1924-05-09

REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou, Minister of National Defence) presented the first report of the special committee, to whom was referred Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, as follows
Your committee, in accordance with a resolution adopted at their meeting held this day, recommend that it be given leave to have its proceedings printed from day to day for the use of members of the committee and of the House, when deemed advisable, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended; also that it be given leave to sit while the House is in session.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
He said: With the consent of the House I would move the adoption of this report.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, we are not at all instructed and therefore are in no position to consent. My hon. friend had better let the matter stand until the next sitting, or give notice in the usual way.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The report simply asks leave for the committee to sit while the House is in session. It was concurred in by all the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It also contains a recommendation that the proceedings be printed. I do not know whether everything ought to be printed or not.


Mr. BELAND:: Perhaps my hon. friend
would be in a better position to form an opinion if the report was read to the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I heard it
read.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You are an obstructionist.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all; I
am simply insisting upon the observance of proper order and decorum.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations, severally praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada, be not enacted:
Knox Presbyterian Church, Goderich, Ontario,-Mr. King (Huron).
Gordon Presbyterian Church, Edmonds, New Westminister, B.C.,-Mr. Clark.
Presbyterian Church Association, Port Arthur Branch, Ontario,-Mr. Kennedy (Port Arthur and Kenora).
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House to incorporate the United Church of Canada be passed during the present session:-
Central Methodist Church, Stratford,-Mr. Reed.
Presbyterian Church, St. Peters Bay, P.E.I.; Methodist Church, Gladstone, Man.; Methodist Church Manitou Man.; United Church, Saltcoats and Perley, Sask.; Trinity Methodist Church, Manitou, Man.; United Church, Church at Henford and Pleasant River, N.S.; Presbyterian Church at Dalhousie, NJB.; River-dale Methodist Church, Toronto, Ontario; F. L. Campbell and 73 others of Ottawa, Ontario,-Mr. King (Huron).
Presbyterian Church, Raymore, Sask.; Knox E. E. Alger and 22 others of Lumley, B.C.; Presbyterian Church, McGreary, Man.; Highlands Methodist Church, Edmonton, Alta.; Presbyterian Church, Manitou, Man.; Carleton Methodist Church, St. John, N.B.; Presbyterian Church, Darlingford, Man.; Union Church, Kennedy, Sask.; Fort Rouge Methodist Church, Winnipeg, Man.; Camille Presbyterian Church, Holland, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Thornhill, Ont.; Union Church, MacGregor, Man.; Presbyterian Churches at Pefferlaw, Sutton West and Egypt, Ontario; Methodist Church at Sutton, Ontario; Union Church at Trout Mills, Ont.; Douglas Methodist Church, Montreal, Que.; Union Church, Hanley, Sask.; Presbyterian Church and Methodist Congregation, Holland, Manitoba.- Mr. Johnston.
Methodist Church, Hamilton, Ontario; United Church at Tatamagouche, N.S.; Presbyterian Church at Selma and Noel Shore; Methodist Churches at Unionville and Milli-ken, Ontario; Knox Presbyterian Church at Redvers, Sask.; Donald MacLeod and 30 others of Bengough, Sask.; Methodist Church, Constance, Ont.; United Church at Bins-carth, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Wal-
[Stage Direction]
United Church oj Canada-Petitions
laceburg, Ont.; Union Church, Oyama, B.C.; Calvary Congregational Church, Westmount, Quebec; Methodist Church at Arnprior, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Kansack, Sask.; Methodist Church, Thorold, Ontario; D. A. McLennan, and 33 others of Mather, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Mount Hope; United Churches at Colgate and Ingleford, Sask.; United Church at Silverton, Man.; Methodist Church, Hamilton, Ontario; Presbyterian United Church, Lamont, Alberta,-Mr. Man-ion.
Westmount Methodist Church at West-mount, Quebec; Central Presbyterian Church at Hamilton, Ont.; Methodist Church, Blenheim, Ontario; Victoria Ave. Methodist Church at Brandon, Manitoba; Presbyterian Church at Bristol; Presbyterian Church at Longford; Ridout Street Methodist Church, London, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Kenmore and Marvelville, Ontario; Central Methodist Church, Windsor, Ont.; United Church, Newdale, Man.; Methodist Church at Ingersoll, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Oak-burn, Man.; Central Methodist Church at Moncton, N.B.; Chaljners Presbyterian Church,, Quebec, Que.; Union Church at Wey-bum, Sask.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches at Rouleau, Sask.; Methodist Church, Vancouver, B.C.; Presbyterian Church at Bar River, Maclennan and Desbarats,- Mr. Black (Yukon).
Presbyterian Church, Yarmouth, N.S.; L. M. Hayden and 7 others of Montreal, Quebec; Methodist Church at Stanstead, Que.; United Church at Metz and Dracon; Methodist Church at Canton, Ont.; Chalmers Presbyterian Church, Lansdowne, Ontario; Wan-stead Ave. Union Church, Toronto, Ont.; Methodist Church at Tintern, Ont.; Union Congregations at Hearst and Hazel, Ontario; Methodist Church, Shetland; Congregational Church, Rock Island, Quebec; Methodist Church, Coaticook, Ontario; Methodist Church, Elora, Ont.; Union Church, Cardale, -Mr. Sexsmith.
First Methodist Church, Brandon, Man.; Union Church, Angusville; Union Church, Earlton; Methodist Church, Bruce County, Ont.; Methodist Church, Bethesda, Ont.; Union Church, Winnipegosis, Man.; Methodist Church, Arkona, Ont.; Union Church, Morris, Man.; Union Church, Manor, Sask.; Windermere Ave. Methodist Church, Toronto, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Bethune, Sask.; Methodist Church, Southwold, Ont.; Minto Presbyterian Church, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Methodist Church, Shedden, Ont.; Methodist Church, St. Lambert, Que.; United Presby-

terian and Methodist Congregations, Minesing; Methodist Church, Baptiste, Ont.; Cooks Presbyterian Church, Kingston, Ont.- Mr. Ladner.
Presbyterian Church of Upper North River; Presbyterian Church, Elizabeth Bay, Ont.; Methodist Church, Eburne, B.C.; ' United Church, Capreol, Ont.; Methodist Church, Oakland; Presbyterian Church at Victoria Mines, Ont.; Methodist Church, Lake Saskatoon, Alta.; United Church, Shepard, Alta.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, Port Hood, N.S.; Mrs. J. W. Thring and 16 others of Wiste, Alta.-Mr. Warner.
Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, Aylmer, Ont.; Centenary Methodist Church, Montreal, Que.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, Vars, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Vasey, Hobart and Hillsdale, Ont.; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Westmount, Que.; of D. Cryderman and 55 others of Nor-ham, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Virgil, Ont.; Davenport Presbyterian Church, Toronto.-Mr. Morrison.
Presbyterian Church, Alton, Ont.; Union Churches, Carnarvon, Bethany and Blairhamp-ton; Methodist Church, Ripley, Ont.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Methodist Churches in Hay Bay, Gretna, Anderson, Oshawa District, Ont.; Emmanual Congregational Churches, Montreal, Que.; Presbyterian Church, Merivale, Ont,; Well-ourn, Ont.; First Methodist Church, 'Hamilton, Ont.; Methodist Church, Picton District, Ont.; Methodist Church, Inverary, Ont.; St. John's Presbyterian Church, Belwood, Ont.- Mr. Hopkins.
Methodist Church, Hudson, Que.; Methodist Church, Kentville, N.S.; Methodist Church, Richibucto, N.B.; R. S, Boyle and 91 others of Cobden, Ont.; Methodist Church Rocanville, Sask.; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Wingham, Ont.; Sydenham Street Methodist Church, Brantford, Ont.; Union Church, Wilcox, Sask.; C. W. McDonald and 47 others of Bengough, Sask.-Mr. Clark.
Methodist Church, Bolton, Ont.; Methodist Church, Yarmouth Centre, N.S.; of J. Stood-ley and 12 others, of Ganges, B.C.; Kensington Church, Montreal; Methodist Church, Port Lambton, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Steveston, B.C.; Methodist Church, Staffa, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Lulu Island, B.C.; Methodist Church, Fort Frances, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Kelfield, Sask..; United Church, Viscount, Sask..; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Tugaske, Sask.; Broadway Methodist Church, Winnipeg, Man.; St. Paul's Methodist Church, Morden, Man.; Ruther Glen Presbyterian Church, McAuley, Man.;

United Church of Canada-Petitions
Nokomis Union Church, Nokomis, Sask.; Methodist Church, Culloden, Ont.; St. James Square Presbyterian Church, Toronto,-Mr. Spence.
Presbyterian Church, Kenton, Manitoba; Methodist Church, Escott, Ont.; United Church at Chipman, Alberta; Methodist Church, Madoc, Ont.; First Presbyterian Church, Hanna, Alberta; Presbyterian Church, Ogden, Ont.; Methodist Church, New Ontario; United Church, Taber; Knox Presbyterian Church, Lynn Valley, B.C.; Centennial Methodist Church, London, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Antelope; Carseland, Alberta; Methodist Church, New Castle, N.B.; Ukrainian Presbyterian Church, Winnipeg,Man.; Methodist Church, Port Perry, Ont.; Presbyterian United Church, Rainy River, Ont.; Methodist Church, Fordwick, Ont.; St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Agricola, Alberta; Central Methodist Church, Woodstock, Ont.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Church, Sunnyside, Alberta.-Mr. Baxter.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
lay on the Table further correspondence between Canada and the United States with reference to the St. Lawrence waterway project; also copies of orders in council respecting the appointment and personnel of the Canadian National Advisory Committee, the Canadian members of the Joint Engineering Board, and the Canadian technical officers who are to confer with the technical officers of the United States respecting matters to be submitted to the Joint Engineering Board.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jessie Ruth Haverson.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Foord.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harold Gordon Hendry.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Karl Peter Hansen.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 92 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Hadden.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), for the relief of William James	McLaughlan.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 94 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alyce Wilson.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 95 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lemuel Burkett.-Mr. LeSueur.
Bill No. 96 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Ewart Gladstone Pettinger.- Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of Anna McGeachey.-Mr. Sheard.
BONUS TO DISABLED VETERANS On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the government to a report in this morning's Ottawa Journal, as follows:
There never was a trace of downheartedness among the members of the Amputations' Association assembled in convention here this week, but if Canada's maimed war veterans required a cheering message, it was forthcoming last night, when Hon. Dr. H. S. Beland, Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Public Health, speaking at the dinner given at the Chateau Laurier, assured them that legislation would be introduced at this session of parliament making permanent the cost of living pension bonus to permanently disabled. Dr. Beland's announcement was received with thunderous applause and deafening cheers. It was the government's reply to the demand of the members of the Amputations' Association of the Great War for a definite decision of the bonus matter.
I would like to ask the government whether that is a correct statement of the government's policy in this regard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) is not in his seat at the moment to reply on behalf of the government to my hon. friend. My understanding is that at the banquet last night the minister spoke, after the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) had spoken, with reference to the matter to which this report relates. He intimated that he felt quite sure that all parties in this House would be ready to agree in the matter of making permanent the bonus of the disabled men. In speaking in that way he spoke with the full concurrence of the government.


George Black: I take it, then,
that that is the government's policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
what I have said would indicate that it is,- yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everybody else has spoken. We are all helping you.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May S, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a basis for the contribution which I propose to make to this debate I desire first of all to recite some obvious facts and then to outline certain problems and perplexities facing the people of this country, whereupon I shall offer to the House what I believe will most effectively assist in dealing with and solving these problems and perplexities. In the first two divisions of my remarks I hope to carry with me the united approval and concurrence of the House; in the others I know I shall enter upon controversial ground, because there is room for difference of opinion. In respect to these I shall merely attempt to present what I believe to be in the best interests of the country under the circumstances.
In the first place, let me direct the attention of the House to something which perhaps it is wholly unnecessary to state, but which I refer to merely for the purpose of laying a basis for what I shall say later. Canada is vast in area, but it is divided into two general sections by a great V-shaped plateau stretching from the shores of Labrador southwesterly into Ontario, taking in the northern part of Quebec and Ontario, then proceeding westerly, taking in the northern half or more of Manitoba and the northern section of Saskatchewan and touching the northern half of Alberta. This great plateau, a vast area of forest and lake wilderness, has formed what has sometimes been described as the despair of the statesmen of Canada. It contains, however, great mineral wealth.
In natural resources Canada is peculiarly placed, in regard to forest and fisheries, mines, arable land and water-power-the latter particularly I shall bring to the attention of the House. In fact, Sir, we have every prerequisite necessary for a great nation, industrial, agricultural, and scientific. In addition to this, Canada has peculiar advantages in markets and transportation. We have the Great Lakes transportation facility, unexcelled in so far as inland waters are concerned, by any country in the world. We have systems of railway transportation which are unequalled, considering the nature of the country. Consequently we may say that our transportation facilities are of the highest type. So far as markets are concerned, on the east we have reasonably ready access to Europe and its great markets, and on the west coast we have access to the 
great, new and growing markets of the Orient. In spite of these advantages-geographical, marketing, climatic, transportation and natural resources-we find a condition of depression and anxiety pervading this country; industry is languishing and agriculture is complaining; taxes are high, and emigration, to the United States in particular, is becoming alarming. The question I want to put to the House is this:	What is the trouble; what is
wrong with the country? I hold that it is the duty of members of this House to solve, or attempt at least to solve, this problem.
Let me, as the second point, state what I believe to be the problem. I think the House will agree that the problem facing Canada today is, first, lack of true national co-operation. The country is divided occupationally as well as geographically. I have pointed out the geographical division of the country by that vast area north of lake Superior in northern Ontario which constitutes a hiatus between the East and the West, and, as I say, there is an occupational division as well as a geographical one. Second, there is a financial stringency; there is a peculiar difficulty in getting credit, at least on the part of certain sections of the community. Third, capital is becoming timid and is not investing in Canadian enterprise and development as we would like. Fourth, although transportation facilities are unexcelled in their magnitude and in their distribution over the country, nevertheless there is a grave shortage of tonnage for the transportation facilities that we enjoy. I think the House will agree that that is a fair statement of fact. .
Now I come to the third part of my remarks, which will almost certainly be controversial. The function of parliament, as I understand it, is to determine what general policy or political principle shall be applied to the solution of this problem. It is the peculiar function-indeed, Sir, the duty-of parliament to search out some general policy that will meet to the fullest possible extent, and solve, the problems and perplexities that confront the people of Canada.
From time to time in debates and discussions in [DOT]this House there are those who are, perhaps I might say, allied to the new political school of thought. My hon. friends to my left call it the Progressive party; it is designated in different ways; some call themselves Independents, and so forth, but those who belong to that school of thought sometimes reproach us who still hold allegiance to the old parties with being more or less reactionary, and also with being really Conservative or Liberal, as the case may be.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
by birth, rather than by reason and by choice. Now, in case that that charge may be levelled against me, and in order that I may offer what argument I have to offer, with, shall I say, a brand of independence attached to it-let me say to those who offer this criticism, that my recollections of politics dated back to my early days when I went down through the streets of old Bristol to a polling booth and waited while my father polled his vote for the late William Ewart Gladstone. He, grand old man, very naturally you would expect me to say, was a strong supporter of Mr. Gladstone, and a Liberal all his life to the day of his death in 1894. Now, as to the background of my political persuasion from the standpoint of reading. I early took an interest in political economy and political works. I remember very early in my life, long before I exercised the franchise, reading with a good deal of interest Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, and the utterances of John Stuart Mill and others; I merely cite this to show that the background of my political faith and my early persuasion as far as I was concerned personally, were Liberal and not Conservative. But when the ballot was placed in my hands in this country, when I became of age, I addressed myself as well as I could to the decision that I was bound to make as to my political alliance and I came to a decision at that time based upon arguments which I thought were sound" then, and which I think are sound to-day, and which I purpose bringing before the House this afternoon, that the great National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, as preached and taught and practised by the Conservative party was the best political doctrine for the development of the Dominion of Canada. I merely cite that by the way, and I hope that I may be acquitted at least of the charge that I am following this course simply because I was born to it, when, as a matter of fact, I was not.
My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) the other day in a public speech he made, referred in a manner of ridicule, I think, to those who reasoned, as he said, from the past down to the present; in other words, he intimated that those of us at least who hold the Conservative faith, were far behind the times. Indeed he took us back to the time of Bacon, and said that ever since that time that form of reasoning had been abandoned and that it was altogether out of date. I was interested in reading his
speech and I turned up a quotation that had occurred to me some time ago from Bacon, which I will quote to him and to those interested in that particular school of thought as worthy of their consideration. Bacon has this to say in his Advancement of Learning:
Antiquity deserveth that reverence, that a man should make a stand thereupon and discover what is the best way; but when discovery is well taken, then to make progression.
In other words, translated into what might be called the parlance suitable to the discussion before us, these words mean that we should bring from the rich storehouse of experience and history all the knowledge we have, to bear on the problems before us for consideration, determine what is the best course to pursue, and then make progress. And, that, sir, is the true modern Tory doctrine; that is what the Conservative party believes in. We believe in holding to such institutions and such things and policies as time and experience have proven to be sound and true, but not to hold to them as they applied one or two or three hundred years ago, but having searched out from amongst them that which is still applicable to modern problems, to take our stand there and make progress along the line of sound and reasonable development.
There is another school of thought which might be called the school of experimenting with parliamentary and governmental affairs. That school includes those who are restive- shall I say?-under some of the old institutions. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), the colleague of my hon. friend from East Calgary, gave us a very eloquent address the other day, but one of the things above all others that ran through his address was a repudiation of things that have been in the past, and an impatience with such: and this school of thought desires to enter into experiment with untried and unknown practices in regard to government.
With this extreme school there is allied what might be called the opportunist group, and with that group I classify my hon. friends opposite, particularly as exemplified in this budget-opportunists who, counting noses in the House of Commons, and finding they are a little short, ask: "What shall we do? Why, across the way,"-'angularly opposite,' as it were-"is a large group which may be tickled into supporting our proposals and our government if we can concede something. What shall we concede? What is the minimum?" And so certain tampering, certain meddling with the fixed and proven-sound policy of the country is indulged in for the sake of getting a little support. So
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

I am justified in saying to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he and his party can properly be classified as belonging to the opportunist school of political thought.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I take my next step. I want to examine as to what principles and policies can best be applied to the development of Canada's natural resources, the illimitable resources of this vast estate which is committed to our care to develop and administer. We are, as it were the directors, the trustees, of this great estate. Now then, what policies shall be applied to this estate so as to bring forth a maximum of reward to Canada as a whole? Last year the province of British Columbia produced 22 varieties of mineral products; I am merely citing this as an illustration I have the list under my hand, with the tonnage and all the rest of it. Now, a large proportion of the 22 varieties of the mineral products that were mined in British Columbia went out of Canada in an undeveloped, raw condition. What advantage is it to Canada to dig out of the ground a ton of copper ore, which is nothing more than ordinary rock until the processes of science are applied to it, if all that Canada gets out of it is the labour cost of extracting it from the ground? And then we take that ton, and thousands and millions of tons as we are doing every year, and send it across the border, for what purpose? That it might there be brought to a high degree of manufactured perfection; that is what we are doing and have been doing in greater or less degree in Canada. I know it maybe thrown back at me: Oh, but you have had a protective system in Canada to a degree. But as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the protective system in Canada has been very near the margin of a free trade tariff during recent years. There has been a process of attrition going on for many years in connection with the Canadian tariff.
Now, what policy shall be applied? The more highly manufactured the article the greater the man-earning value to the country that produces it; that I think is a sound principle in economics, and one, I think, as to which no one will differ with me. It is told of Michael Angelo that on one occasion he was showing one of his masterpieces to a friend, and he showed how by a touch here and a touch there he had brought out the full perfection of this marvellous work of art. The friend said, "Oh but these things are mere trifles." Michael Angelo replied, "True, they are trifles, but trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." Now that same principle can be applied to industry. It may seem a trifling thing to take 
off or lower the duty on an industry comparatively small like the one I have under my hand that makes rods, and bolts and nuts; it may seem a trifling thing, Mr. Speaker, by reducing the tariff to put a little industry like that out of business. But I remind you, Sir, and the House, that these trifling industries, so described, lead to the perfection of national industry, and perfection in national development is no trifle. Canada must preserve to its industries the home market and, what is of greater importance, secure entry for its merchants and manufacturers under favourable terms to the markets of other countries. This must be secured through a fiscal policy of consistent and adequate protection. There are those in the House who will at once repudiate that argument, but I am not seeking to argue the point with the mind that is closed. Still I do invite consideration and attention to this suggestion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the tariff has three peculiar functions to perform, a fact, I think, which very often is overlooked. We hear a great deal about the protective function of the tariff. That is only one, and to my mind, a minor function of the tariff; it has two other functions to perform, and very vital and important functions: One is to preserve the home market, to which I shall make further reference in a moment. There is the further function, which to my mind is the most important of all-the tariff constitutes a bargaining power in the hands of a government. Now let me examine those three functions.
First, the function to preserve the nome market. Mass production is the chief competitor of Canada; it is the chief competitor of any manufacturing industry whether it is in Canada or elsewhere. This great problem of mass production is, we know, one of a wholly technical character. May I in passing suggest this-and I wish not to dwell upon this more than a moment because I know it is unnecessary for me to do so; hon. members are just as close students of these subjects as I am: Does not the great British Empire, spread as it is all over the world, having dependencies in every corner of the world and existing under every climatic condition-does not this great Empire offer itself in a peculiarly advantageous manner for the development of the mass production of commodities indigenous to the countries which form its various parts? I should like to suggest that the policy of Canada should be not only to preserve the home market

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
for the sake of home industries, but to erect a protective policy for Canadian industries so that those industries might co-operate with the industries of Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, and other parts of the Empire, and enter upon a scheme of mass production enabling them to compete with the great manufacturing countries of Germany and the United States, our chief competitors.
Now, let me give an illustration of what mass production can do. I have in my hand a detailed statement, which I purpose dealing with when we come to consider the schedule, covering logging and saw-mill machinery. It will be recalled, Sir, that in this budget the government have reduced very materially the duty on manufactured articles of this class. I am simply going to make a statement of facts at this time; later I shall argue the point in detail. The present reduction in the duty on logging machinery will affect thirty-seven firms in British Columbia who are now producing this class of machinery at a cost no higher than is the production cost and the sale price in the state of Washington, and taking no advantage of the duty. The duty simply gives to the Canadian firms all of the Canadian market or practically so. These firms employ 1,555 men at good rates of wages, 4 p.m. with an annual pay roll of $1,817,489. Now, the question naturally comes up: If these establishments can compete with the Washington firms and do not take advantage of the duty then they do not need the duty. That is the argument. What is the answer? It is a very simple and very pertinent one; it is this. The duty in this case preserves the home market to the Canadian firms, and there are a number of them-I have the names of four or five firms under my hand that manufacture this equipment; they constitute a kind of competition among themselves. The standard logging equipment will cost about $13,000, and it is sold in British Columbia, as I have intimated, at the same rate as the same equipment was sold for in the state of Washington, and in many cases a little less. But take off the tariff, or reduce the tariff to a very low rate-which practically means that it might as well be removed entirely-and what is the result? The duty into the United States for our manufacturing concerns is 40 per cent. If the duty into Canada is removed, or almost all removed, the Washington manufacturer has his own market still intact, and he has a share in the Canadian market, whereas the Canadian manufacturer
is unable to get into the Washington territory at all and his home market is divided. Let me give an illustration-a typical case. I will take a firm with a capital of $100,000. It should be allowed as part of its overhead charges 7 per cent interest on its capital, that is $7,000 per annum. The cost of its sales management and staff, oversight of the staff, and so forth, will be $18,000; of insurance, taxes, advertising, and incidentals, $15,000; making the total overhead charges on its operation $40,000. Its output amounts to $500,000, or about that, and it turns out fifty units at $10,000 apiece. Now, if the Washington concern can take half its market, reducing its unit output to twenty-five, what is the result? The overhead charges against that unit in the first instance was $S00, but the minute you cut its output in two you simply double the unit cost of the overhead charges and raise it to $1,600. In other words, by the sharing of that market, without any interference other than that, you increase the cost of this article to the British Columbia firm by the sum of $800. That is an illustration of what is done when you deprive a manufacturer of the home market.
Now let me take the next step and that is the protection. I say the tariff should protect, it should protect industry against a lower standard of living. I notice that one or two hon. gentlemen in this debate rather ridiculed that. Well, I hold in my hand a statement by the Department of Labour, an official statement, showing the Minimum Wage legislation of Canada. Five provinces in Canada have a minimum wage, and I want my hon. friends to the left to mark this, that in every instance, in every minimum wage law in Canada, the agricultural industry is exempted. I am not saying this with any desire to reflect on that industry, I am merely stating a fact, that in Canada, as in other countries, the agricultural industry has always been exempted from this-what shall I say? Arbitrary law. But other industries, particularly the manufacturing industries, are not only saddled with this obligatory law but they are subject to another law, which is a good law, and that is the workmen's compensation act. But, Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot enforce this class of legislation compelling the manufacturers and operators to maintain a certain minimum standard of wages and then ask them to compete in an open market with countries where no such conditions maintain. I pointed this out in figures in regard to the woollen industry:	In Canada the minimum
wage is double what it is in Great Britain. Now, these are stubborn facts, and so I say
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

one of the functions of a tariff, and one of the duties of a government, is to see that Canadian industry is protected in regard to the minimum wage.
Also, it is the function of a tariff to protect industry against competition with countries with depreciated currencies. This is, perhaps, one of the most dangerous rivalries that we have to-day in regard to modern competition. I hold in my hand at the moment a prospectus or circular of a certain American company, George Borgfeldt & Co., of New York. This concern has been appointed, so he declares, by D. & W. Gibbs, of London, as the sole distributors of a long list of German goods for the United States and Canada. These goods are sold to the public as English goods. I have under my hand, for instance, their own circular, and on one of the articles I find a very handsome comb marked the "King Edward" comb. Supposing a very ultra loyal Britisher, like, let us say, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), steps into a drug store and picks up a comb-like myself he does not need one very badly-and he sees this comb stamped "King Edward" He does not have to ask, so he would think, whether this was made in Germany or Canada or Great Britain; it seems to speak for itself That is the competition which we are up against, plus the advantage given to the German exporter in regard to the depreciated currency credits of his country Let me give the House briefly two items in regard to this. Last year, 1923, we imported from Germany $4,959,000 worth of goods upon which the total duty paid, including the dumping duty and every other charge of that character, was $1,030,000, or about 20 per cent. How can Canadian industry be expected to compete with German industry on that basis? I am quite aware of this, as some hon. gentlemen will in a moment point out, that some of these goods were admitted free. That is true enough and the duty on the dutiable portion would be higher; but what I am giving to this House is this stubborn fact, that Canadian industry is competing to-day with German industry with a protection of 20 per cent which is not enough, and I do not think such competition is possible once the facilities of Germany for export and import are increased as they undoubtedly will be if this condition is continued.


Mr. EVANS:: How much did we sell to
Germany?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have the figures here fo.r every country in Europe, but I did not wish to go into too much detail. I will give 
the figures to my hon. friend-my object today is not to go into analytical detail, but rather to touch upon certain general points. We sold to Germany more than $14,000,000 worth.


John Evans: And we bought only $4,500,000 worth?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, but that does not alter the fact in the slightest degree. My hon. friend is drawing this red herring across the trail about paying for exports with imports. I will deal with that in a moment. It does not alter the fact that we imported $4,959,000 worth upon which duty amounting to $1,030,000 was paid, which duty as a matter of fact, amounts to about 20 per cent.


Mr. BRISTOL:: What is the rate of wages in Germany as compared with the rate in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no comparison at all. I have not those details at hand, but they do not detract one iota from the point I am making. The policy of the government as regards dumping is of a kaleidoscopic character. Apparently just before the budget was introduced and there was evidenced a necessity for something to be done, the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau), conceived the idea that there should be a suspension of the 5 per cent advantage under the dumping clause, and he promptly suspended it. It was very useful because it rather solaced some of the manufacturers, at least whose goods were being affected. But then there was a caucus, we are told, of my hon friends to my left, at which caucus a great deal of indignation was expressed when it was discovered, after two or three weeks, that this suspension had occurred, and the sensitive faculties of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) received from this comer of the House sensations of alarm. The radio, as it were, conveyed to him the fact that there was some possibility even of a desertion in this corner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend, since he has spoken of a caucus in this connection, that no such subject was mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not suppose the right hon. gentleman would be at a caucus of the Progressive party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean the caucus to which my hon. friend refers. He said that the Liberal party had a caucus, I understand.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean the caucus of the Progressive wing of the Liberal party, not my right hon. friend's caucus. The facts are, however, that the suspension of the 5 per cent allowance in the dumping clause was itself promptly suspended. The next move, we are told, is this: Some ambiguous piece of legislation, the contents of which are not revealed-are carefully concealed, as a matter of fact, until this budget is passed-is going to be brought down. We do not know what the terms of this legislation are, but the Minister of Customs and Excise indicated, in his manner if not in his words, that there would be a restoration of the first suspension. if I might so term it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think his -words carried that interpretation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I admit his words did
not, I said his manner; I am making a guess and I leave it at that. When this legislation comes down, I expect to have the privilege of reminding the Prime Minister that I had guessed fairly correctly.
The third function of the tariff is that of a bargaining power. The tariff gives to the government something with which it can trade with the government of another country. This I conceive to be of great importance. All hon, gentlemen will, I think, admit that it is desirable for a country to gain favourable access to the markets of another country. In these discussions we must not be carried away by glittering and spectacular theories; we are dealing with stubborn facts in the form of governments of foreign countries, enactments of foreign parliaments. There they are before us not only as they are to-day, but as they have been decade after decade. That is what is one of the difficulties of the Mother Country to-day, recognized by it; it cannot make any bargain with the countries of Europe because its own markets are open. The axiom is often given expression to in this House, that exports must be paid for with imports; and this I admit is a perfectly sound argument. But it is within the right of a people to determine, first, what products shall be exchanged and, secondly, upon what terms such exchange shall be made. That is the right not only of this country but of every other country besides; the principle is recognized the world over. I repeat, it is the right of this country, nay, it is its duty, to determine what products shall be exchanged and upon what terms, provided that it protects the interests of its own people by imposing a substantial tariff upon the countries into whose markets we have no favourable entry. In other 122
words, there are goods from countries which hold a very high prohibitive tariff against us; and against the imports of such countries I believe that Canada should maintain a substantial tariff. On the other hand, having given that protection to our people, we owe it to our friends who give us a favourable entry to their markets to accord them a reciprocal advantage. And that is one of the functions of the tariff; you cannot have that bargaining power unless you have a substantial general tariff.


Mr. FORKE:: Is my hon. friend willing
to give Great Britain the same advantages that Canada enjoys to-day?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We enjoy no advantages
in the British market.


Robert Forke: Our goods do not enter the British market on the same terms as their goods come into Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Great Britain gives us no preference at all; let us get that fact clearly. There was a slight preference which was in force for about a year as a result of the Geddes resolution, but we get no advantage in the British market to-day for it has been repealed by the present government in Great Britain.


Robert Forke: How can you say that you
get no advantage when you get all that is going?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say we get no advantage in the British market.


Robert Forke: But you have free trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not we who have
free trade; they have.


Robert Forke: You reap the benefits of
free trade in the British markets.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is impossible to get
through that barrage. However, I must refute that assertion; we have no preference in the British market. On the other hand, we give to Great Britain 50 per cent, and in many cases a great deal more than 50 per cent, of an advantage in our market. The thing is all on one side. I have no objection to giving a preference to Great Britain; indeed, I want to extend that preference to South Africa, to Australia, to New Zealand, to India and to other parts of the Empire. But having said that, let me add that I want a preference in their markets too. I do not say that we should get a preference equal in every detail to that which we give them, but it should be commensurately so at least. And it is the function of the government to do its best to bring that about.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Robert Forke: That is the doctrine which
Joseph Chamberlain tried to put over thirty years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite right; and my hon. friend interjects that remark at exactly the right point; for my next observation is this: Canada simply must have a tariff if she is to expand and develop. Conditions here are not similar to those that prevailed in England at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws. The assumption, in the interruption of my hon. friend, is that conditions in Canada are the same as those that obtain in England and that we ought to fail in our advocacy of this policy because Joseph Chamberlain failed in Great Britain. But what are the facts? We have an abundance of raw material whereas England then imported most of hers. In the second place, we have food to export in very large quantities whereas England imported her food. And while our industries are new and undeveloped, the industries of Great Britain at that time were transcendent. Again, our population is sparse and scattered over a vast area; England's is large and compact. These facts cannot be escaped; they constitute an absolute difference in conditions as between Canada and Great Britain. And, Sir, these are the things that persuaded me years ago that the policy for Canada was the so-called National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. I am glad my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) interjected the remark he did, because I have under my hand a quotataion from John Bright which is apropos.


Robert Forke: We have heard it before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is murmuring away; if he has some observation to make I shall be willing, as I always am, to yield him the floor. On February 2, 1839, speaking at Rochdale, at a great open air mass meeting John Bright moved the following resolution of which I would ask hon. members, and particularly my hon. friend, to take cognizance:
That the Corn Laws have had the effect of crippling the commerce and the manufactures of the country, have raised up rival manufactories in foreign countries, have been most injurious and oppressive in their operation with the great bulk of our population, and working classes have been grievously injured by this monopoly of the landed proprietors.
The Corn Laws were an agricultural protection; they protected two elements in England, the landed proprietors and their tenants. And you may discern all through the works on Bright and Cobden, all through their speeches and their biographies, from one end to the other, a prevailing dirge of condemna-

tion of these two elements, the proprietors and their tenants. Indeed, one of the things complained of at this very time was the fact that the tenants of the landed proprietors were getting wealthy at the expense of the manufacturers. Trevelyan, the biographer of Bright has this to say, following immediately on the resolution I have quoted, and it is interesting; it elucidates the resolution:
The tariff that organized the ruin of the British manufacturer did not even pretend to give him protection . . . only a very small part of the tariff was directed to excluding foreign goods of the kinds which they were producing. ... In 1840 out of more than twenty million pounds of revenue raised by customs, the amount levied on plea of protection of British manufacturers scarcely exceeded a million sterling.
The quarrel, then, was with the unreasonable Com Laws; and I myself think they were unreasonable. The country had grown, the population had increased, and Great Britain needed foreign corn. But she had persisted in the retention of these laws. And all through the discussion of the introduction of free trade into England, the Manchester Exchange, the Liverpool Exchange, the Birmingham Exchange, John Bright, Cobden and the whole movement from beginning to end defended the manufacturers as against the landed proprietors,-a condition that does not exist in this country at all. Now, I have outlined in comparison the natural conditions of the two countries; and similarly the social and economic conditions in Canada are exactly the reverse of what they were in England at the time of the repeal of the Com Laws.
I know there are those who say that we should reduce the tariff, do away with these onerous taxes, and levy an income tax. Let me examine that proposition briefly. Cobden and Bright, the great exponents and apostles of free trade, both opposed the income tax and opposed it vigorously, indeed bitterly. Bright opposed it in 1842 urging instead a property tax' on all land and buildings. Why did he urge that tax? Because the land and buildings belonged largely to the landed proprietors and not to the manufacturers. And furthermore, he advocated that the manufacturing industries should be exempt from the income tax. That, however, is by the way. Let me now turn to the income tax. If you introduce free trade you will have no industries, you will lower the earnings of the people, and you will reduce the source from which income tax to-day is very largely derived. That is an obvious fact, and my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) ought to recognize it. Undoubtedly every move that is made to interfere with the prosperity of our industries, tends to diminish the source of supply of our income tax. On the other

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
hand, encourage industrial development stimulate manufacturing, give an opportunity for reward for private enterprise, and you will undoubtedly increase your income tax.
I do not think there can be any question of this. And I say to my hon. friends to my left, by all means keep an eye upon the income earnings of the industrial magnates of this country. I do not suggest for a moment that they should foe excluded from payment of income tax. But at least give them a chance to prosper so they can pay such a tax.
I believe also that the tariff should be generally applicable to all classes of industry.
I am absolutely opposed to the principle of this budget in reducing the tariff on certain industries instead] of dealing with industries as a whole. Canada is a large, sparsely settled country with industrial interests that perhaps are not exactly similar everywhere; but in the fullest sense of the term the tariff should apply equitably to all classes of industry. Furthermore, the tariff should be stable in its character, not subject to constant change and variation. Nothing is so harassing to a business or a financial man as to be constantly faced with the apprehension that overnight the tariff may be changed and large quantities of goods on hand or on order, seriously affected by such tariff changes. Nowadays a firm dare not issue a catalogue, for it does not know from hour to hour what tariff changes may be made. Tariff stability, voiced so eloquently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)-whom we miss so much from this debate-is what we require to-day.
Now, Sir, I turn to a brief consideration of financial stringency. It is obvious, I think, to all of us that the troubles of Canada are not caused exclusively by tariff tampering. Those engaged in agriculture in Canada as in all other countries, are suffering severely, particularly the fruit growers and the wheat growers. The one-crop farmer always suffers more than the general farmer. In certain sections of California the grape grower is and has been suffering very severely. So, too, with the wheat grower of North Dakota and other states. The wheat growing section of Canada is suffering more than other sections, as is also the fruit growing industry of the Okanagan. The prairie farmers, for instance, complain, and I think their complaints are well founded, that they are heavily in debt and time loans are very hard to get and very dear. One difficulty that is constantly referred to by my hon. friends from 122i	.
the prairie provinces is that the farmer there is heavily in debt and finds it very difficult indeed to get money.
Let me draw a brief parallel between the financial stringency in Canada and the international financial problem. We have two viewpoints internationally of this problem: One is exemplified in Great Britain, the other in Germany. Germany refused to acknowledge her war debt, she complained of the burden, and she indulged in repudiation so far as her internal debt was concerned, she also sought a moratorium, and she has been constantly asking to be relieved of her obligations. The longer she persists in that policy so much the more deeply is she becoming involved so far as her indebtedness is concerned. Great Britain took another view; she acknowledged her debts in full, she cheerfully agreed to pay them, and she attacked the problem by imposing very heavy taxation. As a result she inspired confidence in the financial world and funded her great debt in the United States.
Now, what is wanted in Canada in connection with this financial stringency to which I have referred is some sound policy which will enable the farmer of the West particularly to fund his current indebtedness. My hon. friends, I think, will all agree with me that that is one of the most crying needs of the West to-day. It does not profit us nor will it get us anywhere to say to those debtors that they needlessly went into debt in some cases, or that it was through over optimism in other cases; the fact is they are heavily in debt, this indebtedness is drawing large rates of interest, and the farmers cannot fund it. What is required to meet the situation is an opportunity of funding their current debts by term loans at reasonable rates.
Naturally the question arises:	Where is
this credit to come from? During the past eight years there has been withdrawn from investment in mortgages and stocks and bonds about two billion dollars of Canadian capital, which has been re-invested in Victory bonds. That represents about the Canadian holding of our war debt. Let us pause to consider what the effect of that is. If you withdraw from mortgage investment the capital of insurance and loan companies and private individuals and tie it up in Victory bonds to the amount of two billion dollars, the money is virtually frozen credit. This is a serious thing. If time permitted I would be prepared to discuss this subject at length. Suffice it to say that one of the functions of parliament to-day is to take that great problem into consideration and find out if there
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

is not some way of liquifying this frozen credit and releasing it for re-investment in the funding of the western debt the encouragement of eastern industry, and so forth. Give to the farmer of the West a chance to fund his accumulated debts, and spread repayment over a long period of years, and you. will go a long way towards bridging the gulf which now exists between his cost of production and the low market value of his products.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to another problem, the solution of which is really another aid to relieve depressed agricultural conditions as well as industrial stagnation, and that is transportation. I have already intimated that Canada has unparalleled railway facilities. What we do require very urgently is increased tonnage for our railways and a more equitable adjustment of freight rates. Tonnage may be increased very materially and very rapidly by the encouragement of industrial development in the Dominion. It has been demonstrated that for every ton of freight which goes out of a factory from three to twenty tons enter. In other words, eVery industry not only gives to the railway the tonnage of its output, but it gives the tonnage of its inward freight amounting to from three to twenty times as much.
I have under my hand an illustration of this, the facts in regard to a factory in western Ontario that has shut down because of the tariff readjustment proposed in the present budget. The company in question has been paying S 12.000 a year to the government in income tax, sales tax, and so on, and it has been paying freight to the extent of $80,000 a year. You are shutting that factory down; you are lowering the revenue of the National Railways and of the Canadian Pacific by $80,000; you are depriving the treasury of $12,000 in taxes, and you are destroying 29,000 tons of freight per annum. That is the case of a small factory making bolts and rods. It is one of the "trifles" of which we hear in connection with the tariff question, but, which, taken with innumerable other factories of a similar character similarly affected, has a mighty influence upon the industrial prosperity of the country.
Give the producer of Alberta and Saskatchewan an equitable freight rate to the Pacific comparable with its rates eastward and you will contribute much toward the solution of this problem. I am not going to enter into any argument as to that, but what I do waDt to point out is this: We have the problem of the tariff and the effect which {Mr. Stevens.]
interference with it may have upon traffic. We have the problem of financial stringency and we have the problem of transportation. It is the duty of this government, it is the duty of this parliament to examine into all these and to see whether something cannot be evolved that will constitute a remedy. I hold, Sir, that the difficulties and perplexities of the people may best be solved by erecting a substantia] protective tariff for the industrial life of Canada, thus giving an impetus not ' only to industry but also to other branches of commercial activity.
I have spoken too long, but will the House listen to me just for a moment while 1 give three word pictures of incidents that came under my own observation within the last two or three weeks? I was out to my home on the coast a week or two ago, and was returning on the Canadian National. As you proceed over the mountains eastward, the great Yeliowhead pass opens up and on either hand you have the towering, snow-capped peaks of the Rockies, a sight, Mr. Speaker, Which stirs the innermost aspirations of the soul. As we came out through the pass the sun was setting; gradually it dropped behind the mountain tops farther west. As its rays receded the valleys and the gorges on either hand turned to a deep purple and; then assumed an appearance of gloomy density, having the effect of sending a chill through the observer. But as I glanced up at the mountain peaks I saw that they were still lighted by the rays of the setting sun which had been withdrawn from the valley and it struck me that those great peaks were as beacons of light to encourage one to greater and better efforts. Then we came on eastward, and the second day we were passing through that forbidding territory in northern Ontario. That section is always a puzzle to me; it is baffling, and in some respects it is almost, I was going to say, repulsive. There we have the problem of northern Ontario with its lakes and its burnt-over forest lands. As we came along I saw a little cabin in a clearing of about five acres, and at the door stood a woman, cheery of countenance, and around her four little children clinging to her skirts and waving to the train as it went by. Out in the little patch of cleared land was the husband preparing the soil for his spring crop, and the thought came to me that this man with his wife and children was solving the problem of northern Ontario which has so long been baffling the statesmen of this country. Then there was another scene, set in a town of Ontario which I visited a few weeks ago.

The Budget-Mr. Eider
I went into the home of a man who for fifty years had worked in the same factory. This type of artisan is the despair of socialist agitators and economic faddists; they do not understand him; they cannot classify him. But there he was, a splendid Canadian citizen, over seventy years of age and still working in the factory where he had toiled for fifty years. I sat and chatted with him and with his wife. He took a great interest in parliament, looking upon it as an institution of great influence and power. I felt that I was in the presence of one who merited my homage, because his life was based upon very simple principles, and in following out those principles he was accomplishing a great deal. His life was that he honoured and revered his God, honoured his king and dealt honestly and faithfully with his fellow men.
These three incidents seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a fair picture of Canada. The glories of the Rockies and the beauty of our lakes and our rivers, the fertility of our soil and our great resources-these constitute the body of Canada. But the soul of the country is to be found in the lives and characters of those humble individuals who day by day are solving these problems while we very often sit and waste our time. I felt, Mr. Speaker, and I feel it now, that it ought to be a sufficient reward to any of us to be permitted to share in some measure in the shaping of the destinies of this great country, and in doing so to aim at making it worthy of the sacrifices and of the courage of those pioneers who in the prairies, in the woodlands and in the mountains, are devoting their lives to the development of Canada.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, when the Speech from the Throne was under discussion some weeks ago I took occasion to give my views fairly fully on the principles involved in the budget now before the House. For that reason I propose to make my observations at this time as brief as possible.
If, Sir, there were no such thing as party politics, and if men were therefore able to judge of the annual financial statement and the proposals made by the Minister of Finance strictly on their merits, then I presume no budget ever framed by the most capable Minister of Finance would receive either unqualified approval or disapproval. I do not count myself an extreme partisan, and for that reason perhaps, I find in the present budget much that commends itself to me as well as proposals of which I do not entirely approve.
May I say at the outset that I sincerely congratulate the government on the surplus which they have declared for the year just closed. I know-and I see that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is shaking his head,-that objection has been raised as to the bona fide character of the surplus. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur), whom I desire to compliment on a most excellent speech, temperately delivered and well reasoned, threw some doubt upon the character of the surplus. While they did not declare themselves explicity on that point or state definitely their reason for believing there was no surplus, yet I did gather from their remarks that in some mysterious way the expenditures made for the railways on capital account had some bearing upon the surplus. Now, Sir, I have made some little study of accounting and I think I have possibly some reason for saying I can form a business judgment with regard to matters of this kind, and I say that if the sum of $50,000,000 expended by the National Railways in the way of betterments has been entirely expended or partially expended in that way, it has no effect upon the surplus at all.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I ask a question?
The hon. member knows I appreciate his intellect. We take a mortgage for the advance, do we not?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
consider that mortgage an active or a nonactive asset? '	.


William Daum Euler: I say that if the expenditures have been made out of these moneys for the purpose of adding to the assets, in the way of equipment and betterments to the railways, a purpose which will enter directly into the earning power of these roads-if they have been made for that purpose they do not affect the surplus in any way.


Arthur Meighen: That is not an answer to the question.


William Daum Euler: Then I misunderstood the question.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows we take a mortgage for the advance, whether the advance is for betterments, or for any capital purpose or any other. Does the hon. member consider that mortgage an active or a nonactive asset of Canada?
The Budget-Mr. Euler

us


William Daum Euler: Here is the very point I
want to comment upon. It is apparent to me *that the leader of the opposition and those who have spoken already are, as I have already said, confusing the issue; I am not trying to attribute to the hon. leader of the opposition any lack of understanding of financial questions or a lack of understanding of ans? other kind, but I do say that there seems to be a confusion between an asset and a surplus. If a liability is contracted, whether it be for the National Railways or for any other active purpose, if it is contracted for the purpose of establishing or forming a corresponding asset, I say that liability has no connection with the surplus for the year.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. member
will admit there is no interest paid on the mortgage, will he not?


William Daum Euler: I do not know that.


Arthur Meighen: If what the hon. member says is right, there are at least $350,000,000 of similar securities in the treasury for capital investment which should be deducted from the present national debt.


William Daum Euler: The $350,000,000 of capital
invested, I should judge, consists not entirely of moneys expended on assets for the National Railways, but expended in many ways to wipe out deficits of former years-which are losses, of course.


Arthur Meighen: No, but capital investments exactly similar to this the hon. member says do not affect the debt. If that is correct, all these non-active assets so invested should now be deducted from the national debt, indeed, should never have been added to it.


William Daum Euler: I am not contending that the debt has not increased, but I am contending that an increase on the debt if you have a corresponding asset, an asset in this case that will directly influence the earning power of the National Railways, cannot be considered as affecting the surplus one way or the other.


Arthur Meighen: Whether it pays interest or not? Does the hon. member say all the other mortgages taken from the National Railways which do not bear interest should now be deducted from the national debt, seeing they were added before?


William Daum Euler: I am not going to be misled into saying something I did not start out to say. What I say is this: If the moneys expended for the purpose of betterments on the Canadian National railways, and those having a direct effect upon their earning power, were spent for that purpose, then the surplus 
for the year is not affected thereby. I take it a surplus means, in the ordinary acceptation of the term in business, the excess of revenues, in this ease taxation and perhaps other sources of revenue, over ordinary expenditures for the year; in other words, it is known as a profit in business; we perhaps do not speak of it in that way in connection with the national finances. That is my contention, that the creation of a debt, if a corresponding asset is thereby established, does not affect the surplus for the year.


Arthur Meighen: There is some use talking with the hon. member, and therefore I embrace the opportunity. If we build a post office it enables the Post Office department the better to earn their revenue, probably to earn more. It is an asset that we possess, does the hon. member argue that the cost of that should not be part of our national debt?


William Daum Euler: The hon. member misunderstood me entirely. I am not arguing about the debt. There is no question that the debt has been increased, but I say the government has a right to make a statement at the end of the year of the moneys which have been expended for services and which will never come back, and set against that the amount received by way of taxes or from other similar sources; and if there is an excess of receipts over expenditures there is a real surplus by the amount of which the debt can be reduced, and if the excess is the other way there is a deficit. That is my understanding of accountancy. I shall be very glad to argue the point with my hon. friend on another occasion.
So, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely congratulate the government on its surplus. Possibly the leader of the opposition will contest that when he speaks next week. I congratulate the government on the improved financial position of the country, and not least on the improved condition of the National railways.
But when I say that, Mr. Speaker, I want also to add that in my view the budget has certain serious defects, certain errors of omission, and of commission as well. I regret, in the first place, that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has not seen fit to abolish those taxes that are sometimes, and so appropriately, called . the nuisance taxes. From the outset of their imposition under the former government I have opposed the stamp taxes upon commercial paper, and more latterly upon receipts as well. I have never been able to see that a tax so irritating in its nature, and one that is not based upon any logical principle, should have been imposed upon the people of Canada. Further, when the

The Budget-Mr. Euler
taxes for the ensuing year were being reduced by the removal of the sales tax in certain instances, I should have been glad if the government had at the same time considered the reduction of postage from three to two cents, believing it would not only be in the national interest, but that it would not have reduced the revenues in any degree whatever.
I regret also we have had no pronouncement, except perhaps with regard to one small item, with regard to the income tax. I should like to see some modification and some simplification of the income tax. I was more disappointed with regard to one thing perhaps than with regard to anything else, and that is that we have had no announcement from the government with regard to the creation of what is sometimes known as a tariff commission, and without the knowledge that only such a commission can give we have had some haphazard reductions in the tariff.
I regret further that we have had no legislation proposed for the relief of Canadian industry because of the depreciated currency of foreign countries with which we are in competition. It may be the government foresees the day at no distant date when these foreign countries, England and possibly continental nations, as a result of the Dawes' report, may go upon the gold standard basis and in that way the matter may correct itself; but we still have the condition under which industry in Canada is labouring because of the lower wage situation in countries which are now in strong competition with Canada. The other evening the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) made some comment with regard to the Canadian manufacturer of boots and shoes. That hon. gentleman is very-fair in debate, and I am quite sure he did not intend to be unfair in this case. During mv remarks in the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I had made some statement with regard to the difficulties experienced by the Canadian shoe manufacturer on account of the importation of British boots and shoes. The tariff on British boots and shoes by reason of the preferential arrangement is not 30 per cent but is now 16f per cent. That, coupled with the depreciated rate of exchange, and the lower labour costs in England, constitute the strongest competition that the Canadian shoe manufacturer has to contend with. But my hon. friend referred almost entirely to competition in that line with the United States manufacturer and stated-I do not desire to quote him incorrectly-that the tariff on American boots and shoes ought to be sufficient, and further hinted, or stated very broadly, that he
thought the difficulties of the Canadian shoe manufacturer were largely the result of inefficiency in his factories, and also arose from the fact that those factories had to carry a very large amount of watered stock.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: I desire to contradict that
statement. There may be a few shoe factories in Canada where the matter of watered stock probably led to their going into liquidation. But in the riding from which I come there are ten or twelve shoe industries, and I want to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that in those concerns there is no watered stock, nor are they inefficiently conducted. It might interest the House to know that some four years ago the shoe industries of Canada exported to twenty-eight foreign countries in the year goods valued at approximately 85,500,000. Since that time tariffs have been raised in these foreign countries, exchange has depreciated, labour costs have gone down, so that last year-or rather the year ending in February last-the exports of boots and shoes from Canada to foreign countries had sunk to less than 8300,000.
With regard to the preferential tariff I should like to say, as I said on a previous occasion, that we ought to give consideration to Canada first; and that under present conditions of exchange and cheap labour the preference ought to be withdrawn or materially reduced. The present situation, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said, is a one-sided arrangement. If we acted entirely on a business basis with regard to the tariff no one could say that our friends in Britain could find any fault with that attitude because they are pursuing that course themselves. I think I mentioned on a previous occasion that that was very well proven by their attitude with regard to the embargo on Canadian cattle which was a protective measure purely and simply, although another reason was given. Then we had later a rejection by the British people of the proposed Imperial preference arrangement that was enunciated by right hon. Mr. Baldwin at the last Imperial conference in London when the Prime Minister of Canada was present. And within less than two weeks we have had another instance of the attitude of the British government, in that they have removed the preference that Canada enjoyed in the British market as compared with the United States. So it seems to me the government might very fairly' and very logically consider some sort of modification of the preference.
The Budget-Mr. Elder

I do not intend to speak at any great length and I wish to devote myself more particularly, from this point on, to the subject that seems to be of paramount interest in connection with the budget, and that is the matter of the tariff changes. Let me say that in the remarks I have to make I have no desire to attribute to any member, or to the government, any improper motive, political or otherwise, with regard to the changes that have been made: the responsibility is theirs, I have no doubt they are acting in what they consider the best interests of Canada, but I must claim the same responsibility and the same privilege. I would also say that I have never been able to see that the determining principle as to the party with which a man should ally himself depends upon his views on the tariff. I know that is the impression of some people. I know that is the impression of some hon. gentlemen on this side; I suppose it is also the impression of some hon. members opposite. But the tariff is not the only thing with which parliament and governments have to deal. It is perhaps not even the most important thing. At any rate if my views on the tariff disentitle me to call myself a Liberal, then my life-
5 p.m. long conception of Liberalism has been incorrect.
Now, let me treat as fairly as I can the issues arising out of the budget with regard to the tariff. There are those, some of them in this House, who will not swerve from the theory of free trade but insist on carrying that principle into practice no matter what the conditions may be. They believe it is wrong to erect any tariff barrier for the purpose of giving the Canadian workman an advantage or a preference in his own country over his foreign competitor-they believe it is morally wrong and unjust to the consumer.
I think that is, perhaps, a fair description of the attitude of some members of this House. Then there are some who concede that while free trade is good in theory we should have a tariff for revenue. I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal of wrong thinking, and perhaps honest self-deception, with regard to the theory of a tariff for revenue. My contention always has been, and I still believe, that a tariff for revenue is a protective tariff. It may not be a tariff that adequately protects, as my hon. friends "angularly opposite" would say, but to the exact degree to which there is a tariff, just to that extent will the industries of Canada, or of any country, be protected. All tariffs are protective more or less.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Would my hon. friend admit that very high tariffs cease to be revenue producing?
[Mr. Euler.J


William Daum Euler: If tariffs are high they undoubtedly are protective. If the tariff is low the element of protection exists although in very much smaller degree.


John Frederick Johnston: If the tariff is too high we get no revenue.


William Daum Euler: All those who are absolutely in theory and in practice, free traders, will say that they favour a tariff for revenue only; but if they will give the subject a moment's honest thought I think they will also say that to collect a revenue by a tariff is about as wasteful a system as can be devised and costs the country a great deal more than is commensurate with the amount that goes into the national treasury. Then there are others, like myself, who believe that it is in the national interest that we should have diversified industries. I am willing to place agriculture first and to give a prominent place to all the industries that deal with the development of our natural resources; but I will also say that manufacturing must take a very prominent part in the essential industries of Canada if we want to build up a nation with an allround development such as we ought to have. Such men believe that a tariff may be used to maintain and to encourage industry, even though sometimes it may be, apparently, at some slight sacrifice. They believe that if Canadian workmen are to be paid good wages, that will enable them to live decently and comfortably, in many lines of industry they cannot compete on an even basis with the underpaid workmen of foreign countries.


Robert Forke: I should like the hon. member to make that clear before he goes any further. Would he mind stating plainly if he would wish the tariff to be so high that it would produce no revenue,-actually prohibit the importation of goods,-or would he define what one might call an adequate tariff that produces so much revenue and is also a protective tariff?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member will bear with me for a moment, he will have his question answered, but I may say now that I am emphatically not in favour of a prohibitive tariff.
M. FORKE:	I should be glad to know
where the hon. member would begin and where he would end.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend desire me to go over the whole list of articles manufactured in this and every other country and say that the duty should be 15 per cent here, 20 per cent there and 30 per cent elsewhere?
I am not able to do that, and I am going ti

The Budget-Mr. Evler
give the remedy for the sort of thing which,
I think, we are suffering from if hon. -members will bear with me for a moment.
There are those of us who believe that we cannot compete on an even basis with those European countries which have lower costs of labour, whose people have a lower standard of living, whose currency is depreciated. More than that, I will include the United States with its mass production which has already been spoken of in this House to-day and its overproduction and the resulting attempts at dumping in Canada which are sometimes made. There are men-and I am one of them -who believe in a moderate tariff that will maintain Canadian industry. I believe in that as a wise policy. If that makes me a protectionist then I shall have to accept the designation. But I will also say that I do not particularly like the word "protection". In its original meaning it is beneficent and benevolent in its significance, but it has been so abused that it has acquired something of a sinister meaning. It too often connotes such a high tariff as robs the consumer, and it implies too often such a degree of protection, if you like, that it covers inefficiency in manufacture. That has been attributed to it.
I am not saying that that is true,-it is probably true in some instances-but for that reason I say that I do not particularly like the word "protection." I would just as soon speak of a tariff that maintains industry,. not a prohibitive tariff.


Robert Forke: An adequate tariff.


William Daum Euler: I do not usually permit words to be put into my mouth, but I am quite willing to accept the correction or the suggestion of the leader of the Progressive party. I do not favour a prohibitive tariff, but I believe in a tariff that will enable legitimate industries to live if they are efficiently conducted. I believe in that sort of a tariff also for another reason, namely, that it will give employment to our people.


Mr. FANSHER:: Will the hon. member define "legitimate industry"?


William Daum Euler: Probably the hon. member has just as easy access to a dictionary as I have and I will leave him to find out for himself. I will draw attention, as so often has been done, to the fact that the rest of the world has erected practically prohibitive tariff walls against Canada, and unless and until that situation changes, fairplay and some degree of national self-respect as well as the desire of self-preservation dictate that we should have such a tariff as will at least
give some portion of the Canadian market to our own people. Despite text-book theories and, perhaps, I might even say text-book theorists who go back hundreds of years for their authority, that seems to me to be absolutely a reasonable position for a Canadian to take. I believe that the Laurier-Fielding tariff in its day was a reasonable tariff. Call it what you like; call it "tariff for revenue," if you wish; it was protective in its effects and under it this country was more prosperous than it had ever been before or has ever been since. I might make a- reference to the election of 1921, in connection with the tariff. The tariff was not an issue in that election in Ontario, and I think I may say in Quebec, unless it was in the constituency of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) who, I am sorry, is not in his seat to-day.


Mr. SPENCER:: What was the issue?


William Daum Euler: The issue was the Union government. There were two reasons why the tariff was not an issue in Ontario and Quebec. I have given one. The chief reason was that the people of this country, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, had decided that they were going to dispense with the government that was then in power. That was, I believe, the compelling reason throughout Canada. The second reason why the tariff was not an issue in Ontario, at least, was this, that the people of that province had confidence that the hon. gentleman, who is now Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and who had been Minister of Finance under Sir Wilfrid Laurier during a period of prosperity covering fifteen years, would again become Minister of Finance, and they had no particular fear that industry would be interfered with under his administration any more than it had been under his previous administration. But I did discuss the tariff in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and I declared myself in favour of a tariff such as I have described. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) who is my deskmate, the other day gave some figures with regard to the election, and he stated that the Conservative party polled about a million votes and that the combined Liberal and Progressive parties polled something like two million votes. I think that is approximately correct. From that he inferred that there was a tremendous majority in favour of tariff reduction. I must take issue with my hon. friend on that. The vote of 1921, at least as regards Ontario and Quebec, was not a vote on the tariff at all, and I am quite sure that there were literally
The Budget-Mr. Eider

thousands and tens of thousands of voters who believed in the kind of a tariff that I believe in, who voted for either Liberal or Progressive candidates. In fact, I am almost inclined to say that if it had not been for the fact that the people of Ontario and Quebec had confidence that no industry would be injured by a possible Liberal government, the government which is now in office would not be now occupying the seats of office.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What about the platform of 1919?


William Daum Euler: I will come to that in a
moment.


Ernest Lapointe: There will be no injury.


William Daum Euler: I hope the hon. gentleman is correct. Some reference has been made to the statement of the Minister of Finance last year that we should have tariff stability in Canada. I agreed with that at the time. I also agree with what the Prime Minister said some days ago, that that did not imply tariff stagnation. Assuredly there is room for improvement in the tariff. It is now perhaps ten years or more since the tariff was revised, and I think it is high time that we should have an intelligent revision of the tariff; but I say this, that when the Minister of Finance made that statement regarding stability, he did not contemplate that we should have frequent radical changes that would keep the business world disturbed for any length of time.
My hope has been that the government through the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in its budget proposals would make an announcement that we should have a tariff board or commission in this country. Such a tariff board ought to be permanent.
I see my hon. friend opposite smiling; but I do not think I am stealing the thunder of my colleague the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Elliot), because it will be remembered that I made this suggestion in my address on the Speech from the Throne. A tariff board of this kind should consist, if possible, of representatives of all classes of the people, including workingmen, farmers and manufacturers, if you like; but the dominant factor in the selection of its members should in my opinion be their entire fitness for the work they would undertake.
I hey should be men of integrity who would have a strong sense of responsibility and with a real desire to render public service. And I would give to that board real power; I do not believe in a tariff board, or even a committee of the cabinet, who would go about the country trying to get information 
regarding industry and succeed very often only in getting the kind of information they desired to obtain. I say, I would give that board power to make the most exhaustive investigations into .the conditions and circumstances of industry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was my hon.
friend satisfied with the tariff board for the appointment of which provision was made by this House in 1912 and rejected by the Senate?


William Daum Euler: I am not very familiar with the work of that board, but I venture to say that it whs not the kind of body that could do work of the description I have suggested.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was exactly
the same, an advisory board.


William Daum Euler: I doubt very much whether the board of which my hon. friend speaks would have done what I have in mind. I would give to the board power to go into industry, find out costs and profits, ascertain whether there was watered stock upon which dividends were being paid-


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was all
provided for.


Mr. COOTE:: And would they squeeze
the water out?


William Daum Euler: Well, we should have to
judge that by the results. The board would find out also whether there were any combines, and generally investigate into matters of that kind. If anything of the kind were discovered then I would use the tariff as a weapon to make the industry concerned give to the consumers of the country a square deal.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it is well at
this stage to have the fact recorded that the bill to which my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) has referred, and which was defeated by the party of the hon. gentleman who is now speaking, contained all these provisions that he has enumerated.


William Daum Euler: Does the right hon. gentleman say that the bill was defeated in the Senate?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It was bitterly
resisted for weeks in this House by the Liberal party and finally defeated by the Liberal majority in the Senate.


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge of
that, but I am willing to accept the state-

The Budget-Mr. Eider
ment of the leader of the opposition. In any event, I have only this to say, that I do not accept responsibility for what anybody did in 1912, and' much less any responsibility for what the Senate of Canada does.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Does my hon. friend
think that the tariff commission that toured this country in 1920 had the powers he speaks of?


William Daum Euler: If they had such powers
they did not exercise them, I am sure of that. In fact, that commission never reported at all, and so far as that is concerned the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will be able to inform the House for he was the head of it. In my opinion no Minister of Finance, no committee of the cabinet, can physically obtain the information that I have spoken of, because in too many cases they are dependent almost entirely upon the officials of their departments. And I may say, with all respect to the officials of the departments, whom I have no wish to criticise generally, that I should like to be delivered in many instances from the advice that is given by some of them; I have somewhat of a dread of the official mind. A board such as I have suggested might make tariff reductions possible; I believe that is quite within the bounds of probability. I would not hesitate either, if it were shown to be advisable, to increase the tariff if I considered it in the interests of the country. I believe there are some industries here to-day that can stand a tariff reduction, but I would not make these reductions without the accurate knowledge which only such a tariff board could give. To some extent, the tariff might thus be taken out of politics, though the board would necessarily be an advisory one, and the government would always retain full responsibility.
Unfortunately, selfishness is still the most compelling motive in human life. I made that statement once before and at that time, as also on this occasion, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) shook his head. I hope he is right, but I am afraid he is not. There are selfish men in all walks of life, and some manufacturers are no exception. Indeed, there are some who desire to have a tariff as high as Haman's gallows, to use a hackneyed expression. But such men are their own worst enemies because invariably the extremists invite extreme action in the other direction. As I said before however I believe there could be reductions in some instances without injury to industry itself and with a good deal of benefit to the consumer.
I have given a good deal of careful thought to this budget and I appreciate many of its provisions. I believe the people of Canada approve of the reductions made in the cost of living by way of the removal or the partial removal of the sales tax and I think my hon. friends directly opposite me will believe me when I say that I should like to see anything done that could possibly and legitimately be done to assist the farming industry. I think it was a year ago that we gave them the benefit of at least a portion of the Crowsnest agreement, and I understand that all the commodities under that agreement are to be' placed on the list this year.
I hope that is the case. If anything can be done to provide lower freight rates I hope it may be possible. So far as the farmers of Ontario are concerned, and particularly in my own constituency, I am quite assured of this, that their interests are the interests of the people of the cities and of the industrial towns. That at any rate is true of my own constituency.
We hear a good deal about the home market, and the westerner does not attach very much importance to that market. Perhaps he is right inasmuch as his product is very largely exported. The same may be true in the Maritime provinces also. But the home market in Ontario for the farmer is a real thing and a thing of great value. The westerners' difficulties after all, I believe it will be conceded, have no relation to the tariff; they go much deeper. The high cost of production, high freight rates, the high tariff of the country to the south, are some of the factors that enter into the problem of the western farmer. And then there is the lack of markets in which before the war the farmers of the West sold their products. If some sort of assistance could be evolved for my Progressive friends in their farming operations I should like to examine them and afford all the assistance possible; and indeed I think I could even be prevailed upon to vote for a tariff upon oleomargarine.
We have heard a good deal about the Massey-Harris Company in connection with the reduction of ithe tariff on implements. Let me remind the House that there are dozens of smaller concerns in Ontario and Quebec that also manutfacture agricultural implements. Now, I do not believe that under the amended budget proposals the manufacturers of implements are going to be seriously injured; I think not. In fact the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) yesterday stated that the implement manufacturers would make more
The Budget-Mr. Euler

money under this budget than they did before. But let me say a word for the smaller concerns manufacturing agricultural implements.' In my riding we have a concern manufacturing threshers. Last year there was imported threshing machinery to the value of $3,366,000, and there was manufactured and sold in this country only $1,850,000 worth. So that the importations were nearly twice as great as the home-manufactured product. I do not think anyone can reasonably argue that threshing machineiy enjoys a prohibitive tariff.
I am sorry the Acting Minister of Finance is not in his seat, for I wish to point out an anomaly in connection with the removal of the sales tax on threshing machinery, to show the necessity of considering very carefully any proposed changes. A threshing outfit consists of the thresher proper, the traction engine, the wind stacker, the feeder and the drive belt. On the thresher proper the sales tax has been entirely removed; but the farmer has to pay 5 per cent on the other items that go to make up the unit. It seems to me that such an inconsistency might very well be removed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to sum up. I would say that I cannot approve of the more, or less haphazard changes that have been made in the tariff. I agree with the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) when they say that they do not believe in tariff discrimination. The agricultural implement industry is not, I believe, injured by the tariff proposals contained in the budget. But we are told that with the free entry of its raw materials some other of our industries will be injured. The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) read a good many letters pointing that way. I hope he is wrong. But no doubt it is true that some of our manufacturing industries will be injured by the proposals contained in the budget. I do not believe that for any purpose whatever it is just to discriminate against certain industries, especially those which already have lower tariff protection than almost any others that might be named.
My chief objections to the budget are these: changes are being made without an accurate knowledge of what they may involve. We are discriminating against certain industries. I do not approve of the condition of uncertainty which the country is in for the moment. I can see no very definite principle underlying the tariff reductions, unless perhaps this is the first step in the implementing of the 1919 Liberal platform. If that is the case, I say to the government:

I believe the people should know whether [DOT]the tariff platform of 1919 is to be gone on with in the sessions to come. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side a little while ago made reference to the platform of 1919. Let me say to possible critics of my attitude on the tariff when considered in conjunction with the tariff platform of 1919, that I did not support that platform, I never endorsed it, and I have on two occasions repudiated it in this House. I do so again now. Nor did the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) approve of that platform, as he stated on the floor of this House last session. May I give a piece of information which will probably be of interest to hon. members; in fact it is perhaps not even known to some members on this side of the House. On the resolutions committee which framed the tariff planks in the platform of 1919 there was not one Liberal member of parliament from the great industrial province of Ontario. And yet Liberal members from Ontario, whose interests were so vitally affected, are expected to defend a platform in the making of which they had no part!
I would say again, as I have already said, that I feel no particular alarm as to the immediate disastrous effects of the budget proposals. I believe there may be some injury done, but I cannot agree with those who say that industry in going to be annihilated, that the country industrially is going to come to a standstill. I do not believe it. I think some of these statements are propaganda, uttered for the sake perphaps of making political capital and therefore to be discounted.
I do not believe the injury will be so great as some have prophesied.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell us Who said that industry would be annihilated?


William Daum Euler: Some newspapers.


Arthur Meighen: That may be so.


William Daum Euler: I am not referring particularly to members on the other side of the House But I do not credit the predictions of industrial ruin that have been circulated so freely throughout Canada since the introduction of the budget.


Arthur Meighen: Our objections have been too moderate.


Mr. GRAHAM:: You will never be charged with that.


William Daum Euler: Possibly so. But, Mr. Speaker, whatever the result may be, I have given very careful consideration as to whether the tariff proposals violate the principles in

The Budget-Mr. Euler
which I believe. Frankly, I believe they do, and especially when they are considered in conjunction with some of the pronouncements that have been made in this debate by members of the government. If the Acting Minister of Finance had given any sort of assurance that no further changes would be made without the most careful investigation by, say, a tariff board, and, following that, the most careful consideration by the government, I might not be forced to that conclusion. But under the circumstances I cannot regard this budget as an isolated or final act. My friends Angularly opposite do not receive it that way; that, of course, is to be expected. My friends of the Progressive party do not receive it that way; they are very grateful for what they have received-


Mr. HOEY:: For small mercies.


William Daum Euler: -and I think they have a very lively appreciation of favours to come.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Not favours; justice.


William Daum Euler: Indeed, the hon. member for Strathona (Mr. Warner) spoke of the promise that has been given to make further tariff reductions in future sessions; and some members on this side have spoken in a similar vein. But, Sir, the most disquieting statement of all to me, is the statement of a responsible member of the government in the person of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) when he said that he hoped this budget would sound the death knell of protection. If his words voice the policy of the government-and I hope the right hon. Prime Minister will tell us whether they do or not- I am afraid they may also sound the death knell of a good many Canadian industries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Daum Euler: I believe that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might answer my hon. friend at once. He has said that he regards a tariff for revenue as giving protection. The policy of the Liberal party has always been that of a tariff for revenue, and will continue to be so.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the death knell of protection.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: A tariff for revenue is certainly not a protective tariff.


William Daum Euler: I would respectfully suggest


Arthur Meighen: I leave it to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior to reconcile themselves.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: And the Minister of Agriculture.


William Daum Euler: Have I the floor, Mr. Speaker? I say, Sir, that that is a policy which I cannot support. If the words of the Minister of the Interior reflect the considered policy of the government, it is a policy against which I must protest in the interests of my constituents and because of the beliefs which I hold. I cannot make that protest either consistently or effectively by speaking one way and voting the other, and for that reason I propose to vote against the budget.


Burt Wendell Fansher: Mr. Speaker, it becomes my duty, after listening to a well-reasoned and temperate address by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) to express views a good deal different from those which he holds. But I assure, you, Sir, and hon. members of the House that my convictions are just as strongly held as those of the hon. member for North Waterloo.
A good deal of the discussion on the budget has consisted of declarations of hon. members either against or in favour of the protective principle. With regard to that matter I do not intend to speak at any great length; it is not my purpose to enter into an extended discussion of the theories of free trade or of protection. Having lived a good many years not far from the international boundary I have some practical knowledge of what protection has done for this country and I have had some experience in connection with the prices of goods on the respective sides of the line. However, I believe the principle of protection to be unsound, not only economically, but also from the point of view of its effect upon the morale of the people of this country. It is evident that if we have a protective system somebody is protected and somebody else must do the protecting. If somebody benefits, somebody else has got to provide that benefit. If it is done by monetary means, as is done in the case of the tariff, something must be taken from those who do the benefiting and the reward goes to those who benefit. The effect upon those who receive the protection was emphasized only yesterday by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) who said:
The threat of the "death knell of protection" has put all our manufacturers, and many of our business men who are not manufacturers, in such a position that they are afraid to make any investments, afraid to make any expansion.
"Afraid to make investments" and afraid of expansion: that is the natural consequence of protection in this or in any other country.
Tlte Budget-Mr. Fansher

A strong, virile manhood or womanhood is never developed by depending on someone else, neither is a strong, virile industry developed which depends on some other industry for assistance or for part of its revenue. When any interference which that assistance is contemplated, those who are assisted become apprehensive; fear enters their souls, as was acknowledged in the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto yesterday. While I agree with the premises taken by that hon. gentleman, with his appeal to patriotism and his desire to build up Canada, I do not agree that only by means of a protective tariff can we hope to build up a strong, well-rounded Dominion. If I quote further from his speech I think I could show that the very policy which has been in vogue in this country for the last forty years has not made a well-rounded Dominion, but has advanced prosperity and population in perhaps half a dozen or more centres throughout the country. Asked the question yesterday as to what protection had done for this country, the hon. member replied that twenty years ago Montreal and Toronto had only a small population and that to-day they have a large population. That is a fact; Toronto has doubled its population every fifteen years since its incorporation, but if we turn to rural Ontario, which is supposed to have the benefit of the home market which protectionists say is the result of the protective system, in the last twenty years rural Ontario has lost over 20,000 of its population. Only 41 townships in rural Ontario have increased in population in the last twenty years, and in those cases it was on account of the overflow from large towns or cities. Three hundred and seventy-five townships lost in population. So that if we examine the protective system we find that it does not make for a well-rounded Dominion but rather for some well-rounded centres of population throughout the country. A country cannot prosper if one industry advances much faster than others. I believe that the great basic industry of Canada, if it were left free from the necessity of helping every other industry under the sun, would again lay the foundations of and build up this country as it did in the days of the pioneers.
Coming more directly to the budget, I believe that it is a very skilful one. It is a tax reduction budget, and because it is a tax reduction budget I am pleased with it. Everybody is pleased with a budget that reduces taxation rather than increases it, but there are various methods of reducing taxation, and from the speeches of many hon. members in

this House one would be led to believe that a good deal, if not most, of the reduction made in this budget was due to reductions in the customs tariff. However, a close examination of it will not give that impression.
In the first place we have a reduction from six to five per cent in the sales tax. Now last year there was over $101,000,000 collected from the sales tax. A reduction from six to five per cent means a reduction of about $17,000,000 in sales tax alone. Besides that, we have other reductions. We have the removal of the sales tax on agricultural implements and implements connected with the farming industry, binder twine included; second, we have exemptions of the sales tax from all articles and materials to be used in the manufacture of agricultural implements; the removal of the sales tax from sulphate spraying materials, poultry feed, cream separators, and so forth. I could go on and mention about fifteen or sixteen different classes of articles from which the sales tax is either removed or on which it is materially reduced. The closest estimate that I can make of the reduction in revenue by these special reductions and exemptions in the sales tax over and above the reduction from six to five per cent would be about $5,000,000. That brings the reduction in sales tax up to about $22,000,000.
Now we notice that the total loss in revenue anticipated by a reduction in sales tax and in the tariff proposals, as given in the budget speech, is about $24,000,000, which leaves practically only $2,000,000 of a reduction in the customs tariff. With that part of the budget I am not entirely pleased. If the reduction had been in inverse ratio, or somewhere thereabouts, it would have suited me a great deal better, and I believe also the majority of the members of this House and the rank and file throughout the country. The Liberal platform of 1919 does not mention anything about a reduction in the sales tax. It speaks of a substantial reduction of the burdens of customs taxation. It is true there was a sales tax, but I do not believe there was a sales tax to amount to anything at that time. There was a sales tax, however, when, this government came into power and this government increased it in the two former budgets; it has now taken away a portion of the sales tax in this budget, so we might say:	The King government has
given and the King government has taken away. But I do not know that we can altogether add:	Blessed be the name of the
King government.

The Budget-Mr. Fansher
The two great sources of revenue are the customs tariff and the sales tax. The customs tariff provided a revenue of about $135,000,000 last year and the sales tax $101, 000,000. We have a reduction, we are told, this year of $24,000,000, which is nearly ajl accounted for by a reduction in the sales tax. That $24,000,000 reduction represents a relief to the taxpayer, but there is very little relief in excess of that amount, because the sales taxes are pretty direct taxes. On the other hand, if that reduction of $24,000000 in revenue came entirely through the customs tariff it would give a relief to the taxpayer of this country of an amount in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000, because, as everyone realizes, while about $1 goes into the treasury through the system of customs tariff collection, about $3 or $4 goes into the pockets of those who are protected.
1 just want to quote a few figures to illustrate that statement. In the year 1921 the amount of revenue collected from the automobile industry in this country and the amount of protection afforded to that industry was in the ratio of 1 to 7 j while $1 went into the treasury, $7 was afforded in protection to the manufacturers of automobiles in this country. I do not say that the whole of that $7 was taken advantage of by the manufacturers, but according to the trade returns for that year that ratio of protection was afforded. In the agricultural implement industry the ratio was $1 of revenue to $4.50 of protection. Here are some rather startling figures in connection with the boot and shoe industry. The ratio of revenue to protection afforded in the boot and shoe industry in this country in the year 1921, according to the tradte returns for that year, was $1 of revenue to $28 of protection. In the rubber goods industry, including rubber footwear, the ratio was $1 to $13. Those are the figures you get when you take the percentages and apply them to the actual amount imported and the actual amount made and sold in Canada, and if that ratio is not observed and made use of by the manufacturing industries there is surely no ground for their claim that protection should not be lower.
I wish to speak further about the automobile industry of Canada. In other budget debates a great deal has been said concerning that industry, but in the present debate there has been little or no comment. Even the budget makes no mention of the automobile industry. Now, in the part of Ontario which I have the honour to represent, it is a well known
fact that the automobile industry is able to outbid every other industry in the labour market, and the belief is current-rightly or wrongly, but I think rightly-that in a large measure its ability to do that is assisted and strengthened by the measure of protection which it enjoys under the tariff.


Mr.   HEALEY@: Is my hon. friend against paying high wages?


Burt Wendell Fansher: I am not against any
industry paying high wages, but I stand for equality in rewards for labour as between one industry and another. If a producer in one industry has to work two days to purchase a commodity which the producer in another industry turns out in one day that is altogether unfair. In the case we are considering other manufacturers are placed in a position where they cannot compete in the labour market with manufacturers of automobiles.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 9 respecting the T. Eaton General Insurance Company-Mr. Sheard,-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: Does anybody here
know anything about this bill?


The CHAIRMAN:: This committee considered this bill and progress was reported on it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 23, respecting the Commercial Travellers' Mutual Insurance Society-Mr. Ryckman,-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The last time this bill
was under consideration, we asked that it stand over for some more information.


George Newcombe Gordon: It did stand over and
it has come up in the regular course.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand that, but
I should like to have some information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 17, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company-Mr. Clark-Mr. Gordon m the chair.
On section 4-Rights of government to take over works preserved.
George Perry Graham: I was in the committee
when certain immaterial amendments were made to the bill, and I rise now simply to say on behalf of the government that although no objection is being taken to the extension of time in this case, it must be distinctly understood that this bill will not interfere in any way with any encouragement the government may give, or any work it may intend to do, in connection with the development of power on the Ottawa river. I say this because of course the Georgian Bay canal project includes the Ottawa river, and the powers embraced in this bill were given years ago when the government was making extended surveys and investigations in relation to the Georgian bay undertaking. This company's charter has been extended from year to year and I have no desire to prevent the retention of the powers they have; but there must be a distinct understanding that the extension of time granted by this bill does not preclude the government, if it so desires, from taking any steps which it may see fit towards the development of powers on the Ottawa river.


Mr. WHITE:: Will the statement of the
minister have any effect if the purport of it is not incorporated in the bill?


George Perry Graham: I have written to Sir
Robert Perks expressing the same views I have announced to-night, so that the company know perfectly well that the extension of this charter does not confer any powers which they had not before, and will give them no exclusive rights on the Ottawa river.


Richard Smeaton White: Is the minister over-riding
the bill?


George Perry Graham: It is not a question of over-riding the bill. This company has been in existence for years and a lease was given in 1921 for the development of power on the Ottawa river. But because a company is given the right to do certain things it does not follow that no one else shall have rights in a similar degree. The question of water power in Canada is a very important one at the pres-

ent time. It will be seen by the press, either of yesterday or to-day, that the provincial government of Ontario has stated that the Hydro Electric Commission proposes trying to secure some power leases on the Ottawa river. I submit therefore that it ought to be made clear that the renewal of this charter shall not interfere with anything which this government, or any other government that has jurisdiction in the matter, may wish to undertake in connection with development on the Ottawa river.


Robert Forke: The minister's statement is simply an explanation; it does not alter anything?


George Perry Graham: Matters stand just as they did before.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much development has taken place under this bill?


George Perry Graham: So far as I know, there has been just the preparation of plans.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: What rights are maintained or contended for by the government?


George Perry Graham: No rights which the federal government has ever had are being interfered with by the extension of the charter. If my hon. friend wants me to go into a discussion of the question as between federal and provincial rights I am afraid I shall have a considerable task.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 36, respecting the Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. McKay,-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Paid-up capital stock may be reduced to $250,000.
George Perry Graham: What is the amendment?


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment provides that after the word "paid" in paragraph (a) of section 2 the following words shall be inserted:
-less the amount of the deficit, if any, in the nonparticipating fund of the company; provided that the amount so retained in respect of the said deficit shall be treated as a surplus in the shareholders' account and may be repaid from time to time to the said shareholders from the amount of the combined surplus in the shareholders' account and the non-participating fund of the company as ascertained by the Superintendent of Insurance.

Private Bills


George Perry Graham: That was put in by the
chairman of the Banking and Commerce committee?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, and with the
consent of the Superintendent of Insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 37 to change the name of Imperial Underwriters Corporation of Canada to Imperial Insurance Office-Mr. Chew,-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, was any
objection taken to this change of name before the Banking and Commerce committee? I have had a good deal of experience with insurance companies-there is a well-known company called the Imperial Assurance Company-and I know they are very jealous of their names. I should like to know what happened.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Objection was taken before the Banking and Commerce committee by representatives of the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada and the Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada. The objection was considered, and the committee decided to grant this name for certain reasons, which I may state briefly as follows: This company has had the name "Imperial" ever since its inception, and preceding that in a provincial form under a provincial charter secured in British Columbia. It was pointed out that taking the three names as a whole, the Imperial Life Assurance Company, the Imperial Guarantee Accident Insurance Company and the Imperial Insurance Office, there would be no difficulty or conflict so far as any legal transactions were concerned; and it was also pointed out that in practice the tendency is to abbreviate and that the abbreviation for the first company was the Imperial Life, and for the second company the Imperial Guarantee and that this company's abbreviated .title will be the Imperial Office. Consequently both from the standpoint of legal transactions and of usage and practice it was decided that there could be no objection to the granting of this name.


Mr. BROWN:: I do not know anything
about this particular matter, but while the 123
explanation of the hon. member may be very satisfactory both from the standpoint of law and of those who are accustomed to deal with these companies, I think we should regard it from the aspect of the people generally. The very fact that the word "Imperial" is used in connection with these three companies will inevitably tend to confusion in the minds of the public. As an illustration of this, I may say that a few weeks ago an insurance company in Winnipeg whose title contained the word "West" became involved and there was a great deal of confusion in the minds of the people whether it was the Great West Insurance Company or the Northwest Insurance Company. Even this slight similarity led to confusion. Therefore I think in allowing any company to use a name which is already well known there should be the greatest possible care to see that not only those accustomed to deal with them in a legal capacity but the public generally shall be able to distinguish without any possibility of confusion between the new company and those already established and well known.


Mr. BAXTER:: I might add that it was
further pointed out in committee that the only clash in business would come if this company should undertake life insurance, when it might conflict with the Imperial Life; but it was pointed out that the company could not enter into that department of insurance without coming to the Treasury Board for permission, when the question of name could be raised. The committee appeared to be unanimous in its decision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, before
you leave the chair, I would call the attention of the committee to how much more satisfactory it has been to be able to get an explanation of this bill from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Those who are responsible in a measure for all these bills would like to have some person in the House to explain them. We have passed bills night after night which only those who are on the committee of Banking and Commerce know anything about. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) pointed out the other night, we may be passing something which the majority of the House would not approve of if they had full information. I am not saying that that is the case with any of these bills to-night. I would not want to be very harsh, but if on two or three occasions we held up bills when their sponsors or the chairman of the

The Budget-Mr. Fansher

committee were not present to answer any questions, perhaps they would make a point to be on hand when the bills came before the House. I can understand that a member who is not quite accustomed to the rules of the House may not know on what occasions private bills are taken up, so I just throw out this hint for the second' time: I think it will be wise for hon. gentleman in whose names bills stand to be present when those bills are coming up so that the House may get whatever information it desires; otherwise we are passing those bills blindly.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 22, to amend an Act to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Com-Dany.-Mr. Clark.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Douglas Lewin. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Quinn.- Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Marie Darling Irving.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Margaret De-Mello.

Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Mary Caroline Dooley.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Barbara Gibb Duncan.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Nellie Sinkins. -Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Catherine Jean Livingstone.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Alice Maud Knowles.-Mr. Sheard.


Burt Wendell Fansher: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the protection afforded the automobile industry in this country, and I had endeavoured to show that the protection it enjoyed had enabled it to outbid other industries in the labour market, and thereby worked a hardship to industries that were more indigenous to Canada than itself.
It is a well-known fact that in southwestern Ontario labour has been drawn from the farms to the city of Windsor and adjacent towns

by the influence of the high wages being paid in the industries centered there, particularly the automobile industry. It is also a well-known fact that immigrants brought to this country to engage as farm labourers, and who have been employed to assist the farmers throughout the summer season, have very often been induced by the high wages prevailing in the border cities to relinquish their contracts with the farmers and proceed to where those higher wages can be procured. To my mind, to assist one industry by means of a protective tariff which works hardship to another industry, by making it unable to retain its labour, is not in the best interests of the state as a whole.
Then too, as we have heard from the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and others, it is inconceivable how one industry can be content with low protection, while another industry which uses the same raw materials receives a great deal higher protection, and in that connection I would cite the manufacturers of agricultural implements in comparison with the manufacturers of automobiles. They both use the same material, iron and steel and wood; both employ skilled workmen who are trained in the working of iron and steel and wood; and yet one industry is assisted very considerably more than the other, the automobile industry to the extent of about 35 per cent, and the other to approximately 10 per cent. It is a well-known fact that many manufacturers complain, perhaps not openly, about the unequal opportunities afforded by an unequal tariff such as is exhibited in the comparison between these two industries. I am certain that a policy such as this, which causes a discrepancy between one industry and another in their chances to procure labour, is not in the best interests of the country as a whole, and being convinced that that is the case I would like to see a policy inaugurated by this government, which is pledged by its platform to a reduction of tariffs, and which has made a start this session to implement that pledge-[DOT] I would like to see inaugurated a policy which in the course of a few years, by bringing down a few budgets, would remove about one-third of the 35 per cent protection which is afforded the automobile industry and impose an excise tax on about one-half of the protection which was left. That would still leave them a protection of about 12 per cent, a protection which is twice the average rate of interest on bonds, twice the rate of interest on most investments.
I believe there is another reason why the automobile industry should not be protected

The Budget-Mr. Fansher
to the extent it is. It has an influence in keeping up costs in other lines of manufacture. Automobiles are a thing that will be bought by people in these days; they will go without some of the things which are more essential in order to get an automobile. We see in this city and other places people riding around in the left hand corner of a limousine costing $5,000 or more-more than the price the farmer and the industrial workers of this country pay for their homes, and yet we protect the automobile industry to over one-third the purchase price of its product.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few days in our discussion of the tariff and of its protective principle we have almost lost sight of the amendment which is before us. The amendment, to my mind, is good in itself, but in view of the fact that the government is proceeding in a direction which hitherto they have been very reluctant to take, or in the words of the Speech from the Throne, being persuaded that a tariff reduction is now all that is required to bring about better conditions, I think the mover of the amendment is rather like the boy and the filbert. He wishes to have all at once, and through desiring too much may not succeed in getting any. At least, that is what might appear on a first examination of the amendment, but to my mind it is a substitute for what is already proposed, because its express wording is that all the words after " that," which is the first word in the motion for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, be struck out and the amendment substituted therefor. For my part I believe that a bird in the hand is better than a bird in the bush.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Or two?


Burt Wendell Fansher: I would not say there
were two birds in the amendment. I do not believe in grasping at the shadow and dropping the substance which is in sight.
Reverting to that phrase in the Speech from the Throne which represents the government as being persuaded that taxation reduction is now essential, I am afraid the government has not been persuaded exactly along the right line; the persuasion has been too much along the line of sales tax reduction and not enough in the direction of a reduction in the customs tariff. I must express my belief at this time, also, that the sales tax, which is a more direct means of raising revenue, should not be lowered to any appreciable extent in the future. The line to be followed in granting relief to the taxpayers of this country should lead to the reduction of the customs tariff. As I said earlier in my address I be-123i
lieve that the loss of. one dollar of revenue through reduction of the customs tariff will represent a gain of at least three times as much in relief to the taxpayer.
Before I conclude I wish to allude to the remark in the speech delivered yesterday by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) when referring to hon. gentlemen in this section of the chamber, he said:
I said before, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat now, that if our friends in western Canada have sufficient patriotism and are willing to assist in making Canada the great country it is capable of being made, the>
should accept a moderate protective tariff.
I wish to appeal to my hon. friend's patriotism in this regard and to say to him that if he will join wtih the captains of industry-whose cause he champions-and will engage in the work of building up this great nation on a more even doubletree than is now the case we shall get better results and I shall have more regard for his patriotism. The patriotism that requests of one industry only that it should pull this country out of the position it is in at the present; a patriotism which permits of interests on one side of the doubletree using only a minimum of effort whilst the industries which be at the very foundation of the prosperity of the state are given the short end of the haul is not to be commended. But the patriotism which will tackle in a right spirit the work that lies before us of making of Canada a truly great country, the patriotism which declares it will assume an even share of the work, the patriotism which will enter on a task in that manner and in that spirit, is a patriotism to be commended.
Now, for a brief allusion to the closing remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). The hon. gentleman described his journey of a few weeks ago from the Pacific coast to the province of Ontario. He depicted the glories of the setting sun as he travelled through the pass in the Rocky mountains, but he did not mention the glories of the prairies. He spoke of seeing from the observation car of the train a settler at work in the fields of northern Ontario close to his home, whilst his companion stood in the door of the cottage with the children clustered round her My hon. friend said he could not help but admire these people and the work they were performing in nation building. Then he turned to the industrial worker in one of the large cities or towns of Ontario who had been identified with a particular industry for fifty years, and expressed his admiration for that worker also.
I wish to say to the hon. gentleman that if he too wishes to identify himself with the work of making this nation what it ought to
The Budget-Mr. Fansher

be he will haul on an even doubletree and permit the citizens and industrial workers to whom he alluded to do the same; and if he and the industrial concerns of Canada are actuated by that spirit they too will give evidence of a greater and more magnificent patriotism than was exhibited, for example, when the hon. gentleman tried to uphold a policy that makes for collecting toll from these same individuals.
In conclusion I must say that we as a nation have a great heritage and the development of that heritage is the task that lies before us. Our forefathers handed down to us as grand a heritage as ever was transferred from one generation to another. But while we may believe that the future this country is destined to achieve may be attained by different fiscal policies or different fiscal reforms I am certain the members of this House are all true, and loyal, and sincere in their desire and endeavours to make of this Canada of ours one of the grandest and best countries under the sun.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House I congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the able way he has presented his budget proposals. I also congratulate the government on at last recognizing the wisdom and necessity of starting to carry out their 1919 programme. I appreciate this more because I fully realize that it is in recognition of the presence of the third group in the House, but for whose appearance this sort of budget would never have been presented.
9 p.m. The statement that will give the country the greatest hope, however, was when the Acting Minister of Finance said:
We have certain basic industries, upon the success of which depend the growth of all other industries, and the greater development of our trade.
Of these basic industries I would place agriculture in all its varied branches first. Next to agriculture I would place our forests, our minerals and our fisheries. The real National Policy is a policy that will encourage growth and development of these basic industries.
If Ministers of Finance would follow the lead of the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and recognize that those are our basic industries, the country would derive new hope and have a stimulus to greater effort. If the Ministers of Finance for the last forty years had recognized which were the basic industries of this country, Canada to-day would be a far greater country than it is.
I should like to deal with a few of the orthodox suggestions that are put forward by various members in this House during the annual budget debates. One of the favourite

ideas of those hon. gentlemen who do not happen to make their living off the land, is that those who are on the land should go into mixed farming. Particularly is this advice given to those hon. members who come from the West. I should like to point out that that is going to have a very dire effect in the future upon the agriculturists of eastern Canada, and the day will come, and not many years hence, when, through the farmers of western Canada going into mixed farming, they will be found to be the greatest competitors of eastern Canadian farmers, both at home and abroad. I am pleased to see that the farmer members from eastern Canada do not hand out that advice; it comes from hon. members who are not interested in farming or who are not farmers themselves. Farmers in eastern Canada realize that western farmers will be real competitors and make things much worse for the eastern men as soon as they go into mixed farming.
A further suggestion relates to immigration which is held up as another of the cure-alls. Immigration of the right sort is what we want; volunteer immigration is all right; but immigration that is forced, as has been the case for some years past, and as was particularly the case last year, is forced at a great cost to this country. A good deal of criticism was offered from this side of the House during the immigration debate last year, because we realized that the government would be spending a great deal of money and probably throwing most of it away. What do we find is the result to-day? We find that although the government spent some $3,500,000, every single settler that was brought into Canada plus 45,000 more have gone to the United States!
Another suggestion often given out at this time is that everybody should practise rigid economy. While to practise economy individually is all right, it is a terrible weapon, if carried out on a wholesale scale, as it would then cripple commerce in every way.
Another statement often made is that labour costs are too high, and labour comes in for a good deal of condemnation. I should like to put on record a few figures with regard to labour costs, in order to show that, when all is said and done, labour costs are not always the greatest costs with which we have to contend. I should like to give an example to show how labour costs are often small, comparatively speaking, in comparison with other charges. In a statement given by Sir Adam Beck, in referring to the Hydro-Electric Commission, he gave these figures:
Estimated revenue from power plant for 1924, $9,500,000.

The Budget-Mr. Spencer
This would be distributed as follows:
Interest	$ 6,200,000
Sinking fund	 1,217,000
Depreciation	 410.000
Operation	 1,280,000	$9,107,000
Surplus for the year..	$ 393,000
Or a surplus for the year of nearly $400,000.
While listening to the debates in this House, it has often occurred to me how contradictory certain statements are. For instance, hon. members who sit to my right have for two [years been continually criticising the government for not carrying out their pledges. This year because the government are attempting to carry out their pledges-and we should give them credit for that-we find they are receiving just as harsh criticism from the Conservatives for trying to do so.
Another contradiction which I might point out is this. Regarding the group to which I have the honour to belong, representing, as it mainly does, the agricultural constituencies of western and eastern Canada, the farmers have often been criticised for not getting down to business and organising. Now that they have organized and sent some sixty odd members to this House, their action seems to be criticised and not at all well received.
We have heard a good deal lately during this debate of the way in which the people are leaving the country because of this low tariff budget. That argument, from my Conservative friends at my right might hold water if it were not for the fact that for some years past while we had what might be called a reasonably high tariff we lost very large numbers.
Further advice given to the farmers is such as this:	They are told to work harder, to
produce more and to be thrifty. As one who knows the life of the farmer very intimately, I should like to know how farmers can be expected to work much harder. As regards producing more, I think they have done their share in that respect, and as regards being thrifty, it is hard to tell how the majority of the fanners could be more thrifty than they are. It is rather amusing when you consider the criticisms that are brought against the orientals who are coming into this country and the reasons given why certain people do not want them to be kept in Canada. The reasons given, are that they work too hard, they produce too much and they are too thrifty.
For some years past, indeed, I may say for many years, through what you might call class legislation, the basic industries of this country have had very little attention paid
to them, with the result that they have suffered very much, and to-day are at a particularly low ebb, so low that you find that the agricultural people are able to pay a very small percentage, according to their numbers, as their part of the income tax bill of this country. Then the criticism is made of these people. "Why don't they pay income tax"?
We also hear a good deal in regard to the present standard of living in Canada, which it is said, should be higher. At the same time we find large sums of money being spent on immigration literature in central Europe with the idea of bringing a lot of those people out here, officials must be perfectly well aware that if any large numbers of these people are introduced into the country the standard of living is apt to be lowered. For some years past it has always been the aim of the Minister of Immigration with his staff to encourage people coming to this coutry to take up farming, and for a while no one was encouraged to come unless he settled on the land. I believe the doors are thrown open a little wider to-day, but one point which the Minister of Immigration should realize quite fully is this, that you cannot force people to farm, irrespective of conditions. If economic conditions are unjust, uneven, unequal, or unfair, you cannot force people tc farm, and if you succeed in getting them to go on the land they will not settle down under these conditions. We are making great efforts to curtail unemployment, but at the same time by this system of immigration, whereby we have induced people to come to the country' out of proportion to the demands of industry, we naturally swell the ranks of the unemployed annually.
From the year 1911 onwards hon. gentlemen to my right-Conservatives-have done their level best to frustrate any chances we may have had of securing reciprocity with the United States, so that through their action we lost the best stock market we could have had. And now that we have lost that market we are told by these same gentlemen that we should go in for mixed farming. We have heard a good deal about the supposed agreement between the party representing the government and those gentlemen amongst whom I happen to sit. Criticisms have been made of a close alliance which it is alleged exists between these two groups. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, on consulting Hansard, to find that in the year 1923, of 21 votes that were taken, in 12 the Liberals and Conservatives voted together against the Progressives, on four occasions the Liberals and
The Budget-Mr. Spencer


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood, Mr. Speaker, that we are to go on with Supply-Agriculture.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: M:r. Chairman, I have
been requested by one or two hon. gentlemen to let vote 46 stand for the present. We will proceed with vote 47.
Agriculture publications, $33,500.


William Richard Motherwell: The extra amount
is for publicity and bulletins for distribution during the Empire Exhibition this summer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Institute of Agriculture, $15,000.
Arthur Meighen: Of what value is this?


William Richard Motherwell: We decided not
to send delegates to Rome in connection with the institute this year, the idea being to economize as much as possible. We are keeping up our dues in the usual way and maintaining the staff here.


Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister explain
what benefit Canada gets from that?


William Richard Motherwell: Agricultural statistics of the world are compiled by a body located at Rome, representing some 62 countries. The information is assembled there from month to month and redistributed to the various countries concerned. Farmers and others interested are thus made familiar with the amount of grain and 'other products
Supply-A gricidture

produced in the various countries, and if, for instance, there is a surplus in any particular line, those interested in growing that product may regulate their sowing accordingly. I do not think the average farmer pays very much attention to that side of it. It is largely a matter of the securing of information of a statistical nature for governments, individuals and the press. For instance, last year we discovered through the medium of this body that Canada had become the largest grower of export wheat in the world. Of course we might have found that out a few months afterwards in any case. I do not suppose anything serious would happen if we did1 not have this institute. But we are working in co-operation with about 60 other countries, and sometimes you have to keep up your part when you are in an institute of this nature, even though you may not be able to point to any very outstanding results from it. I do not think we would care to retire from our connection with the institute.


Arthur Meighen: What is the basis of
contribution? Do we pay as much as the United States, say, or is it on a per capita basis?


William Richard Motherwell: The countries are
classified into groups. The United States this year are sending over something like 23 representatives; they are making a feature of it. There is a contribution to the expenses of Sir Thomas Elliott, located at Rome, who is delegate for Canada and Great Britain on the permanent committee. The countries are grouped according to importance and a levy is made for the maintenance of the office in Rome and the distribution of the information as it comes in. The home offices are maintained by the respective governments.


Arthur Meighen: I got some information, but it was not what I asked. What I asked was: How do we tell what we ought to contribute? Is it per capita?


William Richard Motherwell: The respective
countries have the option of belonging to whatever group they like. Canada elected to belong to group 2, and that involves a certain contribution, amounting to almost $7,000 for the office in Rome. The balance goes to maintain the office here in the West Block.


Arthur Meighen: What does the office
in the West Block do? How does it co-operate with Rome?


William Richard Motherwell: They compile the
statistics at this end and transmit them to the headquarters at Rome, and then in turn they receive them back when the totals are realized there and redistributed. Mr. Doherty, who is in charge of the office here, has been engaged in that work for a number of years. They have a very substantial library. The staff numbers about five.


Arthur Meighen: The whole thing is a
mystery to me. It may be all right, but I cannot understand it. The purpose is to get statistics of agricultural production. Well, why there needs to be an institute at Rome or anywhere else to do that, I do not know to begin with. We have our system of statistics, so has every country; you can find oui agricultural production any time you telephone our statistical office, and every other country has a corresponding system. There is no doubt in the world that every agricultural department or any government can get from the other governments and does get regularly the statistics of agricultural production, just as we get the statistics of manufacturing production and of railways.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a clearing
house.


Arthur Meighen: What in the world do
we need a clearing house for? There may be need bf it, but it is not apparent to me. You might have a clearing house for every class of production on earth. I am always suspicious of these international bodies. The world is getting top-heavy with machinery.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
does not think it is something that I have sprung on the country, does he?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think the
hon. gentleman sprang it on the country, but I would like to get some explanation of it that is intelligible, and I have not got it yet.
I will now come to the office here. Why should there be a sort of Canadian radio centre to get this from Rome? What is our statistics office for? They will get this information just as easily. Why a receiving station here with five or six of a staff? I am not particularly criticizing the minister, except I do not think he has gone into it very much. I do not doubt if the former minister were here he would have some defence of it.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. gentleman will sit down I will tell him something of it.

Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Meighen: I hope so. I waited patiently through his last three or four efforts, but without much glimmering of the purpose of this office.


William Richard Motherwell: I took it for granted you knew a little bit about it to begin with.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister would if he had not his deputy beside him.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot recall the
exact date, but I remember a gentleman by the name of David Lubin getting the notion into his head of organizing a world institute of this nature for the purpose of consolidating the statistics of the world, particularly those relating to agriculture. I was at Regina at that time, and I know the Hon. Sydney Fisher, who was then Minister of Agriculture, was one of the first delegates who went over from Canada. David Lubin is the gentleman responsible for having this notion. I cannot give my hon. friend his history, but I am sure he must have heard of him. I think a good many in the committee will recall that about that time there was a mania for collecting statistics. You heard talk of statistics everywhere, and this gentleman seemed to get the idea of wanting to go everybody else one better by getting world statistics from the various countries. Some thirty-two countries fell in line with his proposition, and the scheme crystallized in Rome where a permanent office has been established. I do not know exactly how large a staff they have, but we contribute about $7,000 towards its maintenance. Thirty countries gather their statistics at home and transmit them to Rome, and there they are consolidated and distributed all over the world. That is briefly the story of this organization. Whether it is worth this amount of money I cannot say. I have never attended one of the meetings, but some of the ministers in the past have taken the opportunity of going over and seeing for themselves. I do not expect I shall, but if I had taken the opportunity I would be in a position to give my hon. friend first-hand information on the details. I must say that I never was very much struck with the work when it was first inaugurated, but it was here when this government came into power. Our delegates who went over two years ago made a special report to me, and they seemed to think they would not by any means care to recommend that this work be dropped; they thought the institute was doing a useful work. If we were hard enough up we could do without it, but nevertheless we joined with these other countries in establishing this institute, and other countries instead of relaxing their interest seem to be
taking a deeper interest in it. The United States, for instance, instead of sending over two or three delegates is sending twenty-three this year. We are not sending any delegates this year.


Mr. SALES:: Who is this supposed to benefit?


William Richard Motherwell: I indicated that
possibly when my hon. friend was out-the farmers and people generally who are interested in these returns.


Thomas Sales: Does the minister himself
think that the farmers derive one dollar's worth of benefit from the money that is spent on this work?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think the farmers govern their actions one particle by these statistics. If there is a surplus of any particular product the farmers are supposed to be made acquainted with it and govern themselves accordingly in their sowing operations, but there is not one farmer in ten thousand who actually governs himself by this information. But that was one of the dreams of the originator. As a matter of furnishing actual information however, it is possibly worth while. We are a wheat-growing country, and the largest exporter of wheat in the world, and as I pointed out a few moments ago we were given information on the wheat situation through this medium, and that is_ only one illustration of the useful information that has come to us through this medium. We got along before this institute was Qrganized, but then, of course, we got along without many other things too prior to that, and for my part I would not like to see us drop out of it without consultation with the various countries with whom we co-operated in the first instance.


Mr. BRETHEN:: Through what channels
does this information reach the people it is supposed to benefit?


William Richard Motherwell: Through press
despatches, the agricultural press particularly, and through bulletins. I am sure my hon. friend must have seen Mr. Doherty's articles from time to time.


John Livingstone Brown: They issue a very elaborate report. It has been coming to me for . some years, but I cannot say just how often it comes because I do not read it very carefully. They send this report around to some people; I do not know to whom.


George Arthur Brethen: Is Canada committed
in any way with the other nations to keep up this establishment in Rome?
Suppl y-A (jricidture


William Richard Motherwell: The contract just
coninues from year to year. The United States got into correspondence with us and their delegates offered to convene with ours here and go over together, bu't we were obliged to tell them we were not sending delegates this year. They went ahead with their own plans and are sending twenty-three delegates this year, so as far as this continent is concerned the United States figured that we would remain in the institute at least until we gave notification to the contrary. There is no contract signed to stay in with it for any length of time, but it just goes on from year to year. At the same time it is supposed to be a progressive movement so far as statistics are concerned, and when other countries are going into it so strong as the United States, for instance, it would not look a very good time for us to do anything else than remain in it.


Mr. LEADER:: The minister said a
moment ago that if we were hard enough up we could get along without this. I wonder if we are not at that stage right now. The minister says the United States can afford to send twenty-three delegates over, but the United States can afford to be extravagant;
I do not think Canada can. Now the minister tells us that we can get out of this by notifying the other countries that we are not going to take part in it, and I would suggest that he take that step. I grant that he is not responsible for this organization; it has been bequeathed to him, but why not take another*step in the right direction and on the grounds of economy notify the other contracting parties to this agreement that as far as Canada is concerned we intend to withdraw for this year at least.


William Richard Motherwell: Do I understand
my hon. friend to suggest that this year we should carry along with the organization, and in the meantime notify the other countries that we contemplate withdrawing before another year?


Harry Leader: If we cannot withdraw at once, if we are bound to give a year's notice, we must observe that obligation with the understanding that we reserve the right to withdraw next year. But I understood we could withdraw at once.


William Richard Motherwell: It is the central [DOT]
body at Rome that we are committed to, but various countries are co-partners in the enterprise. The institute was established with the understanding, of course, that the expense would be borne by the various countries that are getting the service which it supplies. I

think in ordinary common decency we should give notice of reasonable time in advance before w" withdrew from the arrangement. I may say that two years ago when we were sending a representative over to a conference at Rome I asked for a candid report as to the value of this work to Canada. The report I received was not very pronounced either orre way or the other but the general tone of it was that we had better continue the arrangement. Personally I think we could dispense with it to-day and we would not know to-morrow that we had lost anything very substantial. At the same time I have never been at a world conference of this nature and am only able to speak from secondhand information. Consequently I do not know what my judgment would be if I saw the conference in operation. Apparently it is just one of those things that grew out of the prosperity of former days, and ran along, and a great many people think it is all right. 1 have never heard any other country discuss it. I was the only adverse critic-at least the only "doubting Thomas"-that I knew of in Canada two or three years ago. I made inquiry and was told it was a fine institution and I had to put, and did put, my opinion to one side. I think in many respects it is of no practical value to the farmer in guiding his farming operation on the land.


Harry Leader: In view of the strong statement the minister has just made I would ask him if he would take into consideration the withdrawal of this item for next year at least?


William Richard Motherwell: I will recommend it to my colleagues. We have international relationships with other countries in this matter, and we would have to look into it very carefully-I am not supposed to knock the matter out right off my own bat. However, I will tell my hon. friend this: I will recommend to my colleagues that I think we can dispense with it. I may say that I have already done that, as a matter of fact.


Mr. BOYS:: What is the total cost of keeping this office up? Do the various countries-twenty-eight I think the minister said-bear the expense equally?


William Richard Motherwell: What is the total cost of all the countries?


William Alves Boys: Yes, the cost of maintaining
this office in Rome?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it will be
more than thirty times seven.

Supply-A griculture


William Alves Boys: I just multiplied $15,000, which is the item, by twenty-eight-I thought from what the minister said there were twenty-eight countries concerned-and I see it comes to $428,000. I was wondering what sort of office it would be to cost that much money. It would' have to be a very extensive one certainly. Now, do the countries concerned all bear an equal share, or how is the expense provided for?


William Richard Motherwell: I am just figuring
out how much it will be. I went over that once and I am sorry my hon. friend was not in when I gave an explanation previously. The cost is about $210,000 assuming they all pay about the same as Canada, but I imagine a lot of them would pay quite a bit more. We are in number two group, number one group would be more expensive.


William Alves Boys: I was asking the minister
on what basis we contribute? I suppose we do not "go it blind." There is some basis on which Canada is asked to contribute a certain amount of money, and I presume there is something to show why we are asked to put up $15,000?


William Richard Motherwell: I have gone over
that already. The countries are divided into three groups-one, two and three. An estimate is made of ,the amount for the total requirements and it is allocated to the various countries in these three groups. It is an arbitrary amount to suit the sum that has to be allocated. We had the option of choosing what group we would go into and we went into group number two.


Mr. DOUCET:: The whole of the vote
does not go to the central office in Rome. According to the details of expenditure for
1922-	23 out of practically $15,000 expended, only $2,754 was contributed to the central institute in Rome. Now, would the minister be good enough to tell us how much of last year's vote was really expended in the year
1923-	24?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not been
able, perhaps, to catch the entire significance of my hon. friend's question but if my conception of what he has asked is correct I will give my explanation if he will be seated just for a moment. The amount that we send over every year is not always the same. Sofnetimes we are behind with our contribution. If we are a little short in the vote sometimes we get a year behind, and the next year we require that much more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Hon. gentlemen
opposite seem to be amused, it is all right.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I will make my question
sufficiently intelligible to the minister this time. During the year 1922-23 the International Institute of Agriculture cost this country $14,269. Of that amount $2,754 was the contribution *to the institute at Rome for 1922, I presume-I think I am right-that the contribution for 1923 will be something on a par with the contribution for 1922.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Hence I say that out of
that vote of practically $15,000 two years ago, something like $2,750 was expended for the central institute in Rome. The balance went for stationery, advertising, printing, publication and the expenses of the delegates representing this Dominion at Rome?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cigars and cigarettes.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I feel a good deal like
an hon. gentleman who sits to my left, who said we could easily dispense with this item. The minister himself said that he had been "a doubting Thomas" and he has not as yet confessed1 that he is confirmed in his belief that this is a necessity. He has admitted to us that no one interested in the farming industry of this country has reaped or will reap one cent's worth from this expenditure. I take into consideration the fact that in the interest of economy the federal vote to the different provinces in connection with agricultural instruction has been curtailed, and I think we might as well curtail this item also.


Arthur Meighen: I am not sure the hon. gentleman is entirely right; I think the minister has distributed his opinions very fairly. He said this vote could be dispensed with and that nobody ever benefits from it at all, that there is no value in it. He also said that it is a fine institute. He further said that he is ready to propose to his colleagues to have nothing more to do with it. I do not think we could ask for a finer variety of opinions than that. May I ask last of all if Mr. Marshall had a trip over there to this institute? Has he been one of the delegates yet?


William Richard Motherwell: No. My hon.
friend has a great faculty of presenting a thing so as to make it appear exactly what it is not. I said that so far as it was an advantage to the farmer, its advantage was not appreciable; and that, as a matter of
Suppl y-A gricidture

fact, I did not think it was of any value as regards determining his course of conduct in sowing his fields to fit in with the reports of the institute. I did not think it had any effect in that regard at all. That was one of the dreams and theories of David Lubin; that was one of the advantages which he preached in order to get the various countries to take this up. But from an international standpoint, surely sixty countries that are engaged in this work are not all so foolish as to throw money away just to give a few people a trip to Rome. We have joined with these countries; we have committed ourselves to support the central office at Rome, and if we desire to retire from it, I think we should notify the central office a year in advance. It is quite correct that it will not cause me very much grief to notify them, but in the meantime I would not want to retire from this institute until we had given the ordinary business intimation that we were going to do so and had observed the ordinary proprieties between countries.


Donald Sutherland: I am sorry to find
the minister retiring from the position which he assumed two years ago and a year ago. When he came into office, an amount of $10,000 was voted for this object. The International Institute of Agriculture at Rome was a new venture at that time, when he saw fit to increase the expenditure by $5,000 and the following year by another $5,000, really doubling the expenditure from the time he came into office. To-day he tells us that he is a "doubting Thomas," and he doubts whether we are receiving any benefit from this expenditure or not. If we are not receiving any benefit, I do not think we have any money to throw away. He says that all we have ascertained is that Canada is the greatest wheat exporting country in the world. I think we can find that out without going to Rome.


William Richard Motherwell: I admit that.


Donald Sutherland: Although the minister was quite optimistic about increasing the expenditure for that purpose during the last two years, he is prepared to-day to admit that it is a failure and to wipe out the whole thing. I notice that he has been referring to a Mr. David Lubin who has figured prominently in connection with this matter. I notice Mr. W. A. Wilson from Regina has received a considerable amount out of this item, and probably the minister will tell the committee what Mr. Wilson has been doing in connection with this work.


William Richard Motherwell: He was one of the delegates that went over with Dr. Charron,

who was in England at the time. We secured his services there and we paid for his services from there to Rome. He was joined by Mr. Wilson and they were the two representatives who made a special report. I got a report from them especially for the purpose of finding out from someone whom I knew just what value this institute was to us. The reason for the increase the first year was that when we came into power, I found that the contribution towards the central office was behind and we had to add that amount in order to bring our contribution up to date.


Donald Sutherland: What about the increase the second year?


William Richard Motherwell: Because the cost of an institution like that, as in everything else, is always increasing. Office work is growing; it is getting larger. You cannot send twenty-three extra delegates from the United States this year, and possibly delegates from other countries to some extent in the same proportion, without increasing the expenses of the institute. The reason that this appropriation is less is because we are not sending delegates this year.


Donald Sutherland: Has the minister's
special representative, Mr. Wilson, reported against continuing this work?


William Richard Motherwell: No, neither of
them reported against it. Mr. Wilson's report, as I remember it, was that it just depended on how hard up we were and how much we needed that $15,000 for something else. That is looking at the matter from a narrow standpoint. But on the other hand he took the ground that we were in this institute in co-operation with some sixty other countries, and we had an obligation to them which he thought we should fulfil. I do not recall all the details of his report, but I remember the sum of it was that he thought we should continue the grant for the present at all events, until some intimation was made of our intention to retire from it. Otherwise, had the report been against it, the chances are that I would have pressed more strongly for its elimination and possibly given the various countries, especially Rome, intimation of our intention to retire. Dr. Charron, who was engaged at the instance of the Quebec government in the Old Country at the time, reported quite strongly in favour of it.


Donald Sutherland: Had Mr. Wilson
any special qualifications for this work that he was sent over to look after it?

Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: No, except that I
knew that what he would report, I could rely upon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A good friend?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Donald Sutherland: And his report has
evidently convinced the minister that this is money thrown away?


William Richard Motherwell: No. I knew that
before.


Donald Sutherland: That there was
no use in continuing this expenditure. The minister was a " doubting Thomas " at the beginning and he is more so to-day.


William Richard Motherwell: I told my hon.
friend that when the scheme was launched away back in 1908, I did not see any practical value in it for the farmer, so I did not have to wait until now, or for Mr. Wilson's report, in order to find that out. But I found out from Dr. Charron and him that we had an obligation, that we had contracted jointly with those other countries that we should continue until we should give formal notice. This is not the only case that we have had to deal with in connection with international events, and unless you keep up your obligations, you are looked upon as a tail-ender and a quitter. You have either to be with it or not with it.


Donald Sutherland: I wonder if that rule would apply to the minister's administration of the whole department, that he is to be considered a tail-ender unless he doubles the expenditure for all purposes. The amount was only $10,000 when the minister took office. The following year he increased the amount by $5,000 and the next year by another $5,000, thus doubling it. Now he admits that it is an absolute failure and he does not see any advantage to this country by continuing it. In that case, I think it is folly for us to be voting money for something that is not going to bring any benefit to the country. We need to control our expenditures as much as is possible in every respect, and I think the sooner we come to that understanding, the better it will be for all concerned, instead of voting money for something from which we do not expect to receive any return. The minister has admitted to-night that he does not see any advantage to be gained by continuing this vote for this purpose, although he has seen fit to double the grant since assuming office. I hope he will carry out the policy all along the line of seeing that all these extravagant
estimates are reduced in that respect. I commend him for his frankness in to-day acknowledging that he does not see any advantage in continuing this grant.


William Richard Motherwell: The vote is reduced by $5,000 this year. That much should be apparent on the surface. I think I have already explained to my hon. friend once, if not twice that the reason we increased the amount two years ago was because, when we came into power we found that we were $5,000 behind in our contributions to the central institute and we had to pay up that amount. Then the next year we had to send two delegates and the expenses in connection therewith had to be charged up. The general cost of the office, as a result of an advance in salaries and costs of administration, accounts for the rest of the increase. This year as a result of not sending any delegates as we should have done if we had carried out the practice of the past ten or twelve years, of sending two delegates every other year, we are able to bring down an estimate of $5,000 less than that of last year.


William Alves Boys: I understand the minister to say that the only reason he continues this vote is the fact that there exists a contractual obligation He has made it manifest that so far as he is concerned he thinks the thing is useless, but he defends it on the ground of that contractual obligation.


William Richard Motherwell: There is an obligation to the central body.


William Alves Boys: It has not been made very plain just how that obligation has arisen. Were wc parties to the establishment of the central office in the first instance?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Was it as a result of agreement between the nations?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Alves Boys: We are not committed to this vote for all time?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


William Alves Boys: I take it there is no written contract, but unquestionably there is correspondence. Is there anything in that correspondence which makes it impossible for us to be relieved of this expenditure without a certain period of notice? Are we supposed to give a year's notice or any definite intimation of our intention to withdraw from the institute? If there is provision for such notice I suppose we can at any time give that notice
Supply-Agriculture

and simply discontinue our contributions without in any way committing a breach of obligation. If the minister is of the opinion, as it seems has been since 1908, that this is a useless expenditure, we might as well discontinue it now.


William Richard Motherwell: When we got into arrears before we were billed for the amount that was allocated to us.


William Alves Boys: Are we behind now?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but we have been in recent years and we paid up. They are not going to discontinue sending us the information and the bulletins that we get simply because we have not paid up; they will assume that we will settle in time. I feel that it would be an international impropriety-because there is no question of breach of contract, seeing that no contract exists-if we withheld our contribution without adequate notice.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: Are Mr. Doherty and
his staff engaged all the time compiling these statistics in the West Block?
Mr. MOTHERWELL. There is a very substantial library the publications in which are circulated, but I do not know just what arrangement is in force for getting the books and the publications back. These publications are distributed throughout Canada and I know that they return regularly. I am not familiar with the system, but I take it that no new publications would be sent out until those that were out were returned. Sometimes it requires correspondence to get them back.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: If this vote were dispensed with we could do without the services of this staff.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, for that
matter we could get along without the Department of Agriculture, as Australia does. But the question is, could we afford to take such a position? I think this branch was instituted under the Laurier government in 1908 and it has existed throughout the administrations respectively of Sir Robert Borden, the Union government, the government that succeeded that one, and now the present government. So that all parties, including my hon. friends opposite, have endorsed it. Either last year or the year before I remember making the very same statement I have made tonight, that as regards the usefulness of the institution as applied to the farmers I thought it was a dream. But I showed then, as I say now, that having committed ourselves to the 
matter with .the 60 other countries concerned we could not very well withdraw from the obligation we have assumed unless we gave sufficient notice of our intention to do so.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: It does not take $15,000
to pay our subscription. Our share of the expenses of the British delegates to Rome amounted to something like $800; and $3,500 was the total representing our participation in the activities of the central institute. So that practically $9,000 has been expended in periodicals, printing and stationery. The staff is not included in this vote, nor was it included two years ago. And the minister claims that these periodicals are not a particle of use to the farming population.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say the
bulletins were no good; I said the reports and the statistics that came out as a result of the compilations. But there are various bulletins besides those publications.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I quite agree with the
minister, and in my statement I did not include the various bulletins printed1 and distributed by the Department of Agriculture. But I submit that the bulletins emanating from the statistical department and gathered in Rome are of no practical value to our farming population. If they are not, then $12,000 of this vote is uncalled for, and at the present time I believe the money could be spent to better advantage on other phases of agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend misquotes me. I did not say the bulletins contained no practical information. I said the statistic's outlining the crops of the various countries, including our own, were not a determining factor in assisting farmers in their operations.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: But if the statistics received from the International Institute are of no benefit to our farmers, how can the bulletins prepared from those statistics be of any value?


William Richard Motherwell: Although we have
received letters from Rome urging us very strongly to send our usual delegates, we have decided not to do so, and in consequence we have been keeping up our other obligations and securing information in the usual way for $5,000 less.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: But in 1922-23 we sent
two delegates, and the total expenditure was $14,259. As the minister has informed the committee that he does not propose to send delegates this year, I submit that $2,700

Supply-A gricvlture
should be our contribution to the International Institute and $800 our portion of the expenses of the British delegates representing us at Rome. Those two items total $3,500.
I submit that the balance of the vote is of no practical benefit to our agriculturists, as the minister himself has admitted.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure some
members of the committee must recall the fact that I expressed the opinion that this institute was of very little practical value the very first year I was in this House. I am sure the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) and the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) must remember what I then said.


Robert Forke: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: There was not
much response from the committee then. My opinion was the result of long years of keeping track of the work before I came here and of my ordinary horse sense-a sense with which most of us are endowed' more or less and so know what is and what is not of value to the everyday practical farmer in the field. I admitted, however, when the other side of the case was presented that there was a larger international aspect which we must stand up for until we retire. Now the committee, I gather, would desire me to take this up with my colleagues and, if agreeable, notify Rome that this will be the last year that we will engage in this work. I will undertake to do so. That would be vindicating the opinion which I expressed when I came down here first.


Donald Sutherland: I am sorry the minister throws the responsibility for this vote upon the committee because they had confidence in what he terms his horse sense, which influenced him to recommend for this vote an increase of $5,000 two years ago, and another increase of $5,000 the following session. He surely was in a better position than any member of the committee to know the value of the work. Now he turns around and throws the responsibility on the committee for having passed the estimates which he submitted. The committee evidently had more confidence in the minister then, for they are disappointed to-night to hear him admit that he is a "doubting Thomas" and never had much faith in the practical value to be derived from this expenditure. I am surprised at a responsible minister making such an admission after having defended his estimates. I do not think there is anything further to be said in the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has recited it wrongly again.


Donald Sutherland: In what respect?


William Richard Motherwell: In this respect. I
pointed out that during the years of the war Canada got behind in its annual contribution to the institute. To pick that up we had to provide $5,000. We sent delegates to Rome two years ago; this year we are not sending them. In the meantime we are constantly being informed that the cost of operating the office has increased during the last three or four years, which accounts for the addition of last year. This year we have dropped back $5,000, because I have taken the ground that we are not going to send delegates. We are simply maintaining our obligations with Rome, and that is all. When my hon. friend says that I admit the expenditure is of no use, I would remind him that I said it only in a qualified way as applied to practical farming, which I have always distinguished from the international obligations that we have incurred.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I agree with the minister that we have to look at the international side of this question. The expenditure being of no practical use to our farmers, I move that vote 48 be reduced to $5,000. I submit this would provide for a contribution to the Internationa Institute of Agriculture in Rome and our portion of the expense of the British delegates.


William Richard Motherwell: We cannot pay our way with $5,000, that is all.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me that the position taken by the minister is somewhat anomalous. He asks that this item be passed, and then he says he has no use for the work of the institute himself and never had. Surely if he has any faith in the item he ought to stand behind it, and ask the House to pass it. He can hardly expect the House to pass it when he says that it is practically money thrown away.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think that
is fair. I have corrected the member for South Oxford at least three times; surely my hon. friend is not going to require me to repeat the correction three times more for his benefit. I never made an unqualified statement that it was of no use. I specified that it was of no use as a guide to individual farmers in their spring operations as to how much to sow to meet a possible shortage or to avoid increasing a surplus, and I believe that. Then I went on to show that there was
Supply-Agriculture

another side to it, the international side, to which we had committed ourselves. Surely my hon. friend has no desire to misrepresent me. I have been candid enough to tell the committee my own view, and that view has not changed since I came here from what it was ten years ago. I have had a larger view of the international side and its importance through our representation by the delegates we sent there; and naturally from the reports I have from my staff I can see that there is another side to it. We cannot drop out from international organizations in this and everything else; we have got to keep up our end of the stick or else retire honourably, and we cannot retire honourably without giving notice. I am willing to retire after this year if my colleagues are satisfied that that is the wise course to take, but not in this abrupt and irregular fashion. The very fact that the vote is $5,000 less than last year is an indication that we are doing what we can to reduce it and still keep faith with the institute.


Mr. GOULD:: I think the minister would
advise the committee that apart from the expenses of two delegates the expenditure is uncontrollable; it is assessed upon Canada by the institute at Rome.


William Richard Motherwell: Absolutely.


Oliver Robert Gould: If that is the case I submit
that we should in all honour notify the institute at Rome of what our intention is for next year. While I approve of reductions in expenditure, even to the point where it hurts, I do not think we wish to put ourselves in what might be termed a ridiculous position. I think we should express ourselves along the line of what has been said here and that the minister and his colleagues should see to it that due notification be given of the action we intend to take for next year.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman is quite right. The only controllable part of it was the $5,000, and we cut that out.


William Alves Boys: I have not the slightest desire to misstate the minister's position; far from it. But he certainly did leave the impression . on me that he himself had no use for the item.


William Richard Motherwell: I object to that,
Mr. Chairman.


William Alves Boys: I am just saying I understood that, that is all; I am accepting what the minister says. I understand from what the minister says now that he is in favour of this item and wants to put it through.


William Richard Motherwell: I do; otherwise it would not be here.
fMr. Motherwell.]


William Alves Boys: I shall not repeat what I
understood the minister to say earlier in his remarks, but he certainly did leave that impression, I think, on the committee, and a good many members have made reference to it. If publications are being sent that we have not paid for, I certainly would not want to see this country refuse to pay for them, but I understand that we are paid up in full, and if that be so it seems to me that we can retire gracefully and honourably at this time.


Mr. MILLAR:: I feel very much like the
Hon. member (Mr. Gould): it does seem that we cannot do less than pay our dues for the coming year, but after that I think we might withdraw. May I ask the minister whether the delegates who attend the conferences of the institute are men in the front rank in agricultural matters in the various countries? Are they capable of correlating their investigations and giving the various countries the benefit in that respect, or do they confine their operations almost entirely to statistics?


William Richard Motherwell: We usually send
a delegate over who can talk both French and English, because the business is conducted in both languages. Here are some of the activities of the institute:
The institute is an international agricultural intelligence bureau for the collection, elaboration and publication of technical, practical, economic and statistical information of interest to agriculturists, special prominence being given to crop reports, prices, visible supply, imports and exports, methods of cultivation, agricultural chemistry and botany, plant breeding, plant diseases, meteorology, forestry, live stock, agricultural industries, co-operation, insurance, credit, agricultural organization and administration.
The matter of co-operative activities was the primary thing that David Lubin had in mind, because he was a strong advocate of co-operation.
The institute publishes three regular bulletins:
(a)	International Review of the Science and Practice of Agriculture, which might be called a review of reviews of agriculture, its material being abstracted from some 2,600 periodicals from all countries and in many languages.
(b)	International Review of Agricultural Economics, which deals with co-operation, credit, farm management, and other economic questions relating to agriculture.
(c)	International Crop Report and Agricultural Statistics, which contains official reports of crop conditions and estimates of the area and production of all important crops, as well as statistics of international trade, prices of agricultural products, numbers of live stock, etc. Yearly statements of the production of and trade in fertilizers and concentrated feeding stuffs are published. In the English edition the data for area and production are given in acres and centah, and in the case of wheat the production is shortly to be given in bushels of 60 pounds.
The institute also publishes every year the International Year Book of Agricultural Legislation con-

Supply-Agriculture
taining references to or summaries of the laws and regulations relating to agriculture, passed in the various countries. The International Year Book of Agricultural Statistics, hitherto published every two years, will now be published yearly. It is recognized to be the most complete work on the subject published. The last issue covers 1921-1922. The preceding one covered the years 1909-1921.
Besides these periodical works, there have been published a great many publications such as Monographs on Agricultural Co-operation in Various Countries; An Outline of the European Co-operative Credit System; The Utilization of Waste Materials; Oil Products and Vegetable Oils; The Landschaften and Their Mortgage Credit Operation in Germany; Rural Credits in Canada; Co-operation for the Marketing of Agricultural Products and the Supply of Farm Requisites in Canada, etc., in all about 30.
The Canadian office. The purpose' of the Canadian office is to reproduce the essential features of the institute's work at Rome so as to adapt it to Canadian needs and ensure that it shall exert a direct influence on Canadian agriculture.
That is the phase of it in respect to which I have always expressed myself as a "doubting Thomas," that is, the matter of its direct influence on Canadian agriculture. When the hon. member for Saltcoats asked me a straight question as to what my opinion was, what could I do but tell him? And I told him. But that was only regarding agriculture; as to all these other different phases of the work I did not express that opinion. From the international point of view I believe that we have been justified up to the present in continuing our connection with the institute, but not as directly affecting agriculture in Canada-and by that I mean the guiding of the farmers in conducting their spring operations and fitting the acreage into the reports of the institute.


Thomas Sales: Will the minister allow another question?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that one
got me into so much trouble that I do not know whether I should.
' Mr. SALES: I will see if I can get the minister into some more. If it does not benefit the farmer, whom does it benefit? Does it benefit anybody else?


William Richard Motherwell: I think a whole lot of this information does benefit the farmers. A great many of these things we have been discussing interminably right here in this House, and probably we will work some of them out to fruition. On the question of cooperation the Sir Horace Plunkett foundation is to-day asking men from all over the world to assemble in Great Britain to consider cooperation as applied to agricultural products. My hon. friend is, of course, aware that Sir Horace Plunkett is one of the foremost men in the world on the question of co-operation among farmers in Ireland and throughout
Great Britain. That is not a dead question by any means. It is one of the questions referred to here, and it is a very live question. So, after all, there are a great many sides to agriculture besides simply getting the information that is supposed to be necessary in order to determine the extent of our activities in any one particular year, based on statistical reports. So far as that particular feature is concerned, I do not think it is worth anything.
I hope 1 have not left the impression on the House that I think no phases of this work are any good. There are disadvantages in being candid.


Robert Forke: I think the minister went a little too far in making that statement. The information might be of service if it showed there was going to be a tremendous acreage of wheat put in all over the world.


William Richard Motherwell: It sounds fine in
theory, but like so many other things that are good in theory it does not work out in practice. I am sure when my hon. friend was home at Easter he was not doing any figuring based on this report.


Robert Forke: I told them not to put in so much wheat, but to put in more oats and barley.


William Richard Motherwell: But that was because of the rust. There is another page and a half here describing further activities; I do not know whether the committee wishes me to read them.


John Millar: Have any of the experts
that Canada has been sending over in past years beer in the forefront in any branch of agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: I think we will have to admit that the very first one that went over, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, left his mark on agriculture in Canada. The late Doctor Rutherford, at one time Veterinary Director General, and later a member of the Railway Commission, was an outstanding man in the agricultural world.


Robert Forke: Was Doctor James Robertson over there?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it was Doctor
Rutherford that went over. I have not the pleasure of the acquaintance of Doctor Char-ron, but I understand he is quite a prominent man. Then there was Mr. Wilson; I am sure my hon. friends from Saskatchewan know the part he has played in developing the dairy industry in that province.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Live stock, $1,280,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large and very
important item. I think many members had no knowledge that these estimates were coming up to-night and I would suggest that this item stand.


George Perry Graham: It is not our fault.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not our fault.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend was not present at the time, but before we started at all I went over to the right hon. leader of the opposition and asked him if the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) was in the House, and he said no, and I passed over the vote for the Health of Animals branch without being requested to do so. I thought I was doing very nicely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then let us have an
understanding that on the item for the Health of Animals we can discuss anything, if some other item is to be taken up.


William Richard Motherwell: We are leaving
that item over.


Robert Forke: In regard to going on with estimates to-night, I would point out that two members in this part of the House spoke one after the other, so it was not the fault of this part of the House that the budget debate was not proceeded with.


William Richard Motherwell: I am surprised at
my hon. friend drawing attention to the fact that they are petering oyt on the budget debate and then asking us to adjourn.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement. I made a courteous suggestion that this item is a very large one, and that a great many members did not understand that these estimates were coming on to-night. I made no reflections regarding the budget debate not being continued.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we might meet my hon. friend, in view of the hour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Personally I have no
objection to discussing other items, but this is a very large and important item.


William Alves Boys: I just want to say one word in connection with the debate. I want to give the government and my hon. friend the minister credit for going on with the estimates to-night, but at the same time I do not want for one moment to have the impression left that it has been due entirely to the group of which I form one. It is only fair to say, and I think we all understand it, that the work of the committee dealing with church union has more or less upset things, and

Friday is always a bad day. There has not been a speaker on the government side today supporting the budget; we have had some speakers. As a matter of fact, the Progressives only had one before six o'clock. It is true that one came on later, and for that I want to give them credit too. There was to some extent a collapse all round, if it comes to the fine thing. We want to be fair about it. It is due to unusual circumstances, not to this group or any one group. There has been perhaps more interest taken in church union this week than in the budget. The whole proposition is about fifty-fifty, and I as Whip of this party want to give credit to the government for the way they have met the situation, but I do not think we should be blamed in that connection at all.


Harry Leader: Seeing . that the budget
debate has petered out, I would suggest that we take a vote on the budget now.


William Alves Boys: We are not dealing with the budget now.


William Richard Motherwell: Out of deference
to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) who is absent, and who is interested in this vote also, I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.
Monday, May 12, 1924