.	What i3 the total number of judges employed at the present time?
4.	What is the aggregate amount of the annual salaries at present payable?
5.	What was the total amount of travelling expenses incurred by judges during the last fiscal year?
6.	What is the number of judges retired on pensions now living?
7.	What is the amount of pensions paid annually to retired judges?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	280.
2.	$1,452,554.57.
3.	277.
4.	$1,982,400.00.
5.	$134,623.47.
6.	38.
7.	$179,166.63.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	How many permanent employees, other than carriers, were employed in the post offices in the city of Montreal during the fiscal year ending March 31. 1923?
2.	What was the amount of income derived from these post offices for the above period?
3.	How many pieces of mail matter were handled during the above period?
4.	What were the total salaries paid in the abovenamed offices for the period named?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	811.
2.	$3,680,396.67.
3.	No record.
4.	$1,230,247.84 (excluding salaries of carriers) .


QUEBEC POST OFFICE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	How many permanent employees, other than carriers, were employed in the post office in the city of Quebec, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923?
2.	What wras the amount of income derived from these post offices for the above period?
3.	How many pieces of mail matter were handled during the above period?
4.	What w^ere the total salaries paid in the abovenamed offices for the period named?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	171.
2.	S523.025.91.
3.	No record.
4.	$225,230.09 (excluding salaries of carriers) .


HAMILTON POST OFFICE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	How many permanent employees, other than carriers, were employed in the post offices in the city of Hamilton during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923?
2.	What was the amount of income derived from these post offices for the above period?
3.	Howr many pieces of mail matter were handled during the above period?
4.	What were the total salaries paid in the abovenamed offices for the period named?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1. 112.
2.	$588,297.10.
3.	No record.
4.	$159,579.40 (excluding salaries of carriers) .


TORONTO POST OFFICE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	How many permanent employees, other than carriers, were employed in the post offices in the city of Toronto, during the fiscal year ending March 31 1923?
2.	What was the amount of income derived from these post offices for the above period?
3.	How many pieces of mail matter were handled during the above period?
4.	What were the total salaries paid in the abovenamed offices for the period named?	[DOT]


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	950.
2.	$5,798,015.40.
3.	No record.
4.	$1,189,917.25 (excluding salaries of carriers) .


GERMAN IMMIGRATION
Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	How many Germans arrived in Canada during 1923?
2.	What number of these were artisans and what number were agriculturists?

Questions
3.	How many Germans arrived in the months of January, February and March, 1924?
4.	How many of those in question (3) were artisans and how many agriculturists?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	1,258.
2.	Artisans, 32. Agriculturists, 794.
3.	524.
4.	Artisans, 8. Agriculturists, 249.
Note:	Figures for March, 1924, are incomplete.


COMPLETION OF QUEBEC BRIDGE
Mr. ROBERGE:: *
1.	Does the government propose to complete the Quebec bridge, especially the central space reserved to vehicles?
2.	If so, when?


George Perry Graham: The matter is under consideration.


STEEL IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. SIMPSON:: 
Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Subject on importation to customs valuation at fair market value when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of exportation to Canada.
2.	No information that such goods have been sold to purchasers in Canada under conditions stated.


IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the amount of the total imports to Canada from the United States during 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17, 1917-18, 1918-19, 1919-20, 1921-22, 1922-23 and 1923-24?
2.	What was the amount of duty collected on boots and shoes coming in from the United States during the same years?
3.	What is the tariff on boots and shoes entering the United States from Canada?


Jacques Bureau: 1 and 2. Statement of imports of boots and shoes from the United States entered for consumption in Canada and Customs duty collected:

Fiscal Item Year	Value	Customs DutyBoots and shoes, rubber	1915	$100,352	$25,0881916	94,162	23,5411917	186,862	46,7161918	264,954	66,2391919	175,327	43,8321920	270,350	67,5881921	239,688	59,9221922	96,640	24,1601923	90,067	22,51711 months ended Feb. 1924	142,331	33,583Boots and shoes, leather, pegged or wire fastened with unstitched soles,	close edged .. .. 1915	18,560	4,6401916	11,566	2,8921917	19,152	4,7881918	12.827	3,2071919	14,972	3,7431920	15,758	3,9401921	22,779	5,6951922	7,987	1,9971923	11,532	2,88311 months ended Feb. 1924	10,044	2,511Boots and shoes,	leather, n.o.p	1915	2,900,134	870,0401916	1.902,796	570,8391917	3,271,170	981,3511918	2,999,848	899,9541919	2,609,321	782,7961920	2,611,964	783,5891921	1,803,442	541,0331922	977,788	293,3361923	785,912	235,77311 months ended Feb. 1924	690,674	207.193Boots and shoes, all kinds, except	rubber and leather 1915	61,612	18,4841916	32,069	9,621.1917	148,816	44,645; 1918	282,024	84,6071919	215,428	64,6281920	328,941	98,6821921	285,877	85,7631922	171,632	51,4901923	322,927	96,87811 months ended Feb. 1924	231,297	69,3893. This question is being	answered by the	Department of Trade and	Commerce.	IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN


Mr. TOBIN:: 1. What was the amount of the total imports to Canada of boots and shoes from Great Britain during 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-1917, 1917-18, 1918-19, 1919-20* 1920-21, 1921-22, 1922-23 and 1923-24?

Questions
2.	What was the amount of duty collected on boots and shoes coming in from Great Britain during the same years?
3.	What is the duty on boots and shoes exported to Great Britain from Canada?


Jacques Bureau: 1 and 2. Statement of imports of boots and shoes from the United Kingdom entered for consumption in Canada and customs duty
collected:		
Fiscal	Customs	
Item Year	Value	Duty
Boots and shoes,		
rubbers	1915 $	26,044	$ 3,9421916	11,558	1,7341917	10,579	1,5871918	41,134	6,1701919	19,046	2,8571920	17,251	2,5881921	29,356	4,4081922	1,442	2211923	1,295	19411 months ended Feb. 1924	42.928	6,440Boots and shoes, leather pegged or wire fastened, with unstitched soles,	close edged	1915	59,692	10,5681916	23,932	4,2081917	5,359	9911918	1,603	2811919	455	781920	4,211	7371921	2,133	3951922	2,867	5021923	4,291	67011 months ended Feb. 1924	3,982	632Boots and shoes,	leather, n.o.p.. .. 1915	491,523	98,9671916	215,538	43,6541917	173,871	34,9661918	146,784	29,4451919	78,994	16,2091920	94,009	18,9591921	358,451	73,6111922	335,761	68,5861923	410,273	73,85211 months ended Feb. 1924	588.041	95,009Boots and shoes, all kinds, except	rubber and leather.. 1915	169,231	34,2951916	72,723	14,5511917	92,692	18,5641918	102,972	20,6051919	50,681	10,1491920	71,470	14,3111921	206,406	41,5091922	46,035	9,3321923	69,287	12,33711 months ended Feb. 1924	134,366	21,4283.	This question is being answered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-FIRE INSURANCE
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What amount of fire and other insurance is carried to cover property handled by the Soldier Settlement Board ?
2.	What is the sum paid out annually for premiums for the carrying of such insurance?
3.	Did the firm of Lougheed and Taylor of Calgary act in placing of the above insurance?
4.	Is the said firm still acting for the government as brokers in the above business?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. As at February 29,	1924-In tariff companies, 23,949,844.25; in mutual companies, $4,804,638.73.
2.	On tariff insurance, $148,380.87; on mutual insurance, $36,864.08. These amounts include those premiums paid by settlers themselves as well as those paid by the board as advances to settlers.
3.	Prior to September, 1922, this firm was on the list of agents for the Calgary district and wrote a portion of the business in that district.
4.	No.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. RINFRBT:: 1.	Has the government any knowledge of a circular which has been wide spread by the Board of Trade of Montreal, placing at $3,513,000,000 the public debt of Canada?
2.	Are those figures exact?
3.	If not, what are the exact figures of the public debt of Canada?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. Reference . to this leaflet has been seen in the press. The figure of $3,513,000,000 apparently purports to include with the direct obligations of the Dominion, contingent liabilities in connection with the Canadian National Railway system.
2 and 3. The net debt of Canada at March 31st, 1924, as estimated for the budget speech, was $2,423,367,759.37.


DRY DOCK SUBSIDIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WOOD3WORTH:
1.	How many dry docks are receiving subsidies from the government?
2.	What are the names and locations of same?
3.	What are the respective subsidies paid?
4.	Under what conditions are they paid?
Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1. Six.
2 and 3-
Questions

Docks Completed and In Operation:-
Annual
subsidy
Duke of Connaught floating
dock at Montreal, Que	 $105,000.00
Collingwood dry dock No. 2 at
Collingwood, Ont	 9,208.96
Port Arthur dry dock at Port
Arthur, Ont	 37,741.50
Prince Rupert dry dock at
Prince Rupert, B.C	 76,970.88
Docks Under Construction:-
St. John dry dock at Courtenay
bay, St. John, N.B	 198,459.46
Burrard dry dock at North Vancouver, B.C	 19,981.96
4.	Under conditions specified in Dry Docks Subsidies Act and respective agreement for each dock. These conditions are:	(a) Dry
dock to be kept in a constant state of efficiency. (b) No discrimination to be used against any vessel wishing to use the dock, (c) Rates charged for docking not to exceed rates agreed upon between the department and the company.
QUEBEC HARBOUR Mr. LAVIGUEUR:
1.	Does the government intend to take advantage of the extensive properties acquired along the St. Lawrence river, from Sillery to Champlain market,- by the old Transcontinental Commission in order to build railway lines and deep water wharves, also to complete the Quebec harbour?
2.	Has the government brought to the attention of the new board of directors of the National Railways the rights held and contracts made between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental Commission in May, 1910. for the development and improvement of the Quebec harbour ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	As warranted, property will be utilized for development purposes.
2.	Management of Canadian National Railways are seized of all the information in connection with situation at Quebec.


POST OFFICE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	What was the net revenue of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1915?
2.	What has been the net revenue for each of the fiscal years since above date at the three cent postage rate but exclusive of war tax stamps for cheques, etc. ?
3.	What was the total expenditure of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1915?
4.	What has been the total expenditure for each of the fiscal years since?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1. $13,046,649.57.

2.	1916, $18,858,409.93; 1917, $20 902,384.46;
1918, $21,345,394.48; 1919, $21,602,712.65; 1920, $24,449,916 97; 1921, $26,331,11897; 1922, $26,554,538.24;	1923, $29,262,232.78. No figures
available as to amount used on cheques.
3.	1915, $15,961,191.47.
4.	1916, $16,090,138.77; 1917, $16,300,578.65; 1918, $18,046,557.90; 1919, $19,273,583.94; 1920, $20,774,385.20; 1921, $24,661,262.26; 1922, $28,121,53395; 1923, $27,794,501.89.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. THURSTON:: 1.	At whose request was the Order in Council No. P.C. 2263, published in The Canada Gazette of January 12, page 2348, passed?
2.	What quantities of military clothing have been sold by the government during the years 1917 to 1923, inclusive?
3.	To whom was this material sold?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: I have conferred with the hon. member who placed this question on the order paper, and find that the information he asked for refers not to military clothing, but to military uniforms. In that case the question stands as an order for return.


IMMIGRATION STAFFS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What are the names of the officials and other employees of the immigration staffs in (a) Great Britain; (b) Europe; (c) United States?
2.	What did it cost to carry on this service during the fiscal year 1923 in the countries mentioned?
3. What countries, if any, in Europe, have been added to the preferred zone of immigration during the past year?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I ask that
this stand as an order for return, and I now file the return,



VANCOUVER, TORONTO. MONTREAL AND QUEBEC PORTS

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: What amount has been voted to develop each of the following ports-Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, and what amount has been spent up to date in connection with each of these ports?



APPOINTMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS

Mr. CLARK:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have been employed through appointment by the Civil Service Commission (a) since January 1, 1922; and (b) prior to January 1, 1922?
2.	What proportion of appointments made by the Civil Service Commission between January 1, 1919, and January 1, 1922, were awarded to returned soldiers ?
3.	What proportion of appointments made by the Civil Service Commission since January' 1, 1922, were awarded to returned soldiers?

Questions as Orders


Mr. CLARK:: 1.	How many appointments in the civil service have been exempted from the power of appointment by the Civil Service Commission since January 1, 1922?
2.	How many of the appointments referred to in paragraph 1 are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
3.	What proportion of the appointments made by departments other than Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have been awarded to returned soldiers?
4.	What proportion of the appointments made by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have been awarded to returned soldiers?



TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MINISTERS

Mr. McBRIDE:: What were the total travelling expenses of each minister of the government for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, or any portion of such fiscal years that each or any such ministers held office ?



PULP WOOD COMMISSION

Mr. SHEARD (for Hon. Mr. STEVENS) moved:: For a copy of all evidence or statements made before the Royal Pulpwood Commission by Mr. Piche and other witnesses, members or officers of the government of Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this
motion, the Royal Commission on Pulpwood submit the following:
The commission desired to have a full discussion with the Quebec forestry officials which, among other things, involved matters concerning the internal policy of the Forest Service. In order to permit of frank discussion of such matters, a private hearing was requested by the forestry officials, which request was granted.
Under these circumstances the commission does not consider that it -would be justified in disclosing the evidence presented by the Quebec forestry officials without the consent of that department of the Quebec government' service.
I would therefore ask that my hon. friend withdraw the motion.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: My
hon. friend who made the motion is not here. I would suggest that it be allowed to stand in the meantime. I do not yet appreciate the reason for not disclosing the evidence.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- PURCHASE OF TIES

Mr. CHAPLIN moved:: For a copy of all letters, papers, reports and other documents relating to the purchase of railway ties by the Canadian National Railways or any of its officials, including correspondence with the firm or firms from which the said ties were purchased, reports on the price or prices of same, and also returns and vouchers showing the cost of all creosoting plants either under construction or completed by the Canadian National Railways, during the year 1923.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Chaplin) and myself promised the House that we would talk this over, but I regret to say that we have not done so yet. If you will bear with us a little while longer we will work it out.
Motion stands.



MOSER'S RIVER WHARF

Mr. BLACK (Halifax) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between any member or members of the government, members of parliament, engineers, or representatives of government, or other party or parties during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, in relation to the wharf, jjiers and warehouse at Moser's River, Halifax county, Nova Scotia (Necum Teuch).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am not at
all sure that it is possible for the government to comply with this motion. The hon. member asks, "For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between any member or members of the government, members of parliament, engineers, or representatives of government," and so on. Of course, a return may be brought down of any correspondence between the government and the other persons mentioned, but the government has not any knowledge of correspondence with members of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The motion must be intended to have that meaning. The word "and" should be inserted before "members of parliament."


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Motion as amended agreed to.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-LEGAL OPINIONS RE SALES TAX

James Dew Chaplin: For a copy of all legal opinions given by the Department of Justice with respect to interpretation or effect of the present sales tax-Special War Revenue Act as re-enacted and amended by chapter 70 of the Statutes 1923.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I
must object to the adoption of this motion. Such legal opinions are given by the Department of Justice in cases which are now pending before the courts, and to bring them down would, in my opinion, prejudice the Crown. It has never been the practice to produce these opinions.
Questions as Orders


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his motion? Carried.
Motion withdrawn.



ST. FRANCOIS, ILE D'ORLEANS LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Mr. DOUCET moved:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the government of Canada, the Civil Service Commission or its employees, and all other persons since the first day of January, 1923, on the subject of the dismissal of Mr. Lemelin, lighthouse-keeper at St. Francois, He d'Orleans, and the nomination of a new lighthouse-keeper.


John Warwick King: This is
another order that is badly worded. It says:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the government of Canada, the Civil Service Commission or its employees, and all other persons.
If what is sought is any correspondence the government or any member of the government has had with "any of these parties, well and good, but as it is phrased it would seem to include any correspondence that employees or civil servants have had with any person. Of course, that could not possibly be brought down.


Arthur Meighen: I would say there is
no need of the words "or its employees."


Hewitt Bostock: Motion as amended agreed to.



EXPORT LIQUOR LICENSES- SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. MORRISON moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government or any department of the government between the government and the government of Saskatchewan on the question of licenses for export liquor houses.


Jacques Bureau: I would ask the hon.
member to let this motion stand, as there are some suggestions to be made as to its wording.
Motion stands.



ST. GEDEON POSTMASTERSHIP

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General or the government of Canada, the Civil Service Commission or its employees, and all other persons since the 1st January, 1922, to date, on the subject of the dismissal of Thomas Lavoie, postmaster at St. Gedeon, Chicoutimi county, and the nomination of a new postmaster at St. Gedeon. Also copies of the investigation that was held on the said Thomas Lavoie, and of the report of the investigators, as well as copies of applications made to the

Civil Service Commission for the position of postmaster at St. Gedeon, and all petitions and certificates given in favour of or against, any of the applicants.


John Warwick King: This order
also is badly phrased. If the words "or ifcs employees" were struck out and the word "other" before "persons," I think the order could pass in that form.


Hewitt Bostock: Motion as amended agreed to.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

Hon. Mr. STEVENS moved:: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams and other documents, during the year 1917, from the resident engineer or any of his staff located at Port Nelson to the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, or the deputy minister or the minister or any official of the said department, having reference to the Hudson Bay Railway route and grain or other harbour facilities.


John Warwick King: If this order
passes it must be with the understanding that what is unreasonable in it will not be brought down. It might be interpreted as meaning that any communication from any member of the staff of the resident engineer to any clerk in the department would have to be brought down. I do not think the mover intended the motion to have that construction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Anderson Black: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the Dominion government and the government of Nova Scotia in respect to construction of the Port Joli-Sable Island road, Nova Scotia, and federal aid thereto; also copies of estimates, engineers' reports, applications for federal aid, vouchers and other documents relating to said matters.



ST. MARGARET'S BAY ROAD

William Anderson Black: For a copy of all correspondence between the Dominion government and the government of Nova Scotia in respect to construction of the St. Margaret's Bay road, Nova Scotia, and federal aid thereto; also copies of estimates, engineers' reports, applications for federal aid, vouchers and other documents relating to said matters.



MR. PETER HICKEY

Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Peter Hickey as lighthouse-keeper at Fish island light, Prince county, Prince Edward Island, and if an investigation was held, a copy of the evidence and the investigator's report.

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton



DISMISSAL OF C. A. COX

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all correspondence, since January, 1922, between the Department of Indian Affairs and Mr. Ditchburn, representative of the department in British Columbia, and members of parliament, or others, in connection with the dismissal of C. A. Cox.



GLOUCESTER LOBSTER FISHING SEASON

Mr. ROBICHAUD:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, telegrams and other documents relating to certain representations made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the granting of a fall season to the lobster fishermen in the county of Gloucester, during the fishing season of 1923.



TORONTO VIADUCT

Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all reports, recommendations, papers, contracts, letters, telegrams and other documents from Sir Henry Thornton, president of the National Railways, relating to the carrying out of the viaduct agreement at Toronto, and all replies of the government thereto; also copy of all correspondence with the Canadian Pacific Railway, if any, or from the city of Toronto or the Harbour Commission of Toronto on this question.



IMPORTATION OF ELECTRIC LAMPS FROM HOLLAND

George Gibson Coote: For a copy of all papers and documents, including appraiser's reports, relating to the importation of electric lamps from Holland since the 1st of January, 1923.



CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

George Gibson Coote: For a copy of all regulations made by the Minister of Customs under S.S.5, sec. 6, chapter 11, Statutes of Canada 1907, an Act to amend the Customs Act.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 10, 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.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the budget the other day I pointed out that it was frank and friendly. It was frank in that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) pointed very clearly to some important items in the figures he presented in connection with the reduction of debt which were legacies from the past, legacies which in this case were fruitful of dividend. It was friendly in that he approved of the action I took some years 85
ago in trying to tell the truth to the people of this country as to what our exact financial position was. I wish our hon. friend would stick a little closer to the text, however. I am afraid that it is idle for the country to congratulate itself upon the fact that there is some suggested diminution in the national debt. Of course it entirely depends on how you figure it;, it entirely depends on the method you adopt in your calculations. My hon. friend's own figures show that the whole surplus for the year's operations amounted to $20,000,000 odd. The salvage of former years, now applied, amounted to $9,600,000 odd. That of course, was made up, as is shown by the budget itself, in part by the writing off of our obligation on the basis of the present rate of interest as against the interest calculated upon all our bonds retired. That was something that had nothing to do with this year's operations as such. Then again my hon. friend has some further figures which amount to $1,300,000. I have a recollection of some old credits which were kept. There is one old credit which was kept faithfully and religiously. It was so old that I would be afraid to say when it started: It had to do with the pelagic sealing claims which might arise against us.
There was another one which arose out of the sale 6f the Royal Mounted Police buildings at Calgary, which was claimed to be a sum of money which could not be taken into our general accounting but which had to be held over on further future investment; and, of course there is also the ever-present balance in connection with exchange. 'I have no doubt but that what my hon. friend has done is to go back to these old matters- perhaps perfectly properly; I am not going to say not. It may be that no sealing claim will ever be made; it may be that the trust fund in connection with the Calgary property is in such a position that it could be applied to our purpose. But the point is that the whole of this $1,300,000, odd as pointed out by my hon. friend, has absolutely nothing to do with this year's operations.
Let us just see how 4he miracle happened- one year a deficit of $31,000,000; the next year a writing off of $30,000,000 of debt; the whole saving claimed this year being some $4,000,000 with a comparatively small increase in the nation's income. How does it come about? It simply comes about by treating that $50,000,000 which had to be raised for railway purposes as not affecting the debt one wa,y or the other. That is how it is all done, just a mere matter of bookkeeping; you can do it any way you like, but that is the way in which it has been done.

1326	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend say in
what respect we differed from the methods followed by himself?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend,
I think, is wrong. I might very well say to my hon. friend that if we in times of stress, far different times from what we have today, had to raise money in a manner which was not customary, that is no answer to-day. But my hon. friend is not right even then. Any moneys which were raised in former times by a guaranteed loan and not carried into the debt, as I recollect it, were invariably either for the retirement of existing capital obligations or else the construction of absolutely new works. Now I am going to modify that again. I say that when you do that, there is certainly some excuse for it if you are retiring capital obligations; there is certainly some excuse for it if you are constructing new property; but even then, unless we delude ourselves, those sums ought not now to be looked upon as an asset, but as an addition to the debt. Why? Hon. gentlemen have not got to remember very far back to what took place in the House the otner day. we have cut down the list upwards of 8400,000,000, if not more, of moneys which we have advanced to the system as being in active assets and representing nothing. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways said, and said very truly, that further reductions ought to be made; he is right. Why, every single year we own this property we go behind in connection with it the exact amount that we put-up, having regard to our deficit account, interest and the like; so it becomes increasingly necessary that we ought not to look upon advances to railways, no matter how we disguise them, as constituting an asset which is net; it is not. Last year my hon. friend knows the railways went behind millions, and to the extent that they went behind millions to that extent is the position made just so much worse.
Let us go back to that $50,000,000 item again. The minister says that a substantial amount of that still stands on hand. I venture to say that if my hon. friend to-day has $18,000,000 of it left he is lucky, and if he has more he will tell me. But I venture to say he has not, and I further venture to say that before this year's figures are properly and finally closed, instead of having a balance of $18,000,000, his balance will look much more like $15,000,000, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me. What is this $50,000,000 for? My hon. friend says, new capital construction. What new capital construction has this House authorized? There
[Six Henry Drayton.]
is just one bit, and I am going to ask my hon. friend to interrupt me at once if I am wrong-only one bit of capital construction has been authorized and has taken place that I know of, and that is the "Longlac" cut-off connecting the old Canadian Northern line with the Transcontinental in the West. Am I wrong? Here is the Minister of Railways on the one hand, and the Acting Minister of Finance on the other; I ask them am I wrong? Both gentlemen know that that is the only bit of capital work that is being carried on, and what did that cost? It might cost $2,000,000; it might be worked up to $2,500,000; but again I venture to say that neither of these gentlemen will correct me when I say that it will not exceed $2,500,000.


George Perry Graham: Would not betterments
be included in capital?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am coming
to that in a minute. I am taking one thing at a time and I am now taking new construction. Does the minister desire to contradict that statement?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures
with me, blit I think probably the hon. member is wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
thinks so. He will not hazard this statement, that there has been one single bit of other capital new work done; and if he does not know it, he ought to know it. But the truth is there is nothing further except that small bit of work, $2,500,000, which justifies a charge against capital in so far as new work is concerned, out of this whole $50,000,000.
Next, there is a twilight zone which is exceedingly hard to find things in and define things in, and that twilight zone is the zone that exists between betterments on the one hand and maintenance on the other; it is very, very hard to distinguish there. Why, if you want to so run a railway, you can have such charges to betterments that you can relieve yourself of practically all maintenance charges, get a wonderful operating statement, and frightfully overload your capital account. Betterments? I wonder if it is going to be suggested that all the rest of this is in betterments outside of that $2,500,000. Well, if it be all in [DOT]betterments, Mr. Speaker, I marvel very much that instead of having an operating result of $20,000,000 this year, we have not an operating result of $50,000,000 or $60,000,000, because that ought to be arrived at if those methods be adopted. Betterments? Why, the Minister of Railways himself says that we have

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
already got more moneys against these railways than they are worth. Betterments against a property that we have already got charged up in our books with a sum far greater than its value? To talk about betterments in connection with that as a matter of net capital not subject to deduction, I submit; Mr. Speaker, is perfectly ridiculous. Well, there we are. That is how this surplus is arrived at; that is how we have the miracle, that claimed saving of only $4,000,000, on the one side, with but a small increase of revenue on the other. That is how the change is brought about from this deficit of $31,000,000 to the credit of $30,000,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government claim to be an economical government. They actually have managed to economize in some things. I have gone over the formal statements, the last one bringing the period down to the 10th April, 1924, and I find the government have made some savings or savings have been made for them-in fact the latter statement is true of most of the savings. I am going to deal with these savings for a few minutes. In the first instance there is a saving on interest of $1,518,680. I wonder if the Acting Minister of Finance claims the credit for all that saving. The truth is that in all these refunding operations the government, of course, gets the benefit of the current rate of interest on the new bonds sold, and the people that lend the money really are the ones that bring about the result. .We therefore have a saving of $1,518,680 but I do not know that anyone could look upon that as a great government achievement. Then we have a saving on premiums, discount and exchange of $121,413. My own opinion as to that is that it depends entirely upon the extent of the movement of money from one country to the other. That was something which no government could help, whether we take the year before last, or this year and in the year before last the amount was very small. Then we have these other savings claimed:
Legislation	 $	385,832
Health	 10,079
Pensions	 529,027
National Defence	 677,430
Mounted Police	   81,511
Railways and Canals, consolidated fund..	1,617,462
Lighthouse and coast service	 9,358
Mines	 206,748
Railways and Canals, collection	 1,459,173
Dominion Lands and Parks	 535,590
Labour	 1,033.642
Soldiers' Land Settlement	 306.982
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment	 2,528,518
Total over	*11,021,000
85*	;
The savings which involve no administrative credit are:
Savings on interest	 $1,518,680
Premium, discount and exchange.. '	 121,413
Pensions	 529,027
Soldiers' Land Settlement	 306,982
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment	 2,528,518
Total over	 $5,004,620
Now when we start to check up this matter the official returns show that the whole of the savings in all these consolidated fund payments for the year actually amounts to the magnificent sum of $1,055,060 only. That is why I have gone into this matter in detail. The items that I have enumerated are not items that any government desirous of considering the situation fairly could claim any credit for. We concede the items to which the government properly should not claim for amount to $5,004,000. Then there are other things working in favour of the government. The business of the Department of Railways and Canals is disappearing day 4 p.m. by day; it is being more and more taken over by the management of the amalgamated lines. The tremendous machinery once required to run the Intercolonial is required no longer. Of course, expenses have got to .come down there, and the added savings there alone amount to $3,076,635 which makes a total of $8,08S,225 of savings that could not very well be avoided by the government-savings that were actually forced upon them. So that if you deduct these from the total savings effected it will be seen that the government can claim credit for administrative savings amounting to $2,940.000, but the statement of the government itself shows only $1,055,000 in all. Let us go a little bit further in the analysis of this matter. If you take the amount of net savings left from the savings shown by the government's own documents you have left a balance of $9,965,000 that has been entirely dissipated by the government. It is gone, gone into new ventures, new schemes of expenditure, new ideas of getting rid of money-either that or else there has been great extravagance in the control of existing departments. Well, if such be the definition of an economical government I wonder what the definition of an extravagant government ought to be. The figures are there to speak for themselves. However, 1 am not going to detain the House further in going over these figures. I am now going to address myself to the fiscal policy of the government.
The Great War was often referred to as one of attrition. The government's campaign against Canadian industry might also be re-
1328	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
ferred to as one of attrition. Here a bite and there a bite; something lopped off this man and a present given to that man; no general policy, no declaration of policy at all, but a process of tariff changing and tariff meddling brought about simply and solely for the purpose of deriving political advantage-that and nothing else. I should like to know who is helped by these tariff changes? Outside of my hon. friends opposite who are enjoying the emoluments of office we know that nobody whatever has been helped.
Who can honestly say that agriculture is to-day one whit better off than it was two years ago? No one can honestly say that. Who can say that agriculture to-day has received the slightest benefit from the cut in the tariff here and the cut there? No one will say so, not even anyone from the serried ranks of agriculture itself. They know that no one has received any benefit; they know that their position to-day has not been helped one whit by all the so-called measures of relief, the chipping of the tariff here and the chipping of it there. But what about industry? What about the other productive agencies of the country? You may have little changes here and little changes there that mean nothing whatever to the consumer, but which may mean everything to the worker, which may mean all the difference between profit and loss to the producer, and which may cut down his output and profit to such an extent that inevitably his cost of output must increase. Yes, it has helped nobody in Canada other than those occuping the treasury benches, and those of us drawing our parliamentary indemnities and seeking to continue to draw them. But it certainly has helped others. It certainly has helped the American manufacturer, the American railroader. What have my hon. friends already done in connection with their changes in the agricultural implement schedule? I am going to read a quotation from the United States Department of Commerce, which is interested in these things from an American standpoint. This is what it says:
The outstanding feature is the large increase in exports to Argentine, amounting to nearly $8,00Q,Q.QP and showing a total of $12,975,828. Exports for Canada, however, were greater, amounting to $13,736,091, an increase of more than four million dollars. Canada and Argentine occupied first and second place, respectively, in the value of implements purchased from this country.
Yes, my hon. friends are able to boast of something. They have done something. They have placed this country that used to be looked upon, and rightly so, as a great country of export as regards agricultural implements, in the position of ranking first

in the list of Uncle Sam's exports of helping American manufacturers and American labour in something which ought to be indigenous to our country to a greater extent than any other industry.


Mr. McMASTER:: For what year are those imports of American agricultural implements into Canada calculated?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the last statement I have been able to get. I have not the exact date with me, but I will get it for my hon. friend afterwards.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It would not be under the operation of the new duties.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To-day's duties? Certainly not. But we have had a continuous succession of cuts in the duty on agricultural implements.


Andrew Ross McMaster: For some of which my right hon. friend's leader boasted a short time ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will debate
that question now if my hon. friend so desires.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not if my hon. friend
would rather not be interrupted now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not mind a bit; but if I digress, my hon. friend knows that I shall be doing so on his account, and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House.
That is pretty good for this process of attrition; these strategic methods of the government are doing pretty well. More than one-half of the men who ought to be employed in the agricultural implement business are either idle in Canada or working in the United States. The process of attrition is going along well. I do not know if my hon. friends are very proud of the fact. Not only is there attrition in this industry, but the tinplate industry, the window-glass industry and the woollen industry are being strangled, starved 'to death. Let us assume that the western farmer has to pay all the duties in connection with the agricultural implements. Does anyone seriously think that a further remission of those duties is really going to help the farmer one bit? Surely, everybody who thinks about the matter at all, knows full well that Canadian agricultural duties have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the plight of the Canadian farmer to-day. Surely they know that all this is merely a political cry. If they do not know that, they pay no attention whatever to current economic happenings. There is no duty on agricultural im-

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
plements to-day in the United States. There was until they got the markets. They may have put the duty back on the last tariff; I did not bother to look, but they are not worrying about the duty there. Will anyone say that the American grain grower is better off than the Canadian grain grower? Why, hon gentlemen know that that is not the case. They know that the position of the western states is infinitely worse than that of our western territory, and they further know that mile for mile, load for load, it would cost the Canadian farmer over $15,000,000 more annually to transport his crop by existing railway rates in the United States. What the real difficulties of the farmer are, is also known very well. I am going to state them, and I am going to ask hon. gentlemen representing the West to tell me if I am wrong in connection with them. The first great difficulty of the farmer is loss of purchasing power in the great food consuming countries as a result of the 'war. Is there any dispute about that? Is that not the first and the greatest? The second difficulty is the practically prohibitive tariff of the United States, in the main directed against Canadian farm products. Is there any dispute about that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I must draw the hon.
member's attention to the fact that between 1913 and 1922 the exports of farm products, cereals, to Europe that is to say, continental Europe, increased six times and to Great Britain and continental Europe taken together about twice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perfectly true,
there was an increase. Have you purchasing power to-day in Europe which will anything like look after your present crop that is now being offered, at a price that will enable you to live?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We all know
that the destruction in Europe is one of the chief and main troubles of the farmers.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
manufacturer?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The manufacturer of to-day is ful\ of trouble, so much that I would not think the hon. gentleman who interrupts would want to increase it. These changes in the tariff are doing no good to anybody and only causing further trouble to the manufacturers.
My second point is this: The practically prohibitive tariff of the United States which is in the main directed against Canadian farm products. Is there any dispute about that?
I pause for a reply on this point. Well, apparently there is none. I do not see very well how there could be an honest dispute on that point. The third point is that there has been a deflation of prices which has been more acute in grain and live stock, without anything like a corresponding deflation in the farmers' cost of operation. Is there any dispute about that? Can there be? There being no dispute on that point, we have the three reasons to-day why the agricultural West is languishing. Can anyone honestly say that the Canadian customs tariff on agricultural implements has the slightest thing to do with any one of these points?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why, certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
George Gibson Coote: I am merely asking the hon. member if he does insinuate that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have answered the hon. gentleman. I do say that for political
purposes the thing is being done. No one knows that better than the hon. gentleman himself. He knows perfectly well that the total savings to his constituents by reason of the tariff reductions will amount to nothing individually. But nevertheless for the purpose of taking that rag from the wavering hands across the aisle and flaunting it in his constituency, he is quite willing to imperil the standing of our industrial workers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am extremely serious when I say that.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the hon. . member distinguish between workers in various sections of Canada? Does he think it will imperil the standing of workers in the Maritime provinces and not the standing of workers west of the Great Lakes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I tell my hon. friend that there should be absolutely no difference made between our workers anywhere. Wherever there is work to be done in this country, it should be our interest to help our workers to secure it. I know of no distinction one way or the other.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is looked upon as the home of the agricultural implement industry.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Before the hon. member proceeds would he kindly define what those Canadian interests are that he says should be protected?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Canadian interests surely must mean the interests of every proper activity in the whole Dominion which will afford our people the opportunity of supporting their families. That is a truly Canadian policy. I place no limitation on it. I know some people would introduce exceptions, favouring one class here as against another class there, creating trouble between this man and that man. But I do not understand the word "Canadian" to be so circumscribed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that Ontario is looked upon as the home of the agricultural implement industry. It is a province which probably can be injured by my hon. friends with the least possible political danger to themselves. They are pretty well known in Ontario now. It may be the judgment of my hon. friends that it is largely the industries of Ontario which are being handed over as a sacrifice, as a burnt offering on this occasion. But I think they are wrong. This industry, which is indigenous to this country, has achieved a great deal of growth and has been continually expanding.
1332	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
It is represented to-day in practically every province; I could give a few names in each province in the Dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend says, "hear, hear." I am going to get him to say "hear, hear" again, because I will show that this industry has made conspicuous progress in his own fair province. I am going to illustrate that by reading a few names.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not what the
Tory newspapers say.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My Hon.
friend will find that I am perfectly fair with him. There is quite a bit of business done in Quebec, and I am going to be quite fair and read the list. Here are the names, and I daresay my hon. friend will be familiar with a lot of them:
Beauchemin & Fils, Sorel.
The Matthew Moody & Sons Co., Terrebone.
W. F. Vilas, Cowansville.
A. Belanger, Limited, Montmagny.
J. B. Dore & Fils, Montreal.
P. T. Legare, Limited, Quebec.
T. P. Logan Company, Limited, Quebec.
La Cie Charles A. Julien, Limitee, Port Rouge.
Plessisville Foundry, Plessisville.
Omega Machinery Company, Limited, St. Hyacinthe.
Roch Beauvais, Laprairie.
La Compagnie Bedard Limitee, L'Assumption.
La Cie Dussault & Lamoureaux, St. Hyacinthe.
Chalifoux & Fils, St. Hyacinthe.
The Godbout Company, Limited, St. Alm6.
Laliberte & Boisvert, Plessisville.
Separateurs Domo, St. Hyacinthe.
Jean Tardiff, Plessisville.
La Compagnie Industrielle de St. Francois, Ltd.
Canadian Fairbanks-Morse Company, Limited, Montreal.
Canada Axe and Harvest Tool Company, Limited, Montreal.
Dominion Snath Company, Limited, Waterville.
Thomas Davidson Manufacturing Company, Limited, Montreal.
The Bedford Manufacturing Company, Bedford.
La Cie Desjardins, Limitee, St. Andr6 de Kamou-raska.
Dominion Carriage Company, Limited, Montreal.
James Kenehan, Montreal.
Latour and Frere, Lesage.
La Manufacture de Voitures de Laurierville, Laurier-ville.
Arthur Richard, Ignace.
St. Lawrence Wagon Company, Limited, Montreal.
That is a rather large list. My hon. friend says that the Conservative papers say there are none in Quebec. I want to do Quebec full justice, and I have presented the list of them. I do not, however, remember any Conservative paper having said that. But my hon. friend tells me that is the case; perhaps he will deal with that when he is speaking on the budget.
KSir Henry Drayton,1


Ernest Lapointe: I shall take that
liberty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the members who represent Quebec constituencies interested in the industrial welfare of their province? They have seen the industrial pay roll of the province of Quebec increase from $36,000,000 in 1900 to $164,000,000 in 1921. Are they entirely indifferent to the record1 of their province in that respect? Is it a matter of no moment to them? They have seen the cost of materials used in Quebec factories rise from $86,000,000 in 1900 to $406,000,000 in 1921; are they indifferent to that market for the Quebec farmer, the Quebec lumberman, the Quebec raw material producer? They have seen the gross value of their manufactured products increased from $168,000,000 to $784,000,000 in the same period. Are they interested? I should think they would be rather proud of that record. Are they really interested in keeping Quebec industrial workers at home, or do they want to wish them God-speed on their exodus to the States? They have had plenty of opportunities to do that during the last year; there have been any number of trains from Quebec carrying workmen from Quebec parishes, workmen who have been going to the States to get that which was denied them at home.


Ernest Lapointe: Mostly farmers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says they are whiskey farmers?


Ernest Lapointe: There is something wrong with my hon. friend's ear. I said, mostly farmers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thank my hon. friend. I do not know where the trouble was, but I thought he said whiskey farmers.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman
wanted to hear that word.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, maybe
they are mostly farmers. But is my hon. friend going to say that that was because the implement men were charging too high prices in Quebec? He lias the opportunity.


Ernest Lapointe: What?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
matter with my hon. friend's ears?


Ernest Lapointe: What is the matter with my hon. friend himself?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows it is nonsense. He knows that workers

The Budget-Sir Henry Draytcm
have left Quebec in considerable numbers, yes, in thousands, and there is no use shutting one's eyes to it. Is he not interested, are the Quebec members not interested, in keeping the people of that province at home? Or do they want to wish them God-speed as they go to the States? The industrial record of Quebec is a fine record. I wonder how many gentlemen from Quebec are not only proud of it, but remembering also, as they do, their great compatriot, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, look upon the achievement of Quebee industry as one of the great monuments of his life? Do Quebec members believe in the Laurier-Fielding tariff, which they so assiduously preached at the last election? If they believe in it, if there be any honesty left in connection with the consideration of these questions; if these gentlemen believe in their province and believe in themselves, they will vote against this budget; they will vote to promote the interests of their province and the interests of their country. What is the reason of this cut in the duty on agricultural implements?


Mr. CALDWELL:: As the hon. member
is dwelling so largely on agricultural implements, may I ask him what is to hinder the Canadian manufacturer from taking advantage of that great market to the south when there is no duty on farm implements entering there?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That indeed is a brilliant suggestion. That is just the sort of suggestion I would expect from the hon. gentleman. It is just the sort of suggestion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer it; answer it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
matter with hon. gentlemen? They will get their answer. I do not mind being interrupted. They will get their answer just when I am going to answer the question; I have the floor. I say that this is the kind of question I would expect to get put to me by somebody, that in this year of grace it would honestly be suggested that something could be done by a country of nine millions of people towards forcing upon a world of tariffs everywhere free trade, and being able to get away with it. My hon. friend asks what about the great country to the south. Surely my hon. friend knows the size and the output of the American manufacturer. Surely he knows that so far in Canada we have been trying to get along as a united country doing something each for the other. Surely he
knows, for example, that the Canadian manufacturer helps pay the wages by special duty, small it is true, of the miners down in Nova Scotia. Surely he knows that he helps to pay through taxes on a hundred and one things. Surely he knows that mass production always is and always must be cheaper.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am afraid the hon.
member did not hear my question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, let us have it again.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is to prevent the Canadian manufacturer of farm inplements from taking advantage of that great market to the south in view of the fact that there is no duty on farm implements entering the United States?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
trying to show that it is more expensive to manufacture here, but I will tell my hon. friend something that is just as plain as the nose on anybody's face. Let Canadians once start putting agents in United States territory, let them once get their foot in there in connection with the manufacture of farm implements or anything else, and you will have an emergency measure brought down in congress the next day and a tariff put on. We have had a tariff put on grain, on everything.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask another
question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If it is closer to the point, I do not mind.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that
the Canadian manufacturer of farm implements is competing not only with the United States manufacturer, but with the European manufacturer who has the advantage of the cheap labour of Europe? The only place the Canadian manufacturer cannot compete is at home.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is an agent himself.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He sells fertilizers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I wish to correct my
hon. friend. I am not an agent for anything, and have not been for a long number of years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He used to be.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was never a machinery agent.

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the hon. member had known anything about it he would not have asked the question. My hon. friend must know very well that to-day Canadian manufacturers are maintaining factories in American territory because it is cheaper; he knows that is where they sell from. If he does not know it, it is quite impossible for me to try and inform him.


John Morrison: I was told by the manager of one of the largest implement manufacturing concerns in Canada last July that they sell most of their output in the United States, that if it was not for the United States market they would go broke, that they have a better market there than in Canada and sell their goods from New Jersey to California.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is the case, it is very remarkable that with this duty, which, of course, my hon. friend looks upon as being so enormous, $13,000,000 worth of the American product comes over to Canada. But that is very much by the way.
Now what is the reason of this cut on agricultural implements? It cannot be that the duties are out of line with other duties; we know they are not. It cannot be that the companies are making money. Again, we know they are not; they are passing their dividends; business is falling off, and falling off for obvious reasons. The latest figures I have are for 1922, and they show the value of products of all Canadian factories to be $18,240,000 as against $38,900,000 for the year 1921. Just think of that, Mr. Speaker, as the result of this government's shall I say fatherly care, or rather its tactics of attrition which are showing such wonderful results-a reduction in one year from $38,900,000 to $18,240.000. It cannot be they are making money. Everybody knows what the reason is. Everybody knows the reason is political. Everybody knows it is the retention of political power at the expense of Canadian industrial workers, and the amazing part of the whole thing is that the western farmer places his support at so low a price. What is he getting? Just let us see what he is getting out of this, that is, sticking always to the assumption I started out with, that the West does not want to injure the East, and I will never believe that it does; with that assumption what is the western farmer getting out of this? I have not any hesitation in saying that no real benefit is being obtained by the western farmer out of any single one of these tariff reductions. Let us see what they are. We have got budget resolutions dealing with 29 specific customs items; we have 8 items

providing for increased, and heavily increased drawbacks. Now the budget gives us a forecast of an estimated reduction in taxation of $24,000,000. How much do my hon. friends figure they are getting out of that $24,000,000 in connection with these customs duties? Have they ever thought of that? Has a single one of them ever sat down to think, are my constituents getting out of this anything commensurate with the injury that will be done others? Allow for the fullest amount of selfishness-


Mr. SEXSMITH:: On which side?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member says, "on which side?" He has it always. Giving him the fullest amount of selfishness, what does he think his support should go for? What is it worth? How much ought he to get from these cuts? How much does it take for the western farmer to support that wonderful endorsation of the government from the leader of the Progressive party? How much do they think they should get? Have they the slightest idea? Have they taken the slightest trouble any one of them, to see whether they are getting anything or not, or whether the country is not simply being injured? From the home and source of frequent interruptions I cannot now get a peep. Not one of them has considered, not one could even hazard a guess as to the price of western support.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: We are not for sale.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am delighted to hear that. If you are not I know how you will vote on this budget.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps
you do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The budget
does not give any particulars as to that $24,000.000. I communicated with my hon. friend in an effort to learn how his estimate w*as made up. He referred me to his officials. If hon. gentlemen want to know the details, I will give them to them at once: Customs, $750000. All this fuss and feathers, all the industrial disarrangement we have, the further cloud thrown over the whole of our business activities, for the sake of $750,000. Surely there is something wrong here:	Customs
$750,000; sales tax, $23,250,000; total $24,000,000. Has it come to this, that the whole underlying structure of our industrial edifice is to be imperilled for the sake of $750,000? I think it is perfectly ridiculous. My hon. friends to my left will not derive the smallest

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
advantage from [DOT] some of the tariff items. There are twenty-nine such items and only fourteen of them affect the farmers. There are eight drawback items that will not give the farmers five cents; the manufacturer will derive the greatest benefit. This gain of $750,000 is not my estimate, it is the estimate of the government's expert.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that this cloud of $750,000, this cloud no larger than a man's hand, threatens the industrial structure of the East?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In one sense
the hon. gentleman is right; in another sense he is entirely wrong.' So far as industry is concerned it is absolutely at the cross roads to-day. It does not know what is going to happen to it; it does not know whose head will next be demanded on a charger in order that the present government may be kept in power. Of course industry can stand a loss of three-quarters of a million of dollars if that is all that is meant. But hon. gentlemen know that that is not all that is meant. They know that in the case of the particular industry to which I have been referring its output is being cut down to $18,000,000 and that there are imports to the extent of $13000,000. Do my hon. friends consider that is a very healthful position for an industry to be in? Do they think it is a good time to put a gun at its head no matter how small the object that is sought to be accomplished? Now, as I have already said all that the West gets out of this budget is a percentage of $750,000. But they get a grand political cry, they get something which to them as politicians is of great value. Is it worth it? The West may look upon this customs reduction as a victory but it is a pyrrhic victory of such a character that given a few more of them the AVest will be entirely undone. A few more attacks on industries will so affect the purchasing power of this country, will so limit the taxable field of Canada, that the West will feel it and feel it very severely. But even this government is aware that the agricultural industry is an important one and that it cannot be entirely sacrificed. With the reduced rates of the budget something had to be done to help the implement manufacturers get their raw materials and -they are getting those materials free or at greatly reduced tariff rates. But these raw' materials form the finished output of other Canadian industries. The publication issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce in 1923 deals with the agricultural implement industry from 1870 to 1920. It shows
an increase in the payroll from $925,324 to $13,894,561 in that period. It also shows that in 1920 the materials used in the 5 p.m. industry amounted to $22,588,390.
Now, these materials, purchased as they were to a very great extent in Canada provided a substantial pay roll to the Canadian worker. I want to give the House some ideas of the other industries in Canada that are being injured by this tariff tinkering. I think the steel industry is being injured to a greater degree than even the agricultural implement industry. The former industry is getting no such concessions as the agricultural implement industry. The $22,588,390 of materials used in the manufacture of agricultural implements consist of the following:
Steel	
Pig and scrap iron	
Malleable and grey iron	
Iron, other	
Other metals	
Steel castings	
Iron castings	
Other castings	
Iron piping	
Galvanized and black sheets	
Lumber and timber	
Wood turned shapes	
Metal wheels	
Leather	
Cotton, duck, canvas and textile goods.. ..
Paints, oils and varnishes	
Rubber goods	
Accessories and equipment for tractors and
engines	
Separator parts	
Stampings	
Bolts, nuts, rivets, etc	
All other specified materials	
All other materials

Total over	 $22,588 390
The direct effect of this budget will be to transfer the purchase of these materials to the United States, and there is no compensation at all for the Canadian manufacturers of the above. Thus there will be an intensification of the present distrust and instability in Canada. The result will bear out the correctness of the prophecy of Right Hon. Mr. Fielding as Finance Minister. He showed what the results of further tariff tinkering would be and my hon. friends opposite will find his views in this case absolutely correct. Now, drawback provisions are always more serious to industry than direct tariff provisions. The drawback provisions of the present tariff are hitting the steel industry right and left. The great trouble is that no one knows what the next political exigency is going to be. Thf government are actuated by no principle one way or the other.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why worry?

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


Henry Lumley Drayton: An hon. member says: "Why worry"? I wonder whether he thinks Canada has not a right to worry at the present time? Where is he? What hon. gentleman says:	"Why worry"? Is he
not concerned about a matter that goes to the very threshold of the Canadian worker? The hon. member sounds as if he came from Nova Scotia. Is he not interested in steel? The whole question is, whether you worry or not, whose head will go next. I am going to make a violent assumption. If this government, instead of being influenced by political motives, had really sought to look upon the whole question with a view of doing the right thing for the country in connection with this question of American importations, what would they do? They would look at their own trade returns and carefully note that our international trade *with the United States for the past four years and ten months down to the end of January last resulted in an unfavourable trade balance to Canada of $1,100,000,000. Do you think, after noting that, if the care, if the good of the country, were a governing motive they would seek to enlarge directly that tremendous burden on Canada? If they were actuated as I was saying, under my violent assumption, by a desire to endeavour to do the best for the country, they would note that the United States were aiming to increase that tremendous drain on the resources of our country by increasing tariff exactions. They would observe the returns of the foreign commerce of the United States and learn from the statistical abstract of 1922 that while France purchased but $312,479,000 worth from the United States, Canada bought $536,513,000. They would learn that, apart from the United Kingdom, dependent as it is upon the importation of foodstuffs and raw materials, Canada bought more and far more from the United States than any other country in the world. After learning all that, *they would come to the conclusion that Canadian business ought to be worth something to the United States, and that in view of those increased duties against Canadian products, to lower further our duties is but to betray the country. Is that nothing to worry about? Does this government like the recent tariff enactments of the United States? Did they like the increase from thirty to forty-two cents on grain? It is easy to say "no"-to deplore them-but just so long as prohibitive tariffs against us are met by cuts in our own tariff -and that is the way in which this government treats the matter-just so long are the prohibitive foreign tariffs invited,

Let me refer for a few minutes to taxation. Surely there is something that we can agree upon. Surely, we can all agree upon the fact that the race for first place amongst the most complicated, troublesome, vexatious and stupid measures of taxation which were ever conceived, is exceedingly close between the progressive stamp taxes and the sales tax as amended. I really do not know which is worse. We have still to bear the progressive stamp taxes, but just a little of the blister of the sales tax is to go. I have no doubt that those who are going to get total exemption will be extremely grateful, but I have no doubt they will wonder how the other poor chap who is left is going to get along. But it is humorous for this government to take credit for reducing the sales tax to a point that still takes much more money out of the public than the original sales tax which they found when they came into office and which they so much denounced. They call this a measure of reduction of taxation! If you make the thing absolutely top-heavy, you cannot do anything with it, and the government are not half collecting the sales tax today. We have questions on the order paper and we cannot get answers to them; but when those answers are brought down, we shall know the facts. When this government took office, the sales tax was one and one-half per cent on the manufacturer and one and one-half per cent on the jobber, an impost that was so small that, in most instances, it was not passed on to the consumer. The government immediately increased it by 50 per cent in each case-that is this government's method of reducing taxes,-and last year they increased the rate to 6 per cent, placing it at the source, thus entailing an actual cost, in the usual course of trade, of over 11 per cent to the consumer. Hon. gentlemen will find that result very easily by looking at the evidence given last year in the discussion on the matter. That 6 per cent tax is now to be cut to 5 per cent. That is a great achievement for this Progressive-Liberal government. We have a cut from 6 to 5 per cent-a wonderful achievement-and we have all the taxes left just as we had them, increased right and left. Why, the law of last session ought to have been repealed altogether. We got little out of it. For example, I do not know if that bothersome provision as to the $10,000 limit was ever seriously meant. It was absolutely unenforceable; it could not be worked. It has not worked, and thousands upon thousands of dollars of expense have been put upon Canadian business men as a result of that foolish bit of legislation. As I say, instead of its being simply amended, it should have

The Budget-Mr. Stevxvrt (Argenteuil)
been repealed; but even crumbs are better than no bread, and we have a tardy recognition by the government, in the amendments proposed, of its palpable errors in its measure of last year.
This Progressive-Liberal government - I wonder where the heads are going to meet. I wonder who is going to swallow the other in this combination. I think both crowds will be rather hard to digest, but the spectacle is an interesting one. The real trouble is that the one thing which the Canadian public really knows is that, no matter what the cost may be to the business of Canada, whatever is necessary to be given up, whatever concession must be made in order that my hon. friends may remain in office, will be made, and yet people wonder that there is doubt, uncertainty and trouble in business circles. Oh, it is easy to turn up these trade reports and show results sometimes which, instead of showing a good state of affairs, indicate a very bad state of affairs. You can turn up reports and show exports when you have got a condition at home where your purchasing power has so gone down that perforce export has to be made willy niliy, but does anyone really think that those customs returns portray anything like the real condition of affairs?
This budget, Mr. Speaker, instead of helping this country as it should only adds to its difficulties. It does nothing whatever to help labour or to supply a job for anyone. Take the tin plate business, gone as it is, it does nothing to help it. Take the window glass business .nothing is done to help it. In regard to woollen mills, even the Globe is crying for relief and talks about the necessity to do something, and contends there should be a recognition of our duty to do something to prevent the abolition of this important industry. But we find nothing here. The government are concerned with other things. Yes, the woollen mills may go to the United States, but for the moment the King administration must stand.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Before beginning my remarks on the budget I should like to say how much we miss our old and faithful friend, the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Recent reports would indicate that his health is much improved, and that we shall again have the pleasure of his counsel and advice in the government as well as in parliament itself. And may I say that, while we miss him, his position is very ably filled. I wish to congratulate my colleague, the acting minister (Mr. Robb), on the splendid presentation that he has made to the House in the well rounded out budget that he presented to us last Thursday.
To those of us who believe in the reduction of duties on the implements of production, coupled with the abolition of the sales tax, and followed by the large list of foods partially reduced or placed on the free list, the budget offers an alleviation from those burdens which we believe were crushing enterprise and industry, and goes a long way towards carrying out the desire of the Prime Minister in establishing mutual trust and national unity. I shall try to follow the acting minister's example by being brief, and I hope to the point.
May I, first of all, deal with the situation in Canada and the difference that exists between the Conservative party and those of more liberal thought for the improvement of the national situation.
The two old parties have always differed in methods to be adopted for the advancement of the agricultural and industrial life of Canada. The Conservative party have clung to their traditional attitude of protection for the manufacturing interests, while the Liberal party have adopted a more lenient course.
One could not help but be struck this afternoon, in listening to the address of the exFinance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) by the fact that he saw very little wrong with the budget as presented on this occasion, but it was interesting to note the desperate way in which the hon. member declared that it was the death knell of protection. One would have thought that we were listening to a funeral oration this afternoon, and I trust that it will be the death knell of protection. I do not mean to suggest for a single moment that we should vote at this time to abolish the tariff in its entirety, but rather that we should do as we have been doing,-as to which my hon. friend complained so bitterly,-continually amend the tariff where it bears too heavily upon the production of the country. To listen to my -hon. friend this afternoon one would imagine that, by the adoption of the protectionist policy, conditions in Canada would improve but he seems to forget, as all hon. members who advocate protection do, that in a new country like this, protection has imposed a burden upon the masses of the people, out of all proportion to the benefits enjoyed by the comparatively few engaged in industry. Let me draw attention to the fact that in agriculture and the various industries this tariff proposes to assist, there are engaged to-day nearly five million five hundred thousand souls. I have not a word to say against industry. I should like to see it encouraged in every way, and I argue that this budget will encourage it in every
1338	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Steicart (Argenteu.il)
way. It will encourage labour. My hon. friend asks: "What about the labour that is going to the United States?" I ask him: "What about the agriculturists who have been leaving Canada and going to the United States under present conditions?" With the number of people engaged in agriculture, in mining and in lumbering, Mr. Speaker, is it not meet and proper that at this time this government should be alive to the interests of so large a proportion of our population? Having that in mind, we have presented to this House a budget that seeks to ameliorate to a very large degree the burden those people have been carrying for a large number of years.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. minister permit me-


Charles A. Stewart: The right
hon. leader of the opposition will have all the opportunity he desires at a later date. Then, take the small number of people engaged in the manufacturing industries in the country, and reverse the problem. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens)-and I, listened to his statement with interest-argued that the ultimate hope of the Canadian people was the home market, and that the ultimate hope of the Canadian farmer was the home market. If the ultimate hope of the Canadian farmer is the home market, then a great many more of us than those who have had to leave Canada will have to depart in the very near future. My hon. friend mentions the fact that there has been a reduction in the sale of farm implements. Why should there not be? If my hon. friend knows anything about the agricultural interests throughout Canada today, large as the wheat crop has been, he knows that for the past three years agriculturists have been unable to purchase farm implements. It has been an impossibility to purchase them, and the stifling of the purchasing power of the people at home is the real reason that we have had a reduction in manufactured products. My hon. friend will know the facts, of course, and I accept his figures when he states that a goodly number of implements went abroad and still continue to go abroad. The manufacturers are able to meet the competition in the foreign field, and let me refer, Mr. Speaker to the care that is exercised in connection with the preparation of this budget. We took into consideration the fact that we should, not to any extent, injure the manufacturers of farm implements in Canada, and it is not the desire of the government to interfere with the interests of any industry in Canada. But let me say that, when the full

effects of these reductions are felt and when the encouragement which will be given to agriculture permeates through the business of Canada, there will be less unemployment and less emigration to the United States than under existing conditions to-day. My hon. friend well knows that. And what I have said with reference to the agricultural industry applies also to the manufacturing industry.
But if we want a striking illustration of what effect protection has had on Canada, we have only to turn back to the decade following 1878, when under the Macdonald regime the National Policy was introduced embracing all the elements of protection. Perhaps I am going back a little too far for some of our younger members. But what happened? And I am very glad that a number of Toronto's representatives are in their seats. In 1878 we were told that protection would fill the dinner pail of the working man, that it would increase manufacturing throughout the Dominion, and that an era of real prosperity would descend upon us by its adoption. Toronto got along very well while the smaller manufacturing concerns were being amalgamated into larger institutions, for the National Policy had the effect of concentrating a large number of the smaller manufacturers into a few large corporations. As a result there was expansion in all directions in that great city, and building construction was undertaken on a large scale-my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) will very well remember the circumstances. But by 1890 the National Policy had placed the country in such a condition of depression that hogs were selling on the farm for 84 a hundred dressed weight, and cattle could not be disposed of at all; agriculture was at the lowest ebb in our history. This was after protection had had an opportunity to demonstrate to the people of Canada what it could do in the way of filling their dinner pails. Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that there was no period in our history when more of our people left for the United States. Let me say further, particularly to my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) who spoke so glowingly of the great city of Toronto-and he has good reason to be proud of it-that there were thousands of vacant dwellings in the city and their owners were only too glad to let them free of rent in order that the windows might not be broken. That was the condition in the great city of Toronto after protection had been in operation for some years. I have no doubt that many hon. members will recollect that in those days the black flag was very much in evidence as processions of working-

The Budgets-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
men paraded the streets demanding "work or bread."
In 1896 we had a change of government; Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. Now, no one is going to suggest that overnight Sir Wilfrid Laurier changed the whole fiscal policy of this country. He did not. But he did one thing-he succeeded in removing the quarantine regulations against Canadian cattle. I w'ent to the trouble the other day to look up the records in that connection. I remember the circumstances well because in those days I was living in this province. I remember that at once we had an increase in the price of our live stock. In a word, there was direct encouragement to our agriculturists -whom you have to encourage if you are to make the country prosperous, rather than begin at the other end and build up industry by imposing a toll on everyone. That is an example of what protection did for Canada, and I am sure that our older members who have had to do with public affairs for many years have not forgotten the circumstances.
From 1898 to 1911 we had a gradual growth, but without question it was the greatest since confederation. In 1911 we had another election, and the westerners were beaten on reciprocity. My hon. friends opposite accused the government of that time, as they are accusing the government to-day, of wishing to "truck and trade with the Yankees," or to "sell out (to the American nation." Mr. Speaker, there was never anything further from the minds of any members of the government so far as I have been able to discover; rather they were and are, imbued with a whole-hearted desire to improve the economic condition of the Dominion. Strange to say, I notice from the record that both Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the present right hon. leader of the opposition were in favour of free agricultural implements.


Arthur Meighen: I must object to the hon. minister misrepresenting me, even if he will not permit me to ask a question. I never expressed any such opinion at any time.


Charles A. Stewart: Not in 1911?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Charles A. Stewart: I accept
my hon. friend's correction. However that may be, he at least accepted the idea of lower tariffs, and he did one thing that I think is somewhat to his credit: During the regime of his government he put on the free list-and rightly so because he believed it would encourage production, which at the time we needed so badly-one implement which the
farmer uses quite extensively; I am speaking of the small tractor.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: If my hon. friend
will permit a question-what important reductions were made in the tariff on agricultural implements between 1896 and 1911?


Charles A. Stewart: Very little.
But very great encouragement was given the farmer to sell what he could not dispose of in his home market at that particular time under protection which was to increase this market to such an extent that he would never need to export a single dollar's worth of his products.
My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) pointed to the United States as an example of the benefits of protection. All I have to say is this: In the most highly protected country in the world, and the most favoured, the country that comes nearest to being able to consume its own products-because it exports only 8 per cent-the country that comes nearest to raising everything that is required for the support of its people-that country has to-day the highest tariff protection of any in the world. Has it helped the agriculturist there? I challenge my hon. friends to contradict my assertion that the agriculturists of the United States are in a worse condition than they have ever been in the last decade or two. that deplorable condition has been brought about-and no one will attempt to deny it- under a protective policy. I do nor need to take up the time of the House by dwelling any longer upon a matter that is so obvious.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this budget was framed for the West at all, although my hon. friend has implied that it was put forward for the purpose of securing Progressive support. But I say to my hon. friends opposite, that if we had never had a policy that permitted trusts, mergers and combines in this country, I do not believe we would to-day have the cast iron Labour organizations which our workmen have formed in self-defence, nor do I believe there would have been any necessity for the farmers of western Canada or any other part of the Dominion to have organized a political party. These are the results, and the inevitable results, that flow from a policy of protection. But the budget is framed on broad lines and touches every part of Canada, particularly the interests of our agriculturists, in the hope that they will have a revival of prosperity and be able to purchase from our manufacturers to such an extent that instead of 818,000,000 worth of machinery being turned out by Canadian factories the demand
1340	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
will necessitate a production of $140,000,000 worth. And then we will have the mass production that my hon. friend talks so much about, the mass production that reduces cost; that is the ultimate object of this budget.
I want to deal primarily with the condition in western Canada, and in order to be brief I have placed my remarks on papdb
Looking at the budget from the standpoint of a westerner, no one can fail to observe that while the measure, as a whole, has been prepared with scrupulous regard for the interests of all classes of producers and consumers in every part of the country, it has at the same time succeeded in extending the most clear-cut and practical recognition that has ever been given to the needs of those immense new agricultural and commercial interests which have arisen in western Canada within recent years.
. /This budget proposes a number of fiscal changes. And if there are any of these changes which should command the unanimous approval of all broad-minded Canadians, they are undoubtedly those changes that have been introduced mainly with the aim of fostering western industry and of stimulating further western development. Certainly the various fiscal departures that are being submitted to lighten the load on western producers will be accepted without question and with the keenest welcome by innumerable commercial interests throughout the Dominion as well as in the West itself. No argument whatever is needed to justify them in the eyes of any Canadian who has disinterestedly studied the vital importance of the part which the West is playing in the business life of Canada to-day.
As for the man who, on national grounds, still quarrels with the wisdom of these steps that are being proposed for the benefit of the West, there is only one explanation of his attitude. The explanation is this: That, as a student of our national affairs and position, he has failed entirely to appreciate the remarkable transformation .which has taken place in western Canada in the last twenty years or so; and he has also failed to get any idea of the prodigious effect that western development has had in practically remoulding the commercial life of the whole Dominion.
With regard to this man who, for one reason or another, is still short on his knowledge and appreciation of the importance of the West as a factor in the business life of Canada, there is not much room for argument in his case. What he really needs is

information. His chief need is to brush up on the business history and progress of his own country, especially during the short period since the opening of this century. When he has done that, even in a very superficial way, he will have gained some idea of the immense extent to which western development has been responsible for the general commercial advance of the Dominion. And he will also have gained an iron-clad respect and justification for the judgment which has framed those features of this budget which seek particularly to meet western needs.
He will find that just a quarter of a century ago neither Saskatchewan nor Alberta could muster a hundred thousand people all told. Commercially their contribution to the business of the country was equivalent to that of perhaps half-a-dozen or so of Ontario's forty odd counties.
Let him then take a glance at the contrast presented to-day. To-day the crops of the West and the buying power of the West furnish the life blood to a huge part of Canadian enterprise. Western prosperity has become a barometer for business throughout the country. The western wheat crop is of vital concern to commercial interests from Montreal to Vancouver. To-day no other single item in the whole range of Canadian production is watched with anything approaching the same degree of national interest as is centred upon the progress of the crops on the prairies from the time they are sown until they are reaped. Manufacturers, wholesalers, railways, financial institutions, business interests of all kinds, large and small, share in the boon or in the disappointments of the western harvest. The eagerness with which the crop estimates are received in every industrial or commercial centre in the Dominion tells the tale of how the rise of western agriculture has shifted the whole outlook of Canadian business.
But it is not only in its influence upon current business that western; agriculture displays its vital importance to Canadian J>ros-' perity. It is also the fundamental constructive force behind the building up of huge additions to the country's permament producing assets of every kind.
One need only mention a few of the innumerable cases where western farm expansion has vitalized growth in other directions. Whole communities, divorced entirely from direct farm pursuits, owe their rise or growth to the settlement of the prairies. The coal fields of Alberta have been opened hardly less by the grain-grower than by the miner,

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
The lumberman and fruit-grower of British Columbia, the shipping cities of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, owe a heavy measure of their growth and prosperity to the flow of business to and from the agricultural West. Dozens of manufacturing cities in eastern Canada have their flour-mills built or enlarged to grind western grain, their implement factories, their textile mills, furniture, leather, rubber and countless other manufacturing concerns leaning strongly upon the orders turned in by their western salesmen.
Take another method of measuring the tremendous importance of the place occupied by western Canada to-day, and of estimating its relative contribution to the commercial strength of the country. Lumbering has for generations been one of Canada's great industries. Mining, from Cape Breton to the Yukon* is a great and growing source of national wealth. Canada's famous fisheries employ tens of thousands of people and support a far-flung foreign trade. But it helps to give some idea of the business revolution that the growth of western Canada has effected in this Dominion when it is realized that today these three great basic industries of lumbering, mining, and fishing-despite their generations of growth-do not together equal, in value of annual output, the vast agricultural industries which have spread over the prairies of the West within an amazingly short term of years.
To-day all of the lumber sawn in the whole of Canada, plus all of the fish caught and landed, plus again all of the gold and silver, copper and coal, nickel and other wealth produced from Canada's mines-all of these lumped together do not equal the farm output of the prairie provinces which, only twenty or twenty-five years ago, were a decidedly minor factor in sustaining the Commercial life of Canada. This commercial rise of the prairie provinces has formed the greatest single development in the entire economic history of the Dominion. Their agricultural expansion has been unquestionably the most powerful and versatile nationbuilding force that Canada has ever enjoyed. It has been an unrivalled force not merely in extending the areas of settlement but equally in attracting new population and capital, in widening both the markets and the sources of raw materials for Canadian manufacturers, in building up Canadian trade abroad, and in a dozen and one other nation-building activities.
Not in a single instance have the present budget proposals lost sight of the many varied 86
interests in the country that must be given the most studious and enlightened attention -the interests of fisherman and farmer, of lumberman and miner, of merchant and manufacturer, and of the consumer in every walk of life. At the same time the budget is concrete and clear-cut in it$ recognition of these facts: That the new agricultural empire of the West is one of the great salient features of modern commercial Canada, and that the building of the West has injected into the business life of the Dominion a new producing and consuming area so big that the Canada of twenty or even of fifteen years ago presented few features at all comparable with it-so big in every business sense that no present or future Canadian statesmanship worthy of the name can even attempt to ignore it.
From the man who has failed to grasp these facts there can be expected no sound criticism of the present budget proposals in so far as' they have been framed to meet the needs of western Canada-certainly he can submit no criticism founded on a true perception of the importance of western agriculture as one of the major and fundamental sources of the Dominion's prosperity and progress.	/


Donald Sutherland: Did this great
development not take place under a high protective policy?


Charles A. Stewart: No. It never would have taken place under a high protective policy.


Arthur Meighen: Never had one?


Charles A. Stewart: No, because the high protective tariff has gradually disappeared. We have had no high protective policy since 1878 or 1896.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member said it was not changed appreciably in 1896.


Charles A. Stewart: It was reduced appreciably all along the line and has been reduced by this government. I want to show in a few minutes wherein my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is entirely astray in his deductions in connection with this matter.
I want to refer for a moment to forestry. For generations the forests of eastern Canada had played a leading role in building up industry and trade. The sawmill had founded more Canadian communities and fortunes than almost any other form of industry. But it was left to the last ten or fifteen years to witness an utterly astonishing advance of forest development. In that period the pulp and paper mill has usurped the prestige of

1342	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr.~ Stewant (Argenteuil)
the sawmill. Lumbering, with its decades and even centuries of growth, still stands as one of the major pillars of Canadian industry; but in an amazingly short term it has seen the rise of a gigantic rival which in some respects already overshadows it.
Let me now make some reference to our minerals-because I am dealing with what may be regarded as our basic industries. The budget does not deal entirely with the interests of agriculture, although agriculture perhaps occupies a paramount place among our industries.
So far as mining is concerned, Canada to-day is very heavily a debtor nation in mineral trade. In fact, from the standpoint of strengthening our commercial position nothing would appear to be more desirable than to see growth of mining enterprise hold the centre of the stage in new Canadian development for the next ten or twenty years. It is true that mining and mineral using industries can show a record of steady and in some respects remarkable progress. But during the greater part of the last twenty-five years mining in Canada has been more or less crowded out of the limelight-first by the sweeping advance of agricultural settlement over the prairies and later by the equally spectacular rise of the pulp and paper industry. The result is that the Dominion's present position in mineral commerce does not appear to do anything like full justice to her natural capacity as a mineral producing country.
Our water power development, which plays so important a part not only in connection with the fuel situation but industry generally, is looked upon with great interest because it provides cheap power for the manufacture of electricity for our manufacturing interests throughout the country. The water power now developed in Canada amounts to nearly 3J million horse power, and represents, including transmission and distribution, a capital investment of $687,000,000. Despite the continuous development that has taken place in the past and some 750,000 horse power of new construction now in hand, the demand constantly exceeds the supply and it is estimated that some $300,000,000 of additional capital will be needed to meet the actual power demand of the next ten years.
May I refer for a moment to the implements on which the tariff has been reduced by the present budget in order to encourage the industries upon which I have already touched, outlining the position they occupy in the economic life of Canada. We have reduced the tariff, in order to encourage the 
basic industries of this country on the following:	Mowing machines, harvesters, binders, reapers, cultivators, harrows, horse rakes, seed drills, manure spreaders, weeders, plows, threshing machines complete, field rollers, post hole diggers, hay loaders, stumping machines, grain crushers, potato diggers, hay tedders, farm wagons, fertilizers, axes, scythes, forks, spades and shovels; spraying machines, shears, pruning hooks and grading machines, incubators, brooders, milking machines, centrifugal machines for testing butter fat, rock drills, coal cutters, coal augers, stamp mills, ore and rock crushers, rotary and coal drills, coal washing machines, coke making machinery, saw mill machinery, logging machinery, and well drilling machinery.
So it will be seen that we have touched the whole field so far as our basic industries are concerned. The total reduction in the tariff amounts to $750,000, all told, to the tax payers of Canada, but I want to say to my hon. friend from West York that the effect it will have on the five and a half millions of people that I have mentioned and who make up the greater part of the population of Canada will be inestimable. It is impossible to compute the ultimate advantage they will derive in the way of encouragement by these reductions.
Then in addition, we have a reduction in the neighbourhood of $22,000,000 in the sales tax. I shall not deal with that except to say this: My hon. friend from West York has had a great deal to say about the pyramiding of the sales tax. Let me say to him for his information that upon careful computation the sales tax at six per cent is not one whit higher than the sales tax imposed by the recent government when pyramided to the ultimate consumer, and I make that statement without fear of contradiction. So when my hon. friend makes the statement that we increased the sales tax, we did nothing of the kind; we placed it at the point of manufacture, and it does not cost the ultimate consumer one whit more than the sales tax of the former government under the pyramiding - process that went on.
Another very important item upon which the sales tax has been reduced is boots and shoes, and rubber boots. Here the sales tax has been reduced from six to two and one-half per cent. Surely this will not be for. the benefit of the farmer alone; it will benefit not only the agriculturist but the worker throughout the length and breadth

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
of this country, and I am sure that will appeal to everyone. I am arguing from the standpoint that this budget is not one-sided; it does not apply to one particular industry or to one part of the country only, but to all our basic industries and to every part of Canada. It will give encouragement and hope to the manufacturers to increase their output and attain to mass production; it will mean more employment for the workmen of this country than they have enjoyed in the past three or four yeare.
One other thing I should like to say in passing, and this has nothing at all to do with the tariff, but it is of particular interest to the West, and that is that from a careful study of conditions as I see them in Canada to-day, if we are to succeed at all as farmers we shall have to meet the competition in world markets. There is scarcely a single article that is grown on the farm in Canada to-day of which the price is regulated by the home market that we hear so much about. Nearly every article of any importance that is produced on the farm to-day finds its way to the foreign market, and the foreign market fixes the price, and what we shall have to do if we are to succeed is to bring about co-operation among the farming forces, not for political purposes, but in our own economic interest, and cut down the immense spread that exists to-day between the price the producer receives and the amount paid by the ultimate consumer. That is something outside the tariff altogether, but I take this opportunity of expressing my firm conviction that we can do a great deal to help ourselves in this respect.
Now a word as to transportation, which plays so important a part in the life of our country. Just now a great deal is being said of the St. Lawrence waterway, and a significant fact in that connection is that sixty per cent of the wheat crop that comes over the lakes passes through the port of Buffalo. Ontario has come forward and is demanding in the interests of power development that they be given the right to secure power development on the St. Lawrence. That, of course, introduces the larger subject, but if this project goes on, I see in it something of immense benefit to the western farmer inasmuch as the grain boats that go to the ports of Montreal and Quebec will be able to proceed to Sydney and other Nova Scotia points and load *with coal for a return cargo. One of the difficulties in the transportation problem not only in western Canada but the country generally is that we have only a one-way cargo and our trains go back empty. That has been one of 86 j
the difficulties in connection with the movement of Alberta coal, but that difficulty will be overcome on our great lakes and rivers if this scheme can be worked out successfully, and it will cut the cost of transportation both ways and mean a saving of a very considerable amount annually to the western grain grower.
Something has been said about the cattle industry. I have already mentioned the impetus given to that industry in 1896. Again I think this government can do something that will be of benefit to the producers of cattle throughout Canada. Our great market for cattle to-day is the British market. We have to ship our cattle to that market over the north Atlantic, and the rates are very high. Negotiations are going on at the moment, and I hope before this House rises that we shall have something of interest to say to the House with respect to the transportation of cattle to Great Britain.
May I give a quotation to show how Canada is viewed by the eyes of the outside world? What is the opinion and outlook of the informed American with regard to Canada? The United States has invested an enormous amount of capital in the Dominion in recent years and American financial men have given keen study to the position of this country in regard to resources, to industry, to commerce and to finance. Quite aside from their investments which speak for themselves, their opinions are worth something. They give us the impartial view of the. foreign business man. Let me quote a statement from an article which appeared not long ago in an American financial publication of the highest standard, over the signature of a vice-president of one of the leading national banks of New York city-Vice-President Russel, of the National Bank of Commerce, New York. He says:
To-day Canada is probably the most favourable field in the world for investment, comparable only with the United States in the era of its most rapid physical development, from the close of the Civil War to the opening of the present century.
That statement, coming from an American, from a banker associated with one of the greatest institutions in the commercial capital of the new world, constitutes about the most sweeping tribute that could be paid to Canada or to any other country in a material sense. Anyone who has the faintest idea of the unparalleled progress made by the United States since the sixties will have some idea and appreciation of the confidence it betokens in Canada's present, and of the faith it implies in her future. The statement I have
1344	'	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Steivaft (Argenteuil)
quoted is not a solitary and isolated one. To take another instance, the Bankers' Trust Company of New York has published through its research department a volume on Canada in order that its stockholders and clients and friends may have reliable data about the Dominion. Among other statements the author of that book says:	"Canada has
scarcely begun to grow. Canada of to-day will without doubt develop during the next fifty years into a very powerful nation." These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the views held by our friends across the line with respect to Canada.
Let me say that eighty per cent of Canada's indebtedness is held by her own citizens. Canada's deposits in banks are increasing as rapidly as can be expected, showing that our people still have surplus amounts for investment. Returns for the eleven months ended February* 1924, indicate continued healthy growth of Canadian foreign trade. Already both imports and exports exceed those of 1923, and the balance of trade favourable to Canada on eleven months' business i3 $158,524,707. The figures indicate that at the close of this year we shall undoubtedly have exceeded our trade of a year ago by the sum of twenty millions odd. Statistics indicate that each succeeding year Canadians are increasing the percentage of products marketed in the finished or semi-finished condition, thus providing more labour for our own people and higher class freight for Canadian railways.
Canada occupies second place among the world's greatest per capita exporters. She occupies fourth place among the world's greatest traders in foreign markets. With only one-twelfth the population of the United States, Canada does nearly one-fourth as much world trade.
To lend further encouragement, the government is able to strike off by tax reduction no less a sum than $24,000,000. When it is remembered, as pointed out by the Prime Minister, that we have fixed charges of $300,000,000, this is a very considerable amount, but no doubt it will be realized through the impetus given to the basic industries.
May I say in conclusion that this budget should relieve the burden on, and increase the purchasing power of, five million agriculturists, and another 500,000 who are directly or indirectly engaged in mining, lumbering, fishing and kindred industries in Canada. I am therefore safe in assuming that it will lend encouragement to more than half of our population, and I feel confident that this will commend itself to all the people of Canada 
when it is fully understood in all its bearings upon our economic life.
Despite the lamentations of the Conservative party, telegrams are pouring in from all over Canada, congratulating the government on the splendid showing. Canada is coming back in fine shape under a business administration. The dawn of prosperity illuminates the business sky. The great producing interests of the country have taken fresh courage. There is now a feeling that the government is being conducted for the many and not for the select few. The grouch will pass away as a night illusion fed by the after effects of war and misleading propaganda. Canada is all right-I am convinced that we will have a steady growth in trade along all lines. Canada's great natural industries will flourish in proportion to the extent that they are unhampered. The government is removing the barriers. Canadians can take heart and go forward.
At six o'clock the House took recess. r
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), although he is not in his seat, upon the splendid statement that he furnished to the House on Thursday last in connection with the financial affairs of this country. One could tell from that statement that the minister was a business man. The statement was clear, concise and well delivered. At the present time in Canada there is a great cry for economy, economy in the expenditure of public money. This is true as regards every spending body, municipal councils, provincial legislatures as well as the federal parliament. This is a time when economy should be practised; but economy, like practically everything else, can be overdone, and wise expenditure of public money in times of stress can be made to pay dividends to the public weal. While I want the government of this country to practise economy in every way, I wish to stress that point, that the thing can be overdone. In the statement presented to parliament by the minister the other day, we have reason to take heart from the figures that he gave us. While the public debt stands at a tremendous amount, $2,453,776,868.74, and that has grown from $335,996,850 in 1914, we can see that a tremendous load has been placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers of Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
I wish to refer to some figures that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put on the records of this House in his speech on the Address. He pointed out in that speech that during the six years of what might be termed the war period, $13,773,733 was added to the public debt over and above what might be termed expenditure for war purposes. That is, the government of that time did not meet their ordinary expenditure, but added this amount to the public debt, while for this year, out of an estimated ordinary revenue of $396,000,000 the Acting Minister of Finance on Thursday last reported a surplus of $20,786,349. He stated further that there might be added to this two other amounts, one of $8,305,760.37 received in settlement of an adjustment between this government and the Imperial government, and another item of $1,317,000, sundry outstanding indebtedness cancelled during the past year. This makes a total of over $30,000,000 as a reduction in our national debt for last year, and this, to my mind, is an encouraging statement for the people of this country. There is also an estimated reduction in the expenditure for the coming year of some $46,000,000 over that of last year. These reductions should be appreciated by the heavily burdened taxpayer of this country.
I think I remarked in this House on a previous occasion that, to my mind, the government having control of the finances of this country during the war period, did not impose taxes in the way that they should have done. When money was free in this country during the war period and huge fortunes were being piled up, it would have been a much easier task to impose and collect taxes than it is at the present time. The people were then better able to pay taxes, but they were not taxed. In connection with our loans that were floated during that period, all but the last of these were made free of taxation. To-day the people who are fortunate enough to have those bonds in their possession are sitting back and leaving what might be termed the producers of this country to carry the load of taxation. If we take into consideration the amount of uncontrollable expenditure that is necessitated principally on account of war activities, I think the taxpayers of Canada must give credit to this administration for materially reducing expenditure. We have that heavy overhead charge which this and no other
government can get away from for a great many years, and I think this is a time when we all should be fair, particularly in connection with matters of finance.
Coming now to a brief consideration of the proposals in the budget as brought down last Thursday, the minister told the House that the reductions would result in a loss of some $24,000,000 of revenue. I think it is not unfair to say that the bulk or the larger proportion of this will come from the reduction of the sales tax. The saving that will result from the reduction of customs duties on certain commodities will form the smaller part. But in that connection it must not be forgotten that the amount of revenue lost from the reduction of these duties is not the whole amount when it comes to the taxpayer. These duties are pyramided very materially. Tariff revenue represents only a part of the burden imposed on sellers by protective duties. I think that is a statement that cannot be gainsaid. The total value of dutiable goods imported in 1923 was $537,258,782, producing a revenue of $133,803,370.12. The significant part of this statement is that of this amount $274,322,000 was the value of articles commonly used in consumption by producers or wage-earners; but these imports produced over $71,000,000 of duty, which is considerably more than half of the total revenue; so that necessities coming into this country are carrying the larger percentage of the customs taxation. Fifty-four per cent, of tariff revenue is derived from 51 per cent, of the dutiable imports. How are these reductions in customs duties received in the country? I noticed a few days ago a Canadian Press despatch dated Windsor, Ontario, where the leader of the official opposition was speaking, and it has this to say:
Prediction that the coming budget at Ottawa will contain no announcement of further reductions in the tariff on agricultural implements was made by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, speaking here on Saturday afternoon.
" The budget is to be down next week," said the Conservative leader. " I stand here and assume, perhaps for the first time, the role of prophet in this Dominion and venture to say, having watched the whitening gills of the government for the last three weeks, that when the budget is delivered all the reduction you will see on farm implements you can place in the left hand corner of a thimble. The Progressives will be fooled just the wav they have been fooled every session since the government came into power."
I think the right hon. gentleman will have to admit that he is no relation of Jeremiah of old and cannot take his place as a real prophet. I noticed too that after the budget had been delivered the same hon. gentleman stated that the reductions in these duties meant a fatal blow to the industries affected.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston

Another despatch from Toronto dated April 10th which to my mind is a lot more encouraging and nearer the truth, states:
Hon. John S. Martin, Ontario Minister of Agriculture, who farms four hundred acres at Port Dover, Ontario, thinks the Robb budget will benefit Ontario farmers. He could not tell the full effect of the tariff reductions on agricultural machinery without an opportunity of studying the details.
" So far as the proposals affect incubators and brooders," he said, " the reduction will be of material benefit to poultrymen and will undoubtedly aid in increasing poultry production. I say it is a good move, unhesitatingly, because there are no mammoth incubators manufactured in this country.
" The doing away with the sales tax on farm implements and machinery I also have no hesitation in saying is a good thing for agriculture in Ontario, and will to a certain extent relieve the farmer of the difficulties under which he is now working."


Mr. STANSELL:: Will the hon. member also read the statement of the same Minister of Agriculture for Ontario the following day, in which he contradicts in large part the statement which has just been read, and states that it was overdrawn from the facts he gave out?


John Frederick Johnston: 'I did not happen to see that article my hon. friend mentions. However, when I read the article I expected there would be another one following because the hon. gentleman in question belongs to the same party as my hon. friends to my right. I know Mr. Martin by reputation. He is an active agriculturist in the province of Ontario, known in every part of Canada. In the article I have quoted, from he is speaking as an agriculturist, and I expect that in the article my hon. friend refers to he is speaking as a politician. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of every industry which happens to get into financial difficulties in this country in the next two months or two years, the failure will be attributed to the reductions in the customs duties. I have also a despatch from Montreal dated April 11th. It is in the form of a letter and reads:
R. W. Gould, secretary of the Quebec division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association stated today that he had received a letter from the vicechairman of the St. Hyacinthe branch, and who is also head of an agricultural implements plant at St. Hyacinthe, informing him that his firm had been compelled to go into liqidation as a direct result of the budget.
That is pretty quick work. The budget came down Thursday afternoon about four o'clock, and this letter must have been written that day or early next morning in order to arrive in Montreal on April 11th.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Will the hon. gentleman read the opinion of that good Liberal organ the Brantford Expositor?


John Frederick Johnston: I happen to be a busy man and I. have not time to read all these articles.


Mr. MORIN:: I am the member for the St. Hyacinthe riding and I may tell hon. members that the news published in the Gazette which the hon. member refers to was fabricated in every part of it and that there is no question of the liquidation of the company referred to.


John Frederick Johnston: I am glad to have that assurance. I understand that the hon. exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) during the course of his speech this afternoon stated that the farmers of this country were not asking for reductions in the customs tariff, that the demand came from farmer politicians. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat, for I should like to ask him how it is that we happen to have farmer politicians in the Dominion. We did not have them prior to 1911. At that time his party came into power, and it was during its term of office that the farmers reached the decision that it would be necessary for them to take political action to get a change in the fiscal policy. That is the reason why we have the farmer in politics to-day. I remember reading an address delivered by the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the city of Montreal during the campaign of 1911 in which he expressed the hope that the manufacturers would not turn down the reciprocity pact, and he added, "If you do, I can see the day when you will be sorry." Probably the dawn of that day is about to break.
The hon. member for West York also said that Canada was losing her artisans, the exodus to the United States being made up largely of this class. But many farmers have been and are still leaving this country. In this morning's Citizen I noticed this article:
The problem of the intending farmer who arrives in Canada-
From overseas I expect.
-with little or no capital is occupying the Land Settlement branch of the Department of Immigration just now. A statement issued by the Hon. J. A. Robb says that recent surveys of the situation in Canada have disclosed that in many communities there are farms equipped with habitable buildings which can be had on very nominal first payments or without any cash deposits at all.
That does not bespeak a very flourishing condition of agriculture in this country.
I wish to digress for a moment to take up a couple of matters that are more or less local in their nature, but are nevertheless of vast importance to western Canada. One of

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
tnese may not be very popular with some people in the East, but nevertheless it must be faced squarely by this House. I refer to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Last week a delegation came to this city from an organization that was formed inWinnipeg some ten days ago, known as the "On-to-the-Bay-Association." This organization was the outcome of a convention attended by about fifteen hundred delegates, including some from across the international boundary, one of these being an ex-governor. The people of western Canada are desperately in earnest about the completion of this road. It is not necessary for me to go into the history of the project in detail, for it is pretty common knowledge to hon. members. It has been before the country for forty years and was endorsed as far back as 1906 by Sir George Foster, in 1908 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in 1910 the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) turned the first sod at The Pas. I am sure the people of the West are hoping that he may in the very near future drive the last spike on the completion of the road. In the interval we have had several changes of government, but since the project was undertaken we have had no administration that has not endorsed it. Therefore I would impress upon the government the absolute necessity of completing the road. This will call for some additional expenditure, it is true, but the western people believe that the lands of their provinces have about financed the scheme, and they want it completed. I believe that if for no other reason than to steady the morale of the people of the western provinces, it would be money well spent to complete the road to the bay. One of the delegates, a Mr. Patterson, whose firm handles grain in large quantities, operating 130 elevators on the prairies and terminal elevators at the head of the lakes, stated to members of this House that as soon as the road reached the bay he was ready to build an elevator. Enthusiastic delegates both here and at Winnipeg claimed that once the road is built to the bay private enterprise will look after whatever elevator accommodation may be necessary.
The other matter has to do with the effort that is being made in the western provinces to form pools for the co-operative handling of our grain. In this connection a resolution has been forwarded to me from the legislature of Saskatchewan. It is as follows:
" That the federal government be asked to immediately make a division or partial division of the surplus funds from the operation of the Canada Wheat Board among the provinces in proportion to the amount of wheat contributed by the producers of each province, and that in the opinion of this assembly in case such division or partial division is
made, the government of the province of Saskatchewan should advance to the Saskatchewan Co-operative Wheat Producers' Limited, such sum or sums as would from time to time appear to be necessary and warranted, and that the expenditure of any moneys thus advanced should be subject to audit by the provincial auditor."
I believe a delegation waited upon the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in the fall months of last year, but they did not meet with much success. That delegation came from the wheat producers' organization. While I can understand that the minister might hesitate to act on the representation of a delegation such as the one which waited on him, surely he can have no misgivings when he is dealing with a responsible body like the legislature of Saskatchewan. Therefore I hope he may see his way clear to turn over that proportion of the surplus funds which rightly belong to the province of Saskatchewan, and which have been in the Dominion treasury as the result of the operations of the old Canada Wheat Board. It is true the western people owe the federal government money on another account, but it is not right to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the withholding of these moneys from the province is not the way to secure payment of an account that has been past due for years in connection with certain relief given the farmers of the West. I am sorry the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not in his seat.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is behind you.


John Frederick Johnston: During last summer
the right hon. gentleman visited the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and on that occasion he discussed wheat pools and wheat boards. At the town of Govan in the Last Mountain constituency-I hope my right hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong in my statement of what occurred there-he took occasion, in referring to the wheat board legislation of this parliament which was put through in 1922, to say to his audience in the hall that evening that there was only one man in this parliament, one member of this whole House, who thought that that legislation would ever be put into effect, or, if it was put into effect, that it would be any good, and that was the member for Last Mountain. In making this statement, the right hon. gentleman did not have any foundation in fact-


Arthur Meighen: May I correct the hon. gentleman? He could not have been there or he would not make such a statement. I made no assertion of that kind at all.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston


John Frederick Johnston: I am glad to have that from the right hon. gentleman. I did not lightly bring this matter up on the floor of the House; I had the statement from responsible persons in the Govan district.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Were they Conservatives?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid they must have been pretty strong Liberals, or Progressives.


John Frederick Johnston: They were Progressives.


Arthur Meighen: It is just the same.


John Frederick Johnston: That is what I wanted to get from my right hon. friend, because it puts me absolutely right.
Reverting to matters pertaining more to federal affairs, I feel that those who are to-day charged with the responsibility of government in this country are not responsible for the geography of the country, and we have geographical conditions to contend with. It is often stated, and I think generally agreed to, that we in this country are divided into three sections, the Maritime provinces, the central provinces and the western provinces. In many ways British Columbia cannot fairly be classed with the prairie provinces. This geographical condition makes for division in an economic sense, for the needs of one section are different from those of another. I think it may fairly be stated that the needs of the Maritime provinces and those of the prairie provinces are nearer alike than the needs of these six provinces are with the other three. The natural market for the Maritime provinces lies in the New England states, and the natural market for the prairie section lies to the south of the international boundary. If this be true, it must follow that we are going against an economic law in endeavouring to build up trade channels east and west when natural routes lie in the opposite directions. Let us then admit this difficulty frankly and seek for a remedy or for the best way to overcome the handicap. I may say, Sir, that the people of the prairie provinces are not only willing but anxious to do their share to build up a united Canada, but they will not continue indefinitely to pay tributes to other parts of Canada in bonusing industries that cannot stand on their own feet, particularly those industries -which are not based on products natural to this country and from the operation of which the agriculturists receive little or no benefit. So far as the prairie sections of Canada are concerned, I make this statement, Mr. Speaker: they are through with high tariffs in thil country. All changes must be downward.

I am going to read to the House a statement made by a gentleman whose views will, I am sure, carry some weight with my hon friends to the right. It. is a statement made by the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, speaking in Winnipeg some little time ago, and reads as follows:
Until we have a real voice in the settlement of our own affairs Canada as a whole will not go ahead efficiently. During my recent visit to the East, I have at times been goaded to exasperation when I have heard people there saying that it has been the East that has developed the West. It has been the West which has been a godsend to the eastern manufacturer and I would say it was the West that had made possible the efficient development of the East and the stabilization of its industries. If a barrier was placed at Fort William, what would happen to all the eastern industries? They would be ruined. I am not given to talking but, on this occasion, I feel called upon to give out this statement, so that the peoples of the West will realize the absolute importance of continuing to hammer away until they have a real voice in their own affairs.
The article goes on:
When a man in Dr. Brett's position, whose loyalty to Canadian ideals cannot be challenged, allows himself to speak for publication of cutting Canada in two at the head of the Great Lakes his words should not pass unnoticed in the older provinces to the East. There are only three ways in which the western provinces can secure " a real voice in their own affairs." They are secession, outvoting the other provinces in the House of Commons and convincing those provinces of the justice and necessity of admitting the right of the western provinces to a larger measure of authority in the determination of questions vitally and primarily affecting them.
I thought when I read this article that if a western member from this part of the House had given expression to a sentiment of that kind, he would have been severely taken to task. Nevertheless there is some feeling along that line in western Canada and it behooves not only members of this House but the people generally of the central provinces to take heed. Political discontent is reflected in threats against confederation in some quarters. Political unrest has its root in economic disability, and so long as in this or any other country you have people labouring under economic disabilities you are going to have trouble which, if prolonged, will lead to political disintegration.
When the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) was speaking in the debate on the Address some weeks ago, he proposed that this government call an economic conference. I think that was a wise suggestion, and I was confirmed in that idea when I had the pleasure of listening to a gentleman known personally to some members of this House and by reputation to many, Mr. John F. Sinclair, the United States economist, author and banker, and an ex-Canadian. Mr. Sinclair, speaking to the Canadian Club here a few days ago,

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
stated that the United States must co-operate with England and other nations by calling an international trade congress which must accomplish everything necessary to build up again the broken industrial machinery. Mr. Sinclair advanced five courses of action which he considered were necessary to solve this problem.
The first was, and I would direct this to the attention of my friends to my right, that tariff walls all over the world must be cut down and cut down drastically; 50 per cent now, and 5 per cent per annum for the next ten years'
Secondly, all nations, creditors and debtors too, must be gathered at the round table and must cut arms and arsenals; 50 per cent at once and a further percentage each year until they reach the vanishing point.
Thirdly, a moratorium must be declared for 15 years all over the world in the matter of the payment of war debts. Six hundred million dollars a month is an altogether impossible sum to be paying in interest charges on these.
Fourthly, the surplus of gold that America has, and does not need, must be handed back to Europe.
Fifthly, credit must be extended by the United States and by England to other nations; for Europe cannot live as peasants.
By these means Mr. Sinclair thought the industrial machine could be rebuilt. With regard to the tariff walls he admitted that the United States led in this respect and he characterized it as an exceedingly bad lead. As to the gold, he stated that America had two billion dollars more gold over there than she had three years ago. Her federal reserve was bigger than necessary. A $10 bill had $15.64 of gold behind it in the treasury. "We don't need it," he said, " and Europe does." Besides this, we find that seventeen nations of Europe owe the United States twelve thousand million dollars, with interest charges piling up at the rate of two million dollars per day, or as my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) calculates, at the rate of $4,000 per minute. It would appear that there is need for such a conference, and as has been suggested what a fine thing it would be if this young country representing the two great races, could be the first in the field and take the initiative in calling a conference.
In conclusion, I wish to quote from the words of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his address of Thursday last. He says in Hansard at page 1218:
Whatever division of opinion Canadians tnay have, surely we share a united confidence in the future cf our country. We have great natural resources. We
have certain basic industries, upon the success of which depend the growth of all other industries, and the greater development of our trade. Of these basic industries, I would place agriculture, in all its varied branches, first. Next to agriculture, I would place our forests, our minerals and our fisheries. A real national policy is a policy that will encourage the growth and development of these basic industries.
Too bad, Mr. Speaker, that this was not thought of some fifty years ago when we adopted a national policy in this country that started to build from the top down instead of from the bottom up. We have got an economic structure to-day as a result that is like a pyramid standing on its apex. Had we given a chance to the basic industries as pointed out in the words I have just quoted of the Acting Minister of Finance, we would have had a much greater development and a much larger population in this country. He continues:
The more of the products of the farm, the fisheries, the mines and the forest we have going to market, the greater will be the earnings of our transportation companies-
And no one will deny that our transportation companies need more tonnage.
-the greater the purchasing power of the nation, and as a consequence we shall have factories running full time and tradesmen working overtime to supply the needs of those who will have money to buy.
There is the point. Had we given a chance to these basic industries to develop as they would have done, the factories of this country would not be crying out to-day against reductions in the tariff, as they would have had a much larger population to cater to. Now that the government have taken this step, let them not stand still, but press forward until the protective element in our tariff is completely eliminated. This will remove the shackles from our basic industries, and we may then look for that progress and development in our country which is so much desired by all.	.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I. ask the hon. member a question? He told us that the natural market of the West was to the south. Will he explain to us how the AVest is going to get entrance to that market with the existing United States tariff?


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend will
remember that I spoke of the year 1911, when an attempt was made to get into that market with our natural products, but my hon. friend and his friends denied us the right.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is thirteen years ago. If the hon. gentleman cannot answer the question, I will accept that statement, of course.
The Budget-Mr. Stansell


John Frederick Johnston: I am dealing with conditions as we have them to-day and have pointed out the geographical handicaps we have to contend with. Canada is a young country, and I hope for better conditions, as I hope my hon. friend does.


John Lawrence Stansell: Mr. Speaker, before entering upon the few remarks I have to make on the subject now before the House, that of the budget, I feel that I should say a few words on another subject in order to protect the interests of a gentleman who is not able to appear on the floor of this House to protect himself. I refer to the statements attributed to the Hon. Mr. Martin, Minister of Agriculture in the Ontario government. I have been intimately acquainted with the Hon. Mr. Martin; I have appeared on the same platform with him, and I know his views on the fiscal question very well. From the standpoint of the farmer he is a pronounced protectionist. I believe, however, that he is not the first public man who has had a chance remark distorted or twisted in a way to bolster up some argument entirely foreign to his views. I noticed that the article that was read here to-night by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) was followed by an explanation in the press the following day that in a large measure contradicted what the hon. member has just read. I think every member of the House will recognize that the views of the Hon. Mr. Martin should be given to the House as he wished to express them, rather than as they have been read this evening. I quote from the Canadian Press:
Hon. John S. Martin, Minister of Agriculture, in the Ontario government to-day denied that an interview given by him last night in connection with the Dominion government's budget could be construed as a general approval of the budget.
" Such an impression is entirely erroneous," said Mr. Martin to-day. " So far from approving of the budget I consider it disastrous from the standpoint of the Canadian farmer, particularly the eastern farmer."	-
I might say further that he explained that his remarks had reference to a style of incubator not made in this country, and naturally if the duty were taken off an article not made in Canada it might be of assistance to those who wished to purchase it. However, it would be of very little advantage to the great majority of farmers because most of us do not use that st.yle of implement. I am quite sure that the House will feel that it should have the Hon. Mr. Martin's actual views upon this question.
First I must offer my congratulations to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who is not in his seat, for the manner in 
which he delivered the budget. The financial statement was brief and concise, and for that the hon. gentleman is entitled to commendation; but I am not so sure that we can congratulate him upon the subject matter of the budget itself. The budget leads inevitably to a discussion of the question of protection versus free trade. In the few words I wish to utter on this question I shall do so from the standpoint of the farmer. I shall not speak as a theorist, but as one who is interested in agriculture and having a practical experience of that great industry.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in outlining his views on one occasion stated that he was entirely free from political bias, that he was simply uttering his own personal views absolutely untrammelled, and that in giving such expression he was as free as the wind which sweeps over the western prairies. I have no reason whatever to dispute that statement on the part of the hon. gentleman, and the only request I have to make is, that in the discussion of this question my hon. friend and his followers will give me credit for the same independence. Any claim which he set up to freedom from political bias I should like to apply with equal force to myself under the present circumstances.
Before referring to the tariff changes I might say just a word or two with respect to the government's claim to have balanced the budget and reduced the national debt by about thirty million dollars. I believe it is generally understood that this result has been arrived at by a process of figuring in which, by guaranteeing fifty millions more of railway securities, we have lessened our obligations to that extent. To cite the minister's own words this is merely a guarantee or a simple endorsement, and does not add to the national debt. Perhaps I am not the only member of the House who knows what "signing a note" or "endorsing" one means. This is the first time I ever heard the effect of such a policy of this kind explained in this manner. Because it must be remembered, when it comes to dealing with the National Railway system, that the people of Canada are the owners, and hon. gentlemen in this House are simply the directors of that system. If that be so then the people of Canada have got rid of fifty millions of indebtedness by endorsing their own note. On many an occasion, in my own experience I should have been glad to have been able to get rid of an obligation by such a simple process. It is a very simple matter to balance a budget or reduce the national debt by any such means. However, in my humble opinion more sub-

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
stantial evidence will be needed before the House, or the country, is convinced that we are prospering to that extent.
Conflicting views prevail among hon. gentlemen with respect to the tariff. Some hold that free trade is a very desirable thing, and they would like to see the principle adopted in our fiscal policy. Others-and among them must be included those of us sitting in this corner of the House and representing the Liberal Conservative party- believe in a moderate protection. It will, I believe, be admitted that in Canada we must either have tariff protection or we must have recourse to free trade. Surely no one will argue that we can have free trade in operation on part of our industries and protection in force as respects the balance. I think it will be apparent also that the framing of a policy by the counting of votes does not demand a very high order of statesmanship. Nor is the national interest best served by evolving a policy calculated to win sufficient votes to enable a party to remain in office. In this country we do not want such a policy as that. What we want is a tariff which will protect all industries that are natural to Canada, including agriculture. I believe hon. gentlemen to my left are more inclined to favour a polic3r of free trade than are other members in this House. But even these hon. gentlemen, I think, would scarcely deny that if the time has come for tariff cutting, the reduction should be upon all lines of manufactured articles to which the tariff at present applies. Otherwise it cannot for a moment be claimed that the policy proposed is a national policy at all. I believe that the farmers generally throughout Canada only want fair play in this matter. They are not asking for anything more than they consider is their just right. Now, agricultural implements are not the only articles that the farmers are interested in. If the tariff is too high we should have a gradual lowering of the duty on all articles. If the tariff is not too high a few industries should not be singled out for sacrifice.
Let me point out that the imposition of duties is not the only form of protection. We hear a great deal about free trade in Great Britain, and the advantages which that country enjoys under such a policy have been depicted from time to time.. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) can always quote authorities in support of free trade. Nevertheless I want to point out this very interesting fact, that notwithstanding the advantages of free trade the United Kingdom is suffering far more from unemployment than Canada is. Furthermore, if
the conditions in free trade England are so much better than they are in Canada, where we have a policy of moderate protection how is it that so many people have emigrated from Great Britain to this country in the hope of bettering their conditions? We know there are quite a number of former residents of the United Kingdom who are much
9 p.m. better off in this country than they would have been had they remained in free trade England. They came to this country and have benefited from a protective tariff, and yet they come down here and tell us that in a country such as this we do not need protection, but that free trade is what we want. As I have already said there are different forms of protection. Great Britain so highly lauded as a free trade country has some of these forms. They may be camouflaged a little but they are protection just the same. In addition there are certain natural advantages which exercise a protective influence for Great Britain. First, she has a splendid isolation which, of itself, is a natural protection. Then she has the protection of the greatest shipping industry in the world, which controls markets in a way which it is impossible for a country such as Canada to do. I know it is said by some that farmers do not profit from a protective tariff in the same ways as those engaged in other industries, and to some extent that, is true. Possibly it is true to a greater extent on the prairies than in Ontario or Quebec, but I want to point out that Canada has almost unlimited territory containing perhaps the richest wheat fields in the world, so that the farmer who goes in there has a protection of cheap land such as he cannot get in any other country.
Reference has been made, from time to time, to the policy of the United States, which, as we all know, has been that of high protection. If we refer to the United States as prosperous under protection we are at once told by those representing the policies of my hon. friends to my left that the United States is the greatest free trade area in the world. If we observe the condition of the farmers in the western states, we have every reason to believe, from reports that we have, that they are not nearly in as favourable position as our own farmers. What then becomes of the "free trade area" argument? Surely hon. members know that our difficulties cannot be solved by a policy of free trade, although in theory it has a very enticing sound. But beautiful as this theory may be, we are living, not on theories, but in a real world and a world of competition, and even though we were all united in the belief that free trade

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
would be a desirable policy, we must admit that other countries are not practising that, and that to a large extent we are controlled in our policy by the actions of those countries with whom we have to deal. Particularly are we affected by our nearest neighbour, our great competitor, the United States. It is foreign to our very being to reduce this matter to an individual basis and promulgate any such doctrine as that. That is, we would not think for a minute of throwing down the bars, trying to encourage dealings with a neighbour who was absolutely antagonistic to us and who did everything possible to prevent trade. Satisfactory trade relations can come only by mutual goodwill and co-operation. I believe if I were to ask members of this House who sit to my left their personal, private opinions in matters of this kind, as I have sometimes heard them expressed, they would say that when our chief competitor put up the bars against our trade, that was not [DOT]the time for us to lower ours to their advantage.
From the standpoint of the farmer, let us see what is the Liberal policy as indicated by the budget that has been presented to the House. Before doing that, I wish to refer for just a moment to a quotation read by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) dealing with this question. He quotes, I think, Mr. J. F. Sinclair, who said in part, as follows:
Business is slowing down. Farmers and live stock men have as a result been ruined by the hundreds of thousands. The disease of Europe has spread to America. The manufacturer will be next to suffer.
And it goes on. I believe we are prepared to admit that after all, what we in Canada are suffering from is not so much a high tariff, but the general economic condition of the world. In a reaction such as that which has come after the war, I believe it is easily understood that farmers will be the first to suffer; but they are not the only ones to suffer, and I think anyone with ordinary powers of observation would say to-day that many other industries are suffering equally as much as the farmers were a year ago and, in some cases, even more so. It has been said that farmers do not profit as much by protection as others, and in part I am ready to admit that; but I want to point out in that connection that the average farmer who operates a small farm, say 100, 150 or 200 acres-I am speaking more particularly of Ontario farmers-does not require a great deal of outside help. When the pinch comes, he is able to adjust himself to conditions in this way: He will have to reorganize to cut down expenditures, but there 
is still a safe living on which he can depend. The manufacturer is not in quite as favourable a position. When a factory is shut down and men are out of employment, they do not have a living that they can fall back upon. They either become a burden upon the state or emigrate to a foreign country, and that very thing has been going on during the past year. When any of us farmers have an animal that is sick, we try to take proper measures to ensure its recovery; but if we operated in that respect in the same way as the Acting Minister of Finance has in respect to the budget, having regard to the condition of Canada at the present time, when the animal became sick, we would attempt to cure it by knocking it on the head. This is not the time for tariff cutting, for readjustment, for uncertainty. If this country were in a prosperous condition and we felt that the tariff was higher than necessary to effect the purposes for which it was imposed, namely, that of keeping, as far as may be possible, men and capital employed within our own boundaries, then I might say that the time was ripe for making reductions in the tariff, but in a time of difficulty when business is stagnant, when men are out of employment, tariff cutting is the height of folly, because it leads to uncertainty disruption of business and emigration.
The conditions under which farmers are suffering to-day is not that of too high protection on agricultural implements. Let me illustrate that. I do not know exactly how many implements are required on the average farm in the West, but from experience I can say what the amount of reduction, as shown in this budget, of about 50 per cent on the existing tariff would be if applied to implements actually required on an Ontario farm. Such implements, if they were looked after carefully, would have to be renewed about once in ten years. Personally, I believe greater economy than that can be effected. I had a binder made by a reputable Canadian firm which has done a great deal to build up Canadian industry, and this binder was used on a farm on which the average cut was fifty acres per annum.
I used it for nineteen years, and it was still in working condition. So that if I place the average at ten years I think I am safe. It would surprise hon. gentlemen to know that by the method this government has adopted for the advantage of farmers of this country the benefit from the tariff reduction will amount to an average of about $2.50 per annum. Does the minister mean to tell me that he will assist agriculture by a sop of $2.50 a year for farming? At the same time

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
that this is being done we have a duty of 3 cents on eggs coming into this country. If we wish to ship eggs to the country to the .south of us we pay 8 cents. Can any one by any stretch of the imagination say that that is a square deal? Conditions are even worse than that, because they have a warmer climate in the country to the south of us, and can produce eggs more cheaply and place them on the market earlier in the season than we can. As a result, we had the spectacle a short time ago of 20 carloads of American eggs being shipped into Toronto by those whose interest it was to control the market, and the price dropped in one week 10 cents Do not get the idea that the 10 cents would re-act entirely to the benefit of the consumer. Not at all. It broke the market to the extent of 10 cents a dozen, and the housewife in the country lost 10 cents on every dozen of eggs she took to the market. The price having been lowered, the eggs will go into storage till next winter when they will reach the consumer at a high price. Because of the break in price due to insufficient protection the farmer and the producer will suffer, and the consumer will not benefit in proportion. If this government were anxious to help the farmer and make a reasonable increase in the duties on eggs, I am free to say that the advantage in one month would be greater to the Ontario farmer than the slight benefit he may hope to get from the reduction of duty on farm implements.
When we base our argument on these figures we assume a reduction in duty means a lowering in price and I think a great mistake is made in always assuming that this is so. I doubt very much if the price of farm implements will be reduced very materially because of the lowering of the duty. I am willing to admit that a reduction in the sales tax may have some slight advantage, but I wish to point out that we heard previous to the last general election volumes of eloquence about the iniquitous sales tax which, in the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), added to the existing visible tariff an invisible tariff in the form of a sales tax. Now the manner in which he' altered it was by the increase of 50 per cent to that already iniquitous invisible tariff. That iniquitous tariff has been remodelled once or twice since, and still it is higher than it was when they came into power. If the desire was to assist the agricultural people in this country they might have at least taken off a few of the taxes they themselves have put on.
There is another thing that might have been a great advantage to the farmers of this
country, many of whom are being carried at the present time by the banks. If the government had been desirous of assisting the farmer do hon. members not think it would have been some help if they could have cut down a little of the stamp tax? I will refer to the condition of the farmer who is being carried by the financial institutions of the country. Possibly he owes the bank a thousand dollars and has given a note for the indebtedness which he must renew every three months. He has to plaster this with stamps at the rate of 2 cents per $50 and thus pay $1.60 per year or nearly as much as the whole benefit he would reap from the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. It is even worse than that, because if he pays the money by cheque he has to place stamps on the cheques at the same rate. The result is at the end of the year he has paid an amount for stamps in excess of the reduction on implements. Do hon. members not think it is more in the interests of the farmers of this . country that we should attempt to remedy the conditions under which they suffer by some internal arrangement rather than to attempt to remedy these conditions by handing our interests over to the big concerns of the United States?
A great deal has been said about the big interests. I must admit that I do not like to think that I am contributing to the big interests an unfair share of my earnings, but I want to say, if you are going to take that view, that I prefer very much to contribute to the big interests in this country which are taxable and which will help to pay our national debt, rather than to contribute to build up big industries on the other side of the border, which are of no use whatever to us. We have incurred a great debt partly through the building of railroads and industries which we hope will operate for the best interests of our country, but are we going to nullify all our efforts in this direction by building up big interests on the American side of the border?
There are matters which could have been dealt with to the real advantage of the Canadian farmer other than the tariff. I mentioned before the case of the man who was being carried by the bank. It seems to me something might be devised in the form of rural credits more generally adapted to agricultural requirements than that which we have at present. . If that could be done, the relief would be far in excess of any relief which could come to us by tariff reductions. Another thing which possibly could be done- but this could only be done by building up
The Budget-Mr. Stansell

the industries in Canada-is a reduction of transportation costs. It is impossible to hope for the reduction of transportation costs while we send our men out of the country. We might get a little revenue for the railway which carried the men out of the country, but we might better have them here and get a profit on the goods they would manufacture. This is a time when we should consider ourselves as Canadian members of parliament and not as United States senators? What are we here for? For our own country or for our neighbours to the south? I believe Canadian farmers will take that view. We should endeavour to benefit our people by something in the way of internal arrangements and not by concessions to foreign countries. Times of difficulty and times of stagnation are not proper times for tariff tinkering.
Some years ago-and this has been referred to by the previous speaker-there was a reciprocity arrangement made with the United States. It was not ratified but that proposal did have some advantages. There were features perhaps not so desirable. But it did have this advantage that it was an attempt at a fail-bargain between the two countries. But what could we say in regard to the budget proposal? This is not a bargain. Out of respect to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) I will not call it a national robbery, but I think I am justified in terming it a national giveaway. When one is engaged in bargaining, I quite understand that one must give something in order to get something, but this is a direct hand-out to another nation. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) quoted from an address recently delivered in this , city by Mr. John F. Sinclair, a citizen of the United States, in which he advised the calling of an international .conference to settle all trade difficulties. For the sake of argument let us suppose that such a conference actually recommends a general tariff readjustment, then, if we believe that this is likely, let us in the name of all that is sensible maintain our present tariff so that we may have a chance to bargain, otherwise we shall simply be bonusing the industries of the United States.
The right hon. Prime Minister, on whose shoulders the mantle of Laurier has fallen, has desecrated it by shooting holes in the Laurier-Fielding fiscal policy, in an effort to maintain in power a wobbling administration. But as the wearer of that mantle he should follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor and appeal to the country for endorsement of this change of policy, this national giveaway. If he does seek such a verdict I think there can be no doubt that the

people will have no hesitation in voting for the retention of a policy adapted to the national requirements of this country and the rejection of the present makeshift budget.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the concise, clear and very able manner in which he delivered his first budget speech. I also congratulate the government on steering the course which I believe the Liberal compass has been indicating for some time. Possibly they have not sailed as far in the right direction as some of us -would wish, but when they steer their course by the compass there appears to be no great danger of immediate shipwreck.
Naturally in this debate we are dealing largely with the tariff question. To my mind the tariff may be considered as a wall, or rather as a network of schedules and of clauses dealing with dumping, drawbacks and so forth ; in a word, its purpose is to protect a certain class of our citizens. Now, we have been told by certain hon. members and by the press that last session the representatives of the farmers indulged in a great deal of complaining and whining about the difficulties confronting agriculture in this country, that they were in fact crying blue ruin, which it was claimed was not a very wise proceeding in the national interest. But this session the cry of blue ruin has been taken up by the manufacturers. By circulars, by delegations, and by every other conceivable means our industrialists have been bringing to bear upon the government and upon individual members of this House the greatest possible pressure, pointing out that the Speech from the Throne spelt ruination to the manufacturing interests of the Dominion, and implying that the wheels of industry would stop and the workers be turned out on the streets if any reductions were made in the tariff on manufactured commodities. That has been the cry. An hon. gentleman met me in the corridor after the presentation of the budget, and said, "Ontario has get a terrible blow." I inferred that he was thinking only of the industrial interests of the province. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the manufacturers do not compose the total population of the province of Ontario; our labourers, our retail merchants and our agriculturists form a very large proportion of the population, and their interests must not be overlooked. Is it not true that every section of our people have been hard hit? We can sympathize with the manufacturers; they have had many difficulties to contend with no doubt; but other

The Budget-Mr. Wood.s
classes of the community also deserve our sympathy. Are not the retail business men in our cities, towns and villages passing through very trying times just now? Are the farmers not passing through trying times? I venture to say that they have never had greater difficulty in making ends meet and keeping things going. than they are having at present. But so far as I can, learn the farmers are not threatening to desert their farms, to pull up stakes and leave, to turn their boys and girls out to rustle, for themselves or to send adrift the farm labour that they have engaged. I believe that the farmers, notwithstanding the strenuous times through which they are passing, are going to carry on and try to make the best of it, are going to produce as they have done in the past and work for the best, interests of this country until conditions are readjusted and we get back to a better footing. And if we have to take our medicine in passing through these hard times, why should not the industrial classes take a share of the same medicine?
I am going to quote a few figures taken from the 1921 census returns which will give hon. gentlemen some idea of the relative standing of the industrial and agricultural portions of this country. In 1921 there were 711,090 occupied farms in Canada, ranging in size from one acre to upwards of 200 acres; I do not know how far in excess of 200 acres the larger ones would range. I will give the figures of the number of farms of different sizes up to 200 acres:
No.	of	Acres	No. of Farms1	to	4	5	to	10	11	to	50	51	to	100	101	to	200	201	and upwards	
So you see by these figures that the greater number are large farms. These farms represent a total invested capital, including the value of the land, buildings, equipment and stock, of $6,586,648,126, and that means that the average farmer in Canada is worth approximately'-the value does not quite reach that figure-$10,000. The farmers, therefore, are not so exceedingly wealthy as some people try to make us believe. I have heard persons who have driven through the country' say, "Look at the fine buildings, look at the surroundings; the farmers are immensely rich". Especially was this said some years ago, at the close of the war, but as I have pointed out, the census of 1921 shows that, taking into account total capital value of land, buildings,
equipment and stock, the average farmer in Canada is worth only $10,000.
Now let us look for a moment at the industrial classes and see what similar figures show in regard to that. The statistics of the same census indicate that in Canada there are 41,323 manufacturing industries. These are made up of a great many different industrial activities, and in order that we may have the matter clearly in our minds and also have them on record I will give the list of industries which go to make up that total figure:
Flour and grist mill products.
Slaughtering and meat-packing.
Pulp and paper.
Saw, lath and shingle mills.
Butter and cheese.
House building and construction.
Electric light and power.
Sugar, refined.
Automobiles and motor trucks.
Cotton yarn and cloth.
Rolling mills and steel furnaces.
Printing and publishing.
Tobacco, cigars and cigarettes.
Petroleum, refined.
Bread and other bakery products.
Biscuits and confectionery.
Boots and shoes (leather).
Electrical apparatus and supplies.
Clothing, men's factory.
Foundries and machine shop products.
Steam railway cars.
Agricultural implements.
Hosiery and knit goods.
Clothing, women's factory.
Woodworking, sash and door factories.	'
Printing and bookbinding.
Breweries.
Plumbing and tinsmithing.
Sheet metal products.
Rubber goods.
Furniture and upholstering.
Leather tanneries.
Industrial machinery.
Shipbuilding and repairs.
Fish curing and packing.
Gas, lighting and heating.
Automobile repairs.
Paints and varnishes.
Furnishing goods, men's.
Heating and ventilating appliances.
Those are the lines of industry listed, comprising altogether 41,323 established in this Dominion. The capital invested in those industries is $3,210,709,288, according to the census report of 1921. That figures out at approximately $78,000 capital for each industry, showing the difference bet-ween the wealth of our industrial enterprises and the wealth of the agricultural industries of this Dominion.
Let us now take the income tax figures, which will indicate very clearly the degree of prosperity these industries enjoy and the amount of money they get from their investments, for if we have not the income we cannot pay the income tax. In the four years from 1920 to 1923 inclusive, the manufacturers
The Budget-Mr. Woods

paid $14,111,979 in income tax, and the farmers $2,909,724, a difference in favour of the manufacturers of $11,202,255. That to my mind is a very clear indication of the comparative prosperity of our industrial and agricultural industries.
I wish to quote a clause from a little pamphlet published by the committee representing the agricultural implement industry of this Dominion:	.
Through the energy of their executives and their salesmen, and through the high standard of their implements, Canadian manufacturers have built up a great export trade. Canadian implements are a familiar sight on the farms of every important country in the world.
Note the sentence which follows:
The beginnings of this export trade were laid when the tariff was at 35 per cent, which gave the Canadian manufacturers the firm foundation of an assured home market from which to operate in their struggles to secure trade abroad.
Now if I understand that aright, it is capable of no other interpretation than that the fanners of this Dominion have been unduly taxed through the customs tariff in order that the manufacturers might build up large industries and sell their goods on foreign markets in competition with the manufacturing industries of the world. That is the meaning: that the manufacturers have been enabled to raise the price of their goods to the consumers in Canada and at the expense of our agriculturists accumulate wealth and build up a large export trade selling their goods in foreign markets in competition with the large manufacturing industries of other nations.
I wish to make a reference to the textile companies.	We have heard a great deal
about them since this session began. We have been flooded with a lot of literature, they have been trying to influence us by telling us they were in a very precarious position, that many of their mills had to close down, and that unless some remedy was provided through the preferential tariff a lot of these textile companies would have to go out of business. In that connection I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the Toronto Financial Post of February 29, 1924. It is referring to the success of Penman's Textile Company and says:
The company's sales increased during the year by a moderate amount and made possible an increase in profits that more than justified the payment of a common stock bonus of 2 per cent above the regular dividend of 8 per cent.
There is one at all events of the textile companies that has made a success. I wish now to quote the latest available figures that I could obtain from the Bureau of Statistics.
[Mr. Woods.!
They show that in the year 1922, the textile companies in their knitted and cloth departments increased their number of employees by nearly four thousand. That does not indicate that these textile companies are in such a serious condition as they would make us believe. Some of them may be going out of business, but where, is there an industry in this country of which the same thing cannot be said. Take the retail merchant, the farmer, and those engaged in other occupations, numbers of them are being forced out of business from time to time and-let me ask it again-why should these particular industries not be willing to take their medicine along with other lines of business?
As to the fiscal policy, the government have advanced in the direction of reduced taxation in the interests of the agriculturists of Canada. But the compass is still pointing forward, and I believe that the great consuming masses of the people will not be satisfied until the ship of state pushes considerably further in the same course. There should be further relief in the customs duties on boots and shoes, on clothing, and on other necessaries of life. We appreciate what we are getting and we feel confident that it is impossible to revolutionize the fiscal policy of this country at one stroke. We know that, and we are content to rest for the moment at the state which has been reached. But we are looking for more, and we want the government not to remain satisfied with the progress they have made. We want them to press on to a far greater reduction in the customs taxation and the other taxation of this country as conditions may warrant. I want to repeat that the government have diagnosed the economic condition of Canada and they are prescribing the remedy. The doses they are administering are not, perhaps, as large as the patient can stand, but the treatment, if continued, will eventually prove a remedy for the malady from which the country is suffering.
I should like for a few minutes to try and analyze the policy of hon. gentlemen to my right. They tell us that we must have greater protection. In an editorial in the Mail and Empire, which is the favourite organ of the Conservative party, of about the 8th April, last, reference was made to the necessity of increasing the customs taxation and at the same time lowering the sales tax. So the prescription advocated by the Conservative party is higher customs duties. That is in line with the policy of that party for a great number of years past. Well, what has that policy accomplished? Seeing that it has been

The Budget-Mr. Woods
in force since 1878 if it is of any practical value at all it should have accomplished something.
Now, the constituency that I have the honour to represent was practically, until a few years ago, Conservative to the core, and I personally know something about the working of the Conservative party in past years in the county I now have the honour to represent. But during all these years what has the policy of protection accomplished? We live in a country whose climate cannot be excelled, well adapted for a virile race of people, splendidly endowed with natural resources, possessing agricultural lands that are unequalled elsewhere on the face of the globe. A protective policy was in force when Conservatives occupied' the treasury benches, and it was in force when Liberals administered the government. During all this time we have had what I term a high protective policy; I cannot see it in any other light than a policy that has protected the special classes of this Dominion. But that policy having been in force for over forty years, I cannot see anything it has accomplished. As many people formerly left the country as are quitting it to-day; there have been in the past times equally as strenuous as we are going through to-day; but the policy of protection has failed to build up this country in the way it should have been built up considering Canada's unexcelled natural advantages and resources. We are told that the great thing is to restore our prosperity. But why did the prosperity collapse seeing that the policy which we are now told is going to restore prosperity, was in force for so many years? lIf protection is needed to restore prosperity why did that policy not keep prosperity during the forty years of its operation?
It is said that we are in the midst of a readjustment period following the events of the Great War. That is true. We are told that there is difficulty in readjustment; that it will take some time to readjust everything as it ought to be readjusted. But let us leave the war period and go back prior to the war. What prosperity could we reasonably boast of prior to 1914? I refer particularly to the agriculturists of this country. I am prepared to admit frankly that, during the period of the war, the agriculturists of Canada made a little money, but it was at the sacrifice of blood. If a little money was made and if more money was. in circulation, we deplore the fact that it was co-incident with the sacrifice of the young men from the farms, towns and cities of Canada who laid down their lives on the battlefield. I think those 87
figures that I quoted to-night, taken from the census of 1921, are possibly just as high or a little higher than they would have been had the census been taken in 1914, that is, probably an average of $10,000 for the total value of every occupied farm of this Dominion. Was that great prosperity? To my mind, there was nothing to be elated over. It is true the farmers struggled; they worked from daylight until dark; they worked holidays and every day. Many of them took scarcely a holiday. While driving along the roadway, you would see nice-looking houses and fine bams; but if you investigated, how many Canadian farms would you find with city conveniences? You would find that the housewife has to take her pail and walk to a well in the barnyard or some other place in order to get a pail of water. The farmers have to contend with outdoor conditions in storm as well as sunshine, and I venture to predict, although I do not know the facts, that not two per cent of the farmers of Canada have on their farms conveniences such as the people have in the cities, and as we enjoy when we have the privilege of spending a little while in this city. We do not by any means begrudge the people in the cities or towns their conveniences, but the nice-looking houses and fine 'barns are no indication of prosperity on the part of the farmers who work hard, toil early and late and seldom take a holiday. I know farmers who live not a hundred miles from the city of Toronto, who have never attended the national exhibition there. Why? Because they are interested in their home, their children and in making things as comfortable, convenient and happy as they can for their families. Because of that, they fail to spend the money or to take the time to attend many of those events that they would enjoy and be glad to attend if their financial condition would warrant their doing so.
Let us go back to the war period again and refer to the attitude of the government of that day. Those are the hon. gentlemen who are telling us that this country will return to prosperity if their policy is adopted and they are given the privilege of handling the fiscal policy of Canada. In those years, as I stated before, we had a free circulation of money, and while the farmers made a little money, every other class made money. Many manufacturers built themselves up to be millionaires while the war went on. Money was in circulation abundantly. The labouring classes had plenty of money. While our boys were fighting overseas at $1.10 a day, foreign workers manning our munition factories and so forth were making money, getting rich, re-

The Budget-Mr. Woods

ceiving from ten to possibly twenty dollars a day. What were the government of that day doing? When there was an abundance of money in circulation, the government of that day fell down in failing to pay off a great portion of the war debt instead of saddling the enormous debt of the war upon the government which now occupies the treasury benches and the people of this Dominion. The government of that day fell down, and yet they are the men who are telling us that they will restore prosperity and good times and that everybody will be happy, if they are again permitted to occupy the treasury benches and to put into force the fiscal policy as they had it in the past.
I come to another reference that I saw in the Mail and Empire. Sometimes when I quote things from memory, I make a mistake. I have this extract here and I am going to read it so that there will be no mistake. This is the Mail and Empire, the official organ of the Conservative party, and it reports an address delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the city of Windsor. I am going to read this paragraph from it. He went on to say:
I would make a treaty with Britain on just the same basis as others. I do not believe in showing loyalty by giving industrial concessions unless you get something in return.
What does that mean? I do not know if the leader of the opposition could give any other explanation or not, but the only meaning I can get out of it is that he would abolish the preferential tariff to Great Britain; that he would deal with other nations in exactly the same way as with Britain. That would be doing away with the preferential tariff and putting the British nation on exactly the same fiscal terms as other foreign nations the world over. That is the way I look at it, and I cannot arrive at any other understanding, so far as my limited knowledge goes. Now I want to compare that with the utterances of those hon. gentlemen in the campaign of 1911, where the real issue was camouflaged-at least, I am going to assert that it was camouflaged in the part of the country where I live and possibly all over Canada. In that campaign it was stated to the people "If you adopt the reciprocity treaty you are going to be swallowed up by the United States of America; the treaty spells annexation and it savours of disloyalty to the British nation." They quoted Champ Clark of the United States as saying that it meant the parting of the ways. That is what was coming to us in 1911, and the same gentlemen who in 1911 waved the Union Jack, cried loyalty, and trembled
[Mr. Woods.J
at the knees for fear of annexation, now draw right back, hit out from the shoulder and say "Britain, we will deal with you the same as any other foreign nation." My attitude from youth up has been that I will take second place to no man in the Dominion of Canada for loyalty to Great Britain; but I condemn most emphatically any man or body of men, any political organization or other organization that will take the Union Jack in a campaign and make a political football out of it. I think in the first speech I made in this House I said I was not here to play politics, not here to do or to undo any political party, nor to oppose any government for the sake of making opposition. I am not here to support any government nor any party simply for the sake of supporting that political party; but I am standing here solidly on the foundation of true principle and will support any party or government that will enact legislation in this country that will be, in my opinion, of the greatest benefit to the greatest number, and I would oppose any government or any party that legislates to build up a favoured few at the expense of the masses of the consuming public of Canada.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: I understand that the government has no followers who are ready or perhaps willing to support the proposal made in the budget; and it is left to the members of the opposition to continue the discussion. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is new to the office which he holds, otherwise I do not think he would have introduced the budget which he presented last Thursday. It is a budget, Mr. Speaker, that has brought dismay to the minds of the people of this country. It was so prominently heralded in the Speech from the Throne, much to the delight of hon. members to my left, and it fulfilled its worst expectations. Not since confederation has there been a budget which has created so much dismay and consternation in all parts of the country, particularly amongst the industrial and also the agricultural classes. It is a budget which has been actuated more by expediency than by the exigency of the national situation, a budget that is scarcely intended to assist the national affairs of the country, but rather to assist the government in carrying on in the House and in office, a budget which is intended to purchase-and I use the word " purchase " advisedly-the support of hon. members to my left. I think that is its main purpose. Had the reciprocity pact of 1911 been consummated by the government and announced in the Speech, it would not have created greater consternation than the

The Budget-Mr. Anderson
present budget throughout the country today. The people of Canada spoke emphatically against the reciprocity pact, and I prophesy that they will speak just as emphatically against the policy indicated in the budget when they get the opportunity.
The reductions in the tariff announced on Thursday are not so sweeping in themselves, but it is the menace for the future that alarms people. This is the second instalment of the Progressive policy of free trade introduced by the present government. I am constrained to believe that those reductions would not have been propounded by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he had had his own way, and I Am quite satisfied that if the Minister of Finance himself had been in the House such a budget would not have been introduced. The Finance Minister is the pilot who has been thrown overboard, so eloquently referred to by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) in his speech on the Address, and with him has been thrown overboard his promise of last year that there would be stability-stability which is so badly needed at the present time, which industry needs and must have before it will be able to take its proper place again. After thinking over our protective policy for the last twenty-eight years, the Liberal party has finally decided to leave the harbour of protection and sail for the open sea of free trade. Fortunately the issue is now clear cut, for the Liberal party have stepped off the platform of protection, a platform which has always belonged to the Conservative party.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woods) wants to know what protection has done for the Dominion since the inception of the National Policy in 1878. Well, if that policy has not done anything for us, what policy has? Our industrial development during the past forty years has been due to the National Policy, which was inaugurated by the Conservative party, and was never departed from by the Liberal party until to-day. Indeed, what we in this quarter of the House are complaining of is that the tariff policy which has served the country so well is now being interfered with. Had it been such a poor policy as some hon. members would have us believe, it would have been eradicated from the statutes many years ago. But it is there yet, and probably will remain in spite of the reductions introduced by the present budget.
The hon. gentleman seemed to be dissatisfied with the growth of the country. From 1911 to 1921 Canada had a greater per cent increase of population than any other country in the world. Surely that is not a bad showing. To-day our percentage of growth 87i
is, in proportion, equal to the rate of growth of the United States a hundred years ago; they are about that	far
ahead of us. As to the prosperity of our farmers, my observations would lead me to believe that they are just as prosperous today as they have been at any time, even under Liberal rule. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) had a good deal to say about the prosperity of the Dominion from 1896 to 1911. Well, that prosperity was enjoyed under the National Policy. I remember the former hon. member for Red Deer-Mr. Clark-stating in this House that during their fifteen years in office the Liberal party had reduced the protective duties by seventy-nine hundredths of one per cent! Not very much of a reduction. But they are making a reduction to-day-a reduction which I believe will not be in the interests of the country, indeed, will be absolutely detrimental not only to the industrialists but to the farmers themselves. Anything that tends to destroy the home market is certainly not in the best interests of our agriculturists. Our farmers- including those of the West-sell something like 80 per cent of their produce in the home market. By doing away with some of our industries the population of our cities naturally will be adversely affected, and consequently our farmers will have to seek the foreign market for the disposal of more of their products. There is no market like the home market, for it is close at hand and the best prices are obtained there.
Since the withdrawal of those in the cabinet who overshadowed him the right hon. Prime Minister is more the leader of his party than at any time since he took office. Therefore he has been able the better to control his followers and to lend a more attentive ear to the advice he receives from the Progressives to my left. Since the opening of this session-and probably it existed last session- there has been a sort of underground coalition between the Liberal and Progressive parties. The right hon. Prime Minister has in fact capitulated to the Progressive group, and I notice with a great deal of amusement that since the opening of the session he has been received by the leader of the Progressives with a sort of conquering smile -a " smile that won't come off."
Canadian industry was stunned by the ill-timed announcement in the Speech from the Throne of tariff reductions on the implements of production; to-day our manufacturing business is practically paralyzed by the budget. I can scarcely reconcile the budget with the statements which appeared in the press a week ago of what the government
The Budget-Mr. Anderson

said to the delegations of interested industries that came to Ottawa. Those delegations were positively assured that no tariff reductions would take place. It was also stated that the country had looked upon the announcement in the Speech from the Throne too seriously, and that it was not intended by the government to reduce the tariff. Yet to-day we find the very worst fears of the people have been realized. No revival of trade can be expected under present conditions, particularly when the gun of the free trader is pointed at the very heart of capital. Under such circumstances capital will go into hiding; it cannot do anything else. No capitalist is likely to start an industry at the present time when he does not know how long our tariff duties are to be maintained. If they are to be tinkered with every year, reduced a bit here and a bit there, a sales tax put on one article and left off another, no capitalist will invest in industrial enterprises, consequently industry will stagnate and unemployment will increase throughout the country.
I cannot see how those interests which expect to be benefited by these tariff reductions can receive any assistance whatever. Our economic ills cannot be cured by pulling down the tariff wall which protects them, especially when all other countries have adopted a high protection policy. Under the circumstances it is simply a suicidal policy to move towards free trade when our neighbours are still further raising their already high protective wall. Such a policy will not assist our manufacturers and farmers to get into the markets of the United States; on the contrary, while we languish our neighbours will invade our markets and profit at our expense.
The annual budget, Mr. Speaker, is always awaited with a great deal of interest, for it deals with the taxation necessary to keep the machinery of government running. It is a huge proposition to gather revenue from a population of only nine million people scattered over such a vast area. With our country stretching from ocean to ocean, with many miles of wilderness separating different sections, we have to carry a burden of government machinery which would easily suffice for more than three times our population were it all in one compact homogeneous mass.
We require probably five times the transportation facilities on account of the long distances lying between the different parts of our sparsely settled territory. If our nine millions were congregated say in Ontario or Quebec we could do with very much less government and would incur very much less 
expense. It is hardly fair to compare our expenditure with that of other countries of less extent and greater population, and it is even hardly fair to compare it with that of the United States, which has a similar extent of territory and a very much larger population. The expense of government does not increase in proportion to increase in population, consequently our per capita expenses of government are necessarily larger than those of other more thickly settled countries. It is easy to criticize but not quite so easy to offer a remedy, and that is one of the things that the citizens of this country should consider when they have a tendency to criticize too severely the expenditure of government.
We have a huge debt, amounting to $2,-
453,000,000, or $260 per capita, but we have great natural resources to compensate us for that debt. We must remember that the great bulk of the debt was incurred in the defence o fthe country. The Great War was a war of conquest by Germany and defeat would have meant confiscation of our property, or, if not confiscation, very heavy imposts in favour of the victor, so that we look upon this $2,-
453,000,000 as not too much of a price to pay for our national liberty. As to the amount paid to our railways, that also is a capital investment which, with careful management, will some day yield a return: these are the principal items which have increased our public debt so tremendously since 1914. In 1914 our debt was something like $335,000,000. There is a big difference between $335,000,000 and $2,453,000,000. We have invested in our railways something over $900,000,000 of the peoples' money-I mean through the government channels; the total investment in the roads is very much more than that,-and we are investing more each year in rolling stock and branch lines in an effort to provide efficient transport service for the people. Competition with the Canadian Pacific should not be the object of making these roads efficient, because both roads are needed and should be sustained. Our great object should be to make the Canadian National Railways efficient for the needs of the people in the sections which they serve; I am opposed to any encroachment upon the sections adequately served by the Canadian Pacific.
In view of our large debt, Mr. Speaker, it behooves us to retrench, and that applies not only to the Dominion government but to all provincial governments as well. There has been a spending orgy in this country ever since the war and individuals as well as governments, municipal, provincial and Dominion, have been responsible for it. The time has

The Budget-Mr. Anderson
arrived when we should retrench and when our budget should more than balance: not only should we pay our running expenses but we should have a surplus each year to apply to the reduction of the debt and thus to the lessening of the heavy interest charges which take such a large part of our annual income. Our interest payments last year were $137,892,000, or $10,000,000 in excess of our total expenditure for all purposes in 1914. Our interest charges in 1914 were $12,893,000, so that $125,000,000 of the annual interest charge is due to the war and to our national railways. The National railways may be regarded as a sort of war casualty, because the government were compelled to take them over in thq national interest. Pensions, which in 1914 amounted to $311,900 had increased in 1923 to $32,985,000, an increase of $32,674,000 directly due to our war effort. This expenditure will 0f course continue for two or three generations in varying amount, but it is a just claim on the bounty of the government. Our soldier land settlement in 1923-24 cost $12,000,000 and soldiers' civil re-establishment cost $15,573,000, making in all $21,262,000 which must be added to our direct war expenditure. This amount will decrease year by year as the Great War recedes into history, but so long as there is the slightest need this expenditure must be retained in order that the returned soldiers may receive every consideration at the hands of the country. These amounts make quite a large demand on the annual revenue, something like $199,250,000 over what was needed in pre-war years. Taking this amount from the expenditure of 1923-and these figures are for 1923-as constituted in the consolidated fund, $332,293,000 we have left a balance of $132,689,000 for governmental purposes on the basis of pre-war expenditure.
The government has been speaking during this session about economy, and I am glad to see that they are beginning to practise economy, or at least to say that they are. Let us see how far the government have gone in this direction. Economy is a vital necessity; the time has arrived when we should make our revenue more than pay our expenditure. Let us compare our current expenditure, chargeable to the consolidated fund account, with what it was before the war so that we may see how near we are getting to pre-war conditions. We will eliminate such charges as interest on public debt, war pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment, land settlement-in other -words expenditures due to the war-in order to see how our expenditure compares with that of 1914, at the beginning of the war. I think that is a reasonable way to compare our annual
operations of government. We find that the expenditures have been as follows: In 1914 our total expenditure was $127,384,000; eliminating pensions, $311,000, and interest on debt, $12,893,000, a total of $13,204,000, we have a balance left of $114,180,000. That is, taking out what I am going to eliminate from the figures of subsequent years, namely, expenditure on the public debt and the amount paid for pensions. During the year ending March 31st, 1922, the expenditure for interest, pensions, land settlement and soldiers' civil re-establishment amounted to $222,633,000 If you take that from the total expenditure of that year, approximately $347,560,000, it leaves $124,827,000, compared with what it was in 1914, $114,180,000. So that in the year 1922 the expenditure was only $10,647,000 in excess of the expenditure on the same basis in 1914. In 1923 the amount spent on these four items was $199,604,000. Taking that from the total expenditure of that year, $332,293,000, you have a balance of $132,689,000, and deducting from that the amount spent in 1914 you have an amount of $18,709,000 in excess of the expenditure in 1914. In 1924 the amount spent on these four items was $190,369,000; taking that from the $328,250,000 of total expenditure in that year you have a balance of $137,881,000, leaving an excess over the expenditure of 1914 of $23,701,000. That places the expenditure of those three years on the same basis as that of the years previous to the war. You will therefore see that the present government has not advanced very far in the direction of economy over any other year. In fact, there was a smaller amount in excess of the expenditure in 1922, than in 1923 and 1924 over 1914.
Coming to the surplus which the Acting Minister of Finance shows, of $67,000,000 or thereabouts, on consolidated fund account, if we compare that with the figures for other years we find that this is not the first year we have had a surplus, although it was fairfy prominently featured in the budget speech that this was the first year our revenue and ' expenditure had balanced, or more than balanced. According to the Public Accounts I find that in 1916 there was a surplus, in round figures of $41,979,000; 1917, $101,000,000; 1918, $40,463,900; 1919, $80,215,000; 1920, $45,902,000; 1921, $73,268,000; 1922, $34,391,000; 1923, $62,321,000. Those are the surpluses for those years on consolidated fund account, in each of which the revenue exceeded the expenditure; so this is not the first year we have had a surplus.
Coming now to the trade of Canada, of course our trade is increasing, and it has in-

The Budget-Mr. Anderson
creased very markedly during the last ten years. The war gave it a great impetus, and the increase has kept up since that time. I will give just a few percentages with regard to our trade with the British Empire and the United States. In 1924, 26 per cent of the total trade of Canada went to the British Empire, and 52 per cent to the United States; in 1923, 35 per cent to the British Empire, and 51 per cent to the United States; 1922, 33 per cent went to the British Empire, and 54 per cent to the United States; 1921, 27 per cent to the British Empire, and 57 per cent to the United States. You will notice that the amount going to the United States has decreased somewhat, and the amount going to the British Empire has increased: we are gradually beginning to send our trade across the ocean.
As regards imports, the percentages of


[Stage Direction]
imports from
[Stage Direction]
the British Empire
[Stage Direction]
and from
[Stage Direction]
the United
[Stage Direction]
States relatively to
[Stage Direction]
the total
[Stage Direction]
imports wese
[Stage Direction]
as follows:
[Stage Direction]
Imports
[Stage Direction]
from the British Empire
[Stage Direction]
and
[Stage Direction]
the United States
[Stage Direction]
British Empire
[Stage Direction]
United States
[Stage Direction]
Year
[Stage Direction]
per cent
[Stage Direction]
per cent
[Stage Direction]
1921
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 21.45
[Stage Direction]
69.4
[Stage Direction]
1922
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 19.94
[Stage Direction]
68.6
[Stage Direction]
1923
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 22.3
[Stage Direction]
67.3
[Stage Direction]
1924
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 17.5
[Stage Direction]
68.5
[Stage Direction]
In 1924 our imports from the United
[Stage Direction]
Kingdom were less than at any
[Stage Direction]
other time
[Stage Direction]
since 1921 and our imports from
[Stage Direction]
the United
[Stage Direction]
States were slightly larger.
[Stage Direction]
I will give
[Stage Direction]
the export figures. Of our total
[Stage Direction]
exports the percentages going to Great Britain
[Stage Direction]
and the United States were as follows:
[Stage Direction]
Exports
[Stage Direction]
to the British Empire
[Stage Direction]
and
[Stage Direction]
the United States
[Stage Direction]
British Empire
[Stage Direction]
United States
[Stage Direction]
Year
[Stage Direction]
per cent
[Stage Direction]
per cent
[Stage Direction]
1921
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 33.77
[Stage Direction]
43.38
[Stage Direction]
1922
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 46.7
[Stage Direction]
39.1
[Stage Direction]
1923
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 47.3
[Stage Direction]
39.7
[Stage Direction]
1924
[Stage Direction]
.. .. 34.1
[Stage Direction]
40.8
[Stage Direction]
We have gradually been increasing our exports to the British Empire, but in 1924 those exports fell off as was the case also with our exports to the United States; but there was quite a large increase in our exports to the other countries of the world, 25.1 per cent of our total exports going to foreign countries.
If you take dutiable and free goods for the twelve months ending February, 1922, 1923 and 1924, we find that dutiable goods entered for consumption into Canada amounted to $512,533,000; free goods, $248,-
492,000.	The amount of duty on all dutiable goods collected in 1921-1922 was 23-6 per cent, while on all imports the percentage 
of duty amounted to 15-9; 1923, the duty collected on dutiable goods amounted to 25-7 per cent, or a little over 2 per cent higher than for the previous year, while the percentage of duty collected on all imports was 16-3 per cent, a slight rise in the duty; 1924, the duty collected on all dutiable goods was 23 per cent, and on all imports 15.3 per cent. You will see from these figures that the duty tax collected by both governments, Conservative and Liberal, has been very similar; in fact, it has been almost unchanged up to the present day. The year 1923 shows an increase over 1922, of 2-1 per cent, and 1924 shows a decrease over 1922 of .6 per cent on dutiable goods, while on all imports 1923 shows an increase over 1922 of .4 per cent, and 1924 shows a decrease of -7 per cent over 1922.
Of our exports of agricultural and animal products for 1923-1924, 74 per cent went to the United Kingdom and the United States, and 26 per cent to the rest of the world; 54.6 per cent of these goods going to the United Kingdom and 19.4 per cent to the United States, showing that England is the country which takes the greater proportion of our agricultural products, a great deal more than the United States. I cannot quite understand why hon. gentlemen to my left want to trade so much with the United States, which does not take anything like the same amount of farm products from us that the United Kingdom does. It is our duty and in the best interests of the farmer to cultivate our trade with the United Kingdom.
We imported from the United Kingdom in 1923-1924 goods amounting to $155,000,000 and exported to the United Kingdom $355,000,000, leaving a favourable trade balance of something like $200,000,000
An examination of these returns for the above years shows that 54.6 per cent of our agricultural exports were sold in the English market, while only 19.4 per cent went to the United States, and 26 per cent to other countries. The United States is our poorest customer and our greatest competitor in farm products. In 1923 we exported 166! million bushels of wheat to the United Kingdom and only 16 million bushels to the United States, or ten times as much to the former; of flour in 1923 we exjwrted 4| million barrels to the United Kingdom and 612,000 to the United States, or eight times as much to the United Kingdom as we sent to the United States; oats, 20! million bushels went to the United Kingdom and 842,000 bushels to the United States; or twenty-five times as much to the United Kingdom as to the United States; of barley we sent 13! million bushels to the

The Budget -Mr. Anderson
United Kingdom. For the same year, 1923, we exported 20 million pounds of cheese to the United Kingdom and about the same quantity to the United States, 22 million pounds; butter 17,500 pounds; eggs 3,158,000 dozen. On the other hand we imported from the United States something like 140,000 dozen eggs and 5,500,000 pounds of butter. If the tariff wall between this country and the United States were taken down the Americans would flood this country with the produce of farm and factory to the detriment, if not to the extinction of similar industries in Canada. We have a standing offer of reciprocity in natural products at the present time from this government, but so far the offer has been treated with disdain. The only reply given by the United States is to raise their duties on many articles we raise, particularly the one commodity produced by the prairies, wheat, to a prohibitive height. That does not look very much like a reciprocal spirit on their part. I think their duty at the present time on wheat is 42 cents a bushel, on mill feed 22^ per cent ad valorem, and $1.12 per hundred weight on flour. That does not look very much as if the United States were ready to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis. It is a direct slap in the face, you may say, to this government for the reciprocity resolution of last year. I cannot see any reason for going on with such a policy, or holding out a proposition of that kind to the United States. The United States does not want Canadian wheat. If they did they would not put on such an import duty against it. That duty of 42 cents on wheat says so emphatically, but just the same they would like our market for their surplus foods in Canada.
An examination of the trade returns for 1924 discloses that we imported from the United States $603,709,000 worth of goods and exported to that country $420,148,000 worth, leaving an adverse balance of $177,580,000 against Canada, resulting in the Canadian dollar being at a discount of 2 per cent on exchange-9 millions of people purchasing $177,000,000 of goods more from 110 millions of people than they are willing to purchase. Putting it on a per capita basis we spend in the United States $67 per capita while they reciprocate to the extent of $3.82 per capita. Talk about reciprocity with a people so selfcentred as that.
Examine our trade with the United States on farm and garden produce. Of fresh vegetables in 1923-24, largely potatoes and tomatoes, our imports were $3,051,000 from the United States while they bought from us $1,025,000. Fresh fruit imports, largely apples, pears, plums, grapes, berries, from the same
source amounted to 53,388,000 pounds, valued at $4,500,000, while thjy bought from us fruit to the amount of $691,000. These two classes of products left us an adverse trade balance of $5,796,000. This amount if spent in Canada would make up the difference between success and failure of our fruit farming industry. We import annually over $100,000,000 worth of American agricultural, vegetable and animal products, and in 1923-24 it amounted to $113,000,000. This is a demand which can be supplied by our own farmers. Give our farmers greater protection from United States competition, particularly since their tariff wall is so high on these classes of product, and this money will stay in Canada to improve the home market to the benefit of all.
Our coal bill to the United States in 1923-24 amounted to $89,250,000, and these two items alone would balance our trade returns with that country. It is our duty to make an effort to rectify this unfavourable trade balance by reducing our imports from the United States. This can easily be done by stimulating our coal production and putting a higher import duty on the products of the farm.
The sales tax, Mr. Speaker, has received a good deal of attention since the government increased the amount to 6 per cent. The present unsatisfactory conditions in regard to the sales tax have been largely due to the inefficiency and vacillating methods of the present government. The sales tax provided for in the last budget was to come into effect in January this year. But the government, or the Department of Customs and Excise, could not arrange regulations as to how the sales tax should be applied. They made two or three attempts without meeting any degree of success. As first introduced, I think, it was not to be shown on the invoice; it was to be absorbed or hidden in the price of the article. That announcement came so late that it caused a good deal of distress and dissatisfaction throughout the manufacturing industry. Some of these industries had finished their price list for the coming year, had sent out their travellers on the road, and did no't want to change that price list. On the other hand there was quite a demand for the government, to make a change so that the sales tax should be shown on the invoice. The government adopted the change and required it to be shown on the invoice. Immediately those firms that had got out their price lists in which the tax was hidden in the price of the article set up an outcry and the government came back and agreed to another change. They said it might be optional, and that is the course which has been followed up to the present
The Budget-Mr. Anderson
[Stage Direction]
time. The government, seeing their mistake, came forward this session and reduced the tax to 5 per cent. They also provided for taking it off many articles altogether, and on other articles making it 2J per cent. It was amusing to hear the Finance Minister last session talk about his desire to reduce the cost of living, and then impose a sales tax greater than had ever been seen before. The sales tax is a home tax. It must be paid by the Canadian people, there is nobody else to pay it. It was almost immediately shown in the increased price of the article 11 p.m. -it could have no other effect.
There may be some question as to who pays an import duty. But there is no question as to who pays the sales tax; it is always added to the price unless it is absorbed by the manufacturer himself. The sales tax -and I am not objecting to it; if amounts of money are to be raised it is certainly a good way of raising revenue-has provided the government with large revenue. The revenue from sales tax in 1921-22 amounted to $56,-
325,000.	In 1922-23 it yielded $81,428,000; and in 1923-24, $94,911,000. That is a peculiar way to reduce the cost of living, to increase a direct tax so that it shall yield $94,000,000 of revenue. The government increased this tax twice. In 1922-23 it was increased by 50 per cent over 1921-22. In 1923 the government raised the tax to 6 per cent. If the government reduces that tax now, it is simply a case of lowering a tax they put on themselves.
The tariff reductions will not afford any particular relief to the average farmer. As mentioned by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) the reductions are so small that they would not be recognized by the average farmer in his annual statement of receipts and expenditure-they would hardly be known.
There is one feature of the budget to which I want to draw the particular attention of the government. The Acting Minister of Finance said with respect to materials for agricultural implements:
Materials which enter into the cost of the aforementioned items and other implements on which the duty is to be reduced will be entitled to entry at per cent under all tariffs.
That, if one read it over carelessly might not be considered as much; but when you come to take into account the number of industries affected, that would make quite a reduction in the tariff protection which they enjoy. Those industries manufacture the materials that go into the manufacture of all things in connection with agricultural implements, mining implements and so forth.

That reduction will cause a reduction of duties on quite a large number of articles such as screw nails, nails, bolts, nuts, malleable iron, steel and so on, and there are in the country quite a number of those industries which will be very injuriously affected by that reduction to 7? per cent in the tariff. I do not think the government has any idea yet how many industries will be affected by that one reduction. There will certainly be quite a large number, and as time goes on, the government will be hearing more about the matter.
The sales tax has been removed from milk products and milk foods. If I am not mistaken, milk foods are already exempted from the sales tax. The woollen industry will get very little benefit from the reduction in the sales tax because at the present time it is not subject to' the sales tax. The reduction in the sales tax will, therefore, be of little benefit in connection with these industries.
I want to call the attention of the House to a few more points in regard to the present government. During the time that they have been in office, they have introduced a good deal of legislation, legislation that has not been very beneficial to the country, legislation that they have made practically to suit themselves. I might call them conspicuous failures in legislation. There was the wheat board legislation of 1922. I think my hon. friends to my left will say that that was a complete fiasco. It did not give any relief whatever as regards the marketing of wheat and it is a dead letter at the present time.
Legislation passed a year ago in regard to the control of freight rates on the Great Lakes was a costly failure, and it gave no relief whatever to the wheat farmers of the West. It had to be declared inoperative by the Governor-in-Council in order to save the situation.	.
The Halibut treaty with the United States was another matter that failed to go through. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) signed that treaty without the signature of the British Ambassador, and the United States refused to ratify the treaty.
The attempt made by the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to bring about reciprocity with Australia was also a failure. The correspondence and the visit of the minister to Australia resulted in nothing.
The attempt to bring about a reciprocity pact with the United States has been a failure.
The treaty with France was largely a padded document. There were in it a number of things that were not exported by Can-

The Budget
ada; it gave no benefit to this country, and it will be of no use to the people of Canada.
These things and many others might be taken as the record of failures of this government during their three years in office, the sales tax being another failure. These are things which the people of this country should very well consider and will consider when the government goes to the country at the next election.
On motion of |Mr. Sinclair the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, April 15, 1924