1924-03-12

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: This bill seeks to repeal section 20 of chapter 25 of the Statutes of 1921. An explanatory note with regard to section 20

Carillon Power Development
says: The effect of the above section amending the Criminal Code was that no prosecution for an offence against the code, or action for penalties or forefeiture, should be commenced after the expiration of three years from the time of its commission if such offence related to or arose out of the location of land which was 'paid for in whole or in part by scrip or was granted upon certificates issued to halfbreeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, respecting Quartz Mining in the Yukon Territory.
He said:	The object of the bill is to
consolidate in an act of parliament various regulations. At present these regulations are contained in a large number of orders in council. The proposed act entails no radical change in the law or the system of administration. Its object is to settle the law and put it on a sound and intelligible basis.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
He said: The amendments to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act here proposed, in sections 15, 57 and 58, do not introduce any new features into the present statute, but are intended simply to make clear at one or two points what has been regarded, since the passing of the act, as the obvious intention of these particular sections.
Mr. CHURCH:: Will this bill interfere
with litigation now before the Privy Council?


Mr. MURDOCK:: Not at all, I would think.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. C. ST. PERE (Hochelaga):	May
I ask the Minister of Railways if any correspondence has been exchanged between the government and the National
Hydro-Electric Company regarding power development, at Carillon? If the answer is in the affirmative, what is the attitude of the government with regard to the demands made by such company?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister) :: I am not sure as to the name of the company, but in 1910 or 1911 a lease was given for a small development of the Carillon power. In 1921 that lease was renewed with very much extended powers providing for a very considerable development. An application has been made for a still further extension of the powers contained in that lease, and the Department of Railways, through its chief engineer, is now studying just what the application means.



PROTECTION OF FORESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: I should like to ask the Minister of the Interior if the government has received from any provincial government, since the beginning of the year, an application to assist in protecting its forests from fire or insects?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: No, we received no demand, but there has been considerable discussion about co-operative action.



REFUND TO IMMIGRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I observe in the press an intimation that the government's immigration efforts, or a part of them, consist in paying $15 to certain classes of immigrants on arrival in Canada. Is that the money of the country, or is that money that is being virtually refunded by the steamship companies?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: It is not the money of the government. We have effected an arrangement with the transatlantic steamers whereby they give a rebate of twenty per cent of the passage money. That would mean $15 on a $75 ticket, and a proportionate amount on a half-fare ticket. The immigrant pays his full fare at the point of embarkation, and when he reaches Quebec or Montreal, or St. John, New Brunswick or any Canadian point, the steamship companies themselves, from their own funds, refund the twenty per cent; this being conditional, may I add, upon the immigrant declaring that it is his intention to settle in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Speakman


Arthur Meighen: What steamship companies have been good enough to do this?


James Alexander Robb: I had a conference with all the steamship companies;-I think they are all doing it-all the steamship companies operating. This arrangement applies to immigrants from the United Kingdom only.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Kelly for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland, resumed from Tuesday, March 11.
Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the question now before the House, the Speech from the Throne and the implications contained therein, it is perhaps inevitable that we must all approach it from what might be called a local point of view, to some extent at least. This is perhaps inevitable, for we are all influenced by our home surroundings; we are more completely conversant with the circumstances in our own districts; and we are all primarily representing the opinions and the viewpoints of the voters in our own constituencies. I am encouraged, however, by this fact: That that point of view is not peculiar to myself and it is not peculiar to the members in this corner of the House, it is a point of view which is shared and expressed by practically every member of this House who speaks. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) frankly proclaimed that he expressed the sentiments of the city of Montreal. The members from Toronto speak with an atmosphere decidedly Torontonian. The members from the Maritime provinces, from the central provinces, and from British Columbia, each expressed to the House the opinions of the people of those provinces, the views and circumstances of their own people. And perhaps that is not to be deplored; for when we come here to endeavour to lay before the House suggestions, to endeavour to bring forward a national policy which will fit, and which will develop all parts of Canada, it is necessary that we should understand the problems applying to all parts of Canada; and as each man speaks and presents the viewpoint of his own part of the country, we are able to gather together the fragmentary portions from which we can make a composite picture of our country as a whole, and that is I IMr. Robb.!
think to be desired. But I think it is also the fact, Mr. Speaker, that, while speaking from our own viewpoint we should at least attempt to approach our subject from a national viewpoint also, because, after all, every man and woman of average intelligence recognizes this great outstanding fact, that in the present age at least we are not living isolated lives, separate and apart from the lives led by men of other occupations in other regions, or indeed in other countries. Occupationally, and regionally we are interdependent, and all our problems are to a large extent co-related; and so it comes to pass that a selfish and narrow policy will react upon the people or upon the section who propose or who carry into effect such a policy. No gain is to be derived eventually to any part of this country, or indeed I think I can say to any part of the world, which is a definite loss and disadvantage for other people, for this reason: Taking it from our point of view as farmers, we know we can only prosper as other people from other occupations in this and other parts of the world are able to buy our goods and pay a reasonable price for them, which means that we can only prosper in proportion as the rest of this country and as the rest of the world prospers. We have had a very evident illustration of this fact during the last years when the unfortunate disorganization, the tremendous depression which has taken place in industrial Europe, has been reflected so accurately, so inevitably upon our own conditions here; showing that through the improvement in transportation, and the improvement in means of communication we are all now part of one great world society, whether we desire to recognize the fact or whether we do not.
In discussing the Speech itself, the first statement made is worthy of great consideration. I refer to the part in which it is stated that this country is gradually emerging from the slough of despond in which we have been plunged, and is attaining a comparative degree of prosperity. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished and to be hoped for, and to the extent to which it is true it is a consummation on which this country may very well congratulate itself. In regard to national prosperity, apparently there are some signs of such condition. It is shown in the increase in our trade, both export and import, particularly export. It is shown in the improving of the condition of our national railways. It is shown in the increase in our national revenue. It is forecasted in the statement that we shall probably have a balanced bud-

The Address-Mr. Speakman
get. All these things are pleasant to us, and are subjects in which we may agree. The question however is, upon analysis, how far this apparent national prosperity is reflected in private business and in our individual lives, and when we turn to that aspect of affairs I am afraid the picture is not so pleasant. Speaking for the occupation in which I am most interested, and which I understand most thoroughly, we know here that agriculture is not sharing at the present time in that prosperity. I do not propose to dwell upon that fact. The facts have been laid before this House clearly and well time and time again. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) yesterday in a most excellent speech laid the facts before us in a manner with which I shall not attempt to compete. The facts may be taken for granted. But are they any better in other occupations and in other parts of Canada? Judging by the reports which we see in the press, and judging from communications from manufacturing concerns with which every member of the House is being deluged, and judging by the statements emanating from different parts of the House, from gentlemen representing these occupations and districts, we must inevitably come to the conclusion that the depression which commenced with agriculture is now finding its way to our industrial centres, and, with very few exceptions, no business in the country is prospering now as it should prosper.
It is interesting to consider why such a state of affairs should exist now in a country which is universally acknowledged to be naturally so rich and so promising a country.
But before I touch on that, before I offer any suggestions of any kind I should like, with your permission, to make a few comments upon the address delivered yesterday by the eloquent member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). We in this corner of the House are accustomed to look forward with pleasure and to listen with interest to what he has to say. He has impressed us on former occasions as being a man who, while holding his own views, is willing to speak without partisan bitterness, who is willing to give utterance to his opinions without reflecting upon other people, to give us facts which are accurate, to give us logic which will stand analysis. But I must frankly confess that in the address delivered yesterday we were disappointed. We did not find in that address, however eloquent it was, to any great extent those qualities which we are accustomed to look for in the remarks which come from that quarter. Facts were given, the aceur-17
acy of which might well be doubted; deductions were drawn which, to my mind at least, were hardly logical, and conclusions were arrived at which, in my opinion at any rate, were somewhat fallacious.
As to that part of his address which dealt with the shortcomings of the present government, their sins of omission and commission, their broken promises, their wobbling policies, I shall not deal. It is no part of my place here to defend the present occupants of the government benches. I leave that to them. But I may remark, in passing, on a somewhat peculiar discrepancy in one of the hon. gentleman's remarks, where first, while he did not make the direct statement, he drew the inference that the policy or the lack of policy of the present government was responsible to a large extent for the present depression in Canada. Further on, he also made the statement that our trouble now and the present depression which had fallen upon agriculture, was due and due almost wholly to the war and the effects of the war. Either of those two statements might be true; both connot be accurate. May I say, in parenthesis, in speaking of the effect of the war upon the present state of this country, it has become habitual in this House, when discussing our depression or any discouraging conditions with which we are faced, to refer them to the war, to say that the war caused this, was responsible for that, and to imply at least that in the pre-war days we had the golden age of prosperity when all men prospered, when privation and unemployment were unknown?


Mr. MANION:: I might straighten out
what the hon. member has said, because I think he is unintentionally misquoting me? What I stated was that farming conditions in the West were due to world conditions following the war. I was pointing out that the tariff had little to do with conditions in the West, and I said, according to my recollection-and I think it is accurate-that conditions in the farming communities in the West were more due to world conditions, transportation rates, general conditions, than to the tariff. I do not think I was speaking of conditions in Canada generally. Earlier in my remarks, I gave reasons for conditions in Canada in general.


Alfred Speakman: I accept the hon. gentleman's explanation. In his opinion, at least, the present depression is not due to the war. I will go on with my argument. When we look back into the years immediately preced-



The Address-Mr. Speakman
ing the war, the conditions in this country from the beginning of this century, we are struck by two great facts. In the early years of the century, we find a state of great prosperity and development in this country, and I am not one who believes that prosperity and development were dependent upon or brought about to any great extent by any governmental policy. It was a natural development. At that time the lure of free lands in the West was drawing immigrants by tens of thousands to Canada. At that time a great transportation system was in process of development. Building was going on; enormous investments were being made, and work was assured on remunerative terms to practically every able-bodied man who came here willing to work. Under those conditions prosperity was inevitable, unemployment should have been and indeed, to a large extent, was unknown. But in the years immediately preceding the war, was that condition actually in effect? I think not. The same round of events was taking place then that is taking place now. In 1910, it came to a head as regards the agricultural population of this country in that famous siege of Ottawa when representatives of agriculture from all parts of Canada descended upon this parliament, impressing their needs, showing their disabilities and demanding remedial legislation. Subsequently to that,-I am not saying consequential upon that-and incidentally, coincident with that fact, came the election of 1911, fought along the lines of reciprocity. Reciprocity was, as of course you are all aware, defeated. But in spite of the defeat of reciprocity, in the next year and prior to the summer of 1914, the depression which commenced in our agricultural communities had, as at the present time, reached our industrial centres, and anyone who looks back-and I am speaking now of facts that are within the knowledge of every hon. member here-to the winter of 1913-14, for instance, or to the summer preceding that, will remember the enormous amount of unemployment, the tremendous problems in Winnipeg and other large centres to cope with that situation, the cry that went up from every business house in this country as to the lessening and, in some cases, the wiping out altogether of profits and the danger of bankruptcy. We remember those times, and the war when it came did not immediately aggravate that situation. On the contrary, it largely alleviated that situation. There could be no unemployment when half a million of our best men had left this country. Due to enormous demands for our products of all kinds, manufactured and agri-

cultural, a great artificial stimulus was given during the years of the war, a stimulus of course, depending upon borrowed money, a stimulus which could not and should not have continued. But my point is this, that at that time the war alleviated and delayed the depression which was already upon us. We are now facing the depression again, not as a direct consequence of the war, but enhanced immeasurably because of the effects of the war. We are facing the same struggle that we faced then, with the addition of an enormously increased public debt, a consequently, enormously increased taxation, and more than that, with the complete disorganization of the economic and business life of the whole world, not just in Canada, but in other countries to which we were accustomed to look for our markets. The war did not cause our present troubles, but it has accentuated them. I think that is a fair statement to make.
Let me return to the address of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman took occasion to refer to the lack of intelligence on the part of members in this corner of the House in accepting with what he described "indecent haste"-the words being applied to our leader, -the overtures of the Liberal government, in accepting promissory notes which the government had no intention of ever paying, in selling our birthright for a mess of pottage which was never going to be delivered, for accepting the Micawber-like promises of the present government. I will perhaps pass over the question of indecent haste, because that, after all, is a matter of opinion. But when I look at the statement actually made by my leader in which he lays before the House our position, when he says:
The Progressives are ready to support progressive measures whenever such measures come before the House. If the government are prepared to present these measures for our consideration they know that they shall get our support; if they do not, then they will have to take the consequence.
Can that be regarded as accepting a promise with indecent haste? In my opinion it is rather occupying the position of watchful waiting.


Robert James Manion: I was not referring to that speech at all; I was referring to an interview given by the hon. member's leader (Mr. Forke) some days before to the Winnipeg Free Press.


Mr. FORKE:: Will the hon. member kindly tell us what that statement was? I do not know what it was.	.


Robert James Manion: I am not on the floor
at present. The statement was made and

The Address-Mr. Speakman
quoted all over the country in every newspaper through the Associated Press. Does the hon. member deny that he gave an interview to the Free Press?


Robert Forke: I do not remember any
interview.


Robert James Manion: It was given.


Robert Forke: Nor do I remember the
hon. member making that statement in his speech.


Robert James Manion: That is what I was referring to.


Alfred Speakman: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) was referring to a statement, which I remember reading in the press, in which my leader was quoted as having stated that we would maintain a position of "benevolent neutrality." Probably that is the statement to which reference is made. Well, what is benevolent neutrality after all? It means in this case simply sitting tight, but prepared in a fair-minded way to weigh the measures that may come before the House. That is my interpretation of benevolent neutrality. Should we take up a position of hostile neutrality, ready at any moment to attack all measures that may be submitted, and attack them even before they come before the House for consideration? Should we take it for granted that such measures will not be acceptable in any event? It all is in keeping with the attitude assumed since the beginning of this parliament by some hon. members to my right,-I do not say by all,- that we are here not as independents but as a sort of adjunct to the Liberal party. And what is the interpretation given to independence by hon. gentlemen to my right? As far as I can gather, an independent, in their opinion, is a man who on all occasions will vote against the present government and with the Conservative party. That however is not my opinion of an independent, nor is it the opinion of the men who sent me here to represent them: The people whom I represent want me to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to weigh to the best of my ability the measures that come before this House, whether proposed by Liberals or Conservatives, and, if I find them, from the point of view of those who elected me, to be in the best interests of the country, to give them my support.
The hon. member then pointed dut, and I think rightly, that there was a depressed condition among many of the manufacturers. I believe he is accurately informed in that rent
spect; I believe they are in a depressed condition. But he went on to state that the manufacturers -were suffering from the fact that the price of labour is about half the price in Great Britain that it is in Canada; that is to say, in Britain, a free trade country, wages are very low. In the next column he is reported as saying that they were unable to compete with France because in that country, one of the most highly protected countries in the world, wages were even lower than in Great Britain. And again it has been stated, although I do not think directly by the hon. member but by other members in his party, that the manufacturers here are unable to compete with the manufacturers of the United States, which is a protected country, where wages are on a much nigher level than they are in Canada.


Mr.   MARKER@: Is the hon. member taking into consideration the question of the depreciated currency in France?


Mr. HOEY:: The hon member is not at
the moment replying to my hon. friend.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, I have considered that question. But let me ask hon. members: Were wages in France previous to the war lower or higher than they were in Great Britain? They were lower. Were the manufacturers in this country any more prepared to meet the competition of France prior to the war than they are now? They were not. And at that time there was no question of a depreciated currency at all. Let me ask hon. members this question. If our manufacturers cannot compete with free trade Great Britain because of low wages there; if they cannot compete with protectionist France because of a depreciated currency and low wages there; and if they cannot compete with the United States where wages are higher than they are here, as is evidenced by the exodus of our industrial population from Canada to the United States, then in heaven's name with whom can they compete? I have a great deal of sympathy with the manufacturers because I know myself what it is for one to be unable to sell one's goods at a profit. I want to see the manufacturers sell their goods at a profit. But is it a quality inherent in Canadian manufacturers that they are unable to compete with the manufacturers of other countries? Is it due to any lack of efficiency? To what cause is it due? It cannot be due altogether to a restricted market, because the point has been taken also in reference to our manufacturers of farm implements, and if I understand correctly they have a larger

The Address-Mr. Speakman
possible market than the manufacturers of farm implements in the United States inasmuch as there is no tariff on our goods of that particular manufacture going to the United States.
We come then to a statement which from my reading of history is hardly historically accurate. The most serious statement which the hon. member has made has reference to the position occupied by Great Britain both previously and subsequently to the year 1846 The statement was made by the hon. gentleman that Great Britain built up such an organization under protection previously to 1846 that by the momentum thus acquired she was able to carry on successfully under free trade circumstances during the later years. Now what are the facts, at least as I read them? Of course I am speaking now purely from the historical point of view; I did not live in England at that time nor did my hon. friend, and so we both have to go by what we read. When I look back over that period I interpret the facts in this manner. About the end of the eighteenth century manufacturing on a large scale, industrialism as we know it to-day, practically had its origin; it began when steam was applied to the great industries. At that time really effective and efficient machinery was first brought into use and England by reason of her situation was able first to take advantage of that opportunity. She was able first to make use of that improved machinery to develop herself to a certain extent along the manufacturing line. Then followed the Napoleonic wars, before England had developed to any great extent and before Europe had been able to follow her example to any extent. For a quarter of a century there was a delay, a retardation of development. There was to a certain extent a depression in Europe; and England, through having alread3>-organized to some extent to take advantage of the improved machinery, was able to profit. But as time went on, as that source of profit diminished, as competition came into force, what were the conditions which we find in Great Britain immediately prior to 1846? When we read English history we find the period that has been aptly called the hungry forties, those years when unemployment was rampant there to an extent never known since; when the poorhouses of the old land were filled; when men were iWalking the streets in processions bearing this banner: ''Give us work or give us bread." when they were subsisting, partially at least, by public doles even outside the poorhouses. That was the situation then, a situation which was even more serious than that with which

they are faced at the present time. Because of that condition of affairs, because of the fact that under the protective tariff which then prevailed the people were unable to find employment and therefore were unable to buy bread, that great man, Richard Cobden, came forward and began his long, heroic campaign for the repeal of the Com Laws. Fot years he carried on that campaign, aided by the growing dissatisfaction throughout the country, aided, too, it is true, by the depression of industry and the poverty of the people. Had there been prosperity Richard Cobden's efforts would have been in vain. Indeed, had everything been smiling and prosperous he would never have felt the need for undertaking that great work. He undertook it because .of the distressing conditions under protection, and eventually his efforts were crowned with success, and the Com Laws were repealed.	,


Mr. MARLER:: Might I ask my hon. friend what British industry was the most protected at that time?


Alfred Speakman: The farming industry was mast protected at that time. But the hon. member stated that under protection England was flourishing, and due to the impetus given during that time she was able to carry on through the free trade years following. That is the statement I am answering. Conditions reached such a crisis that the Conservative government was obliged by the force of public opinion to introduce free trade, and under that policy England's prosperity grew by leaps and bounds. Her population in the seventy years following 1846 practically doubled, and her trade multiplied many fold. Then the hon. member compared the prosperity before free trade with the prosperity afterwards. I think the facts as I have stated them are historically accurate; they are known to every hon. member and capable of proof by everyone.
That, however, was simply by way of parenthesis. In this connection .the hon. member made another statement-rather it was an expression of opinion, and as such I have no quarrel with it at all. He expressed the opinion that if Mr. Baldwin had taken three months, instead of three weeks, to educate the people of Great Britain to the fallacies of free trade, he would have succeeded, to England's very great benefit. Of course, the hon. member has a perfect right to that opinion, "but I would ask him again if he has any historical backing for such a view. If I remember rightly-and it was not so very long ago-another great English statesman,

The Address-Mr. Speakman
Joseph Chamberlain, set out upon the same crusade. He resigned from the government in order to give himself a free hand, and for three years following 1903-not three months- he laboured with an eloquence at least equal to that of Mr. Baldwin's, with an eloquence at least equal to that of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River; he laboured for three years to convert the British people from their attachment to free trade to his idea of protection. With what result? In the 1906 general election the Conservative government was swept out of power by an enormous majority of free trade votes. That is an historic precedent.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. member aware
that, according to newspaper reports, the Conservative party, recognizing the wilderness into which they have wandered by their advocacy of protection, have repudiated it?


Alfred Speakman: I have read such reports, yes. Now, one more statement regarding conditions in Great Britain, unfortunately only too true as to the amount of unemployment there under free trade. Two million idle men have been walking the streets. I think perhaps the number is a little less now, but it is far too great still. But is that unfortunate condition due to free trade, or is it due to other factors? It seems to me that it is due, to a large extent at least, to elements entirely apart from free trade. To begin with, what country amongst the Englishspeaking nations of the world carried such a ponderous load during the war as did Great Britain? What country made such enormous financial sacrifices, not only to carry on her own part of the struggle but also to finance her allies? But in spite of these tremendous efforts what country is making such heroic endeavours to become again solvent, to meet her debts as they become due, to overcome the difficulties with which she is confronted? Whatever other factors may enter into our consideration of unemployment and industrial depression in Great Britain, to my mind the great outstanding factor is the dislocation of her markets as one of the after effects of the war. The disorganization of Europe has almost destroyed one of Great Britain's chief markets, and this disorganized condition has, in my opinion, been aggravated by the multiplicity of protective walls due to the Balkanizing of the Continent, preventing any reciprocal trade agreements and interrupting, and indeed blocking, the former channels of commerce. This I believe is one of the chief causes of the ' present insolvent condition of Europe, and the unfortunate effects I believe will continue until the cause is removed.
The hon. member stated, and it was concurred in by others in his part of the House: Some of them take the attitude-I do not attribute it to all of them-that the only wealth produced in Canada is that produced on the prairie farms.
I challenge him or any other hon. member to name a single member in this section of the House by whom such a statement has been made. I have never heard it, and I have followed the debates fairly closely. On the face of it the suggestion is too absurd to be taken seriously. The hon. gentleman proceeded :
Well I submit that the man who takes the raw leather and turns it into boots and shoes is just as much a creator of wealth as the man who raises the animals from which the leather "was taken.
Of course, he is a producer of wealth. Any man who does an honest day's work, who improves or creates any article, is a producer of wealth. We all know that, and nothing is to be gained by such trite statements.
The next observation made by the hon. member was in reference to a statement which he attributed to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) although I think it was another hon. member, but that does not matter. He attributed to that hon. member the opinion that having tried out protection for forty years, if at the end of that period our manufacturers could not stand on their own feet, they should go out of business, or words to that effect; and our critic suggested that that was as unfair, un-Christian and unCanadian as to suggest to the farmer who, after years of drouth, and notwithstanding unremitting hard work, found himself obliged to ask the government for assistance to buy seed, that he should go out of business.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that that is exactly a parallel case. If any farmer in my country had been bonused by the government for ten, fifteen, twenty or forty years, had been able to receive artificially enhanced prices for so long through the action of the government, and then found himself in such a position that he could not farm at a profit, I say that that man ought to go and do something else that he could do better.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Is it not a fact that a few years ago the Alberta government refused to extend further the seed grain assistance to farmers?


Alfred Speakman: Yes, they refused it; they found they had gone as far as they could go. I will leave that subject with one further comment. In regard to the suggestion that we were willing to sell ourselves for a mess of pottage, willing to sell ourselves

The Address-Mr. Speakman
for seventeen cents, I think the statement was, I want to say that it is hardly in accord with some of the statements made by certain hon. gentlemen during recent campaigns in the Maritime provinces, when it was alleged that the government had sacrificed the interests of Canada as a whole and of the Maritime provinces in particular, had sold the public good to the Progressives for their vote and had delivered the goods. Either statement might be correct, but both cannot be. I do not intend to enter into the merits of that election, but some of the statements that were made during the campaign, including certain statements of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter)-I regret to say it in his absence-were not calculated to promote unity and harmony in this country. To my mind it was the most outstanding evidence of parochialism in politics that it has ever been my bad fortune to see.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman, in justice to the hon. member for St. John, should at least quote the statements, and he could also quote some from the hon. member who is now Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin).


Mr. GAUVREAU:: What he said is known now all over the country.


Alfred Speakman: My only reason for referring-


Arthur Meighen: I asked the hon. member to quote them.


Alfred Speakman: It is a very easy thing to ask me to quote them when I have not the newspapers here.


Arthur Meighen: It would be a lot fairer, seeing that the hon. member for St. John is not here.


Alfred Speakman: My only reason for speaking of any one man was this: His addresses were reported, whether accurately or maccurrately, in every newspaper in western Canada, and they were the only ones that were quoted. Had remarks equally parochial been made by any other man of any other party and had they come to my notice, I would have referred to them just the same.


Arthur Meighen: No danger.


George Perry Graham: The question is, were they parochial?


Alfred Speakman: I have said all I wish to say about the address of the hon. member.
I hope I have done him no injustice; I have at least expressed my own opinions and my own feelings on the matter.

I wish now to turn to some of the suggestions which have been made in the Speech from, the Throne with a view to
4 p.m. alleviating the conditions which we
^	all agree now face this country.
The first suggestion made, and one of some importance, is that of economy. I shall not dilate upon that theme. The government will receive the support of every member of this House, I think, in any measure of wise economy which they bring forward. It is most desirable that there should be a cutting down of unnecessary public expenditure, and a reduction of the personnel in governmental service until each man and each woman does a fair day's work, if they are not doing it now-I am not acquainted with the facts. I do not advocate reductions of pay to the average man or woman; I believe in the principle which has been enunciated again and again that the labourer is worthy of his hire and that every man and every woman employed by the government should receive fair, decent pay and should give in return a fair, decent day's work.
Economy, of course, can be wise economy or unwise economy. Economy carried to such an extent that the public service would be starved and rendered inefficient might be termed unwise economy. There are times when developments are necessary for the carrying on of the business of the country, and each one of these expenditures, each one of these developments, must be considered as a business investment. I am not in favour of making grants of public money as such except under extraordinary circumstances. I am in favour of public money being loaned at times on such terms and to assist in such development as will bring an adequate return, not only in business, but in business that is sufficiently profitable to enable the setting aside of an interest and sinking fund on the amount loaned. From this point of view the matter could be considered as a strictly business investment. For instance-I simply mention this case because the facts are known to me

we have the case of Montreal, where the money loaned is scrupulously returned; the development is proceeding adequately and in all parts of the country there is a certain amount of satisfaction.
I would like to refer to three outstanding problems which not only face the people of the West and those of my own occupation but which directly and indirectly bear most heavily upon all the people. First is the problem of taxation. I shall speak briefly on those topics which have already been covered

The Address-Mr. Speakman
by other speakers, notably by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart), who dealt with them ably and eloquently. There are two or three points in this connection which might well be repeated, for the purpose not of reiteration but of endorsation and emphasis.
Speaking of taxation, we know that we are taxed heavily, and we know also that we must continue to be taxed heavily. Economy will effect some slight reduction in public expenditure, but the reduction can only be comparatively small, because a large part of our revenue is now taken up in the payment of interest and fixed charges which we cannot lessen and a large part of it is unavoidable expenditure which it would be folly to omit. Only a small portion of it, therefore, is susceptible of the application of measures of economy. Speaking offhand, I believe that if we could economize to the extent of twenty or twenty-five millions we would be doing very well, and that after all is a very small percentage of our taxation as a whole. The question, then, becomes one rather of how these taxes can best be levied and how they can best be paid so that business will be disorganized to the least possible extent and so that as little hardship as possible will be inflicted upon the individual. In that connection I am afraid I must differ from a good many members of the House who have spoken. Speaking from the point of view of taxation alone, commodity taxation, whether it be by tariff or by sales tax, is neither a fair nor an efficient form . of taxation.' During the last session of the House I had the pleasure of meeting some of the leading bankers of the [DOT] United States, who were in this country gathering information as to the effect of the Canadian sales tax on the different industries of this country. They had approached the different business organizations and they gave me an opportunity of expressing my views in the form of a memorandum, part of which I wish to quote. I was asked only two questions : What in my opinion was the effect of the sales tax upon agriculture, and what was the expressed opinion of the organized farmers of the West in that regard. What I said in that memorandum about the sales tax applies with about equal force to the tariff or to any other form of commodity taxation, that is, to any form of taxation by which we pay through the increased price that we pay for our goods. Perhaps it is not the proper term, but that is what I would call indirect or commodity taxation. I am not now considering the tariff from the point of view of the protection afforded; those are two separate
subjects, I am discussing it from the point of view of taxation and taxation alone. In the memorandum I am about to read, and I set out my opinions there as concisely as I could,
I state this:
The organized farmers of western Canada are not in sympathy with the principle of a general sales tax on commodities as at present applied, although realizing that it might with advantage be levied upon certain lines of goods, which might be termed luxuries. Their objections, which are the result of some years of careful study and observation, might be briefly summarized as follows:
1.	This tax levied at its source must inevitably be increased by the pyramiding of profits as the goods pass through the hands of wholesalers, jobbers, retailers: etc., with the result that the ultimate purchaser must pay a sum greatly in excess of the amount received by the federal treasury. Thus the present proposed tax of six per cent would approximate ten per cent as added to the retail price of the goods affected.
2.	A sales tax of this nature is unsound in its application, as it is not based on the taxpayer's ability to pay, but on the amount of goods which he must purchase. In that way it will increase in direct ratio to the number of dependents he may have, and might be approximately termed a "baby" tax, acting as a direct deterrent to the rearing of families.
3.	Under this tax also, the smaller a man's available income, the greater the percentage of taxation, as of course, a larger percentage of that income must be expended in the purchase of those taxable commodities.
4.	This tax bears with peculiar weight on the western farmer. Not only is he, in common with all consumers, taxed upon his purchases for household, family and personal use, but he must also pay this tax upon his instruments of production, his machinery, building and fencing materials, etc.
In this respect, of course, he is placed in the same position as the manufacturers of other products, but with this difference, that in other lines of industry, the manufacturer is enabled to add this tax to the market price of his goods, thus passing it on to the consumer, while in the case of the farmer, he must absorb it himself, as the market price of his products is set in the open markets of the world.
It has been stated by the advocates of this system of taxation that this is a method of "painless extraction". This might be taken as an insult upon the intelligence of the taxpayer, as a moment's reflection will show, that even though the money is extracted under the influence of a narcotic, upon awakening from his stupor the patient will find that not only is the money gone but that he has paid very highly for the sedative.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my opinion on taxation expressed as concisely as I could word it. I concede that it is a tax which no man can evade, every man must contribute to that tax. In talking about any form of taxation it is incumbent, of course, to make some suggestions for raising revenue. Well, in spite of the discussion upon the income tax, in spite of the suggestion that the income tax should be lowered, I believe that it is the fairest, most equitable, and the most economical form of taxation extant. The system by which we can take from every man a percentage of his net income graduated in proportion to the
The Address-Mr. Speakman

amount of that income, classified perhaps in accordance with the way in which he earns that net income, but a percentage taken from every man's income and taken directly, is, perhaps, Utopian. I can realize the difficulties of collecting such a tax, but I think we should place emphasis upon that as the mainstay, the backbone, of our taxation policy, and simply supplement it with further taxation as is found necessary.
Now, I must hurry on, I have already taken more time than I intended to. The next crushing weight which we are carrying is the cost of credits. I am aware that this is a question which will stand a good deal of discussion. I am aware that we are suffering from an extended credit, a too greatly extended credit in the past. I am aware of all these things, and I am not suggesting this with a view to obtaining any greatly increased credit for the farmers to enable them to buy more, to spread themselves on expenditure. I am not suggesting it so much from that point of view, as I am in order to provide a means of consolidating their present indebtedness, of refunding their present indebtedness so that it can be paid under terms that make repayment possible; and I am suggesting that we take an example from the precedent set by the United States in that regard. I suggest that we study the details and that we bring into effect if possible, and I believe it is possible, a sane and sound system of rural credits. We are, as I have pointed out before and I am not going to discuss it again, suffering under that pressure for the reason that our bankers cannot advance us the money we need on terms which will enable us to utilize it, and because the indebtedness carried now, even although in most cases the farmer still holds considerable equity in his property, forms a mountain upon his shoulders, with a high rate of interest which is accumulating all the time, rendering it impossible for him tc meet his obligations. My suggestion, carrying on the suggestions of other members, is that this government look seriously into the recommendation, the unanimous recommendation of the special committee on Agriculture last year, that they should consider most carefully any report which they may have received upon that subject, and that they should not only consider the question but should, if possible, act upon it. I know of no one thing in western Canada which would bring more immediate relief from our conditions than the adoption of a sane system of rural credits.
That brings me to the question of transportation, and again I am aware that we ean-
not materially reduce the cost of transportation unless we increase the tonnage which the railroads can carry. We know that. We cannot go on piling up deficits but I believe that we should at least have a fair equality as regards freight rates as between one part of Canada and the other part of Canada. That is all we are asking now. There should be a policy of some equality. It has been pointed out by my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Lucas) that discrepancy exists between the eastern and western rates-both prairie rates and mountain rates-a discrepancy which is not only affecting our own business but is reacting upon the business of the manufacturers and other industrialists in eastern Canada. The force of that was driven home to me peculiarly when I had the pleasure of visiting Vancouver during the early winter. On that occasion, amongst other things, I had the gratification of going on board the Margaret Coughlin, a pioneer in the inter-coastal trade between Atlantic and Pacific ports. I went through that great vessel which contained
8,000	tons of mixed cargo; practically everything you could name was there. I inquired of the agent what the average freight rate was upon these goods, and he told me fifty cents a hundred. That was the average on the freight from steel rails all the way to baby carriages between Montreal and Vancouver. Phis as compared with a rail rate which would average S1./0. Now, you can see, Mr. Speaker, the enormous impetus which would be given not only to our agricultural population, not only to the city of Vancouver, but to our eastern industrialists if we had equalized railway rates from the mountains to the coast, and had equalized rates from the port of-Vancouver back to the prairies. One of the great difficulties of the men here in the industrial centres is that they cannot ship their goods to us at a price at which we can buv them. That is one of their great difficulties. The cost of transportation is one of the prime factors responsible for that and if they were in a position to take advantage of a cheap water freight rate to equalize the haul to the prairie provinces. I believe eastern industrialists would sell fifty per cent more of their goods than they are doing at the present time. Not only that but it would also increase the value of our products. I believe the subject is one to which consideration should be given not only from our point of view but also from the national point of view-not so much the question of forcing our railways to carry at a loss, but the question of utilizing to the best advantage the cheapest and best routes which we -have. That is the point at issue in that connection.

The Address-Mr. Euler
I am not going	to debate the
question of protection and free trade. That has been dealt with, and my time is up. But I would like in conclusion to make a reference to that subject

I was going to say that tabooed subject-of national unity. It has been suggested that we should not talk about it, but should take it for granted. Nothing is gained, Mr. Speaker, by ignoring palpable facts, and the facts are that there is not the feeling of harmony between one part of Canada and another part that there should be. There is not that feeling of unity which we all desire to see. These are facts. Of course we all desire to see unity. One member desires it just as much as any other member, but the fact is that it is not there. I absolutely agree with the hon. members who have already spoken on that line, that we can only bring about that national unity of thought and spirit-I am not speaking of political unity-which is so desirable, if it is built upon an actual knowledge of the conditions prevailing in all parts of the country. From that actual knowledge is produced equality of opportunity and equality of treatment between one part of Canada and another, between one occupation in Canada and another occupation. We have been accused perhaps of speaking as a class, and we have been accused of speaking sectionally. It is not, Mr. Speaker, because we are not Canadians. We realize that these inequalities undoubtedly exist, because one occupation has not equal opportunities with another occupation, and one section of Canada has not been treated with equal fairness with other parts pf Canada and has not had the same equality; and realizing those facts, I desire to bring them to the attention of the House, not for the purpose of whining, not for the purpose of crying calamity and blue ruin, but in order that these facts may be given consideration, that the cause itself may be removed, and that upon the basis of equality of opportunity, upon the basis of just legislation as applying to every man, woman and child in this country, we can build a great, a prosperous and united country.
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) I desire, first, to join with those who have preceded me in extending congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. They have acquitted themselves with a great deal of credit to themselves.
There is from time to time, from year to year, during the course of this debate, a great deal of criticism in the press and elsewhere in regard to what is termed the waste of time in discussing the Address. I have never
found myself entirely in accord with that view. The Prime Minister has frequently said that he regards the cabinet as a committee of parliament. That is perhaps more or less of a polite fiction with this and other governments. But if the declaration be true, then it surely follows that the cabinet should desire to be informed of the wishes of the individual members of parliament, so that if they see fit they may incorporate into the legislation which is to be introduced to the House later the views which are expressed in debate. That should be done as early as possible, in order that action may be taken. The debate on the Address is the earliest opportunity that is presented to the members for stating their views. For that reason I believe that every man who desires to say something on the public questions of the day should avail himself of this opportunity to do so, but to do it as briefly as possible.
With much that appears in the Speech from the Throne I am in entire accord. The people of Canada will receive with a great deal of satisfaction the declaration that we are to have a reduction in expenditure. We are also to have a reduction of taxation-a taxation which has been so heavy that it has operated as a great drawback and handicap to the recovery of business and the restoration of general prosperity. The government is also to be commended and will receive credit, if it succeeds in presenting a balanced budget. It has been a matter of very considerable concern to the people of this country that up to the present time it has been found impossible to confine expenditures within the income of the government. These things it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, are paramount and the most important considerations, although a great many others could be mentioned of almost equal importance.
I propose to discuss four questions which in my opinion engage most particularly the attention of the Canadian people. I am not necessarily giving them in the order of their importance. These subjects are: taxation, with which is allied expenditures; immigration, our national railways, and lastly, the question of the tariff.
So far as taxation is concerned, I would like to reiterate what has been said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), that you may cut the expenditures to the bone and you would still have, necessarily, an expenditure of a large irreducible minimum. That means heavy taxation for a generation or more to come, and governments will not become more popular-I am not referring to this government or to any other
The Address-Mr. Euler

particular government-and governments will find themselves unpopular from time to time merely as a result of the fact that they must administer and levy heavy taxation. Governments will suffer for it. The present government cannot be held responsible for the heavy debts which have been incurred. I am not going into that question, and I am not going to place any blame for that, if there is any blame. The present government and succeeding governments will not be blamable for the taxation which must be imposed, but they will be held responsible by the Canadian people if the expenditures are greater and if the taxation is greater than need be. They will also be held responsible for methods of collecting taxes. I have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that we should confine ourselves largely to three great sources of revenue as simple as possible in their nature and mode of application. I might say to my hon. friend from Red Deer that I am not going to be dogmatic about this. It is merely an expression of opinion. One of these is a customs tariff. That is variable and will fluctuate from year to year according to the business done, and according perhaps to the rates that are applied. The second is the income tax. I believe in the income tax. I believe that those men who find themselves in receipt of heavy incomes as a result of profit being made because of the opportunities which they have in this country may very well be asked to give up some of those profits to the country in which they are made. I think, however, that certain changes could very well be made in the income tax. The collection of the income tax, and the making out of the various forms could very well be simplified. I would also say-and possibly my hon. friends opposite will not agree with me in this, that I do not believe it is a good policy to levy an income tax on an industry as such. If profits are made by an industry it would be to the advantage of industry and not detrimental to the national revenue if the income tax were levied upon the individual after he receives his dividends or his profits rather than upon the industry itself.
The third source of revenue which I have favoured' has been the sales tax. So much complaint has been made within the last year or two with regard to the sales tax and its operation, that my mind is quite open as regards changes which might profitably be made. Possibly a turnover tax, which is another form of sales tax, might be considered advisable. But so many suggestions have been made as to sources of revenue which
[Mr. Euler.l
the government might tap, that I admit I have not been able to make up my mind as to what is most desirable. I would however abolish what is known popularly, and quite properly, as the "nuisance tax." I have never felt that the tax which is levied in the form of stamp taxes upon cheques, bills of exchange generally, and latterly upon receipts also, is a tax that we should have. It is a nuisance tax, and that is chiefly my reason for opposing it, although, as a matter of fact, I can see no more logic in raising money by a Stamp tax than there was in the old days in levying the window tax which existed in England at one time.
Taxation should _be made as little annoying as possible, and from the political point of view, that is also very desirable. The fact that people have to pay taxes is in itself a sufficient reason for prejudice against the government that applies such taxes. If the necessity of paying is accentuated by the people being subjected to unnecessary inconvenience, that operates very much to the disadvantage of the government that is in power. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who was Minister of Finance in the former government, had an illustration of that statement. He applied the luxury tax. The luxury tax in itself was very objectionable, and the method of its collection was also objectionable. I believe it was a factor in the defeat of the government that went to the people in 1921. I am free to say, however, that was not the only factor. That result was really inevitable at the time. In passing,-and this is by way of parenthesis in relation to the collection of the luxury tax, -I believe this government has fallen heir to a legacy of obligation from the previous government in the matter of a tax collected upon automobiles, a tax upon which refund was not made when the tax was abolished. While it goes distinctly against the grain for any Minister of Finance to give up money that once gets into his treasury, I believe the government should repay to those automobile dealers money which does not properly belong to the people of Canada and which we should not keep, no matter how much we need it.
The taxation problem is an exceedingly difficult one. We have unprecedented conditions as a result of the war, and it follows just as naturally that we must adopt unusual and new means of levying taxes. For that reason, I am glad to note in the Speech from the Throne that the government proposes to appoint a committee to investigate and ascertain modes of taxation which might be

The Address-Mr. Euler
adopted. On that committee I would like to see represented the best thought of all parties in this House, so that they may make a report to parliament upon which may be based some system of taxation which will be satisfactory to the Canadian people.
I propose to speak for a few moments on the national railways. As a matter of fact, the national railways speak for themselves. I might say-perhaps I should not say it-that prior to a year or two ago, I had the doubtful honour, as it was considered at that time, of being practically the only member on this and almost so on the other side of the House who was in favour of public ownership of the railways and said so.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Oh, no. I was
in favour of it before the hon. member came into this House.


Mr. EULER:: If the hon. member will
just recall my words, he will agree with me. I said "almost", and I am quite willing to say that the hon. member who made the interjection a moment or two ago is the father of it all; that he has stood nobly by public ownership of railways when everybody else was against it and he was as a voice crying in the wilderness. I said that the railways speak for themselves. According to the figures of the president of the Canadian National Railways, Sir Henry Thornton, we have improved our position financially during the year. We have operated with an improvement over last year of some $18,000,000. I believe even the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) would no longer sell the national railways for a dollar as he was prepared to do a year or two ago-


Mr. LANCTOT:: I am ready to sell them for a dollar or even for seventy-five cents.


William Daum Euler: -especially when he learns that the president of the railways has predicted for next year a still further improvement of some thirty million dollars. I think the president of the Canadian National Railways is to be congratulated upon the success which he has achieved. He is making good. Of course he makes mistakes as do other people, and one of those was in connection with the purchase, or the manner of purchase, of a certain hotel in the city of Paris. But in a general way, he is making good, and he deserves encouragement from the members of this House.
I listened, with a great deal of interest, to the address of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) a few
days ago, who expressed himself as still unconvinced of the merits of public ownership of railways. I rather regretted to hear him say so. He had made such an excellent speech in every other way that I did not like to see his effort marred in that manner.
I should like to say to him and others who seem to have a mistaken impression of the purpose of national ownership of railways, that that purpose is not to make profits, but to give the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. Personally, I would rather be one to help pay a reasonable deficit from year to year, than see the railways of this country pass into the hands of any monopoly. I said that service was the purpose of public ownership of railways, and I know the members of this House who travel on the Canadian National Railways-and I hope they do, although they travel on passes -will admit that the service on the national railways has improved tremendously. It is not too much to say that the service on the other great railway in Canada has also improved, because that railway finds it is necessary to make improvements in order to hold its own with the national railways. All this is to the benefit of the whole Canadian people. I had the temerity to make the prediction last year on the floor of this House that in five years or less the Canadian National Railways would cease to be a burden upon the taxpayers of Canada. Sir Henry Thornton said a day or two ago that that period would be reduced by a year. He said that we	might expect the
Canadian National to cease to be a burden on the taxpayers of Canada in three years, and I believe he is right. When that time comes I expect that our levelheaded colleagues from the province of Quebec will agree with us that the national ownership of railways is a good thing. The Canadian National Railways are owned by the people of Canada. And they are here to stay, they will continue to be owned by the Canadian people; and I venture to make this prediction that if ever there is a monopoly of railways in this country, in spite of such things as "the whisper of death," that monopoly will obtain when the people of Canada own all the railways in this country; because they will not tolerate any other kind of monopoly.
I propose to speak for a few moments on the question of immigration. It is a truism, I think, that Canada needs millions more people. Sometimes the statement is made that we should have more people in this country in order to help us carry our debt. That I think is an unfortunate way of putting it. I should like to see more people coming to
The Address-Mr. Euler

Canada, but I want them to come because they find Canada a good place to live in, a country in which they can become prosperous and from living in which they can derive some benefit. I want people to come to Canada because they can be content and be willing, by reason of the benefits they get, to help in shouldering the debt. Last year there was a good deal of criticism with regard to some of the methods employed in the Department of Immigration. The restrictions, it was stated, were still too stringent. I agreed with that to some extent, and I do not think that the situation is entirely remedied at this time. We still have difficulties through the overzealousness of some of the officials overseas; and if these officials are not going to mend their ways at an early date they ought to be relieved of their duties altogther. I stated my position on immigration last year and I will state it again. I am in favour of the admission to Canada practically of all people who are healthy and white and who give promise of becoming law-abiding Canadian citizens, and, I would say, regardless of occupation and race. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) the other day. I hope I am not trenching upon a delicate subject; at least, whatever I say in this connection 1 say in entire good faith and I hope it will be accepted in that spirit. The hon. member said, in designating the races which he would allow to come to Canada, that he was in favour of the admission of the German people. For no reason that I can possibly imagine, when he said that, my friends sitting about me turned their faces in my direction. But they were friendly faces; and I might say here^ that I have always felt a great deal of gratitude to them as well as to hon. members on the other side of the House for the tolerant and kindly way in which they have always received anything I have said touching this subject. I believe they must have felt that, after all, they were in contact with one who was a Canadian of the Canadians, born and bred a Canadian, and yet never at any time ashamed of his forebears or of the race from which he came. When the hon. gentleman stated that these people became good citizens, he rather apologetically added, "in time." I was almost as much amused at that as my friends sitting about me. True, "in time;" and I think that if the history of these people is studied it will be found to be indeed a very short time. I know, Sir, that it is natural, after a war such as we have had, for hatred and prejudice to remain alive for a considerable time.


Robert Forke: You will give me credit for what I said?


William Daum Euler: I give the hon. gentleman credit and thank him for what he said. Now, while the feeling to which I have referred possibly is natural, I do not think it should be permitted to influence the minds of statesmen who are dealing with questions on their merits in the interests of the country. I wish I could take those hon. members who do not know these people to the city of Kitchener, or the town of Waterloo, or the town of Elmira, or to the farms of that section, to the counties of Oxford and Perth, to Renfrew, or perhaps to the Canadian West, and show them what has been done by these people in the way of helping to build up this nation. They are proud to be Canadians, and we may well be proud of them. They take their share in the industrial, social and educational activities of this country, and they have a commendable public spirit. They are elected to our councils, occasionally one is elected a member of parliament, and until recently, were considered not unworthy of elevation to that august body known as the Canadian Senate. I would say that if we could have more people of the type we already have we should welcome them in hundreds of thousands. They will not imperil Canadian institutions, because, in addition to the qualities of thrift and industry which they are known to possess, they have the faculty of adapting themselves to their environment, and they accept all the responsibilities and duties of Canadian citizenship.
And now I come to a subject that is perhaps of more interest than anything I have so far discussed: I refer to the matter of the tariff.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Do not spoil a good speech.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman apparently would be very much surprised-I hope, not disappointed-if I echoed some of the sentiments that, no doubt, possess his own mind. My position with regard to the tariff is fairly well known in this House, and at the present moment I refer to it only because, since the submission of the Speech from the Throne, for some reason or other, the press and members of parliament and others have gone into what seems something like a panic, which does not appear to be justified by anything that is stated in the Speech itself. Reading the Speech from the Throne I find the tariff mentioned but once, and that reference is as follows:
National unity, not less than national prosperity, depends upon the surmounting of those barriers which

The Address-Mr. Euler
have tended to separate western from eastern Canada and to discourage permanent settlement upon the land. Foremost in this regard are the problems incidental to tariff readjustments and to the marketing of agricultural and other natural products.
Every member of the House, I think, will subscribe to the declaration that national unity in Canada is desirable. I am not in the confidence of the government in this matter and I do not know exactly what is implied in the words " tariff readjustments." A readjustment of the tariff may imply an upward revision or a downward revision, or perhaps even both; and while certain meanings have been read into this phrase, and perhaps rightly so, I purpose to cross the tariff bridge when I come to it. The budget itself will disclose the policy of the government in this regard, and that will be discussed on its merits no doubt, when the concrete proposals of tariff readjustments come before us. Nevertheless I desire to make my own position clear. I want to discuss the subject in entire good faith from my point of view. I am from an industrial city. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) declared a few moments ago that he stood here to represent the wishes of his constituents; and that, Sir, is my purpose. I would say at the outset that I have every sympathy with the desires, the aspirations and the difficulties of the people of western Canada, as well as with those of our industrial communities. And I think that some of us, on this side of the House at least, may claim that we gave rather tangible proof of our interest in the westerner when, last year, we helped our friends opposite to obtain the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement. Tariff views, in my opinion, are very largely the result of environment and the personal profit which one may obtain from the tariff, either high or low. That opinion, perhaps will not be received with pleasure in some quarters, and my friends opposite may not agree with it, but 1 think an analysis of what we feel will convince us that this is the case. Selfishness, after all, is the most compelling motive in humanity.


Robert Forke: No, no.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend, I believe,
is an optimist, and it is well that he is; but nevertheless, I believe in the truth of what I have expressed. The westerner believes in free trade or lower tariffs, and I think this is because he feels that such a change would be for his benefit. On the other hand, the easterner-the manufacturer or the operative -believes in a protective tariff because he thinks it will benefit him financially. Both
are entitled to their opinions. Probably I could give no better proof of the soundness of this statement than by citing the example of the United States farmer. While our J Canadian farmer in the West is a free trader 1 or low tariff man, his brother in the United i States is a high protectionist. He caused a tariff of thirty cents a bushel to be placed against Canadian wheat, and he has recently succeeded in having it raised to forty-two cents. I do not care to confront my hon. friends with any more unpleasant facts, ' although I might mention others.


Robert Forke: Go on.


William Daum Euler: I might even mention the
question of oleomargarine to show that in some cases at least our friends are influenced-


John Livingstone Brown: Some?


William Daum Euler: Yes; in some cases our
friends are influenced by the principle of selfinterest.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Ninety per cent.


William Daum Euler: It has been said, that succes-ful statesmanship is a matter of compromise.
I believe this to be the case to a considerable extent. And it is necessary, if it is at all possible, for the people of eastern Canada and western Canada to do the very best in their power to reconcile their views. It may be impossible. We have four great zones in this country-the Maritime provinces, whose natural market is in the United States, which they would like to enter, and consequently they are a low tariff people; the industrial provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which contain great manufacturing plants and whose people in Very large numbers favour a tariff that will enable their industries to maintain themselves; the prairie provinces, whose interests are apparently different from those which I have enumerated; lastly British Columbia, whose interests vary again from those of their eastern neighbours. Canada is a difficult country to govern, Sir, and I should say that it is almost impossible to reconcile such conflicting Views in respect to tariff laws and satisfy everybody. What appears to me to be extremely regrettable is the atmosphere of suspicion that exists on the part of the East towards the West and, if I may say so, on the part of the West towards the East.
I fear-and my friends will correct me if I am wrong, for it is merely an impression I have formed-I fear our friends in the West have come to the conclusion that the manufacturer of the East has been making unduly large profits at the expense of the consumer, and
The Address-Mr. Euler

that he has no consideration for the difficulties of the westerner. I do not believe that is a correct conclusion. On the other hand, I fear that the manufacturer of eastern Canada-and I know whereof I speak-has formed the impression that the western free trader or low tariff man cares not one jot or tittle whether the industries of eastern Canada survive or not. I think they are both wrong, and I would urge upon both parties to try and get the other's point of view in an endeavour to reconcile their differences, else I do not see how Canada can survive or prosper as a nation. Surely it must be possible, as in the past, to have a great agricultural industry prosper along with a flourishing manufacturing industry in the eastern provinces or elsewhere in the Dominion. Perhaps both factions believe that the present depression is caused by the tariff-the westerner believing that the tariff is too high, the easterner that it is too low. The hon. member for Red Deer stated that the depression existed before the war, which is quite true; but I believe also that that depression would ere this have passed away if war had not intervened.
I believe further, Mr. Speaker, that both these opinions are wrong, and that the depression, both in our urban centres and on our farms, goes a great deal deeper in its causes, than the tariff, although the latter may be a factor. We have heavy taxes burdening industry and checking enterprise; we have high freight rates, bearing not only against the grower of wheat, but also against the manufacturer or anyone else who does business; we have besides these two factors the impoverishment and disorganization of the belligerent nations in Europe, who have no longer the wherewithal to buy the commodities which we formerly sold to them, and lastly, it may be that some of our difficulties could be remedied, wholly or partly, by improvements in our financial and banking system.
Now, Sir, I am free to say that in theory free trade is an absolutely sound proposition; but I would repeat-in theory. If, for example, all the peoples of the world were homogeneous, if they spoke the same language, if there were no international boundaries, then I think we would have the ideal condition under which trade would flow in its natural channels. The manufacturer, I would judge, would go where he could most efficiently operate his plant, having regard to raw material, labour, transportation facilities and markets. But that is only a theory, and for my part I am expected to deal with facts and conditions as they are. We have tariff walls all

about Canada. Practically every civilized nation in the world has tariff protection. The United States has a very high tariff; the other day, as I said before, they increased the duty on Canadian wheat to 42 cents a bushel. The hon. leader of the House (Mr. Graham) said the other day that he did not believe that " retaliation " was a good word. I am inclined to think that is true, yet I must admit that I have not attained to that complete state of sanctification, if I may say so, that impels me, when I am struck upon one cheek, to turn the other. Sometimes I am even tempted in a weak moment to say that the word " retaliation " in matters of trade is about the only word that our American friends understand and appreciate to the full.
I cannot argue effectively with the man who says that all tariffs, so far as their protective value is concerned, are immoral. I cannot quarrel with him; he may be able to make out a case from his own particular point of view. But I do say that circumstances alter cases. I want to lay it down as an axiom, and I believe that my Progressive friends will agree with me in this, that it is desirable that we should have a diversity of industries in this country. We cannot all be farmers. I agree with the member for St. Lawrence division-Montreal (Mr. Marler) when he says that we ought at least to manufacture in this country, so far as that may be possible, all the things that we consume. With tariff walls all about us I do not see how we can build u,p Canada industrially or even maintain the industries we have if we are excluded from the markets of our competitors while admitting them to equality in our own. That is a jug-handled condition that does not appeal to me.
I do not think, Sir, that I am open to the charge of being a high protectionist; and I am very glad indeed that when I make that statement my hon. friends opposite do not smile. But I am very much interested in the prosperity not only of the
5 p.m. farmers of my constituency but of all the people whom I have the honour to represent in this House. I think I may truthfully say that the tariff is not an issue with the farmers of my constituency. They appreciate that their interests are identical with those of the city of Kitchener, the town of Waterloo, or the town of Elmira.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Would the hon. member make that statement with reference to the whole of rural Ontario?

The Address-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: I make it only with regard to my constituency, but the conditions would probably be found similar throughout other parts of Ontario. If for any reason, whether it be tariff or otherwise, it should come about that the industries of the city of Kitchener, we will say, were destroyed, the result would react to the detriment of the Waterloo county farmer just about as much at it would to the resident of the city of Kitchener, because the market for much of the produce of the farmers there is in that city.
While I believe in a tariff; while I believe in a tariff for revenue and in a tariff that will maintain legitimate industry, I would not for a moment place any premium upon inefficiency on the part of the Canadian manufacturer. The Canadian manufacturer who takes refuge behind the tariff when he is not conducting his establishment or his industry in an efficient manner should not receive any consideration from the government so far as tariff is concerned, nor should he be permitted by reason of the tariff, to make undue profits out of the people. But I do believe, as I say, in the maintenance of our industries, because I believe they are necessary to the proper development of our country, and for that reason I could not favour any action that would prejudice the interests of the people whom I represent. I cannot believe that there is any intention on the part of this government to do that, because if I remember rightly there was a statement made during the election campaign that if this party were returned to power no legitimate industry would be injured. My attitude, therefore, is this: I am not stating today that the tariff should be higher or that it should be lower, but I do maintain that no drastic or serious tariff readjustment should be made without the most careful investigation as to the probable results of such readjustment. I think that is a fair attitude to take. Moreover, I do not believe that any Minister of Finance, no matter how capable he may be, has the time to find out for himself exactly the conditions that would justify tariff readjustment, and for that reason I have gradually come to the conclusion that the suggestion of a tariff commission is worth trying out. I believe it would be well if a body of men, unprejudiced-I do not adL vocate that they should be manufacturers or that they should belong to any one class; all classes should be represented-men whom we could trust, men really capable of forming a correct judgment with regard to the situation and the condition of our industries-should
make investigations and submit a report to the government upon which this House and the government itself could intelligently act.
I do not say that their report or their suggestions would have to be accepted, because I realize that in the final analysis the parliament of Canada must pass upon all matters of taxation.
I do not see what there is to be gained at the present moment by the making of slight tariff changes. A policy of nibbling has never appealed to me. I have heard it stated that the Speech from the Throne indicates that the tariff will be removed or lowered on agricultural implements. I do not know what is to be done, I would not for a moment have my remarks considered as being antagonistic to the farmers because I would like to see them purchase their agricultural implements as cheaply as possible. But I doubt whether any member sitting opposite would say that even if the tariff on agricultural implements were entirely removed he would be able to buy his implements any cheaper. The tariff was slightly lowered some two years ago, and I think you find agricultural implements just a little more expensive to-day than they were before. I do not think that the difference is the difference at all between prosperity and the condition in which the farmers find themselves now, and I give my hon. friends opposite credit for sufficient intelligence to cause them to recognize that. It might have this effect,-I do not know: it might create considerable satisfaction among our western people that at last, as they would say, they were advancing in the direction in which they desired to travel. But I fear that while they might experience a temporary glow of satisfaction, in the final event there would not be a great deal of benefit.
I am not sure whether I shall receive commendation from my hon. friends for what I am going to say now-


Mr. McMASTER:: Which group of hon.
friends?


William Daum Euler: Those to my right, including the hon member for Brome; I do not know just in which group to place him. I am not able to understand why there should be any discrimination so far as protection is concerned, against the manufacturer of agricultural implements. I have never been quite able to see the reason for that. If there is anything in the principle of free trade I do not see why consistently, it should not be applied all along the line. As a matter of fact the tariff on agricultural implements is,
The Address-Mr. Euler

as we all know, very low, something like 10 or 12-1- per cent, probably the lowest that is placed upon any commodity. That there is a monopoly cannot be maintained, because last year some twelve or thirteen million dollars' worth was imported into Canada.
I know the argument is brought that we ought to reduce the tariff on the implements of production. I have thought that over. I have not just been able to grasp the point as well as I might. Perhaps I am dull of comprehension, but I do say this, that the man who operates the plough or a binder, or who is engaged in the industry of fishing in the Maritime provinces, or who is in any way engaged in any of these primary industries, cannot follow his occupation without wearing warm clothing, boots and shoes, eat good food and have many of the other things that enter into our civilized life. For that reason, as I say, I cannot understand why there should be any discrimination as between agricultural implements and any other commodity that is manufactured in Canada. For that reason I should just like-it may not be necessary-to caution the government to go slowly in the matter. If, as I believe, no great good can come from the possible annihilation of an industry now in this country without benefiting anyone. I should say they would do well to go slowly in the matter. In a general way I should like to advocate a policy of considerable caution in a time of uncertainty and depression, lest it might easily be worse. The tariff is not perfect. I believe that the whole tariff structure ought to be overhauled. Three years ago we were supposed to have that brought about. We had a tariff commission, or a tariff committee of the government, go out through the country gathering information but nothing further was ever done. We should have a tariff commission, which might become permanent that would go out and come in with a report, and with information that would enable us to frame a proper tariff. That, if it could not be called a national policy, I might perhaps call a rational policy.
I should like, just in conclusion, to bring one other phase of the matter before the members of this House. I have thought of it a great deal and I see no solution except possibly^ a tariff solution of the question. I have said that I cannot argue with the man who says that the consumer in Canada is entitled absolutely to buy his commodities at the lowest possible price no matter where they may be produced. But I should like to put this situation before the members of the House, and it is not an imaginary one. It exists in

fact to-day, and is being aggravated from day to day. In the countries of Europe and Asia-to-day commodities can be manufactured a great deal more cheaply than they can be made in Canada.


Robert Forke: How should we get paid for our wheat?


William Daum Euler: I assume that I am too
dense just to see the application of the hon. gentleman's question.


Robert Forke: I am sorry to interrupt, I
should not have done so.


William Daum Euler: It is all right.


Robert Forke: We are shipping immense
quantites of wheat to Europe, and we must be paid for that. What return are we going to get for the commodities we send to Europe? How are be going to get paid for them?


William Daum Euler: I am not now arguing for a prohibitory tariff. I have never done so, I am not proposing to do so now. I am placing before you a condition that confronts us, a condition with which we will have to deal in some way or other. There can be manufactured in England, in Germany, perhaps in France, I know in Italy, and in Japan, articles for from one-quarter to one-half and two-thirds of the price for which they can be made in this country. And they can be so manufactured and sold in Canada because of currency depreciation for one thing and the other-and I want to deal more particularly with it-the fact that wages are much lower in those countries. Now, I want to say here that I am not in favour of reducing the wage of the Canadian worker, and I do not say that with any ulterior motive at all. I have been a worker myself and I know that the Canadian worker is not paid too much for his toil. He is entitled to receive a wage that will enable him and his family to live in comfort, to have a few pleasures, and to lay by a bit for his old age and for a rainy day. That principle, I think, ought to receive the support of every member of the House. Now if I am right that these goods can be manufactured at an infinitely cheaper price or cost than they can be in this country, if they are admitted to Canada on an equality or without any restrictions-I will put it that way, if they can be admitted to this country without any restrictions whatever-this result will follow; that Canadian made goods cannot be sold; that Canadian factories will become idle; and that Canadian workmen will be out of a job. I am just stating the fact,

The Address-Mr. Eider
and I would like to ask what is the solution of that condition?


Robert Forke: I do not like to interrupt
very much, but according to my hon. friend's argument Canadian goods can only be sold in Canada; there is no market elsewhere because we cannot produce goods to compete anywhere else in the world. Now, supposing we have more production than we have consumption, what is going to happen?


William Daum Euler: I think the hon. gentleman is hardly justified in stating that I said Canadian goods can only be sold in Canada. I thought I made it clear that we do sell goods and that we will continue to do so under all circumstances.


Robert Forke: Excuse me, that was an inference I would draw from your speech- that goods are manufactured cheaper all over the world than we can manufacture them for in Canada; consequently our Canadian manufacturers ought to have protection. Was that not your argument?


William Daum Euler: I said nothing of the kind.


Robert Forke: Excuse me, I thought you
did.


William Daum Euler: I did not say that goods
could be manufactured in all parts of the world cheaper than they could be in Canada. My point is this; I do not feel like supporting any policy that is going to place the Canadian working man in competition with the labour that lives on a lower scale in the countries of Europe and Asia.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not true that our greatest competition in manufactures comes from the United States.


William Daum Euler: My answer to that would
be that at the present moment the Canadian manufacturer is not making any particular complaint with regard to competition from the United States-I do not think so, and I have some one hundred and fifty or od1'-hundred and seventy-five manufacturing establishments in the riding from which I come-but he does say that the competition from the sweat shops, if you like, of Europe is more than he can compete with. We have in the province of Ontario-and this may be news possibly to some of my hon. friends-we have in the province of Ontario what is known as the minimum wage law. Under that our people are compelled to pay a certain minimum wage, and that wage, paid under the provisions of an Ontario Act, is higher in many instances than the wage that is paid in these foreign 18
countries. I believe such a law is good in principle. There is a condition I am pointing out. But for myself I must say that I am not in favour of anything that will pit the workingman of my constituency against the cheap sweat shop labour of a foreign country, where people are living under conditions under which they should not live.
I may just for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, refer to a specific commodity,-and we are always more or less interested if concrete examples are given,-and that is the commodity of boots and shoes. There are some ten or twelve boot and shoe factories in the riding I represent. To-day, because of the rate of exchange, because of difference in wages, large quantities of boots and shoes are being imported from Great Britain. The ordinary duty on boots and shoes, is I think, 30 per cent. On account of the preferential tariff, that duty is reduced to something like 17J per cent. I do not think the boot and shoe worker is over-paid, and I believe our boot and shoe manufacturing establishments are operated efficiently. The average wage of the shoe worker in my city, and I think throughout Ontario, is something like $23 a week. In Britain the wage is in the neighbourhood of $12 or $13. Then there is a difficulty with which our manufacturers are confronted. The depreciated currency of the European countries operates against them. A suggestion has been made-and it appeals to me-that in connection with importations it would be fair, that on those goods, when they enter a Canadian port, instead of the duty being based on the depreciated currency, it should be based on a fair valuation of the commodity in Canadian territory.
I wish to say a word or two upon what is perhaps a delicate subject, the preferential tariff. It has not been mentioned to any extent. When that tariff was introduced 1 suppose it was for reasons which seemed quite sufficient at that time. I suppose my friends opposite are in favour of a preferential tariff on the score of sentiment. Perhaps they are.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Very good. I thought possibly they were in favour of it because it led in the direction of free trade.


Robert Forke: Both.


William Daum Euler: The point I am trying to
make is that there is no sentiment or very little sentiment in business. Trade and commerce are carried on between individuals on a basis of value for value.

The Address-Mr. Euler


Robert Forke: That is the principle we
believe in.


William Daum Euler: And to get something for
something. I say that is the principle upon which individuals trade, and I do not see any reason why nations should depart from that principle. These questions ought to be settled on their merits. I do not think there is any doubt that Britain herself deals with these questions on their merits. As my hon. friend suggested a moment ago, Britain placed an embargo on Canadian cattle, and they had a perfect right to do so, and we had no right to take offence, except for the fact that the reason that was given by them for that embargo was not the real reason. The embargo was placed on Canadian cattle ostensibly to protect British cattle from disease, but the real reason was to protect the breeder of British cattle. Last summer the Prime Minister attended the Imperial Conference at London. At that conference, as hon. members know, the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, made a suggestion of a preference within the Empire. Hon. members all know what happened. At the elections Mr. Baldwin and all his policies were rejected by the British people. I say that only to emphasize the fact that the people of the Mother Country are legislating entirely in their own interests, and I am sure that, with the spirit of British fair play that exists there, they can have no possible objections if we legislate in exactly the same way. When 1 entered upon this subject, I said it was perhaps a delicate subject, and I am going to leave it with these words-that it matters little to the Canadian manufacturer, if his British brother puts him out of business rather than his American cousin, or anyone else on the face of the earth; the result is exactly the same.
I have spoken longer than I intended, and perhaps some of what I have said is entirely premature. My position finally is this, that I favour a tariff such as will assist us in the raising of our revenue, and a tariff that will enable us to maintain industries that are legitimate in every way. I hope the government will bear that in mind when framing any tariff policies they may have in contemplation.
I represent a constituency with an industrial population of thousands of people. Towards these workmen as well as the farmers in my constituency I feel a very keen sense of responsibility. My pledge to them at the elections of 1921 was to guard their interests to the best of my ability. That pledge I mean to keep according to my best judg-
ment, and that pledge is not inconsistent with the declarations made by the leaders of the present government in the elections of 1921, that if they were returned to power no legitimate industry would be injured. And, Sir, I have no knowledge, and no expectation that this government will injure any legitimate industry, and 1 am making the statement only in order to make my position clear. I received, Sir, last year in good faith, and with approval the declaration of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who I wish were here, that henceforth there should be reasonable stability of tariff. I would still commend that to the government as a good policy to follow.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: figures from the Bureau of Statistics dealing with settlers' effects exported to the United States. For the twelve months ending January, 1923 their total value amounted to $6,420,026; for the ensuing twelve months to January, 1924 I find the greatly augmented total of $9,669,731; while for the month of January alone, this year, settlers' effects were exported to the value of $559,198. So there is no diminution in this exodus southwards, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be checked by the intimation in the Speech from the Throne that a further reduction in the duties on manufactured goods is contemplated. Instead of causing these Canadians [DOT] to return to the Dominion it is likely to confirm their lack of confidence and aggravate their embarrassment, and must of necessity react very much to the disadvantage of Canada. Then the promises of reduction in taxation, of strict economy, of a balanced budget, of civil service reform-all these promises I am afraid will be of little avail to counteract the lack of confidence which our people have in any pledges of this government ever being redeemed. Each issue of promises is worth less than the preceding one and declines in value as rapidly as the German mark.
What is the actual position to-day of the government? They appear to have dropped their financial pilot, to have abandoned the policy of stability which he so well enunciated in his budget speech last session; the compass is not working; the chart has apparently been lost; there seems to be disagreement and threatened mutiny among the crew; the political fog is thickening, and the ship is drifting towards the rocks of defeat. And in the opinion of a constantly increasing number of our people, including many of the former friends and supporters of the government, the sooner the wreck occurs the better.
On motion of Mr. Raymond the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 13, 1924