1924-05-05

REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce-Mr. Cahill (for Mr. Mitchell).

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay 
on the Table a return to an address, dated March 19, by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) asking for a copy of all correspondence, petitions, protests, letters, resolutions, and other documents exchanged between the government and any person or persons or organizations, or provincial governments or other public bodies in Canada, protesting against the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes by the Chicago Drainage Commission and of any and all correspondence with the government of the United States, the Joint International Commission or others on the subject.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the Table a further supplementary return to an address by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) asking for a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario and the government of Canada relating to the development of certain water powers on the St. Lawrence waterway.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition from the Presbyterian church of Little Britain, Manitoba, asking for the passage of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. F. L. KELLY (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition from St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Sydney Mines, N.S., signed by John A. Patterson and 790 others, and a petition from the Greenwood Presbyterian church, Baddeck, N.S., signed by J. A. McDermid and 219 others in opposition to the Church Union bill.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I desire to present a petition signed by J. Kennedy and 167 others of the Presbyterian church, Macleod, Alberta, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. W. J. HAMMELL (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition from Raymond, Ontario, signed by the Rev. J. Macartney; also a petition from the Presbyterian church of Port Sydney, signed by the Rev. J. Macartney, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.

Questions



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rilla May Freeman.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 68 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jessie Maria Watchorn.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Walter Scott Miller.-Mr. Logan.
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harriet Bertha Wiser.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 71 (from the Senate), for the relief of Esther Mary Edwardes St. George.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 72 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Peters.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 73 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Thomas Trott-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 74 (from the Senate), for the relief pf Lucy Elizabeth Smith.-Mr. Carruthers.
Bill No. 75 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Luella Patterson Kelly.-Mr. Ross (Kington).
Bill No. 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Harold Mingay.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of Isabella Guild.-Mr. Hudson.
Bill No. 78 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Lawrence.-Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
INCOME TAX Mr. WOODSWORTH:
1.	What is the amount of income tax computable from returns actually made, that is overdue and unpaid for the years 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, respectively?
2.	What proportion of income tax unpaid in each of the above years was derived from incomes of between: $1,000 and $5,000; $5,000 and $10,000; $10,000 and $25,000; $25,000 and $50,000; $50,000 and $100,000?
3.	What means are used by the department for checking the accuracy of income tax returns?
4.	Are the bank accounts of taxable persons open to the inspection of income tax officials?
5.	Do the chartered banks make any returns to the government of the amounts on deposit to the credit of those liable for income tax?
6.	Is the income tax levied at the same rate on earned income as on income derived from investments? If not, what is the difference?
['1.\tThe tonnage of such traffic handed to Canadian Pacific Railway during 1923 was 187,909 tons and tonnage received during same period from Canadian Pacific Railway was 8,419 tons making a total of 196,328 tons.\n2.\t(a) Canadian National earnings on\nabove traffic were $321,606.65.\t(b) The St.\n\nQuestions\nJohn & Quebec Railway earnings were $53,255.69 of which the Canadian National retain 60 per cent.\n3.\tThe Canadian National would have received one hundred per cent of the the tonnage shown in reply to Question 1 and additional revenue amounting to $246,917.33.\n4. Railway accounting methods do not permit of this information being obtained.\n5. Not yet known, as question will depend on running rights over Canadian Pacific Railway.\n6.\tNo; traffic will be handed to the Maine Central Railway.']
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1 and 2. No information available as taxpayers accounts are only recorded in the ledgers kept at the various district offices
throughout the Dominion. From the inception of the Income War Tax Act, 1917 to 31st March, 1924, the assessments levied amounted to $267,004,599.88, while the collections, exclusive of penalties and interest, during the same period amounted! to $265,228,674.55.
3.	Information is compiled covering the income of each individual taxpayer, whether such is obtained in the form of salary, revenue from estates, dividends, sales of natural products or from other sources, and is checked with the return filed by taxpayer. Should a discrepancy exist an investigation is made. In the case of businesses, whether incorporated or not, financial statements are obtained and audited, which includes, if deemed necessary, an examination of the books and vouchers at the place of business of the taxpayer.
4.	Paragraph (c) of subsection two of section 8 as amended provides as follows:-
(c) Every person who, in whatever capacity acting, is in receipt of any money, thing of value, or of profits, or gains arisihg from any source, of or belonging to any other person shall, when required to do so by notice from the minister prepare and deliver to the minister any information required, within thirty days from the date of the mailing of such notice.
5.	No.
6.	No. In respect to dividends corporations are required to pay from 10 per cent to 104 per cent on profits realized in excess of $2,000, while shareholders are only relieved from payment of normal tax.



Mr. MacLAREN:: 1 What amounts of freight for transportation through the United States ports were carried during the year 1923, respectively, by the railways which formerly constituted:	(a) Canadian Northern Railway
system; (b) Grand Trunk Railway system; (c) Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system; and (d) National Transcontinental Railway system?
2.	What were the names of the United States ports and the amounts of such freight each received?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	It is impossible to say what of the export business in question originated on each of the component parts of the Canadian National system, or any one part, without examination of each way-bill involved, which, it is stated by the management, would take several months and necessitate employment of special staff.
Questions

2.	Portland, Me.-	Tons
Originating in Canada	 592,445
Originating in United States.. 117,415
Total	 709,860
New London, Conn.-	Tons.
Originating in Canada	 6,004
Originating in United States.. 1,660
Total	7,664
VANCOUVER GOVERNMENT ELEVATOR Mr. COOTE:
1.	What was the number of bushels of grain handled by the' government elevator at Vancouver for the year ending July 31, 1923?
2.	What was the handling charge per bushel on said grain?
3.	What were the total receipts and total expenditure in connection with this elevator during this period?
4.	What was the total cost of this elevator?
5.	What was the value at which this elevator was transferred to the Vancouver Harbour Commission ?
6.	What changes, if any, have been made in handling charges by the Vancouver Harbour Commission, and why were these changes made?
7.	How many bushels of grain have been handled by this, elevator from August 1, 1923, to the end of February, 1924 ?
8.	What were the total receipts and expenditures during this time?
9.	What were the port dues on vessels receiving grain from this elevator while under operation by the Board of Grain Commissioners?
10.	What charges in port dues on wheat have been made by the Vancouver Harbour Commission since this elevator was transferred to them?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	34,309,172 bushels of all grains, which includes receipts and shipments.
2.	Handling charges on clean grain- one-half cent per bushel, grain requiring cleaning being subject to additional charges according to amount of dockage.
3.	Total receipts, $203,477.96; total expenditures, S106,329.10.
4.	3850,281.15.
5.	8550,000.
6.	The department is not aware of the tariff charged by the previous management of the government elevator before the commissioners took charge nor is the elevator operated by the commissioners on the same basis as previously. The commissioners' charge for elevating with free storage and insurance against file for 15 days on ordinary grain, is 1 cent per bushel. There is a slight variation in these charges for special conditions of grain. The cargo rate is 1 cent per ton on all grain

up to the first of September next; after that period the rate will be 6 cents per ton, which charge will provide transportation over the conveyor system and piers and also free berthage for ships loading grain cargoes.
7.	31,076,900 bushels.
8.	Receipts, $392,294.08; expenditure, $200,519.04, on operation; and on equipment necessary to make the old elevator function efficiently and in proportion to its rated capacity $59,291.98, a total of $259,811.02.
9.	Harbour dues, 5 cents per net registered ton on the registered tonnage of the ship, payable five times a year only; $50 per day berthage charge on ships taking grain cargo.
10.	The change, effective September 1, 1924, in the cargo rate on grain, from 1 cent per ton to 6 cents per ton. In addition, charges on the ship have been reduced from 5 cents per ton to 3 cents per ton on her net registered tonnage, payable 5 times a year (effective* since the first of this year), and after September 1, the berthage charge of $50 per day for ships taking grain cargoes will be abolished.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REVENUE FREIGHT TRAFFIC
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What was the volume of revenue freight traffic during the year 1923 transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for furtherance to United States points, which traffic it is now proposed to handle by the new line from Kingsclear, a point on the St. John and Quebec Railway in the province of New Brunswick, to a point on the St. Croix river opposite Vanceboro, in the state of Maine?
2. What was the amount of freight tolls earned on such traffic in the said year (a) on lines owned by the Canadian National system (including the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial); (b) on the St. John and Quebec lines (of which tolls sixty per cent are received by the Canadian National)?
3.	What additional gross revenues based on the traffic of 1923 would the Canadian National have received had the new line been built?
4.	What were the operating ratios on the existing lines on which the Canadian National has carried such traffic in 1923?
5.	How is it proposed to make connection with the
Maine Central at the " point on the St. Croix river opposite Vanceboro " ?	.
6.	Is it proposed to hand traffic at that point over to the Canadian Pacific for furtherance over its connections, if any?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The tonnage of such traffic handed to Canadian Pacific Railway during 1923 was 187,909 tons and tonnage received during same period from Canadian Pacific Railway was 8,419 tons making a total of 196,328 tons.
2.	(a) Canadian National earnings on
above traffic were $321,606.65.	(b) The St.

Questions
John & Quebec Railway earnings were $53,255.69 of which the Canadian National retain 60 per cent.
3.	The Canadian National would have received one hundred per cent of the the tonnage shown in reply to Question 1 and additional revenue amounting to $246,917.33.
4. Railway accounting methods do not permit of this information being obtained.
5. Not yet known, as question will depend on running rights over Canadian Pacific Railway.
6.	No; traffic will be handed to the Maine Central Railway.



TICKET OF LEAVE ACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: .
1.	How many former convicts, within the last five years have benefited by the Ticket of Leave Act?
2.	What was their criminal record?
3.	What was the last offence for which they were convicted ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1 and 3.
Prisoners Liberated on Ticket of Leave and Class of Offence for which Imprisoned 1918-1922
Class of Offence	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922Assault, all kinds	53	54	36	43	52Shooting, stabbing and	wounding	23	15	19	9	10Bigamy	11	9	3	12	3Rape and attempt	10	2	6	6	14Seduction, carnal knowledge	and incest	15	22	16	13	24Murder	1	2	A	1	oAttempt, to commit murder	7	9	5	2	6Manslaughter	17	13	9	18	20Other offences against the	person	29	35	27	14	27Burglary, shop and house	breaking	90	126	118	153	207Robbery	10	17	22	22	36False pretences	20	15	26	27	39Fraud	7	7	10	8	9Theft and receiving stolen	goods	243	320	307-	369	410Horse and cattle stealing..	20	16	18	1	19Arson and other malicious	offences against property.	10	13	12	10	17Forgery and offences against	the currency	23	29	26	41	74Offences against revenue	laws	
Prison Breach and Escape	9	3	6	41from custody	12	10	11	10	22Vagrancv and drunkenness.	29	30	15	27	34Bawdy house keepers and	inmates	13	13	17	1	5Various other offences.. ..	60	74	39	54	110-	-	-	-Total	703	840	751	847	1,182
2. Statistics not available.



&quot;THE POPE LEASE&quot;

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What consideration or compensation was paid to ifce holders of what is known as "The Pope Lease"
on Knee Hill Creek, near Carbon, Alberta, when they gave up their lease so that the land would be taken over by the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	How many more years had the lease to run?
3.	What was the area in acres of the said lease?
4.	What was the minimum number of cattle that the holders of said lease were compelled to graze thereon to hold said lease?
5.	Is it a fact that the holder of said lease had the option of purchasing any or ail of the said leased land at $3 per acre, or what was the figure for which the land in question could have been purchased?
6.	How much land of this lease was so purchased, and on what dates, and amounts paid?
7.	Did the lessee have the required number of cattle in each and every year to hold said lease?
8.	At what rate was the raw prairie land sold to the returned soldiers through the Soldier Settlement Board?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TORONTO PROPERTY

Mr. BOYS:: With reference to the Canadian National building at the corner of Yonge and King Street, Toronto, what was the cost during the year ending March, 31, 1924, of (a) repairs; (b) heating; (c) general up-keep; (d) cleaning and janitor service?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: (a)	Repairs	
$2,54186(b)	Heating	
3,32722(c)	General up-keep	
1,067 52(d)	Cleaning and janitor service	
8,106 58Total	
$15,04318



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE -AUTOMOBILES EXPORTED

Murray MacLaren: What ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were employed in carrying automobiles from New London, Connecticut, overseas in 1923?


George Perry Graham: Canadian Constructor,
Canadian Ranger and Canadian Miller.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-AUTOMOBILES EXPORTED

Hon. Mr. BAXTER :: 1.	During the year 1923, how many automobiles were carried to New London, Connecticut, for export shipment, and during what months were they so carried?
2.	What was the point of origin of such automobiles and, by what routes were they carried to New London?
3.	Who were the shippers of said automobiles and what routing instructions did they give with respect to said automobiles?
4.	What was the overseas destination of said automobiles?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Record of shipments is in carload quantities; number of automobiles not ascertainable.
2.	Walkerville, Ontario; London, Ontario, and Oshawa, Ontario; also certain American points; shipments routed via Canadian National railways and Central Vermont.
3.	It is not considered fair to Canadian National railways to publish names of shippers. The business was handled during winter months and the shippers specifically routed the traffic as forwarded for seasonal reasons.
4.	Australia and New Zealand.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MR. E A. FIELD

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is E. A. Field in emidoy of the Canadian National Railways ?
2.	If so, whait position does he hold?
3.	What is his salary, and what were his expenses for 1923?
4.	Is his expense account audited and approved before payment?
5.	If so, by whom?
6.	Is he given an advance for current expenses?
7.	If so, how much?
8.	How many acres of land did he sell in 1923 in the United States?
9.	What was the average cost for selling each acre?
10.	Was any commission paid for selling the land?
11.	If so, to whom were the commissions paid?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Land Commissioner.
3.	Such information is not divulged by the management.
4.	Yes.
5.	Auditor, Land and Townsite Department.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	1,440 acres.
9.	75 cents per acre.
10.	Yes, $383.20.
11.	N. E. Mahoney, Tisdale, Sask; $125.60 on 160 acres. L. Wreede, Wadena, Sask., $257.60 on 320 acres.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SUPPLIES

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways purchase railway suppdies from the Canada Supply Company?
2.	If so, how much in value was purchased from said firm in the year 1923?
3.	Who composes the said firm?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The management state that the Canadian National Railways have not purchased any railway supplies from the Canada Supply Company, and no firm of this name is known to the railway.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What are the names of the representatives of the Canadian National Railways from Canada at the British Empire Exhibition?
2.	What are the respective positions and addresses of said representatives ?
3.	Has a representative been sent from the Atlantic region ?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Mr. W. Stapelton, Mr. Percy Cotton.
2.	Mr. W. Stapelton, district passenger agent, Saskatoon, Sask.; Mr. Percy Cotton, sleeping and dining car inspector, Winnipeg, Man.
3.	No.
4.	The officials named will represent the Canadian National Railways as a whole, not one particular region.



C.P.R. TELEGRAPH-ST. JOHN-HALIFAX

Mr. STANSELL:: 1.	Does the Canadian Pacific Railway Company pay for its tedegraph line which runs over the Canadian National Railway right-of-way from St. John to Halifax, and from Truro to Sydney?
2.	If so, what is the amount?
3.	If not, why not?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The question of rental has been the subject of negotiation with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who have recently been notified that they must pay or make other arrangements. They have agreed to pay and the amount of rental is now under consideration.



HALIFAX OCEAN TERMINALS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What amount of money was expended on the construction of the Halifax ocean terminals from the year 1911 to December 31st, 1921?
2.	What amount of money has been expended on said terminals since January 1st, 1922?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date?
4.	What further . expenditures are contemplated by the government?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$16,645,879.56.
2.	$379,552.53.
3.	$17,025,432.09.
4.	$8,000 in 1924 for laying double floor in shed No. 25.



DEPUTY MINISTERS

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the name, salary and date of appointment of the deputy ministers of the departments of Immigration, Indian Affairs, Customs, Post Office, National Defence, Labour, Interior and Agriculture?
2.	What is the number of employees in each of the above departments, including both the Inside and Outside Services ?
3.	What is the amount of the expenditure controlled by each of the above departments?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Department of Immigration and Colonization-
1.	William J. Egan; salary $6,000 per annum: date of appointment, October 10, 1923.
2.	978.
3.	$4,321,035 for 1923-24.
Department of Indian Affairs-
1.	Deputy Superintendent General, Duncan C. Scott; salary, $6,000; date of appointment to the service, December 15, 1879; date of appointment as deputy superintendent general, October 11, 1913.
2.	Number of employees, inside service, 78; number of employees, outside service, 957; total, 1,035.
3.	Consolidated Fund, 1923-24, $3,830,978.70; Indian Trust Fund, capital, $11,931,386.74; Indian Trust Fund, interest, $1,209,294.76. Department of Customs and Excise-
1.	R. R. Farrow; salary, $8,000; permanent appointment, June 1, 1884; appointed deputy minister, July 1, 1919.
2.	Outside service, 3,650; inside service, 304; total, 3,954.
3.	$24,661,068.03.
Post Office Department-
1.	Louis Joseph Gaboury; salary, $6,000; date of appointment, 28th December, 1899.
2 . 34,935.
3.	$31,ISO,814.40.
Department of National Defence-
1.	G. J. Desbarats; salary, $8,000. Appointments, Marine and Fisheries, November 4, 1909; Naval Service, May 5, 1910; National Defence, April 1, 1924.
2.	Civil Employees, 1,304; permanent (Military Force), 3,642; Royal Canadian Navy, 425; Royal Canadian Air Force, 358; total, 5,729.
3.	Nineteen and one quarter millions of dollars.
Department of Labour-
1.	Mr. H. H. Ward; salary,$6,000; appointed to the civil service, February 1, 1911.
2.	153, including 58 part time Labour Gazette correspondents.
3.	S2,957,762.94 in the fiscal year 1923-24.
Department of the Interior

1.	W. W. Cory; salary, $8,000; appointed December 31, 1904.
2.	2,495, including 440 seasonal.
3.	Fiscal year 1923-24, $7,853,265.27.
Department of Agriculture-
1.	Dr. J. H. Grisdale; salary, $5,500 and use of residence; first appointment in department, February 1, 1899; appointed deputy minister, April 1, 1919.
2.	1,597 (January, 1924).
3.	Expenditure 1923-24, $8,194,785.05.



D.S.C.R.-AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	What amount of motor insurance is carried on property handled by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
2.	What is the sum paid out annually for premiums for the carrying of such insurance?
3.	Did the firm of Lougheed and Taylor of Calgary act in the placing of the above insurance?
4.	Is the firm of Lougheed and Taylor still acting for the government as brokers in the above business?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	The only form of automobile insurance carried by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is "Property damage and personal liability" insurance. This covers, in respect of each automobile:-

Questions

(a) Liability for bodily injuries or death:
(a)	One person	$ 5,000.(b)	One accident	$10,000
(b) Liability for damage to property of others:
One accident	$1,000
2.	During the period May 25, 1923, to May 1, 1924, inclusive, $1,438.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



TRAIL AND ANYOX SMELTERS

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Do the smelters at Trail and Anyox, British Columbia, receive any assistance by way of bonus, grant or otherwise from the Dominion government?
2.	If so, what are the details of same?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No, not yet, but the smelter at Trail will avail themselves of the copper bounties on bars only as soon as their plant is completed.
2.	The bounties which may be authorized by the Governor in Council under the Copper Bounties Act of 1923, on copper bars manufactured in Canada and sold for consumption therein, from copper produced in Canada from ore mined in Canada, during the periods and at the rates following, that is to say:
From the twelfth day of May, 1923, to the thirtieth day of June, 1924, both inclusive, one and one-half cents per pound;
From the first day of July, 1924, to the thirtieth day of June, 1925, both inclusive. One and one-fourth cents per pound;
From the first day of July, 1925, to the thirtieth day of June, 1926, both inclusive, one cent per pound;
From the first day of July, 1926, to the thirtieth day of June, 1927, both inclusive, three-fourths of one cent per pound;
From the first day of July, 1927, to the thirtieth day of June, 1928, both inclusive, one-half of one cent per pound.
The sum to be paid as such bounty shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars in any one of the said periods..



ST. ANDREWS LOCKS

Mr. BANCROFT:: 

YUKON TELEGRAPH SYSTEM

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system within Yukon territory from and including Tagish. Yukon territory, north to and including Forty Mile, Yukon territory, during the year ending	March 31,	1923, including	salaries and	all
expenses, but not including any expense in connection with any office or part of the line south of Yukon territory?
2.	What was the cost of maintaining Yukon telegraph system main line only from Ashcroft, British Columbia, to Tagish, Yukon territory, during same period ?
3.	What was the cost of maintaining the office of the
superintendent of Yukon telegraph system at Vancouver,	British Columbia, including	salaries and	all
expenses during same period?
4.	What	was	the	cost	of	maintaining	each branchline from Yukon	telegraph main	line outside	of
Yukon territory for same period?
5.	What	was	the	cost	of	maintaining	Yukon telegraph system from	the	point at which	it intersects
the telegraph line of Grand Trunk Pacific or Canadian National Railway at or near Fort Fraser, British Columbia, and parallels said railway telegraph line to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, during same period?
6.	What	was	the	cost	of	maintaining	Yukon telegraph system outside the boundaries of Yukon territory including main line and all branch lines and offices outside	of Yukon	territory charged	to Yukon telegraph system during same period?

Questions
7.	What was the revenue from Yukon telegraph system during same period?
8.	What was the revenue from messages sent and delivered within British Columbia during same period?
0.	What was the revenue during same period on said system from messages (a) sent and delivered within Yukon territory; (b) sent within Vukon territory and delivered elsewhere; (c) sent from points outside Yukon territory and delivered within Yukon territory?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$41.858.94.
2.	S130.294.il.
3.	$12,055.08.
4.
Maintenance
Ashcroft-Highland Valley Branch	.. $ Nil
Ashcroft-McKennais	 Nil
Ashcroft-Savona	 29.46
Ashcroft-Lillooet	2,065.88
Lillooet-Lytton	 360.16
Lillooet-Bridge River	 Nil
Clinton-Gang Ranch	 2.32
100 Mile House Canim Lake	 Nil
150 Mile House-Bella Coola.. ..	5,919.23
150 Mile House-Quesnel Forks..	..	431.09Quesnel-Barkerville	- [DOT]	1,288.40Vanderhoof	-	972.75Stuart Lake-Fort Fraser	
58.49Burns Lake-Francois Lake-Ootsa	..	186.62North Bulkley-Ootsa Lake	
76.56New Hazelton-Skeena Crossing	..	NilNew Hazelton-Silver Standard..	..	NilQueen Charlotte Islands Line.. ..	7,727.96Hazelton-Prince Rupert	
34,743.94Prince Rupert-Port Simpson	
895.86Prince Rupert-Digby Island	
NilTerrace-Stewart	
16,598.62

5.	$51,114.26.
6.	$213,705.63.
7.	$100,541.25.
8.	$63,164.68.
9.	(a) $4,548.54; (b) $8,193.89; (c) $6,095.94.



HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT-VANCOUVER, TORONTO, MONTREAL, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHURCH;
What amount has been spent by the municipalities concerned on works of development in each of the following ports-Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, and what sums by the government for the past 15 years?	[DOT]
Hon. Mr. COPP;
Department of Marine and Fisheries-
By the following Harbour Commissions with government advances:-
Montreal	$24,386,837.30
Vancouver	 7,902,808.45
Quebec	 7,735,040.50
Department of Public Works-
Vancouver harbour	 $4,406,705.32
Toronto harbour	 8,507,841.71
Montreal harbour	 42,291.06
Montreal dry dock (subsidy) 1,050,629.99
Quebec harbour	 3,103,816.79
Levis	 837,971.50
Champlain dry dock	 4,241,147.78
Lome dry dock	 474,737.73
DR. W. A. MacDOUGALL
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Did Dr. W. A. MacDougali, agent and doctor of the Indians at Seven Islands, district of Saguenay,, resign or was he dismissed?
2.	What was his annual salary as doctor and agent of these Indians?
3.	If a successor was named, who was he?
4.	Who recommended the nomination of this person?
5.	What is the salary or remuneration of the new appointee?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Dr. MacDougali was dismissed.
2.	$1,500 as Doctor; $575 as Agent.
3.	L. H. Michaud, M.D.
4.	Dr. Michaud was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
5.	$1,500 as doctor; $575 as agent.



GREENER'S COVE WHARF

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What is the present condition of the government wharf at Greener's Cove, Sydney mines?
2.	How much money was spent on it during the fiscal year 1923?
3.	Was the work done by contract or by day labour?
4.	Was the contractor or foreman in charge of work a wharf builder or a butcher, and by whom was he recommended ?
5.	From whom were the materials used in connection with this wharf purchased?
6.	Where was the ballast taken from, who supplied it, and at what cost?
7.	Who owned the boat or boats that carried the ballast and what was the hire or contract with such boats ?
8.	Was there tenders called for this work, and if not,
why ?
9.	Could not ballast be supplied direct from vessels carrying it to the harbour for a much less cost?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1. It is in need of repairs.
2 and 3. $4,626.89 expended by day's labour fiscal year 1923-24.
4.	Competent foreman employed; nature of his usual occupation unknown; recommended by Mr. F. C. Kelly, M.P.
5.	Logs and lumber, James Dunlop, James Cann; iron, Musgrave '& Sons, F. A. Bell & Son; ballast, Dennis Lamie, James Cann.
6.	Part lightered from vessels, part from
Ballast Harbour, North Sydney; supplied as follows:	Dennis Lamie, 1,310 tons at 50
cents, $655: James Cann, 871 tons at 50 cents, $435.50. Vessels from which ballast ob-
Questions

tained: Tug Maggie M, James W. Gordon, registered owner; schooner Garfield, P. Rive, registered owner; schooner Alama, not registered; schooner Florence, owner not known; schooner Hopedale, owner not known.
7.	Ballast supplied from schooners Hope-dale, Florence, Garfield and Alama, and tug Maggie M., 50 cents per ton paid.
8.	No, because the district engineer reported that the work could be more economically and expeditiously performed by day labour.	[DOT]
9.	No, there was not sufficient room at the site of the work to permit storage of ballast. Even had there been room to store ballast it would have necessitated one additional handling.
.	GEORGE MALECK '


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Did George Maleck, Indian resident at Seven Islands, in the county of Saguenay, in the course of the year 1923, receive from the government or its agents the right to repair houses for the Indians of Seven Islands?
2.	If so, in what month did he work, and how much did he receive per month for this work and for the materials furnished?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



R. E. BEATTIE

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What salary is R. E. Beattie receiving, as superintendent at Vancouver harbour?
2.	Is he also harbour commissioner, and if so, what salary does he receive for this position?
3.	Is it one of the duties of the Harbour Board commissioner to supervise the work of the harbour superintendent?
4.	Has the cargo harbour rate at Vancouver of six cents per bushel been definitely fixed and confirmed by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and if so, will this rate come into effect before September 1, 1924?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	84,000.
2.	Yes, $4,000.
3.	The following resolution of the Harbour Board defines the duties of the superintendent, and is the basis on which he was appointed; "It is the opinion of the board that a general superintendent should be appointed under the board, whose duties shall be to supervise and co-ordinate the work of all departments and who shall be responsible to the board that their instructions and policy are efficiently carried out."
4.	No.



B.C. POST OFFICES-REVENUE

Mr. NEILL:: What was the gross revenue of the following post offices in British Columbia for the fiscal year ending March, 1924-Courtenay, Union Bay, Ashcroft, Ladysmith, Port Albemi?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (For the Postmaster General):: Courtenay, B.C., $8,088.82; Union Bay, B.C., $2,302.18; Ashcroft, B.C., $4,103.25; Ladysmith, B.C., $8,059.40; Port Alberni, B. C., $6,253.63.



QUEBEC AND LAKE ST JOHN RAILWAYS

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Has the board of management of the National Railways the intention of reimbursing the amount of $630,000, subscribed by the corporation of the city of Quebec, for the construction of the Canadian Northern and Quebec and Lake St. John railways, which, at present, form part of the National Railways?


George Perry Graham: So far as the government is aware, this matter has not yet been considered by the board of management of the National Railways.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-GRAIN HAULED

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	How many tons of grains and grain products did the Canadian Pacific railway haul in western territory to the head of the lakes during the calendar year 1923?
2.	In making this haul, what was the resultant total of tons of this traffic carried one mile?
3.	What was the average length of haul of this traffic?
4.	What additional total gross revenues would have been earned had this traffic been carried under existing rates on similar traffic in the United States?
5.	How many tons of grain and grain products did the Canadian Pacific railway haul in western territory to Vancouver in the year 1923?
6.	In making this haul, what was the resultant total of tons of this traffic carried one mile?
7.	What was the average length of haifl of this traffic?
8.	What additional total gross revenues would have been earned had this traffic been carried under existing rates on similar traffic in the United States?
9.	What was the total percentage of grain and grain products hauled in western territory to the entire tonnage of that territory in 1923?
10.	What percentage of the entire ton-mileage in the western territory in the year 1923, did the carriage of grain and grain products entail?
11.	What was the percentage of the total revenue earned in western territory in 1923 by the carriage of grain and grain products?
12.	What was the average rate per ton-mile earned by such traffic in said territory and year?


George Perry Graham: The information
sought here must be given by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; it is not in the possession of the Department of Railways. However, I will write to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and ask if they can give these details for the benefit of the House.

Unopposed Motions



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	How many appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission, inside and outside, in the year 1922?
2.	How many of such appointments were made in 1923?
3.	How many of such appointments have been made in 1924?
4.	How many increases in salary (outside of statutory increases) have been made in the civil service, inside and outside, since December 29, 1922?
5.	How many requisitions have been made to the Civil Service Commission for new appointments to the civil service since December 29. 1922?
6.	Of these requisitions, howr many have been made in the months of January and February, 1924?
7.	What is the total amount in annual salary of the new appointments to the civil service since December 29, 1922?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIES

Mr. CHAPLIN:: '
For a copy of all letters, papers, reports and other documents relating to the purchase of railway ties by the Canadian National Railways or any of its officials, including correspondence with the firm or firms from which the said ties were purchased, reports on the price or prices of same, and also returns and vouchers showing the cost of all creosoting plants either under construction or completed by the Canadian National Railways, during the year 1923.


George Perry Graham: This motion has been oh the order paper for quite a time, and my hon. friend and I were to have had some consultation in regard to it. We do not seem to have had that, and I would suggest that we let this motion pass. I know my hon. friend will not be unreasonable, and for my part I will bring down all that can rightly be brought down under the order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
DUMPING DUTY	.
William Alves Boys: For a copy of an order in council or orders or regulations of the Minister of Customs affecting valuations for the purpose of assessing dumping duty.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LAND DEPARTMENT, WINNIPEG

Mr. HANSON:: For a return showing all financial statements made by
E.	A. Field. Land Commissioner, Canadian National Railway Company, Land Department, Winnipeg, Manitoba, in reference to land sales for the years 1922 and 1923, showing the amount of cash received and disbursed and showing all expenses, with a list of employees' salaries, expenses, commissions paid, rentals and net profit or loss.



DR. L. H. MICHAUD

Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and all persons whomsoever on the subject of the nomination of Dr. Michaud as doctor and agent for the Indians at Seven Islands, county of Saguenay, including (a) copy of all instructions given him on the subject of the purchase of provisions and merchandise necessary to the reserve, (b) copy of all instructions given him on the subject of patronage in his district, (c) copy of all tenders obtained from different merchants for the merchandise necessary, (d) list of merchandise purchased, and the names of the vendors and the prices paid up to December 1st, 1923, (e) copies of all instructions given the agent authorizing him to make advances to certain Indians with guaranteed privilege on their furs, without notifying the public.



YUKON TERRITORY-MAIL

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence since January 1st, 1923, between the Postmaster General, acting Postmaster General, any official of the Post Office department, any other minister or official of the government and other persons concerning the carrying of His Majesty's mail between Whitehorse and Dawson, Yukon territory, for the winter of 1923-1924 and for the winter of 1924-1925.



SCRIBE HOTEL, PARIS

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: For a copy of all papers, reports, valuations, letters, receipts, vouchers and any other documents relating to the different transfers of the Scribe Hotel, Paris, France, and its purchase, including copies of instructions given to the Deputy Minister of Railways and his reports to the minister; also a return of all letters, papers, reports, estimates and other documents relating to the renovation and repair of the said hotel.



WALKERVILLE-ENSENADA WHISKY SHIPMENT

Mr. HOCKEN:: For a copy of all the correspondence and other documents relating to a shipment of whisky from Walkerville, Ontario, to one Watson, Ensenada, Mexico, and the cancellation of the bond given in connection therewith.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR

Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of the contracts between Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and the Pacific Construction Company, with respect to: (a) reconditioning of elevator number 1; (b) annex to elevator number 1; (c) construction of elevator number 2;	(d) completion of
elevator number 3, otherwise known as the Woodward elevator. Also particulars of the contract between the harbour commissioners and any company with respect to the leasing of the number 3. or Woodward, elevator.



ABRAHAM NOONAN

James Dew Chaplin: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents, received by or sent from the Post Office department or any other department of the government with regard to the dismissal of Abraham Noonan as postmaster at Albany, Prince Edward Island. If an investigation was held, a copy of the evidence and the investigator's report.
The Budget-Mr. Hudson



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-FORM OF MOTIONS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: An answer or rather a comment made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) on the first motion called this afternoon impels me to bring to the attention of the House a practice into which the government have fallen, and which, I think, is not in compliance with a proper procedure or, indeed, at all a dignified treatment of parliament. I refer to the practice of permitting motions to pass, and then not complying with them as passed. I am not asking that all the information called for by this motion, for example-and others may be used equally well as examples-should be brought down, I am not arguing that the motion itself as written should pass; but I do say that if the government permit the motion to pass then they should comply with its requirements. If the government feel that the motion should not pass they should take the responsibility of specifically amending it, or making a definite reservation-no other course, to my mind, is justified. There have been cases where motions have passed this House calling for the production of certain information, the government not taking the responsibility of objecting. They permitted the motions to pass but took no responsibility; then, when the return was made the government said it was not in the public interest to give the information asked for. It is unnecessary to add that this is merely treating parliament with contempt. The government, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, should take their stand on each motion on its merits. If they desire to have the motion amended they should take the responsibility; and then when the motion passes it should be complied with in the form in which it passes.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if it is the intention of the government to submit Dr. Tory's report on agricultural credits to any select standing committee of the House for consideration, or to appoint a special committee to consider it?


James Alexander Robb: It has been suggested that the report might with profit be submitted to the committee on Banking and Commerce. We will be able to give my hon. friend a definite

reply to-morrow, or next day, as to what disposition will be made of the report.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 2, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment there* to of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance has been justly praised for its clearness and brevity. The statement brings directly before us for consideration the most difficult of Canadian problems, a problem which must sooner or later be settled and settled rightly, or the consequences will be most disastrous. It has been said that the proposals mentioned involve a very direct departure from the policy which has hitherto prevailed. Assuming that to be correct, it is necessary for us to consider whether or not the proposals are consistent with the expressed will of the people and if so whether they are wise in themselves. The minister makes a number ol specific proposals in the way of reduction of taxation, and then states the general principle upon which he has proceeded. We are not at present concerned so much about the specific proposals as about the general principle. This general principle he has stated towards the end of his remarks, and as it has not been quoted for several days I will take the liberty of again reading it. The Acting Minister of Finance said, as reported at page 1218 of Hansard:
We have certain basic industries, upon the success o! which depend the growth of all other industries, and the greater development of our trade. Of these basic . industries, I would place agriculture, in all its varied branches, first. Next to agriculture, I would place our forests, our minerals and our fisheries. A real national policy is a policy that will encourage the growth and development of these basic industries.
And then, Sir, a little lower down the Acting Minister of Finance is reported to have said:
In that belief, Sir, we submit to-day proposals to lighten the burden of taxation on these primary basic industries.
Now, let us inquire whether the policy thus proposed is or is not consistent with the will of the people. During the election campaign of 1921, and indeed for a number of years before that the Liberal party-both inside of the House and out-proclaimed their

The Budget-Mr. Hudson
adherence to a policy of lowering the tariff, and particularly on the implements of production of the basic industries. That policy was very distinctly outlined in a resolution which was proposed to the House by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in the session of 1919. He was then supported not by all the Liberal members' but a great majority of them. In 1919 the supporters of the Liberal party met in convention and adopted a platform which incorporated that principle. Again in the session of 1920 and the session of 1921 resolutions were presented to the House, and supported by practically all of the Liberal members, and they involved the same principle. So much for the Liberal party. Now, the Progressive party who presented themselves for the first time in the election of 1921 were even more emphatic in their demands for a lowering of the tariff, and they too paid special attention to the duties on the implements of production. The Conservative party took the attitude which they still take. They are consistent in taking the view that a protective policy is vital to the interests of Canada, and it is not unfair to say that before the people at that election they were regarded as a high protectionist party; they might disclaim that but they were so regarded by the electorate. Now, at this election, a few more than two millions of people voted for the Liberal and Progressive candidates combined, and a few less than one million voted for the Conservative candidates. It would not be fair to say that all of those who voted for Liberal candidates approved of the declared policy of the party, because as we have heard from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and as we may hear from several other members on this side, they expressly disclaimed any desire to disturb the existing tariff and either expressly or impliedly disclaimed approval of the Liberal platform. But there were not many of these members, as far as my knowledge goes, and in fact if we make a very generous allowance for the people who voted for candidates holding these views among the Liberal party, there would still be an immense majority of the electors who must be taken to have approved of a policy of lowering or obliterating the duties on implements of production in the basic industries.
The facts that I have stated seem to me to show beyond question that there is no lack of consistency in the action of the government so far as the will of the electors is concerned; in fact, I think that the government would have been liable to most
severe criticism if they had failed to proceed along the lines that they now propose to follow. When a government comes into office it is seldom able to fulfil all of its preelection promises, but in all good faith it is bound to do all in its power to implement all such promises as are of a fundamental character.
The merits of the proposals of the government have been subjected to a great deal of discussion. Most that can be said for and against them has been said, and very little is left open to me that has not already been touched upon. In the first place, I would like to make some reference to a number of letters which were read the other night by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart). He read letters which seemed to indicate that the manufacturers of the city of Hamilton were in a very depressed and unhappy condition, because they conceived that the present budget was going to destroy the industries of their city. A copy of the Hamilton Spectator of Friday, April 2o, has been placed in my hands. In this paper, which was published about two weeks after the budget was brought down, appears an article of considerable length, which reads in part:
New industries have decided to establish here. Industrial commissioner secures two for city.
And has prospects of landing some others.
Prospects brighter this year than for long time. Representatives of two other large manufacturing concerns, one an American company and the other a Canadian firm, were in consultation with Industrial commissioner, Kirkpatrick, yesterday afternoon, but while they were favourably inclined to Hamilton as a location for their industries, arrangements were not yet completed. One requires-
And so forth. I will not take up time reading the article, but it indicates that there are at least cross currents in the good city of Hamilton.
I would like to refer to another matter that has been mentioned by a number of hon. member? this year and last year-the statement that it is desirable that Canada should become a self-contained country. That statement has obtained certain currency throughout the country, perhaps because it has a highly patriotic flavour, but it seems to me that it is a vain hope, a futile desire, a rainbow which even the most optimistic can never hope to witness. If we look round the world for a country that enjoys this enviable condition we are met with some disappointments. Our thought would naturally first turn to Great Britain; that country is probably less self-contained than any other first-class nation in the world; she is dependent to a very large extent on the outside world for her food, and
The Budget-Mr. Hudson

to an even larger extent for her raw materials and for all sorts of things that enter into the life of the community. She lives by external trade. Never since she was -a nation has Great Britain been self-contained; and she never will be unless the day comes when Macaulay's vision of the New Zealanders' visit is realized. The next nation we might turn to is Imperial Germany. That country is probably the place where this conception of a self-contained nation was first fully developed. For over 40 years she strove, with all the aids of science, and with all the ingenuity, energy and persistency of her people, to become self-contained. After a few years, finding that her efforts were failing, she reached out to other parts of the world to acquire possessions which might provide all that she needed to use from within her own jurisdiction. The result of this policy contributed largely to bringing about the Great War, and it was because she was not self-contained that the Great War was concluded at as early a stage as it was.
Another country in Europe that might be considered is France. She is much more self-contained than most other nations, and- yet she is dependent on the outside world for a very large portion of her food, and for an even larger proportion of her raw material. She, too, is reaching out into the outside world trying to supplement what she lacks. The smaller nations of Europe such as Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Sweden, all depend to a very large degree on the outside world. So that in Europe there is no comfort to those who proclaim their wish that a country should become self-contained, and their belief that if it did become such it would be happy.
Turning to the United States, that country is probably more favoured by nature in the diversity of its climate, and in its natural products and its geographical position than any other country in the world. She too has sometimes thought that she might be self-contained, but the result is that she is importing more and more year by year. She sets up a high protective tariff against Canada, and yet notwithstanding that tariff each year sees an increase in.her imports from Canada. So that if we look over the whole world we do not find any civilized country which seriously attempts to be self-contained in this present year. It is said that the only people that are really self-contained are negroes of central Affrica, and even they trade coconuts, for calicoes.


George Perry Graham: They do not use very
much calico at that.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Probably not. In Canada we have great natural resources and we are proud of them, but there are a great many things that we lack and a great man}' things that we cannot get along without. In 1879, when the so called National Policy was inaugurated, the fathers of that policy had this same idea of a self-contained nation. They said:	We will soon become great if we shut
out these industrial products from elsewhere and live within ourselves. The result of that policy, which has been in force ever since with a few modifications, has been that Canada has imported more and more, year by year, from that time. The truth is that no country can maintain its place in our advancing civilization without drawing largely on the outside world. As somebody said, to attempt to do so is a fruitless struggle against the spirit of the age. When you have free communications, free trade in literature, free trade in ideas, you cannot persuade people to do otherwise than insist on procuring material things from wherever they can get them to their liking. It seems to me that if we keep that in mind, the true policy is along the lines indicated by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in the latter part of his statement; we should turn our thoughts to the development of our resources where we have an advantage, to doing and making the things we can do and make better and more cheaply than anybody else. If we do that, we have ample resources to provide for the profitable employment of the energies of all of the people who are now here and all that we can hope to have for generations to come.
There is another matter which, perhaps, has not been referred to directly by any member during this debate, but which is mentioned sometimes in the press and sometimes on the street, and that is, retaliation. People complain, perhaps rightly, that we are sometimes dealt with unreasonably by the people of the United States or of other countries in regard to tariffs. It is not unnatural that a person who is injured by such a move should feel resentment and should ask for retaliation. But it seems to me that anything of this sort should be proceeded with very slowly, because it seldom happens that you can repair the injury to the injured person by retaliation. You may vent your feelings, but, except in rare cases, you do not benefit by retaliation. There is another reason why we should proceed very slowly with any idea of that sort, and that is this. The United States is a great nation, twelve times at least our size in

The Budget-Mr. Hudson
population and more than twelve times in wealth. We live side by side on a border of 3,000 miles, and to large extent our resources are complementary to theirs. We cannot get away from nature, and nature intended that we should live side by side in a neighbourly way. If we are going to do anything, I think our policy should be one of conciliation, and that, for the furtherance of such a policy, the government as soon as it possibly can, should get a competent representative at Washington and do all in its power to bring about better trade relationships with the United States.
One hon. member, I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), remarked that we could not afford in Canada to take our trade policy from either Great Britain or the United States. It seemed to me that there was a great deal of truth in that remark, but it also seemed to me that we could not afford to ignore any lessons which we might leam from what had happened in either of those countries, applying them to our own conditions. In the course of the debate quite a number of members have referred to the value of the home market. The argument has run something like this; Bring in more people, raise the tariff, stiffen it up a little bit; we shall have more people in the cities and industries flourishing, and then our farmers' troubles will soon disappear, because the people in the cities will eat and pay for what the farmers produce. This is a case where we might fairly look at what has happened in the United States before deciding on the validity of that argument. The United States, as all hon. members know, is a nation of over 100,000,000 people. It is highly industrialised, its industries, as a whole, are probably thirty or forty years in advance of ours-I mean in the extent to which they are industrialised. They have enjoyed the blessings of a highly protective policy for several decades, probably for generations; they have as many large cities as they can very well support; they have an urban population in the whole country greatly exceeding the rural population. That being the case, what is happening? During the last few years the agricultural population of the United States has fallen into distress, distress to the degree that they had to seek federal assistance and the federal government came to their aid, providing various methods, for instance agricultural credits, long-term credits, short-term credits, intermediate credits. All this was put in force, but while it may have helped, it did not cure the situation. The next thing that happened was this: The United States' farmers, unlike our farmers, have been educated to believe in the efficacy of a protective tariff. They think it is right, so they go to congress and ask congress to pass a law imposing a very high tariff, a prohibitive tariff, against the products of Canadian farmers. Congress accedes to their request and imposes what they thought was a prohibitive tariff. But that did not cure the situation; they found soon that that did not improve prices, it did not remedy their distress. The next step was a measure which is now before congress, probably being discussed there to-day, known as the McNary-Haugen bill. This bill, when I heard of it first, seemed to me to be a most fantastic production, a scheme which could hardly be hoped to work, or to be considered by thoughtful business men. To put the matter very shortly, those back of this McNary-Haugen bill argue thus: The troubles of our farmers arise because they hive an exportable surplus and the price of their products, of what they have to sell, is determined in a world market. The world market is a bad one at the present time, and we have to deal with it on that basis. So, we will form a government corporation having a capital of $200,000,000. That corporation will be empowered to ascertain what the amount of the home consumption of various agricultural commodities will be, then to take the exportable surplus and to sell it at the best price that can be secured in Europe, the government taking the loss. In the meantime the prices of these commodities are to be fixed in the United States by the rather curious procedure of ascertaining what the relative prices of agricultural products and other commodities were in 1914;-prices of farm products, that is to say, have not gone up, while other prices have gone up, and the relationship of these prices in 1914 will be found out-and, having ascertained that, they will then fix the prices for the domestic market on that basis; and in order to prevent that figure being disturbed, they will give to the President, under the advice of the commission, power:
To determine the rate of duty upon any agricultural commodity, or upon any derivative of or competitive substitute for such commodity, necessary to maintain or to assist in maintaining the domestic price of such commodity at the level of the ratio prices fixed therefor.
There are in the bill several sections which it may be of interest to this House to quote as disclosing the nature of the proposal, and the conditions which the United States legislators feel that they have to deal with. Section 21 reads:
It is hereby declared that there exists a general emergency in respect of agricultural commodities by reason of-
The Budget-Mr. Hudson

becomes of less significance? Adam Smith, who has already been referred to in this debate, predicted over a hundred years ago that England was coming to bankruptcy because of her over-borrowing. But Adam Smith did not know about the possibilities of steam, and he could know little about the advent of the industrial revolution, The effect of that industrial revolution was to change the ratio of wealth to such an extent-that is the ratio existing between the debt and wealth-that the debt became comparatively insignificant. Is there, I ask, any hope for the future that we may in any way change this ratio so that the public debt will bear much less heavily comparatively speaking, than it does at the present time? May I now suggest some things that we may do?
First of all we can take steps now to eliminate future wars. I suggest that that can be done by passing-not in the future, but now- a universal draft law that will mobilize not only wealth but men, so that in time of the nation's peril every fit man and woman will know that back of him or her in the effort to preserve the country is placed all the available wealth, every resource, and every activity of the country. In other words, to pool the country's resources of both men and wealth to meet the national peril, whatever it may be. I think that would take much of the profit out of war. The best way to prepare for war is to prepare for it in the piping days of peace. I think this method would effectively discourage war. That is the first thing that I suggest. We do need security against war for the future. Now is the time to obtain that security.
Now, what about this public debt? We pay little attention to it. It is pyramiding year after year. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to do anything until we are face to face with calamity? Well, several plans have been suggested, and I simply want to mention them here in passing. There are those who suggest that repudiation is the proper thing. Personally I do not think that is advisable. In the first place it would constitute a gross breach of faith towards those to whom we are under an obligation. It would not only raise interest rates to speculative figures but would shatter the confidence in this country held in other lands, and would invite confiscation of the property held by Canadians in foreign lands. It would necessarily destroy the whole fabric of our industrial life and, in addition, would invite international hostility.


James Alexander Robb: Can my hon. friend say who, in Canada, suggests repudiation of the debt?
[Mr. Shaw.J


Mr. SHAW:: I am not implying that anybody in Canada has suggested it. I have not heard it suggested here; as a matter of fact nothing whatever has been suggested here. But other countries are suggesting it, either inferentially or otherwise. Then there are others who propose that we should have a moratorium as far as our public debts are concerned, which, of course, is another although less obnoxious form of repudiation. There are those who suggest that the debt may be reduced by inflation; and then, of course, there is in England a very large group of people who are in favour of what they designate as a capital or a wealth levy. The Labour party of England declared that when they came to power they would bring into effect a capital levy for the purpose of reducing the public debt. That party is in office in England at the present time. In a capital levy there are several vital principles involved and various considerations of technique with which I am not going to deal. These are some of the plans suggested. There is another plan, and that is the one which we in Canada follow-that is do nothing at all. In this country we are sweating away on the treadmill under the delusion that we are mountaineering. That is our situation in Canada. I say: Why wait for opportunities, why not make the opportunity? Unfortunately our entire history is a melancholy record of not doing things in time. What can we do before events will force upon us the formulation of a policy which perhaps in that event will be ill-considered and hasty. I think we should follow the practice pursued in England at the present time and appoint a responsible committee which will investigate the public debt-not only investigate the debt itself but inquire into the incidence of the debt taxation itself, its effect upon employment, and the effect upon the nation's life generally. I think a necessary step if we want to deal with this matter intelligently is to appoint a responsible committee that can make full investigation into all the facts surrounding this important matter. It will at least give us the information. Then of course we should at the earliest possible date convert our loans at lower interest rates. It should be done.
Again there can be no doubt that we should learn to discipline expenditure, in order to secure results which amply justify our outlay. Further there is the question of the investigation of various taxation methods, suggested, I think, in the Speech from the Throne. I think it is highly desirable that we should investigate our taxation methods thoroughly, in order that we may bring to light the proper means for a debt reduction. In this connec-

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
tion I want to speak very shortly about one method of taxation, because it is referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and that is the Inheritance Tax. It is undeniable that during the war vast fortunes were made out of the nation's peril. It is also undeniable that those who made these vast fortunes gave no adequate return to the state. I speak not only of Canada but elsewhere. Now should these beneficiaries go longer without taxation? Should we call upon the workers and legitimate industries to bear a still larger share of the burden? To be perfectly frank, I do not think that wages or legitimate profits can bear any heavier taxation than is being imposed at the present time. If there is one principle upon which our property system depends, it is that a man is entitled to the property which he creates. That is the sound principle upon which our institutions stand to-day. But I want to point out to you, in the light of that principle, three questions in connection with this proposed method of taxation. First of all, what right has a deceased person to give property? Why should the founder of an estate bind or control a coming generation? One generation ordinarily cannot bind another. This parliament cannot bind another parliament which may follow. It makes its own laws. Can a father, presuming him to be the founder of an estate, bind his son to contribute in labour to the welfare of an individual or to the welfare of society? He cannot do it. Inheritance means that the founder of an estate compels society to feed, to clothe and to shelter the beneficiary whom he may nominate; and in that way a living generation is bound by the wishes of a wealthy deceased. On the other hand, if this is a good principle, why not ccmpel the son of an indigent father to pay his father's unpaid debts? That would undoubtedly be unfair to the son. If there is going to be inheritance, it would seem logical that there should be inheritance not only of assets but of debts; and if ancestors are to be obeyed, and if we pay respect to the wishes of wealthy ancestors, why not pay respect to the wishes of all ancestors, no matter who they may be? The government today should be by those who are not only physically but geographically present.
Then the second question, what right has the heir to receive? I have already suggested the principle that the title to property can only be morally based on the result of one's own effort. One has no right to property because his father earned it. The father is under obligation, of course, to maintain his son during the years of dependency, but no
further. Blood or kinship confers no merits whatsoever upon the claimant to an estate. It is not a natural right, because if it were society would insist on a father transferring his estate to the son. As a matter of fact it is left to the father's own volition. It is not a contract right, because in contracts there is always consideration moving from one party to the other. In this case the heir gets something for nothing. President Lincoln put the matter very clearly on one occasion when he said, "I have no right to any special privilege of receiving money without earning it, because I thus deprive another of part of what he has earned." A will is merely a direction, as I have already suggested, that the next generation shall support and feed and clothe and shelter the beneficiary according to the terms in the document itself. Again, suppose for instance, a penniless man should suddenly claim from society the right to live in receipt of a princely income, what would society do? Why such a claimant would be promptly sent off to some lunatic asylum. But suppose he produces a document signed by some wealthy deceased, then we honour it. You can see that the position is entirely illogical. Thirdly, why do people consent to this condition of affairs, if there is no right in the founder to give and no right in the heir to receive? Because the fact is that they do not understand the significance of the question, and the only way by which it could be brought to their attention would be if it should happen that all the wealthy deceased should die on the same day and all beneficiaries come into their property on the same day. Do hon. members think for a single moment that the rest of society would tolerate such a state of affairs? I think not. They would then realize how vain it would be to struggle against an economic status fixed for them before birth. There can be no doubt that this inheritance principle makes for concentration of wealth. It is a comparatively difficult matter to acquire a fortune. In these latter days, with tax exempt securities and bonds and similar securities, it is comparatively easy to retain and even to increase a fortune. Let me illustrate by reference to some figures from the United States the exact concentration which this represents. In 1913 there were 29 people in that country who held fortunes totalling 2,7o6 millions. They had yearly incomes of above 176 millions. In 1915 there were 7,509 people in the United States with fortunes totalling 33 billions. Suppose the United States government had handed a million dollars to each one of th6se families and taken the rest by inheritance taxation, it would have secured the sum of approximately
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

26 billion dollars, which it would obtain in the course of a generation, and which sum represents practically the same amount as the total expenditure of the United States government for the first 127 years of its history. The argument I suggest for the inheritance tax is incontrovertible. It cannot be successfully controverted, but there are those who say that the provincial governments levy such a tax. True it is they levy a tax. Let us compare the situation in the United tSates. I made some investigation of the problem last summer. I found, with the exception of two states-and they may have changed their minds since-that practically every state in the American union levies an inheritance tax, and they levy it on substantially the same basis so far as percentage is concerned as our Canadian provinces. But in addition to that, the federal government levies a very heavy inheritance tax. It exempts incomes up to $50,000, but after that it levies a tax which brings the maximum taxation, counting both state and federal, on one inheritance to something over sixty per cent on large estates. Now, if they can do that in the United States there is absolutely no reason why we cannot do it here. If the American states of the union and if the federal government can each levy an inheritance tax, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot do exactly the same thing. It is true it may not amount to much at the outset. It would at least involve very little expenditure, but it would make provision against the day when these tremendous estates fall by reason of the death of their holders and founders. It would be comparatively easy to collect, because all this government would have to do would simply be to make an arrangement for each provincial government to collect on a commission basis, or failing that for the federal government to levy the taxation through their already constituted Income Tax department. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me that the argument for this system of taxation is incontrovertible. I think it should be instituted now in order to provide for the future. Not that I am hopeful that it will provide much revenue in the immediate future, but in days to come it will be of increasing significance, and from what source can we secure by taxation money which can more justly be applied to the reduction of our public debt? I shall not further weary members of the House by reference to this question of the public debt.
I want to deal now, and very shortly, with the fiscal proposals which have been proposed by the govemme'nt, to obtain during the coming year. The government propose several reductions, first by way of sales tax,

a general reduction of one per cent, on special articles a larger amount, and in some cases, articles are exempted altogether from the sales tax. With that reduction I have no quarrel whatsoever and I have no objection to it. Then the government propose certain tariff reductions on implements of industry, on the primary implements required in the development of our natural resources. I think that is highly advisable, highly desirable. If I had any complaint at all, it would be that the proposals do not go far enough.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What would be the result if this inheritance tax was put into force? How could one prevent a man from dividing up his fortune before he died?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Just the same as that is
prevented now. As a matter of fact, it would be difficult for a man to do that, because we already have the income tax returns for the last few years, and we know pretty well, if the income tax returns, amount to anything, exactly what he has. Therefore, he should not be allowed, as he is not allowed now by the provincial governments, to defeat inheritance tax laws by transferring his fortune before his death. Might I say also to the hon. gentleman, as this occurs to me now, that the Dominion government can collect this tax much more efficiently than <a provincial government? How can a provincial government be sure that it is levying the tax fairly where the deceased 'has property in a number of provinces in the Dominion? As a matter of fact, the Dominion government is in a much better position to levy inheritance taxation and to collect it than any provincial government. The sway of the Dominion government covers all the provinces of Canada, while a provincial government is circumscribed by its boundaries.
I have taken the trouble to figure out exactly what this reduction of taxation means as regards particular implements of industry. As agricultural implements have apparently received primary attention, I want to suggest to the House just what the reductions amount to, and they are as follows:
Implement	Reduction
Eight-foot binder	
$8	00Six-foot mower	
2	92Twenty-inch double disc drill	
8	56Eight-foot cultivator	
4	36Two-furrow gang plough	
5	37
That is the amount represented by the customs reduction on those agricultural implements I have mentioned.

The Budget-Mr. Shaw


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does that include the sales tax reduction?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, that is an additional
reduction. I want just at this point, by way of comparison, to invite the attention of the government to the reductions that would accrue, presuming that the government is prepared to allow the Crowsnest pass agreement to come fully into effect on the 7th July next. Supposing that that agreement is allowed to become effective, that is that the government takes no action, this will mean that on a shipment of a binder from any of the competing eastern points, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and similar points, there will be a saving in transportation as follows:
If shipped to	Saving
Lethbridge	
$S	34Medicine Hat	
7	84Regina	
6	23Saskatoon	
7	04Brandon	
3	52Winnipeg	
2	81
Let me apply to other agricultural implements the savings that will accrue by reason of the application of the Crowsnest pass agreement. On a shipment to Calgary from the same competing eastern points in Canada the following savings in freight charges will
he effected:
Implement	Saving
Five-foot mower	$ 4 00
Farm wagon complete	
7	40Twenty-inch gang plough	
4	40Sixteen by sixteen disc	harrow	
3	03Eight-foot cultivator	
4	95Twenty-inch single disc	drill	
8	25Manure spreader	
11	00
Nor do I forget the saving that will accrue on the transportation of furniture, fruit, binder twine, barbed wire and all the other commodities that are covered by the Crowsnest pass agreement.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: While I quite
agree that the farmer may get the benefit of the reduction in connection with freight rates, has the hon. member any assurance to offer the House that the proposed reductions of the Acting Minister of Finance are really going to reach the farmer who buys these implements?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If they do not reach the
farmer, all I can say is that the manufacturer will not be seriously hurt. But I am frank to say to the hon. gentleman, for whom I have the highest regard, that I am not in a position to say whether the full amount of that customs reduction will, either now or ultimately, reach the primary consumer. I may say, however, as is suggested to me by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), that there can be no doubt that the freight rates will reach the farmer immediately. I am not giving these figures because I object to the customs reduction. I do not want that impression to prevail at all. I want to give these figures to the House so that we may get a proper perspective of what relief we are receiving. Then I want to take time by the forelock and suggest to the government what the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement will mean to the primary producers.
There are a few matters that I want to speak about with regard to the tariff. My hon. friends to my right are fearful of this reduction. They have told us in no unmeasured terms about the difficulties under which Canada labours to-day. They have pointed to the exodus; they have specially urged that the manufacturing industries of this country have suffered very severely. I have taken the trouble to figure out a few computations from a comparison of income taxes paid during the fiscal years 1921-22 and 1922-23. This statement indicates that the agrarian portion of the population has suffered much more severely than the manufacturing portion of the population. It indicates that the number of agrarians paying income tax has lessened by more than one-half and that the decrease in the tax paid has varied on a per capita average from $89 to $57. It indicates that the number of manufacturers in Canada-I am speaking now about unincorporated	manufacturers-has
actually increased from 1,629 to 1,732 during that period, but there has been a substantial decrease in the income tax paid. If that means anything, it would, I suggest, mean that the manufacturers have not suffered comparatively more, but, as a matter of fact, have suffered comparatively less than other portions of the community. Then I ascertain from the figures that while there has been a substantial decrease in the number of manufacturing corporations paying income tax, there has not been anything like a comparative decrease in the percentage of income tax paid, because-and it may interest hon. members to know this-whereas in 192122 the average income tax paid by manu-facturine corporations in Canada was $7,602, a not inconsiderable item when you take into account the exemptions, this amount has been reduced to only $7,133 in the last fiscal year. Again, I have worked out in some detail the percentage of decreases in income tax payments in the various provinces of Canada between the years 1922 and 1923. I find that in the agricultural provinces there has been

The Budget-Mr. Shaw

a much larger decrease than in the manufacturing provinces. The decrease in Ontario is only 19.5 per cent, and in Quebec 20.7 but in Manitoba the decrease has been 34.3 per cent, in Saskatchewan 36 per cent, in Prince Edward Island 25 per cent and in Nova Scotia 28 per cent. These figures only illustrate, I think, that it is not primarily from lack of protection that the manufacturers suffer, but that they suffer perhaps on account of protection in common with, though to a less extent than, many other people in Canada.
I have been rather impressed with the arguments advanced by my protectionist friends who tell us about the dire distress that is experienced by the manufacturing industry, and 1 have taken the trouble to consult the Year Book. I may interject the remark here that this book is a veritable mine of information. I have looked up the percentage of the failures in Canada during the past year as compared with other years and I find that there has been only a comparatively small increase. This of course covers not only the manufacturing concerns but, as well, every variety of trader and merchant; and the interesting fact is that while the Year Book has classified the causes of failures, lack of protection, which we are told is an important cause for failures in Canada, is not taken into consideration at all by the Dominion Statistician. This is strange; but it is perfectly clear that the Dominion Statistician in his figures has taken no cognizance of the lack of protection as a cause for failures. If he has then all I can say is that, so far as the reasons for business failures in Canada are concerned, there does not seem to be any difference in percentage of failures as compared with the United States, that alleged highly protective country.
Hon. gentlemen to my right seem to be under the delusion that the United States tariff is the very acme of fiscal perfection, the thing for which we should strive, the thing towards which we should set our faces, rather than harking back to anything like free trade. The analysis of the percentage of goods, taking them by value, entered free into the United States and Canada discloses, however, a rather interesting fact, namely, that in the year 1922 61.43 per cent of goods imported into the United States entered free of duty whereas in Canada only 33 per cent of our imports entered free. Not only that, but the average percentage of duty on all imports into the United States was, for the year 1921, 11.44 per cent, and in 1922, 14.68 per cent, as against an average percentage of duty on all imports into
'Mr. Shaw.]
Canada of 14.1 per cent in 1921, 16.2 per cent in 1922, and 16.7 per cent in 1923. So that apparently, from that standpoint, we have a higher average percentage than the United States. Then, too, I find that in the year 1922 the United States, with a population of 110,000,000, collected 8456,000,000 by customs taxation whereas we in Canada collected $105,000.000 in other words, the United States in 1922 collected per capita $4.07 while we collected per capita $11.75. And the figures through all the years substantiate the facts I have given. In the United States they depend on customs taxation only to the extent of 10 per cent of the revenue, while in Canada we depend upon it to the extent of 30 per cent. I have taken the trouble to make up a list, only a few items of which I shall give, in relation to the American tariff. I find that shovels and spades, which are very necessary articles to a great many people, are imported into the United States subject to a tariff of 30 per cent whereas we in Canada impose against these articles a duty of 32^ per cent. Boots and shoes enter free into the United States, but we have a tariff on them of between 25 and 30 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: I want to make a correction. If the hon. gentleman will apply to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) he will find that the duty on shovels and spades is 20 per cent.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member is referring to the recent reduction in'the budget. I have a note of it, and I regret that for his sake I did not mention the fact. To proceed: cement enters free into the United States as against a tariff of approximately 10 cents per hundred pounds when it is imported into Canada. Again, cowhide gloves, which are necessary for a great many labouring men, are imported free into the United States; when we import them into Canada we have to pay 35 per cent. Leather is imported free into the United States, but it pays a duty of 15 per cent in going into Canada. Sewing machines pay a duty on importation into the United States of 15 per cent.; when they are imported into Canada they are subject to a duty of 30 per cent. Harness and saddlery are in certain cases imported free into the United States, but they are subject to a duty of 30 per cent, when imported into Canada. Typewriters, which are used by a great many people, especially young people in earning a livelihood, are admitted free into the United States whereas they pay a customs duty of 25 per cent, when imported into Canada. And automobiles, which pay 25 per cent, in the

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
United States, are taxed 35 per cent, on importation into Canada. There are a great many more items in this list but I shall not weary the House by referring to them.
Now, there are those who suggest that the greatest necessity of the time is
5 p.m. stability in regard to the tariff. The present advocates of stability, condemned the government last year for not carrying put their pre-election promises, now they condemn them for making an attempt in that direction. What I suggest to my hon. friends to my right is that the policy of the government up to the presentation of the present budget has been substantially that bequeathed them by the late administration. But we cannot expect stability in this day and generation, at a time when the whole world is in a state of flux and change. Under these circumstances, it seems to me the height of absurdity to ask for stability in anything. In England about a year and a half ago a government was elected upon a policy of stability and tranquility. It lasted just a year; and the wonder is, not that it was elected but that it lasted so long. The voice of any one crying for stability or tranquility at the present time is simply the voice of an infant crying in the night, and with no language but a cry.
It is suggested by those who favour the protectionist theory that the policy is designed to develop industry, and create the fullest employment. If you ask the protectionist to give you some evidence of prosperity he hastens to the trade returns and rejoices if they indicate any increase over the previous year. But in asking for protection, or in desiring to place a protective barrier against importations, he finds himself on different ground, because if the tariff means anything it means the exclusion of imports and he consequently negatives the argument which he first suggested. It is quite apparent that imports depend upon exports and exports upon imports. I do not think anybody in this day and generation can controvert that statement. Payment for our exports must come by way of goods and services; it can come no other way. And if you limit exports of this country you necessarily clog the wheels of industry, you necessarily lessen employment in this country. No country can enrich itself by erecting a tariff barrier and so isolating itself commercially from the rest of the world. It does not in the long run benefit our own country to produce at excessive cost what another country can produce cheaply and more efficiently. It is idle to imagine that'it profits a country to allow manufacturing in-llli
dustry to take a certain toll from the people by reason of customs taxation which otherwise it would not be entitled to. So far as consumers are concerned, this constitutes legal spoliation. I would suggest that the tariff places a premium on incompetence and inefficiency, for the manufacturing industry which has to rely upon a protective tariff exploits citizens of its own community and therefore is necessarily inefficient and incompetent.
But if my hon. friends think the policy of economic isolation is a proper policy, why not apply it to every province; why not have every province isolate itself? Why not apply it also to every city, indeed to every hamlet? No one would suggest for a moment that such a policy would be desirable. There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that artificial interference with the natural flow of imports really narrows rather than expands markets. We want to-day expanded markets; that is our main requirement, A tariff policy cannot make for steady employment; it can. only give an artificial stimulus to industry. It increases the cost of living, and, more than that, it ^ is the worst and most exhausting form of raising public revenue, because with every increase in the tariff the manufacturer is able to exact just that much more from the unfortunate consumer. So, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that a protective tariff is not justifiable, I care not if you take it on the ground of revenue, on the ground of the development of industry, or on the ground of increasing employment; and still less can it be justified, on the ground of common morality.
Now, surely fifty years' experience of this protective policy should be sufficient. For fifty long years we have followed this policy. For fifty years we have primed the pump of Canadian industry with this policy, designed at the outset for two purposes; first, to assist infant industries; and, secondly, to force reciprocity from the United States. It has miserably failed in both particulars, and only those engulfed in the quicksands of protection would for a single moment deny the fact.
Now, why do we tolerate this system? Is it because of the grip of selfish interests on this country? I think not, because I am satisfied that if the sunlight of fact were allowed to illumine the fiscal darkness even for a short time, these interests would be readily dispersed from their slender defence. Is it because the people believe in the policy? Surely not. Everybody is a consumer, and surely every-, body has learned by costly and bitter experience that this system does not profit them. It seems to me that one of the main reasons
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

for the continuance of protection is due to what I may call the more or less spineless attitude of those committed to the policy of free trade. Knowing the facts, inspired by sound principles, they have not hesitated, before election, to proclaim from the housetops their devotion to the principle; but their pre-election militancy and the urge to action seem to die with the declaration of their election. I do not know why it should be so, for it seems to me that there are enough free traders in this country now to serve notice upon our industrialists that we are going to give them reasonable time, perhaps five years -limit the time-to get down to a free trade basis, and that after that period has elapsed we shall insist upon free trade as the fiscal policy of the nation.
But there is another and very important reason, Mr. Speaker, why we should develop the free trade policy of this country. I am. thinking now particularly of the world situation. Despite rulers, despite parliaments, the people everywhere are gradually coming back, if I may say so, to their normal senses; there is observable in all parts of the world a restoration to sanity. When the common people of all the belligerent countries come into control and take charge of their affairs, they are going to find out the causes that make for war and prevent them from living in peace and harmony even with their own countrymen. I remember that one of the conditions of the Armistice, incorporated in the Fourteen Points, provided for the elimination of customs barriers. The late ex-President Wilson saw with a. very clear and statesmanlike vision that tariffs make for war. But unfortunately the peace of Versailles did violence to that condition. I say "unfortunately" advisedly, for under that peace, to-day the world has little chance. In deference, apparently to nationalistic sentiments that treaty set up ten additional nations in Europe. They promptly, as they fought for self-preservation, commenced to set up tariff barriers to protect themselves, presumably from their neighbours. Armaments necessarily followed, because militarism and protection always walk hand in hand and keep step with each other. So to-day as a result the whole industrial fabric of Europe is in ruins, and the tragic sacrifice, the awful suffering and the heroic endurance displayed in the last war have apparently been largely in vain.
But, as I suggested, there is some hope for the future. Let me give the House my reasons [DOT] for thinking so. Hungary, under the aegis of the League of Nations, has adopted free trade. England, the home of free trade, despite all her domestic difficulties and problems, and

despite the efforts of tariff propagandists, has recently reaffirmed the principle of free trade more strongly than ever. Not only that, but the neighbouring country of Ireland recently appointed a tariff commission which, after fully analysing the facts, came to the conclusion that free trade was the proper policy for Ireland to adopt. In addition, Russia, which has recently entered into the comity of nations again, is now making trade arrangements with the other countries of the world. These are hopeful signs. But not only on the continent of Europe are there signs of better times. Even in the country to the south I think the people are gradually awakening to the futility of their protective policy, and I am hopeful that in the coming presidential election they will see to it that steps are taken to cast this thing from their midst.
Now, Canada cannot do better than to set the pace for this movement. She occupies a particularly strategic position in the world to-day. I see no reason why she cannot take a step in advance of other nations.
I come now to speak particularly on the motion and the amendment which are before the House. The motion before the House is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means. But that is really not what. is meant at all. I am sure there would not be a single one of us but would gladly give the Speaker an opportunity to leave the chair and escape from the present and future floods of language; I am sure of that. But it does not mean that at all. We have old forms and old fictions, and the real question we are asked to vote on in this motion is whether or not we approve of the government policy incorporated in the budget. That is the question we have to consider.
Then there was an amendment proposed by my- hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), which goes just a little bit further than the proposals of the government. The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica), whom I see in his seat, is very, very sorry indeed that the Conservative amendment was not allowed, because that amendment provided for tariff stability and he wants a battle over that issue. Perhaps he may be pardoned for not knowing that in this country for the last fifty years that is the very issue we have been battling on, the issue of the tariff. It has been a sham battle through all these years, and it will continue in the future, as in the past, to be nothing more than a sham battle unless we get it put on a proper and a solid basis. But as I say, perhaps my hon. friend may be

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
pardoned, coming, as we know he does, from the republic to the south. I was interested in reading the remarks in Lord Bryce's book on the American Commonwealth, written twenty years ago, where he says that the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States have lost all vital differences, and that there is now only a struggle between them for power and position; party names, he say^ still persist, while principles and causes have vanished. And so as they have been having these sham battles over there, I presume my hon. friend from Battleford wishes to import them over here. For him to ask in this day and generation for the perpetuation of these sham battles of the past is to court the character of none other than Rip Van Winkle.
I come now to deal particularly with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, and I would direct the attention of the House particularly to the preamble of his resolution. He says:
Whereas the budget proposals would seem to indicate the recognition by the government of the necessity for a fiscal policy designed to encourage industries based upon the development of the natural resources of the country, and to afford some alleviation of the financial burdens bearing upon the people;
In other words, he distinctly, if I understand the language at all, approves of the government policy to the extent that it has gone. Then he says:
And whereas the condition of such industries and tlie condition of consumers in general is such as to demand relief ;
Therefore be it resolved:-
That the best interests of Canada will be served by an immediate and substantial reduction of the tariff on the necessaries of life, including foodstuffs, clothing and building materials.
In other words, if I understand the language, expressly and by implication, he means this:	So far as the government
policy applies to reduction of the customs tariff on the primary industries of this country he is content, but he wants them to go just a little bit further in order to give further relief other than the mere incidental relief which will be given to consumers by reason of the government's policy with regard to primary industries. He wants them to give further relief to consumers by reducing the burden of customs taxation. Now that is not any policy that is new; there is nothing new about it. I hold in my hand the policy of the Liberal party; I hold in my hand the policy of the Independent Labour party of Manitoba, upon which my hon. friend was elected; I hold in my hand the new national policy of the Progressive party, and in every one of those platforms adherence is given to the very things which the
hon. gentleman asks for, and some of them, including his own, are almost identical in language with his amendment. That I may say frankly is the policy to which I adhere. It'is the policy upon which 1 was elected; it is the policy which I intend to support.
But it is suggested by other hon. gentlemen that to support the amendment constitutes a vote of want of confidence in the government. Well, I did not know that. It does not constitute a vote of want of confidence in the government unless the government tells us that that is the way they are going to look upon it. But is the government going to call it a vote of want of confidence because some hon. members feel that attention should be directed to further necessary reductions in order that the consumers of this country may get further and larger benefits. This mere fiction, this question of a lack of confidence in the government is something that is inherited from a prehistoric past. Why cannot we get rid of these fictions? Why cannot we eliminate them from our procedure, and to that extent at least be modern and up-to-date? Why not say to the government: We approve of your policy as far as you have gone, and without expressing any lack of confidence in you we think you should investigate and go into these other matters not only of reduction in customs taxation, but also the matter of introducing new: forms of taxation to which you and various other parties in this House are already committed? How can I, elected on a platform containing the principles outlined in the amendment, justify my vote against the amendment by telling my constituents that there is some rule of the House which says that this would mean a vote of want of confidence in the government? I suggest to the Prime Minister, and I do it with all seriousness and in all sincerity, that here would be a splendid opportunity for him to ask the free and unfettered judgment of this House. The question he might direct to the House is this: Are you in favour of a further substantial and immediate reduction of the customs tariff on the articles that are so necessary in the home, and which minister to the shelter, food and comfort of the people? Why cannot he do it? Because of this ridiculous rule to which I refer. Only that and nothing more. This rule, like some other things, should speedily be cast into the limbo of forgotten things, and I suggest to the Prime Minister, here is a time to prove his real democracy and to show that he wants to find the real judgment of the House on this important matter.
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. I regret very much that the government the year before last saw fit to introduce an amendment to the Customs Act. I am reading the resolution which was incorporated subsequently into law, in 1922:
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council on a report from the Minister of Customs and Excise that natural products of the class or kind produced in Canada are being imported into Canada either on sale or on consignment under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers, the Governor in Council may, in any case or class of cases, authorize the minister tc value such goods for duty notwithstanding any of the provisions of this act, and the value so determined shall be held to the fair market value thereof.
I want to give just one illustration of the operation of that provision. In the province of Alberta I regret to say we do not produce as yet any fruit; I am hopeful, however, as to the future, but in the neighbouring province of British Columbia they do produce considerable fruit. Last year fruit was produced in the state of Washington and available for sale on the open market in that state at 80 cents per box. The present customs taxation is 30 cents a box; so disregarding the freight charges the cost to the purchaser in Canada would ordinarily be $1.10 per box for that fruit. But was it that? Not at all. The Minister of Customs, although he could not do it under the Dumping Act, because the Dumping Act takes as its basic figures the fair market value for consumption in the place where produced, under this amendment levied a 15 per cent dumping duty in addition to the duty already imposed, making the cost, disregarding freight, to the consumer $1,261 a box. To that amount must be added, however, the necessary handling charges and the commission agent's charges. What was the result? Simply this: Last year in the province of Alberta the price of apples was so high that the people were denied the opportunity of buying that fruit. What happened? My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) told me last summer that he found them dumping boxes and boxes of apples-I think he said thousands of boxes of apples-in the Okanagan lake somewhere near Vernon. That was the situation-the price was so high that the consumers went on strike, and the whole situation is traceable to this [DOT] nefarious protectionist legislation of 1922. Now, I think the government should do something to relieve that situation. I do not think they should give us freer trade with one hand and take it back with the other. I think the government should take the earliest step to change that legislation so that it will at least 
give the consumers of western Canada opportunity to purchase fruit at reasonable prices


Mr. STEVENS:: Will my hon. friend permit
me to ask him a question? Do I understand him to say that the apples alleged to have been dumped in Okanagan lake were overplus that could not be sold or marketed by tlje grower in the Okanagan valley, or is it not possible-I am not quite sure myself and I think, perhaps, my hon. friend may have this information-that a very large quantity of apples were found after they had been packed to be rotten in the core, and on account of that had to be destroyed?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The information I have, for the accuracy of which I cannot vouch, does not suggest that the apples in question were rotten or otherwise undesirable. That may be so, but I would recommend my hon. friend to get in touch with the hon. member for Brant from whom I received the information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend
permit me, in justice to the people who are marketing these apples, to say this: There was a disease in a certain variety of apples, I think it was the Jonathan, I am not quite sure, and a large compensation bill had to be met in England because the fact was not discoverable until after the apples were shipped and a large number had to be destroyed. I know that. I do not know if some may have been dumped because of an over-plus, but I never, in the thirty years I have been in British Columbia knew of such a condition obtaining.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information he asks for. I understand the hon. member for Brant proposes to speak later in the debate and he may be in a position to give further details. I am not concerned particularly with the reason for dumping these apples into lake .Okanagan. I can understand from the hon. gentleman's viewpoint that that is a matter of considerable importance, and rightly so. I want to do no injustice, I simply state the fact and I have no doubt the whole of the circumstances will come to light later.
There is another matter to which I personally take very serious objection, and that is the elimination of the exemption clause in the dumping regulations on April 8 last, two days before the budget was introduced. I am not prepared to argue the full effect of that exemption but there can be no doubt it is another step in the direction of protection- it cannot be otherwise. It may be that there is some substantial reason which the government has for this and similar legislation. I

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
mean the similar legislation of 1922. I trust there is some substantial ground for their action. Personally, although I have been anxious to secure information which would justify me in condoning the removal of that exemption legislation, I have not been able to do so.
I want to say in conclusion that many members take the occasion at this time to renew their faith in Canada. I do not think it should be necessary for me to renew my faith in this my native land. I was interested, however, in observing that over one hundred and fifty years ago the habit of expressing faith in the future of this country was then a comparatively common habit. I notice that Dr. Benjamin Franklin, when he was asked by the British Colonial Secretary whether or not it would be a good thing to restore Canada to France, wrote these rather historic words:
I have long been of the opinion that the foundation of the future grandeur and stability of the British Empire lies in America, and though like other foundations they are low and little now, they are nevertheless broad and strong enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom has yet erected.
I am therefore by no means for restoring Canada to France.
Again, standing upon the threshold of the twentieth century Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a statesman for whom I hold the highest admiration, expressed his faith in the future of Canada and claimed that the twentieth century belonged to this Dominion. More than one hundred and fifty years have passed since Benjamin Franklin wrote the message to which I referred. A quarter of the century has passed which Sir Wilfrid Laurier claimed for Canada. And yet I would ask any hon. member here if he is impressed with the progress which we have made in the interim. That is the question. Faith is a good thing. Faith is highly desirable, faith is necessary, but faith itself will not avail-faith without works is dead. As a matter of fact our economic future is being welded to-day upon the anvils of continental Europe, and we allow the existing rusty and creaking old legislative machinery to go on quite indifferent to the settlement of our future in those distant countries. The termination of the war brought great hope for reconstruction. Hundreds of thousands of men returned from overseas with a broader outlook and with a new vision for Canada. Thousands here who had been spared contact with Europe also shared in that optimistic outlook. We turned aside from the high opportunity that we had. We deserted the pathway that invited our feet, and we went back as a nation
to the old order and to the old control. These things still persist. That is one reason why 100,000 of those soldiers who offered, for a mere pittance, their services to their country in the time of its peril, accompanied by thousands of others-all denied the security of a livelihood in this country-have sought shelter and asylum in other lands. That is the situation to-day. The plain fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the domestic and international problems of our day lie outside the scope of our present political parties. These problems are economic and geographic in Canada; they do not yield to the same treatment as our problems of fifty years ago. Our forefathers were then disturbed with the questions of political freedom, of the right to vote, and of equality before the law. In that struggle the political parties of to-day undoubtedly took an active and a worthy part, but in the struggle they exhausted themselves and are unable to cope with the new situations arising to-day. As a matter of fact their achievements lie behind us on the battlefields of political freedom. What we need at this time are men and women who will face the problems of to-day.
The main economic problem is now the equitable distribution of the products of industry and, in conjunction with that, to ascertain a common denominator that will weld out of this country, out of its varying and diverse interests, a harmonious whole. That is the problem before the people of Canada to-day. I venture to say that the solutions of these problems will not come from within this parliament. I think perhaps it will come from without parliament from men and women who, with minds receptive to new ideas, who, freed from and unembarrassed by political considerations and affiliations, will bring to the solution of these problems their best, their most earnest and disinterested judgment.
Appropriately enough, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of all members who enter the portals of this House, is found that old proverb:
Where there is no vision
The people perish.
We are the heirs of a doubtful past. We are the trustees of a challenging future. Shall we as Canadians allow our country to perish for lack of vision? The challenge to-day is to us and to our generation. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if we together united seek the salvation of this country we will be able to weld a real nationality, bounded only, like the shield of Achilles, by the blue rim of
ocean.
The Budget*-Mr. Church


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I
did not take any part in the debate on the Address, and would not have taken any part in the present debate were it not for the fact that I come from an industrial district which is very much affected by the present financial policy announced in the budget. The district of Toronto has been built up by protection, a great industrial centre having been established there under that great principle. My remarks to-day will deal simply with that great subject of protection, which affects cities and towns in this country; and the financial policy of Canada and the Empire. My remarks to-day will relate to all phases of the problem, the psychology of protection. I support it not because of its own sake but as essential for Canada's sake.
Fortunately we cannot all think or see alike, but while that is so we can respect each other's opinions for what they are worth. We can appreciate the sincerity with which they are held, and give and take, and show moderation and good will. Canada is a difficult country to govern, especially during days like these of stress and strain; and as every government has its troubles, I hope this government will not think that any criticism of the present budget is not made for the good of the country.
Coming from Toronto, I want to express the high regard the people of that city had for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) during his long public career. His unfailing courtesy and kindness won the respect of all members of the House as well as of the people of the country. So far as the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is concerned, I think it but proper to say that he has proved himself to be a most painstaking and obliging minister, and deserves a great deal of credit for the manner in which he has performed his duties since taking over the department.
I had intended placing before the House a number of letters in regard to the very serious injury done to Toronto's industries by the instability of tariff, the doubt, uncertainty and unrest resultant industrially from the lack of stability and the tinkering with the tariff. Similar letters to these were read by the member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) and therefore I shall not take time to read them as he has fully covered the ground of the damage done to industries.
If Canada is to have free trade or semifree trade, why are we spending such a huge sum of money on the Wembley Exhibition? When the Prince of Wales, as president, attended the opening of the exhibition at

Wembley he made a speech in addressing the King from which I quote the following:
I hope, Sir, that the result of this exhibition will be to impress vividly upon all the peoples of your Empire the advice you have given to them on more than one occasions, that they should be fully awake to their responsibilities as heirs of so glorious a heritage and that they should be in nowise slothful stewards, but that they should work unitedly and energetically to develop the resources of the Empire for the benefit of the British race, for the benefit of those other races which have accepted our guardianship over their destinies, and for the benefit of mankind generally.
I may say that the free traders of Manchester and the Northwest Free Trade Union have, under government auspices in England, been endeavouring to turn the British Empire Exhibition into a free trade affair and they have secured space for their free trade exhibit. The Wembley exhibition was designed to help forward the cause of Imperial trade, to show the wealth and completeness of the natural resources of the British Empire and the enormous possibilities of development represented in Imperial trade, and it might, I think, have been left free of the efforts to capture it.
The Progressives in this House, not to be outdone by their friends in England, might seek to exhibit their free trade wares at Wembley by asking the government to give them over part of the Canadian space at the exhibition. As the member for Brome tMr. McMaster) and the Progressives practically believe that the whole future of Canada depends on free trade, I hope that such an exhibit, if made, will be thorough and that it will at least present a candid and truthful view of our economic situation. I venture in all modesty to suggest to the Progressives and Liberals some suitable models and diagrams for this suggested Canadian exhibit at Wembley: A model of the vigorous enforcement of the Combines Act and trusts by the Minister of Labour: a portrait of the hon. member for Brome, with a shadow of his riding being wiped out by the Redistribution Act, crossing back again to the government side and of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Marler) exchanging places with the member for Brome on the cross benches; a painting in oils of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), tolling the church union bell, announcing to the world the death knell of protection in Canada. As there is such a stiff economy contest for branch lines, Hudson bay canals, towers and breakwaters, I suggest that the Progressives include an oil painting of all these works. The unused timber and planks in-the Liberal platforms of 1896, 1911 and 1919 might also

The Budget-Mr. Church
be used. The shattered planks of the United Farmers of Ontario might be included; also an exhibit of the Progressives branch line economy planks, to be built only according to the free trade law of supply and demand.
A further section of the exhibit might show how the Progressives are aiding the exodus to the United States by their free trade fallacies. A section might be devoted to the roadbuilding methods of the United Farmers of Ontario under the Hon. Mr. Biggs and their way of handling bonds and loans in Ontario, under the so-called group system in that province, with a portrayal of the leader of the Progressives (Mr.. Forke) assuring the government before the session that they would have his support. Further, there might be a tintype of three prominent government members talking one way and then voting another way on the tariff. There might also be a miniature of the Progressives ceasing to be the "dilapidated annex," and becoming an overflow, and "the spare men" on the government team, with the leader o.f the Progressives the star pinch hitter on the government team whenever called into play. They might begin by having the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master),-who is so fond of free trade and the dead text books of the past, which he quoted the other night while dealing with free trade-and ask him to quote the frenzied prophecies of Cobden and Bright that the whole world would follow England's example of free trade. They might also show the fulfilment of that prophecy in the rising tariff . walls of every country but our own. They might show the comparative positions of British, German, French and American industries, when free trade was adopted by England and protection by the other three countries I have named. Then Germany was the poorest country in Europe, content, or forced to export such raw products as corn and timber in exchange for the manufactures of industrial England. They might show the Prussian peasant of that time, as contemporary travellers describe him, dressed in rags, breaking the clods with a wooden mallet because he was too poor to buy an iron plough. They might also quote the pathetic and almost despairing description of the German economist List, who described England about 1840 as:
Supreme in every branch of manufacture,
Contrary to what the hon. member for Brome said the other night.
-as a world's metropolis which supplies all nations with manufactured goods, a treasure house of all great capital, a banking establishment for all nations, which controls the circulating medium of the whole world, and by loans and the receipt of interest on them
makes all the peoples of the earth her tributaries.
In vain,-
List added.
-did the Germans humble themselves to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Britons; the latter treated them worse than a subject people.
Then we should see the United States at that same time, in 1840, almost wholly an agricultural country invaded every year by an army of British commercial travellers. We should then have a picture of a comparative situation of the three countries at the outbreak of the war, Germany producing twice as much steel and iron as England, the United States with an even vaster production, the two countries towering in their industrial strength above the nation which had ouce supplied both with everything they required except food and timber. These comparative diagrams might be accompanied by others to show how national power was a reflection of industrial power, and how free trade England which, as a protected country, had once ruled the world, was compelled to invoke the aid of one great protected country, the United States, to assist her in repelling the attack of another.
There are endless possibilities for this free trade exhibit. We might have a very pretty model of England in 1840 as the workshop of the world, and another in 1924, under free trade as described the other day by the hon. member for Brome and this afternoon by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson), as the workhouse of the world with a dole system as the fountain. We might have a beautiful and moving reproduction of a labour exchange, for the benefit of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), with the clerk handing out, not work, but doles to a queue of about a million and a quarter people. We might have exhibits of crumbling factories, rusting machinery and cold furnaces. The National Union of Manchester could contribute some very interesting statistics, the result of a questionnaire which they sent recently to their members. It seems that 567 manufacturers who replied, estimated that with adequate protection they alone could employ over 100.000 extra hands. But the most interesting exhibits of all would be a list of the' German and other foreign members of the Cobden Club and the German cheques which have come in to assist the free trade cause in England. Do we want to head for such a state of affairs in Canada? Then you have only to adopt the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture and you will have in Canada such a state of affairs as I have described as existing in the Mother Country to-day under free trade.
The Budget-Mr. Church

In speaking of the subject of protection I wish to refer for a moment or two to the psychology of protection as applied to this country. Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have all been built .up and their manufactures developed and maintained by protection in every method and manner possible which the legislatures could devise, those methods varying down the ages, although there have been free trade lapses. After great wars through the centuries between these great powers protection was brought up to date to meet changed conditions. For , many centuries protection to native industries was the leading policy of all the states foremost in industry and commerce-protection to home industries on land as well as shipping and that protection enforced on both land and sea. Under such high protection, established and made adequate to foster native industries, the great basic manufactures of these states were developed and sustained. Chronic free traders will tell you that they were established and developed in spite of protection. Not so. They give us no table of facts to substantiate their argument. England is no example of free trade. In England, 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 men are out of work under free trade and a man cannot get a job there because of free trade.
Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where free trade flourishes and men decay.
Rural depopulation is acute also. A man cannot get a job in Canada because for practically all intents and purposes we have semifree trade in this country, and the situation will become more acute under the low tariff before us. Nearly 200,000 people have swelled the exodus to the United States during the past fiscal year, and that exodus will be greater than ever under this new tariff with five cents off here and ten cents off there, and with nobody able to say where the end will be. Under this condition of affairs the industries of the city from which I . come are very much disturbed and the unrest is becoming more acute. This instability of tariff is going to paralyze business, make it stagnant and cause hard times. England, as I say, is no example of free trade, because her manufactures for centuries had been developed beyond those of other nations under protection long before the adoption of free trade there. England was built up under a rigid system of protection, protection not only by a tariff, but by navigation laws and many other agencies which her legislature during those 200 years could develop and put into force. In economic questions, this country will be guided by facts, by experience and by actual conditions as to free trade and protection and not

by any abstract theory of any theoretical school of thought, as propounded the other evening by the hon. member for Brome in quoting John Stuart Mill and John Bright.
Mr. John Bright made many prophecies and lived to see most of them falsified. In his speech at the Cobden celebration in 1877 he saw this vision:	[DOT]
If we look into France we see that protection is becoming weaker.
Is that true to-day? Why, Sir, you have only to look at the high wall of protection which France has erected since the war.
If' we look at the United States or consult any intelligent American we shall find that there it is shaken and tottering to its fall.
Nearly fifty years have passed and protection, in all the great countries of Europe and America, has a firmer hold on the public mind now than then; and during sixty-eight years since the repeal of the Com Laws public opinion in all the great commercial and manufacturing countries has gradually settled down more and more in favour of protection.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess


Thomas Langton Church: food zones, the thrift of its people, its invigorating and salubrious climate all point to Canada as bound to become the great industrial country of America.
The tariff should be taken out of politics. It is rot a political question in any sense. Authorities should be set up in this country to act in an advisory capacity to the government in relation to this problem. I would not advocate the appointment of another tariff commission, because commissions have not been a success in this country. The Railway Commission for instance, does it regulate railways? No. sometimes it gets lost, strajmd or stolen. You have a grain commission, does it regulate matters respecting grain? 1 trow not. The government of the day should be responsible for the tariff. The Minister of Finance is the minister responsible with respect to tariff matters, and I would suggest that instead of appointing a tariff commission, a rate expert with a staff should be appointed under the control of the minister, T.o figure out the fair price ratio of tariff for agricultural implements and everything else that belongs to the manufactures and' after allowing for overhead and other costs he should fix a price, and that price should be stabilized and standardized. In that way you would have all the advantages of a tariff commission without its defects.
The Liberal-Conservative party have always been protectionist from Sir John A. Macdonald down to to-day. In the last general election our very able and capable leader the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) preached this same doctrine of adequate protection for the industries of this country, down in the Maritime provinces, in central Canada, and out in the West. There was no beating about the bush with him. Everyone knew where he stood on the tariff, and that has always been the policy of the Conservative party. They have always stood for moderate protection-adequate protection for the industries of this country.
After all, it was not any political party that made Canada a nation. The people themselves had something to do with making this Dominion a nation, but in my opinion it was the National Policy that made Canada the country it is to-day. You may criticise the National Policy as you like, you may criticise the principle of protection, but we never had anything else but protection in this country except for a brief period so far as I know. I have placed the tariffs of the respective governments in Canada in

parallel columns and compared them; and I doubt whether anybody could call the tariff that has been in operation from 1896 down until the present budget anything but a protective tariff. I think that any economic writer would certainly consider that the tariffs for which my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is responsible were all highly protective.
Eighty-five per cent of the crops produced in the province of Ontario have a home market in the near-by cities and towns, at the highest price that can be got in open competition in the world to-day. That home market is a steady market; it is not one that is here to-day and away to-morrow. It is to be found in the cities and towns that surround the many very fine agricultural counties of Ontario. I do not think the farmers there believe in free trade. If it were not for protection, in view of the hostile tariff in the United States these farmers would be one hundred per cent worse off than they are to-day, and I believe that remark applies to eastern Canada generally.
The late Hon. J. Israel Tarte once said that platforms were made to get in on, but not to stand on. Probably that accounts for the Liberals from 1896 to 1911 not carrying out their free trade policies, but returning and sticking to protection. I do not blame them for it. Any prosperity that this country had during that period was due to protection. All the main cities and towns of Canada have been built up under protection. That is true of Brantford, of Toronto, of Hamilton, of Montreal and all our other large cities. They have all been built up by the National Policy. Take the city of Toronto, which I represent. In 1878 soup kitchens had to be established there to meet the wants of the large number of men who were out of employment; vacant houses and stores were many; and there were evidences of distress on every hand. But the policy of protection was adopted and it stimulated the growth of our city in many ways. The trade and commerce of Toronto greatly increased; the population has doubled almost every ten years; the receipts from customs and excise, and post office, to say nothing of bank clearings grew prodigiously, and Toronto is only one of the many cities of Canada that has made tremendous strides as the result of protection. Now, geography has taught the people of Canada a lesson in more ways than one. It has taught them not to leave themselves at the mercy of a foreign country in regard to their fiscal affairs, especially when that country is one

The Budget-Mr. Church
of the most wealthy, powerful, prosperous and ambitious in the world-I refer to the United States. Every country in the world including the United States, is increasing its tariff. Not only are the United States and the various countries in Europe doing that, but Australia, New Zealand, and the South American republics are all adding to their protective tariffs. Is it to be argued that these countries are all wrong, and that the Progressives and Liberals of Canada are all right? I say no. I maintain that as a result of the Great War and of world industrial conditions, more protection will be required to meet the changing conditions that arise as the years go by.
I once heard Sir Richard Cartwright and Sir Oliver Mowat say that if the Liberals were returned to office in 1896 they would remove the last vestige of protection, but they did not	do
so. Examine the sixteen budgets of the present Minister of Finance and what do we find? We find that each and every one is highly protective in character. But that cannot be said of the budget we are now considering. I do not see what the Canadian farmer is going to do. He is shut out of the United States by a tariff of 42 cents a bushel on his wheat and therefore must depend on his home market. That is the best market for him that I know of. It will take care of from 80 to 85 per cent of his crop in the central part of Canada. If the government can solve the railway problem and bring the railway rates down, a great step will have been taken. A great deal of disturbance and harm has been wrought in the city from which I come by the present budget. Very few people realize what a large proportion of the population of such cities as Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, and the towns of an industrial character surrounding them are dependent for livelihood upon our basic industries. There are merchants, clerks, tailors, dressmakers, milliners, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, decorators, plumbers, electricians, real estate agents, insurance agents and many others who get their living by supplying the varied wants of the industrial population. All these people contribute in a variety of ways to the general revenues of the government. If they were living in the United States instead of Canada they would contribute nothing to Canadian government revenue. The loss of revenue resulting from even the partial wiping out of the agricultural implement industry would greatly
exceed the amount required to pay the freight charges on agricultural implements from the factory to the farm.
In a new country like Canada essentially agricultural, one of the chief wants has been markets. Now food markets at home mean better prices and better profits and better wages. They stimulate production and lead to wealth. If we all produced the same articles there would be no market. It was because British farmers had their customers, the British manufacturers, almost at their doors, and that many corn producing countries had no manufacturers that Britain became so prosperous. It is as true to-day as it was in Adam Smith's day when he said that "the increase and riches of commercial and manufacturing towns contribute to the improvement and cultivation of the countries to which they belong in many ways by affording a great and ready market for the rude produce of the country." We must have home markets for a hundred products of the farm and garden and the fields that are too bulky or perishable to bear transit to other countries. Under the present tariff we are heading for the same conditions that prevailed in 1878-for depression, closed industries and hard times.
The present budget is injudicious and not judicious protection. By "judicious protection" I mean protection brought up to date to meet the varied conditions created by the war and conditions at home and abroad- a protection which will promote and maintain on a living basis our own domestic industries in this land of abundant resources. It must be such a tariff as will conserve and strengthen our existing industries, further develop them, and nurse other struggling ones and those needing aid, such a policy as would call into existence other new industries and assist in maintaining them after they are created; such a tariff as would in effect stop the present exodus to the United States by creating profitable employment which would accumulate * wealth and minimize the waste now going on in the country and check the economic wastage of the present exodus. The greatest problem confronting this parliament is to adopt such a national policy as I suggest here brought up to date as will bring "the field and factory" together; will preserve our own home markets for our own resources and products; will eliminate all unnecessary hauling to and fro and cheapen production and make it more accessible to the masses rather than develop a system which elevates trade above production.
The Budget-Mr. Church

As has been said Cobdenism has the defect of considering the exchange of commodities as being more important than their production. The aim of protection as we had it in Canada under the Conservatives was to promote production and avoid waste-the only economic policy that will ever endure in Canada. How will the so-called reductions benefit those out of work? Will not the departure from last year's declaration of the Minister of Finance for stability of tariffs ead to a wobbling and meddling tariff policy, and add to the number of industries closed down with attendant unrest, uneasiness and unemployment. Will there not be a further economic waste by way of further exodus to the United States if we keep on nibbling at our tariff and lowering the same? Will we not lose' what industrial supremacy we have? At present Chicago is the "third largest Canadian city in the world" and Detroit is the fourth. I use these designations to illustrate the number of Canadians now living in these two cities of the United States. Where will this exodus stop under "a vaster free trade policy than has been "? What will be the next industry to be attacked? The International Harvester Company can now close up its factory in Hamilton, manufacture in Chicago and just ship its agricultural implements over into Canada. The money invested in the Hamilton plant, can be considered wasted and the plant can now be scrapped.
What does this budget mean to a city or town man who pays most of the taxes of, this country? What reduction is there for him? We might just as well admit there will in fact be none. His income tax is the same, a double-header-one from the municipality, another from the Dominion. A reduction of one per cent in the sales tax will not change the selling price any to the consumer; the seller will charge the same for clothing and everything on the breakfast table. His freight and passenger bill from the railways is the same. High prices for money, labour and material still continue. Will the resolutions now before the house make for a cheaper breakfast table or a free breakfast table? They will not. The consumers postage costs the same instead of being reduced as is being done in every other country. A mathematical calculation has been made that taxes have been reduced S2.70 per head. It will be hard to get the consumer to locate this pin money, Municipal taxes are going still higher. Will the rent bill be any less, or the cost of clothing, food, coal and fuel bills? Will the food bill for the breakfast table be any less.

I answer no. The consumer will still have to pay the same taxes both direct and indirect. The reduction to the individual, as to the nation, will be more fanciful than real. Has the budget made the Canadian public rich? To that question I return an emphatic response that it has not.
On the 2nd April this year the Canadian Council of Agriculture came to Ottawa and presented a memorandum to the cabinet in which they urged that relief be granted to the agricultural industry. They stated that protection has been an unmitigated evil for many years, and that the farmer has been exploited and plundered by those who enjoyed special privileges under it. They asked that the farmer be relieved of the artificial burden which it was claimed had been unjustly imposed on him. A declaration was made in favour of reciprocity with the United States, and an immediate abolition of the tariff on the implements of production was asked. The Canadian customs tariff so long as retained, to be based solely on the requirements for public revenue. From this it will be seen that we recognize a definite distinction between a protective tariff and a tariff for revenue. We look forward to a time when possibly the tariff may be altogether abolished, and in the meantime we urge that so long as the tariff is retained it should be on a revenue basis.
All I can say is that if such a policy of free trade and reciprocity is adopted by the people of the country, it means that we will go back to where we were in 1878. Industries will be ruined; people will be out of work and the times will be ten times worse than they are now. I may say further to the Canadian Council of Agriculture that free trade and reciprocity with the United States would make a Lazarus out of a country that Sir Wilfrid Lauriei proposed to have made a nation. That proposal would exhibit the Canada of Queens-ton Heights, or St. Julian, of Vimy Ridge, of Passchendaele, of Amiens and many other fields of glory, as a beggar for the poor favour of reciprocity and free trade.
I propose to show that the only remedy for the condition of the grain growers is in protection and cheaper transportation.
Canada is not being carried along the road to a fulfilment of the destiny that awaits this country as fast and as far as we could wish. Too many Canadians are being driven to carry themselves along the road that ends in a job under the Stars and Stripes. I am no more a despairist on the issue of Canada's future in peace than I was a defeatist on the issue of Britain's victory in war. I believe in the certainty of greatness for the Canadian nation inside the British Empire.

The Budget-Mr. Church
I admit the height and number of certain obstacles to the attainment of that greatness. These obstacles are no visitation sent upon us by Providence. The worst of these obstacles are of home manufacture. Ontario has not yet recovered from four years of free trade preaching and blue ruin prophecy. Ontario gave a negative answer to the question, "Shall a province that was saved by a Brock be ruled by a Drury?" Ontario sent the Ontario end of the Progressive party about its business. Ontario has learned that a few months will not suffice to bring back the business opportunities that were driven away from Ontario by Hon. E. C. Drury and the other would-be Progressives who called themselves farmers. These Liberal-first agrarians proved that they were caricatures of the genuine patriotic farmers of Ontario. When the issue of protection is raised in peace the farmers of Ontario have never failed to stand by their country in the polling booths. Whqn the issue of Canada's existence is raised in war the farmers of Ontario-I mean the genuine farmers, not the kind of party-first farmers-have never failed to go themselves or to send their sons to defend their country on the battlefield.
We had four years of blue ruin preaching and free trade predictions in Ontario. Manufacturers were denounced as thieves and robbers. The province could not expect capital to be invested in industrial enterprises when the premier and the government of that province were denouncing industrial enterprises and refusing fair play to manufacturers. I said that- we could not blame Providence for the impediments that obstruct Canada's pathway to greatness and prosperity. These obstacles are made in Canada, the work of our own voters. Ontario got one obstacle out of the way last June, the so-called Farmers' government, but the policy of the Ottawa branch of the party that was destroyed in Ontario last June, is still a hindrance to the growth of this country. That party is the worst enemy of prosperity for its own supporters engaged in grain growing and other forms of agriculture in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I wish now to deal with the wheat growing industry showing that its future depends on adequate protection, that it is not a continental but the most Imperial of all our industries, and that protection is the best friend of the wheat grower, and the day will come when he will see it.	.
The wheat-producing industry was very much disturbed by the war. Previously an important part of the supplies received by importing countries came from Russia and the
Balkan countries; the war cut off these supplies, which greatly stimulated production in other countries, notably the United States and Canada. Since the war grain production has recovered all over Europe and Russia has reappeared as an exporter with the result that there is an over-supply of wheat. The United States has reduced its acreage in some degree, but not to the pre-war area, while Canada and Argentina are producing much more than heretofore. This is a case where production was increased to meet an emergency.
'It cannot be too plainly stated or too often repeated that the United States is now a relatively small factor in making world wheat prices. Canada is a much larger factor and European markets are receiving large quantities of wheat at lower prices than even Canada is making. Moreover, Canada and other countries are able to produce wheat at lower costs than those ruling in the United States. The Wheat Council in the United States bases its appeal for a higher tariff upon a showing that costs are much lower in Canada.
I believe in free trade only to the extent, I repeat, that if I had sat in the last parliament I would have tried to prove myself a free trader, when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) without protest or let or hindrance from the Progressives and the other sort of Liberals proved himself a protectionist. I believe in free trade, especially free trade in grain inquiries. The Progressives and their leaders proved themselves believers in protection, yes, in the worst kind of protection, the protection that sui rounded the alleged robbery of the western wheat growers, and protection against an investigation into the workings of that system of robbery. The hon. member for Marquette and others combined courts and lawyers and injunctions into a prohibitive tariff against inquiry into the methods of the big interests that handle wheat, not excepting the big interests in this country represented by' the hon. member for Marquette. I was never an extremist in my enthusiasm for Union government. But the Union government honestly tried to protect the western wheat producer against the big interests. The western wheat producers have fulfilled in their experience with the hon. member for Marquette and his followers in this House, the words of scripture, "A man's foes shall be they of his household." The worst enemy of the western wheat growers is the policy of the Progressive party, its leaders and its representatives in this House. The next opponent of the western wheat grower is the present policy of the Liberal party, its leaders and representatives in this
The Budget-Mr. Church

House and in the capitals of the prairie provinces. The best friend of the western wheat grower is the policy of protection, as that policy has been and should be extended and administered by the founders and soldiers of the National Policy, the Conservative party of Canada. The western wheat grower has eaten the sour grapes of free trade. No wonder the western wheat growers' teeth are set on edge. The western wheat grower has taught himself to believe, or has allowed so-called leaders to persuade him, that wheat growing in western Canada is a continental industry, an industry that must prosper by reason of the admission of the product to the United States market or perish because of its exclusion. I submit that wheat growing in western Canada is the most truly national, the most widely imperial of all Canada's great industries. The markets of the British Empire mean more and -the markets of the American section of the North American continent mean less to the wheat growers of Canada than to any other class of Canadian producers.
I said that the Progressives in this House are not progressive any more than the Liberals in this House are liberal. Progressive Liberals or Liberal Progressives profess that they are the best friends of the western wheat grower. They insist that their quack medicine of free trade is a sure cure-all for all the ailments of the western provinces. They suggest that so long as the United States market of 100,000.000 bushels per annum is open to the wheat growers of the West it does not matter, what becomes of the British Empire and its market. The market for Canadian wheat is not on this continent, where the United States always grows enough wheat to feed her people and is still able to export a surplus. The market of the Canadian wheat grower is the British market of the United Kingdom, the allied markets of France and Italy, and the foreign market of Germany. These British, allied or foreign markets imported wheat from Russia and overseas to the extent of 565,000,000 bushels in the twelve months of 1920-21, and 545,000,000 in the twelve months of 192223. The export of wheat from Russia and the wheat producing countries outside of Europe may vary 100,000,000 above or below the 500r-000,000 bushel mark. I submit that 600,000,000 bushels is a large estimate of the demand for imported wheat in Britain, France, Italy and Germany, and that 600,000,000 bushels demand represents the only market ppen to the Canadian wheat grower except the home market. Russia, although recovering, is at present incapable of exporting as much wheat as formerly 
to the 600,000,000 bushel market in Europe. Canada's competitors in that market, so long as Russia is a non-exporter of wheat-and she is even now exporting-are India, Australia, Argentina, and the United States. The overseas market for wheat is the only market other than the home market open to the wheat growers of our prairies. The wheat acreage of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan was 21,665,276 acres in the last year of record. The number of cultivated farms in these same provinces was 255,557 in the last year of record. The total wheat crop of these provinces was 454,000,000 buhels in the last year of record. Canada's total export of wheat from the crop of 1923 is estimated at 250,037,749 bushels, valued at $262,038,943. We are told that Canada and other wheat exporting countries cannot hope for an overseas demand that will average over 600,000,000 bushels per annum, and that demand represents the only market for Canada's export crop of wheat. That market must be shared with the United States and other wheat exporting countries. The problem is as clear as sunshine. On one side of that problem is the overseas market that will take an average of 600,000,000 bushels of imported wheat per annum. On the other side are the Canadian prairies; an area of 20,665,226 acres on these prairies cultivated by 255,657 farmers raised an export crop of 250,037,749 bushels of Canadian w'heat in 1923. Add 26,000,000 acres to the prairie wheat field of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Add
300,000	wheat growers to the 255,657 wheat growers who raised an export crop of Canadian wheat in 1923. The result of these additions would give Canada an export crop of nearly 600,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat, and that export crop would flood the,, overseas market for imported wheat. Let Canada's three prairie provinces produce an export crop of 600,000,000 bushels of wheat. Let the overseas market for imported wheat from Russia and all other wheat-exporting countries be stabilized at a yearly average of 600,000,000 bushels per annum. Canada's export crop of wheat would meet the demands of the European market that takes an average of 600,000,000 bushels of imported wheat. Let Canada's export crop of wheat reach the proportions of
600,000,000 bushels, and the world's market would not be able to absorb more than Canada's production of wheat. Canada's wheat would have to compete with the low costs of wheat production in India, Russia and the Argentine, and wfith reasonably high cost of wheat production in Australia and the United States. The results of that competition would drive the price of wheat down to 50 cents or

The Budget-Mr. Church
60 cents per bushel until such times as low prices decreased the wheat acreage.
Low prices would decrease the acreage sown in wheat by the farmers of wheat exporting countries, and that decrease of wheat might slowly increase the price of wheat. That slow increase in the price of wheat would never rescue the wheat growers of Canada from the dire disaster that will come upon them if they trust their industry to the workings of the great free trade law of supply and demand. The wheat growers of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have only to trust to their present leaders and their present policy, go [DOT] ahead raising wheat on the prairies and listen to free traJde howls on the platform, and the price of wheat will go down to 50 cents a bushel. Nobody could receive any profit out of wheat at 50 cents per bushel other than the middleman, who buys and sells the wheat, and the railways and steamship lines that carry the wheat to the overseas market. The wheat growing industry of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan has more deadly enemies than the big interests of the East. I am no friend of these interests; these interests never were and never will be friends of mine. I have suffered from their enmity as every public man must suffer if he tries to stand up for the people, as the government headed by the present leader of the opposition tried to stand up for the people on the historic occasion to which I have referred. That occasion was the time when a government of this country tried to investigate the methods of the big interests that were plundering the wheat growers of the West. Did the wheat growers support the demand for an inquiry? No, the wheat growers supported the same old triple alliance of Liberals who are the worst enemies of real Liberalism, Progressives who are not the friends of progress, and free traders like the Progressive party and their Progressive leader, who went to the courts with his allies, the grand combine war to the death against free trade in grain inquiries. The wheat growers of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have more to fear from the big interests west of the Great Lakes than from the big interests east of the Great Lakes. Liberals who are not true to real Liberalism, Progressives who are not the friends of progress, teach the grain growers to believe that they owe nothing to the British Empire and that the British Empire means nothing to them. The British Empire and especially the British market mean everything to the wheat growers of the West. Free traders tell the wheat growers that the American market will take care of all the crops that the prairies 112 [DOT]
of the West can ever raise. I am not one of those Canadians who apologize for their party's share in the defeat of reciprocity in 1911. I would not belong to any party that . voted to have Canada's tariff made in Washington. Reciprocity would have lasted only until some agricultural bloc in the United States imagined that reciprocity was putting a dollar in the pockets of Canadian farmers. Then the United States would have ended reciprocity as suddenly as the United States began the 42 cents per bushel tariff on Canadian wheat. The British and overseas market is and always should be a market of customers for Canada. The United States market is and always will be a market of competi- I tors with Canada. The wheat growers of i Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have had to sell, and will have to sell their export j crop in the British and overseas market, to i the extent of 600,000,000 bushels of imported wheat per annum. The United States share in that market in the years of record were:
1920-	21-300,000,000 bushels out of a wheat import of
565.000.	000 bushels.
1921-	22-185,000,000 bushels out of a wheat import of
535.000.	000 bushels.
1922-	23-140,000,000 bushels out of a wheat import of
445.000.	000 bushels.
In these three representative years of record the overseas market for import wheat averaged 348,000,000 bushels per annum. For the same three years the export of the United States to that overseas market averaged 208,000,000 bushels. These figures prove that the market of 100,000,000 people in the United States was served with homegrown wheat plus the following imports of Canadian wheat:
Bushels'
1929-21	 57.082.575
1921-	22	
17,250,7901922-	23	
19,943,430
The Progressive party, the Liberal party, with their triple alliance of non-Liberalism, lack of progress and semi-free trade, teach the wheat growers of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan to believe that they can get rich selling wheat to the United States. The figures show that the United States gets rich feeding the American people from the American wheat fields and still exports American wheat to the extent of 148,000,000 bushels. The average annual export of American wheat for the last three years is more than 25 per cent of Canada's entire wheat crop. That export of 148,000,000 bushels per annum was more than. 30 per cent of the world's total wheat export to the British and overseas market.
Canada's wheat growers never had, and never will have, worse enemies than the triple alliance I have tried to describe. That



REVISED MOTION

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
alliance includes three parties; that alliance includes three policies. The three parties are the Liberals who are not liberal, the Progressives who are not progressive, the free traders whose idea of free trade is to set up a prohibitive tariff against grain inquiries. The policies included in that triple alliance are the policies of error, pretence, and reaction -or, to use the words of the Council of Agriculture-exploitation and plunder. Free trade has nothing to offer the wheat growers of the west but the piffle that represents protection as the worst enemy of the wheat growing industiy. I submit that protection is the only policy that is capable of being developed into, the best friend of the wheat growing industry. Free trade has nothing better to offer the wheat growing industry than the pretence that wheat growers can be poured into the prairies of the West and the free trade law of supply and demand will take care of the illimitable expansion of Canada's wheat crop.
The laws of supply and demand have, through a course of years, stabilized the export market for wheat at about 600,000,000 bushels. Canada's wheat crop in the last three years was:
Bushels
1921		 285,337,900
1922		 380,830,400
1923		 454,834,000
Canada has only to add two-thirds to the present number of wheat farmers and Canada alone will have an export crop of wheat more than equal to the total world consumption of export wheat from the chief wheat exporting countries of the world. That consumption is stabilized at about 600,000,000 bushels. I am not forgetting the United States market. The United States wheat fields now supply almost one-third the wheat sold in the export market. The total United States wheat crop for the last three years has averaged 800,000,000 bushels, or 200,000,000 bushels more than the wheat consuming power of the present population of the United States.
A country that raises a total yield of 800,000,000 bushels of wheat and exports an average of 138,000,000 per annum is no market for Canadian wheat. The American wheat yield averages nine bushels to the acre. A slight increase in the fertility of the American wheat fields would take care of the growth of the United States wheat consuming population for the next thirty years. The pretence that Canada's wheat growing industry has anything to hope for from the United States market is a free trade fallacy. Every 10,000,000 wheat consumers added to the population by the 
United States would add less than 60,000,000 bushels per annum to the demand for Canadian wheat if the Americans opened their market to Canadian wheat growers instead of closing that market against them. The advocates of free trade are guilty of a fraud and a false pretence in the declaration that wheat growing in Canada is a continental industry. Wheat growing in Canada is an Imperial, an overseas industry, and must depend for prosperity, not on a market of competitors on this continent but on a market of customers in the British Isles, in allied countries, yes, and in foreign countries. The prairie wheat growers of the West have only to follow free trade far enough and stick to free trade long enough and they will be trying to get rich selling wheat at 50 cents and 60 cents a bushel. Free trade and false leaders have put the prairie farmers of the West in this position.
Protection properly applied would maintain the individuality of Canada's wheat crop all along the line, from the primary producer to the ultimate consumer. I want to see a policy of protection applied to the wheat growing industry so that the high price that should be commanded by the high quality of the Canadian wheat will go into the pockets of the Canadian farmers who raise that wheat. The prairie farmers support leaders who rise to apply false principles in a free trade policy that puts the high price commanded by the high quality of the Canadian wheat into the pockets of the Yankee middlemen, who handle that wheat, instead of into the pockets of Canadian farmers who grow it. That is what free trade has done for the wheat growers of western Canada. Let these farmers cling to free trade and permit a lot of United States-bossed grain combines to drive Canada's export wheat crop into American routes to the world market! That is the free trade idea. Free trade permits the individuality of Canada's wheat crop to be destroyed so that the high price commanded by the high quality of that crop shall mean a high profit to the American middlemen who handle that crop. Protection should seek to maintain the individuality of Canada's wheat crop so that the high price demanded by the high quality of that crop shall go into the pockets of the Canadian producers who raise it. Free trade, with its triple alliance of cant, humbug and bunkum, takes millions of dollars out of the pockets of the Canadian wheat grower every year by destroying the individuality of the Canadian wheat crop. Protection, with its all-Canadian or other all-British routes to the export market, would maintain the individuality of

The Budget-Mr. Church
the Canadian wheat crop and put millions of dollars into the pockets of the Canadian producers who raise that crop.
I am not here to argue for protection because protection is good for Ontario. I am here to argue for protection because of my conviction that protection is the only hope of building up Canada as a nation within the British Empire.
I am here to argue for protection because of my conviction that the only, hope of profitable wheat growing in western Canada or any part of Canada is in a system of protection that will give the Canadian wheat grower a quality price for his quality crop.
Free trade as they have it in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and other centres affiliating with the big free trade allies of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and other Progressives will permit Canada's high quality wheat crop to be mixed with low quality wheat of foreign origin en route to the world's market. The result of that mixture will be a repetition of the same old free trade story of the foreigner getting a high profit for handling high quality Canadian wheat and the Canadian farmer getting a low price for growing that wheat. I believe that the only principle that can extend and make prosperous the industry of growing wheat on the Canadian prairies is the policy of protection. Protection, and protection alone, as applied to the marketing of Canadian wheat will maintain the individuality of Canada's wheat crop and give the producer of that crop a quality price in the world's market. Free trade that leaves the marketing of Canada's wheat to the law of supply and demand will destroy the individuality of Canada's wheat crop, deprive that crop of the price its quality should demand in the world's market, and require the Canadian farmer to get rich trying to grow wheat and sell it at less than 75 cents per bushel.
Free traders in this country have encouraged the Yankee middlemen and the native grain exchanges to take $2 out of the pockets of the Canadian wheat growers in excessive profits for every 10 cents that the Canadian implement manufacturer has taken out of those same pockets.
The big grain interests that the hon. member for Marquette represents are interests that want more, and yet more, free trade. Free trade enables the alien allies of these big interests to handle Canada's high quality wheat at an estimated excess profit of millions per annum. The protection that I advocate would enable the constituencies of the self-styled and so-called Progressives to keep that profit in their pockets. Free trade destroys the 112i
identity of Canada's wheat crop and enables . the United States beneficiaries of free trade to take a toll of $25,000,000 per annum in high profits on the handling of Canada's high grade wheat. Protection in the form of shipping conditions or export duties would enable the farmers who grow Canada's high grade wheat to add to their revenue that $25,000,000 per annum as the high price of high quality wheat. Protection, rightly understood and rightly applied, would give the farmers of the West cheaper agricultural implements than these farmers would ever get from free trade, as they have had it in this budget. I am not pleading for protection for the manufacturers' sake. I plead for protection for Canada's sake and for the sake of every interest in Canada. I believe that protection should protect the consumer against unjust prices just as truly as protection protects the manufacturer against unjust competition. The only chance the Canadian manufacturer ever had to show what he could do in mass production was in the war. The work of Canadian manufacturers and Canadian men and women in the shell industry proved that Canada's industrial genius equalled the industrial genius of any other country on earth. I believe that protection should equalize conditions so that the Canadian manufacturer who manufactures in small units should have the chance to live in competition with the American manufacturer who manufactures in large units. A truly national policy would cover the difference in cost and price ratio between agricultural implements made in small units in Canada and agricultural implements made in large units in the United States. The tariff should cover that difference. A truly National Policy would not allow the Canadian farmer or any other consumer to be stung for an unfairly high price for agricultural implements, automobiles or any other production of Canadian industry. A truly national policy would provide an excise duty that would put into the public treasury every cent charged for agricultural implements or automobiles or any other product manufactured under protection a price that represented fair wages to the workman and fair profit to the manufacturer. I know this proposal will be met with the shout of "paternalism." I would sooner have the paternalism of a protectionist government than the paternalism of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and its allies, and the paternalism of a free trade that robs the growers of the best wheat in the world out ! of $25,000,000 per annum in the price of 1 wheat, and puts that $25,000,000 into the
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
pockets of the Americans who handle that wheat. We will have to have more paternalism in the management of this country's reserves and the promotion of this country's welfare.
I plead for a departure from this free trade law of supply and demand and acceptance *of the principles of the old National Policy in our dealings with all provinces from Yukon to Prince Edward Island. I plead for a departure from the free trade law of supply and demand and an application of the principles of the old National Policy to other industries in this country from the manufacturing of agricultural implements up to wheat growing. Leave the wheat growing industry of the West to the workings of the law of supply and demand and that law would not fill the West with wheat growers. If that law did fill the West with wheat growers, wheat would not be worth 50 cents a bushel. The free trade law of supply and demand now costs the wheat grower of the West $25,000,000 per annum. I am advised, and believe, that free trade conditions supported by those free trade organizations, the grain exchanges, keep $25,000,000 per annum out of the pockets of Canadians who raise high quality wheat, -and put that $25,000,000 per annum into the pockets of the native and alien exploiters who handle high grade Canadian wheat. The Progressive and non-Progressive sections of the Liberal party support grain exchanges and oppose grain inquiries. That party or those parties would sooner talk about agricultural implements than to try to protect the wheat growers of the West by a departure from free trade conditions. The only cure for these free trade conditions is a return to the ideals of the National Policy, the application of the principles of protection. Free trade conditions have failed to maintain the identity of Canada's high grade wheat from the point of production to the ultimate market for that wheat. On this point I can quote the words of a writer who has studied the wheat business and followed the course ^ of the grain inquiry.
Positive evidence was found by the Royal Grain Commission at its sessions in Buffalo and New York in October that in spite of the governmental safeguards thrown around Canadian grain passing in bond from Buffalo, Cleveland and Duluth to Europe, United States soft wheat is steadily and persistently mixed in with this superior hard grain from the Canadian northwest. The extent of this practice only is in doubt. The London Com Exchange has taken up the most flagrant case disclosed and it is in litigation now. Opinions vary widely with reference to what it costs the Canadian producer by failure of Washington restrictions to preserve the identity of this grain it undertakes to handle in bond but with the increase of the duty in the States levelled against Canadian grain the motive for this bootlegging of Canadian grain 
passing through the States is nearly doubled. Until two months ago the duty on Canadian wheat entering the States to remain there was thirty cents. By the new regulations it is forty-two cents. The increased temptation to substitute United States grain for the Canadian article operates in this way: A certain quantity of Canadian hard wheat must be used by American millers to turn out a quality of flour relatively the equal of that milled in Canada. This averages 25,000,000 annually and is increased at the rate of three or four million bushels annually. In other words, every bushel of this hard grain that can be removed from the cargoes passing in bond from Buffalo and other border points and a bushel of soft United States grain substituted means practically double the duty for the doctored cargo is still protected by the Canadian certificate and has been sold on that grade and under the practice must go through and the buyer pay for it unless he can establish that it is a substituted article. The soft wheat is disposed of on the Canadian hard wheat basis and the hard wheat extracted which remains in the United States to be milled pays no duty and takes the place of forty-two cents worth of hard wheat which'some United States mill would have to bring in from Canada.
The Progressive party in this House has in the result proved itself to be the friend of the American implement manufacturer, the grain exchanges and other big interests that take an unfair profit, conservatively estimated of $25,000,000 per annum out of the constituencies of the so-called Progressive party. Wheat growers are entitled to a quality price for quality wheat. They will never get that price so long as the free trade law of supply and demand is operated so as to loot the industry that grows the wheat and enrich the interests that handle the wheat. A party that has in effect allied itself to the interests I have described which take out of the western farmer $25,000,000 every year, accuses the Conservatives of being the allies of the big interests that manufacture agricultural implements. I can speak for myself, and I believe for the Conservatives when I say that we serve no big interests and we receive support from no big interests. Some of us have suffered in the battle against the big interests and are prepared to suffer again. The Progressive party shouts "Stop, thief!" against the agricultural implement industry in Canada and the Council of Agriculture calls the manufacturer an exploiter and plunderer while the big interests I have described that hide under the Progressives' platform are plundering the western wheat grower out of $25,000,000 per annum. I hold no brief for the Canadian agricultural implement industry. I do not know any other Conservative member who does. If any other Conservative member feels that he owes some gratitude, to the Canadian agricultural implement industry he can speak for himself. The agricultural implement industry did its best to keep the Drury government in power in Ontario and

The Budget-Mr. Church
failed. The western farmer should realize that the agricultural implement manufacturer and all other manufacturers did not begin to plunder the western wheat grower as the western wheat grower is plundered by the allies of his own party and the erroneous policy of his own leaders. The value of the agricultural implements made in Canada is estimated at $26,000,000 per annum. The value of agricultural implements imported into Canada in the last year of record is $12,000,000 per annum. The estimated number of Canadian hands employed in the manufacture of farm implements and agricultural machinery is
15.000.	The estimated number of hands employed in the manufacture of farm implements and agricultural machinery in the United States for export to Canada is 6,000.
The Progressive party does not seek to disturb the free trade conditions that enable aliens and native big interests to take an unfair profit of $25,000,000 per annum out of the grain growers and united farmers who handle high quality wheat. The Progressives who are not progressive and the Liberals who are not liberal did seek to destroy the same protectionist conditions that enabled 15,000 of their own countrymen to earn a none-too-generous living in the manufacture of farm implements and agricultural machinery. Canada's demand for farm implements now supplies an industrial population of 25,000, counting workers and their dependents in the United States. The whole aim of this tariff is to depopulate the industrial centres of Canada and populate industrial centres in the United States. If this tariff succeeds the $26,000,000 worth of farm implements and agricultural machinery now made in Canada will be made in the United States. If this tariff succeeds 15,000 returned soldiers and other Canadians and Britons now employed in the manufacture of $26,000,000 of farm implements in Canada will manufacture the same implements in the United States. The big interests that handle Canadian orders for farm machinery and agricultural implements in the United States will plunder the western wheat grower and other Canadian farmers just as the western wheat growers are plundered out of $25,000000 per annum by the American big interests that pay low prices for high quality Canadian wheat. If free trade conditions are SO' profitable and the law of supply and demand is so excellent in its workings, why do not the gentlemen opposite depend for their supply of railways on free trade competition between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways? Why do they not leave the building of the Hudson Bay railway to the free trade law of supply and demand? The whole free trade policy is a policy of greed beyond any greed ever dreamed of in the creed of protectionists. The whole country is to be taxed to build a Hudson Bay railway that is to carry wheat to a part where the wheat will be exchanged for goods. The goods madte by producers who do not pay a cent in taxes for the railways, are to be consumed by a population that does not spend, and does not want to spend, a cent in wages for their own countrymen. How are these countrymen to help pay for the Hudson Bay railway and all other railways if free trade conditions are to isolate the industries of the West from the general economic life of the country? The number of farmers in the West is misrepresented in this parliament. The farmers of Ontario have always shown themselves patriots on the battlefield and protectionists in the polling booth. Free trade theories have already encumbered the western wheat grower with conditions that rob him of $25,000,000 per annum. Free trade conditions must be supplanted by protectionist principles in the shipment of grain, in the solution' of the insurance problem and, if necessary, in the excise and export duties, or the wheat growing industry will be ruined.
Canada is able to offer two possible answers to a United States tariff increased to 42 cents per bushel on Canadian wheat. Answer No. 1 should be written in regulations that will prevent the Canadian milling combines and grain exchanges from wolfing the Canadian wheat grower out of his crop at low prices. Answer No. 2 should be written in a tariff of export duties that will make it impossible for United States millers to import a pound of Canadian wheat. Exclusion of Canadian wheat from the United States market must mean the exclusion of United States flour from every export market. Flour ground out of American wheat cannot compete in the export markets of the world with flour ground out of Canadian wheat. Let the United States, increase the American duty on Canadian wheat. A higher United States duty on Canadian wheat will compel the American millers to seek, and vainly seek, an export market for the inferior flour they are able to feed to their own people.
The American tariff does not much affect the American export as rebates are made on all wheat imported and ground into flour which is exported. The United States looks after its millers as will be seen from this despatch to the Mail and Empire of Toronto:
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
Little Effect Felt in Canada From New U.S. Tariff on Wheat
Exports Became Greater as Date of Increase Drew . Near-American Officials Look for Bigger Volume in This Class of Business.
Ottawa, April 14.-The new United States tariff of forty-two cents per bushel on wheat went into effect last week, but it had no effect here nor in any other part of the country, as far as officials can learn. As the date for the incoming of the increase drew near exports of wheat to the Republic increased, chiefly of that intended for milling in bond for export purposes.
The information here is that American federal trade officials consider that a considerable increase in this class of business is to be expected. If the American mills cannot get at a reasonable price Canadian wheat for mixing for flour for home they will get more to mill in bond for export. As a matter of fact, during the last month the number of bonded United States mills grinding Canadian hard wheat for export has increased from two to six.
Many Americans who follow the milling industry closely are of the opinion that one of the effects of this higher duty on wheat will be to make Buffalo, rather than Minneapolis, the centre of the hard wheat grinding in bond for export business. The largest mill of this kind is now located at Buffalo. It has a capacity of 12,000 barrels, and the company operating it is building another there. Further evidence of the tendency for this form of industry to locate in Buffalo is to be seen in the additional fact that the well-known Palisade mill at Minneapolis is being taken down and transferred to Buffalo.
Ontario gave to Adam Beck the chief stewardship of 1160,000,000 invested in Hydro on behalf of 2,200,000 shares in Hydro properties. The results that Adam Beck achieved by his stewardship of Hydro are set down in the following statement:
1.	Every dollar of the $160,000,000 Hydro investment is earning interest and sinking-fund.
2.	Hydro investment saved Ontario from a coal famine that would have bankrupted the province in war time.
3.	Hydro investment saved 2,200,000 shareholders over $75,000,000 in reduced coal, light and power bills.
4.	Hydro investment saved Ontario over
8100,000,000 on coal prices, -which would have gone to $30 per ton in war time but for the Hydro investment that gave Ontario the equivalent of 3,000,000 tons of United States coal per annum.
The force in the national life of Canada that most truly proved itself Liberal in the best sense and Progressive in the best sense of those two much abused words, Liberal and Progressive, is the force represented by the Hydro Conservatives in Ontario. The triumphs achieved by the Hydro Conservatives of Ontario under the leadership of Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck have cut Ontario's coal consumption in half, and cut 75 per cent off Ontario's light and power bills. If free trade as worked out in the alleged competition of private ownership conditions

in Quebec has given Quebec or any other province cheaper light and power than protection, as worked out by public ownership, with its support of competition, has given Ontario I congratulate that province. I believe that a comparison of light and power bills under public ownership as established by the Hydro Conservative protectionists of Ontario would show that Ontario pays the same relationship to three cents per unit that Quebec pays to eight cents per unit under private ownership, as established by free traders, in excess charges for light and power. The Hydro Conservatives of Ontario are the protectionist party. They supply the protectionist principles of public ownership, and if any gentleman doubts that public ownership is a protectionist principle I reply that public ownership is protectionist in the true sense of utilizing the public resources of the country for the benefit of the people of the country. Protection as applied by the Hydro Conservatives of Ontario has fought the battles of the masses against the classes, of the people against their oppressors; I mean what the Hydro Conservatives have done for the sections of Ontario that get their power from public ownership; I mean what the Hydro Conservatives of Ontario were prevented from doing for the gold mining country that is forced to get its power from private ownership. The Hydro Conservatives of Ontario supported Adam Beck in his effort to electrify the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway after Sir James Whitney's great victory-in 1905. The Hydro Conservatives wanted to protect the mining industry with a supply of Hydro power at cost. The Hydro Conservatives believed with Adam Beck that the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway-should be electrified, and that that railway should serve as a trunk power line. From that trunk line, power could be carried to every camp opened up in the mineralized zone.
The gold and silver areas of Ontario have produced since 1895 a total of $150,000,000 in silver and $125,000,000 in gold. The gold and silver production in Ontario supports a large population. That gold and silver production was achieved, that population was supported, under free trade conditions that leave the supply of power to the workings of the free trade law of supply and demand. The workings of that law have failed to protect the mining industry, as the workings of that law must fail to protect every industry. The Hydro Conservatives were kept out of northern Ontario with their great protectionist principle of hydro power at cost. Northern Ontario was forced to depend

The Budget-Mr. Church
on the free trade law of supply and demand for power. The results of that dependence are seen to-day in the importation of a supply of power that has proved so uncertain in quantity and so high in cost that Diessel engines are being brought into some mining camps from Germany. That is what comes of leaving the great industry to free trade. Mining camps in the midst of natural water-powers have to bring in engines from Germany to manufacture power produced from American oil cheaper than they can buy power produced from Canadian electricity. If protection in the form of hydro power at cost had got into the camps of northern Ontario when the Hydro Conservatives fought, and fought in vain, to help ASam Beck put in that power in 1905, the population of northern Ontario to-day would be 400,000 instead of 30,000; the gold and silver production of northern Ontario to-day would be at least $300,000,000 per annum instead of a yearly production of $6,000,000 in silver and $20,000,000 in gold or a total yearly production of $26,000,000.
This budget is described as a new national policy. Free trade is going to build up a mining industry in Canada by taking away the manufacture of drills and other mining machinery from Canadian factories and putting that manufacture in the hands of wage earners in American factories. We are told that gold and silver production is to be encouraged by a tariff change that will reduce the price of drills by $40 per drill. The Hollinger mine with its gold production of $12,700,000 per annum is worked with less than 1,000 drills. The budget will reduce the tariff or other revenue taxation on the Hollinger mine on drill account by $20,000 per annum; taking the life of a drill to be two years. That is the boon that free trade has to offer to the Canadian mining industry. The mining property that is not rich enough to buy mining machinery manufactured in Canadian and other British factories is no good to Canada. The mining industry will not justify our hopes or fulfil our expectations if that industry is to give dividends to aliens and patronage to alien factories, leaving nothing to Canada but the holes in the rock surrounded by shacks and company stores. I have no faith in free trade conditions as applied to mining industries. The mistake of Sir James Whitney's lifetime was when he surrendered to the anti-Hydro Conservatives who blighted the mineral future of northern Ontario by applying the free trade law of supply and demand to the production
and distribution of power. That free trade law has kept back mineral production in Ontario eighteen years. That free trade law to-day makes it cheaper for some properties to be developed from electricity produced by Diessel engines imported from Germany than from electricity generated by the energy of Canada's own water-powers. That free trade law has restricted Ontario's production of gold and silver to $2,000,000 per annum, when protection in the form of hydro power would have enlarged that production to 45300,000,000 or $400,000,000. That free trade law has restricted the population dependent on Ontario's mining industry to 20,000 when protection in the form of hydro power would have enlarged that population to 400.000.
I uphold protection and want protection applied in the form of customs duties, excise duties, insurance rates, shipping and navigation law's, railway rates, public ownership in the production and distribution of light and power and in transportation. I believe that the principles of protection can be applied in an enlarged and modernized national policy so as to add an industrial population of 10,000,000 workers and their dependents to the population of Ontario. I believe in protection because I believe that the right sort of protection is the friend to every province and of every industry in every province. I would put export duties on the shipment of newsprint to the United States. With the proceeds of these duties I would help to solve British Columbia's Asiatic problem and Canada's coal problem and every economic and industrial problem.
Free trade in the British Columbia fishing industry creates an Asiatic problem in that industry. We leave the fishing industry of British Columbia to the workings of the free trade law of supply and demand. These workings provoke complaints to the effect that Asiatics are driving Canadian-born and other British-born fishermen out of that industry. The total of 6,439 fishing licenses was issued in British Columbia in 1923. Of these licenses 3,046 were issued to British-born fishermen other than Indians, 1,668 to Indians and 1,725 to Asiatics. I believe that the principles of protection properly applied would put the fishing industry of British Columbia on a British-born basis. The proceeds of export duties would supply them with British-born fishermen so that fishermen born in Asia and other non-British places would be crowded out of the fishing business by subsidies granted to British-born fishermen. I believe that the principles of protection in the form of sub-
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
sidies to British-born fishermen would go far to solve British Columbia's Asiatic problem. I am certain that free trade conditions will never help in the solution of that problem. I am equally certain that adherence to free trade conditions will never build up Vancouver. As Chairman of the Toronto Harbour Commission I represent all the citizens of Toronto, as well as my own constituents, in congratulating Vancouver on the traffic in and out of that harbour. I rejoice as a protectionist <tnd as a Canadian in the figures showing its growth.
The people of Toronto and all the people of Ontario will be glad to hear that the port of Vancouver is prospering. The report comes east that as many as thirty ships a day are in Vancouver harbour waiting for grain cargoes. If the wheat growing industry of the Canadian west had enjoyed protection in the form of protectionist insurance conditions and other shipping conditions, a hundred or a hundred and fifty ships should be waiting for grain cargoes in Vancouver harbour.
Canada's wheat growing industry has no future if that industry is to be based on free trade conditions of shipment. These conditions permit the alien or native middleman to keep the Canadian wheat grower from get* ting a quality price for his quality crop. Free trade conditions of shipment permit the identity of Canadian wheat to be destroyed in transit. The high quality of that wheat is turned into high prices for the alien or native middleman who handles the wheat. Protectionist conditions of shipment would protect the identity of Canada's wheat in transit, and turn the high quality of that wheat into high prices for the Canadian producer who grows the wheat. The prinicples of the good old National Policy should be applied to join the wheat fields of the prairies to the port of Vancouver thus promoting the growth of British Columbia.
The principles of the good old National Policy should also be applied to join the coal fields of Alberta to the furnaces and kitchen stoves of a great section of Ontario. The coal fields of Nova Scotia should also share with Alberta the benefits that would follow an attempt to apply the principles of protection to the problem of Canada's coal supply. My motto is Canadian coal for Canadians. The principles of protection should fast be organized into an economical system that will ensure an all-Canadian or other all-British supply of fuel to take the place of the almost 3,000,000 tons of American anthracite and almost 11,000,000 tons of bituminous coal consumed in

this country. The exact figures are 2,814,650 tons anthracite and 10,583,396 tons bituminous coal imported from the United States in the last year of record. Let the supply of allCanadian or other all-British coal be assured, and then put on a duty that will not permit a ton of American coal to be sold in Canada. Canada's money now goes out in payment for $24,705,536 worth of American anthracite, and $39,281,245 worth of bituminous coal, every year. These figures mean that Canada's coal bill pays $32,000,000 in wages to 15,000 United States workers every year. These figures means that Canada's coal bill maintains United States workers and their dependents almost equal in number to the population of Ottawa. These United States workers and their dependents should be Canadian workers and their dependents, earning good wages around the coal mines of Alberta and Nova Scotia, and helping to supply a home market for the products of Canadian agriculture. The distribution between Nova Scotia and Alberta of the $64,000,000 that now goes to pay * Canada's yearly coal bill to the U.S. would help to spread prosperity beyond the bounds of these provinces. The protectionist policy of power at cost would have given Ontario a gold and silver production of $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 per annum instead of, as in 1923, a production of 1,000,000 ounces of gold valued at $20,000000, and 11,000,000 ounces of silver valued at $7,000,000 a total value of $27,000,000 per annum. The protectionist policy of power at cost would have given Ontario a population of 80,000 miners and their dependents instead of a population of less than 10,000 miners and their dependents. The free trade fad of removal of duties will never do anything for the mining industry compared to what would have been done for the mining industry by the Hydro-Conservative protectionist principle of power at cost.
Ontario would not profit any more than the western provinces would by the establishment of National Policy principles enlarged to meet the needs of the present hour as the economic law of this country's relations with the United States. Canada's imports from the United States reach the appalling figure of $532,633,384. This total of imports from the United States includes raw cotton to a value of $123,334,627. Canadian protectionists cannot look forward to a native supply of raw cotton but they must live in the hope of a good time coming when Canada can get cotton from consumers employed under the British flag instead of competitors under a foreign flag. Imports of raw cotton and the balance of $400,000,000 goes from Canada every year in payment for imports from the United States.

The Budget-Mr. Church
These imports include a wage bill that employs not less than 700,000 American workers and their dependents in the production of exports from the United States which take the form of imports into Canada. The sort of protection I believe in is the protection which had its foundations in the good old National Policy. These foundations should be built upon in the extension of every industry in every province. The fishing industry, the grain shipping industry, and the industries of British Columbia need protection. The wheat growing industry of the prairie provinces needs protection against free trade conditions. These conditions now permit the Canadian wheat grower to be plundered out of .$25,000-000 per annum for the benefit of America and native middlemen. The coal-fields of Alberta and Nova Scotia need protection against the free trade or semi-free trade conditions that now permit these fields to be isolated from the demands of the home market. That market absorbs $64,000,000 worth of Canadian coal every year. That $64,000,000, or at least an overwhelming percentage of it should stay in Canada. Canada's home market for coal should provide wages for 15,000 Canadian miners instead of the same number of American miners. Canada's home market for coal should support seven or eight bright Canadian towns, populated by 15,000 miners and their dependents, instead of supporting the same number of towns in the United States. The record of imports from the United States shows American imports of $400,000,000 exclusive of $123,000,000 worth of raw cotton imported. The record shows $200,000,000 in wages paid to Americans engaged in the production of products for the Canadian market. That $200,000,000, or a large proportion of it, should be paid in wages to Canadians in their own country.
I am not uttering whispers of death. Every member of this House knows conditions in his own constituency. He knows that no basic industry in Canada could be built up so as to serve Canadian industry, Canadian mills and Canadian workmen without protection. There are hon. members here representing constituencies that are not losing Canadians to the United States. I am glad of it. I wish I could say the same about by own constituency and the other constituencies in the city of Toronto and the constituencies that I know something about in the province of Ontario. I am no specialist in the Book of Exodus or the Book of Lamentations. Canada's life past and present is an open book. On the pages of that book I can read the truth that this country has too long followed free trade prejudices in dealing with exports and imports,
transportation, insurance and other conditions of economic life. Free trade or semi-free trade conditions have permitted foreigners to take-I am speaking frSm memory-a raw product of asbestos worth $9,000,000 out of the province of Quebec and turn that $9,000,000 worth of raw material into a finished American product that sells for $60,000,000. Everywhere and always in regard to every province and every industry free trade or semi-free trade conditions make us hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States. I am not speaking in bitterness. I admire the Americans so much that I would imitate their praiseworthy tendency to look after themselves. Canada has too long halted between two opinions. This country has elected parliament after parliament that is nothing better than a debating society capable of nothing but talk on the abstract merits of free trade or protection. I believe that protection thoroughly understood and properly applied would have made Canada the home of at least 15,000,000 happy, contented and prosperous people. I believe that the free trade and semi-free trade conditions that curse Canada to-day support an American population of not less than 1,000,000 that gets its living out of American exports to Canada. I believe that protection would bring many of these workers and their dependents back to their own country. I believe that protection would transplant a wage bill of at least $200,000,000 to Canada. I believe that protection would so stimulate the agricultural, industrial, and commercial life of Canada that another $200,000,000 would be added to the, wages paid in Canada. Free trade or semifree trade conditions rob Canada of a population of at least 1,500,000 Canadian and other British workers including 13,000 Canadian Expeditionary Force returned soldiers who should find homes and prosperity in peace, under the flag they defended in war.
I am a protectionist. The protection I believe in is not for the manufacturers' sake but for the country's sake. I am a protectionist, not for the sake of ill-will to the United States, but for the sake of good-will to Canada. I have no ill-will to any allied country, but I would apply to the upbuilding of Canada, yes, and to the upbuilding of the British Empire, the great protectionist ideal the Americans have followed in building up their own country. The Americans export 882 million dollars worth of United States products to Great Britain and 911 million dollars worth of United States products to the British Empire, exclusive of Great Britain of which Canada takes 652 millions every year-the best argument for preferential trade within the Empire. Great
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
Britain or the British Empire is not offended while the United States passes an immigration law that restricts the number of Britons who can enter the American republic to 70,000 per annum. The United States could not be offended and would not be offended if the exclusion of British-born producers from the American labour market was answered by the exclusion of American made products from all British markets. The wider question of protection or free trade as applied to the nations of the British Empire outside of Canada belong to the parliaments of these nations. The question that belongs to us is the question raised, not by a theory but by the conditions, that confront us. Free trade or semi-free trade conditions have been tried and found wanting. These conditions must more and more depopulate Canada and populate the United States. I plead for a restoration of the good old National Policy. That policy and that policy alone represents the principle-the great principle of protection-that alone can unify Canada. It is true we applied protection to import duties, to export duties, to the supply of power, transportation and insurance to every industry in every province, and this gave protection a chance, Canada a chance and the British Empire a chance for life, strength and prosperity.
The new national policy of the Liberals is all estimate and no saving, so we need not lay much emphasis on the phrase used in this House "estimated savings." No doubt some of the implement manufacturers will feel happy over it in the land of the Star Spangled Banner. What will it profit the average Canadian if his taxes are $2.70 less if his earnings are interefered with by tariff tinkering and if he has to migrate to the United States? Canadian agriculture is the most imperial and least continental of all the Canadian industries and interests. The British Empire's fortunes govern the fortunes of Canada's farmers more closely than the fortunes of that Empire govern the fortunes of our industrial workers. Canadian agriculture has progressive leaders who talk reciprocity and free trade, as if the British Empire meant nothing and the United States meant everything to the farmers of Canada. Canadian agriculture unfortunately follows leaders whose policy will have the effect of wrecking the whole British Empire and Canadian nation while securing in return not an effective pledge or contract but a promise impossible of fulfilment of 5 cents per bushel more for Canadian wheat, $1 per head more for Canadian cattle and $2 more per head for_ Canadian horses in the United States. Ontario smashed the Drury's, the Doherty's, the Morrison's and other foes of that agricultural 
province. The W'orse opponent of the western wheat farmers is the policy of the gentlemen on my left and the anti-Conservative premiers, Hon. Mr. Bracken of Manitoba, Hon. Mr. Dunning of Saskatchewan and Hon. Mr. Greenfield of Alberta. The elevator monopoly and other domestic agencies of grain manipulation rushed to the courts for technical defence against inquiry into the operations of the grain interests and their allies.
The Union government instead of going to the country should have gone on with the grain inquiry and not have the high court of parliament submit to the technical injunction granted by a judge. The Grain Growers' Association supported by the western members, headed by the hon. member for Marquette, were the chief allies of the elevator and other agencies of grain monoply against inquiry.
One of the greatest questions before the country to-day is that of transportation, and I am sorry to see, after the inquiry into the lake shipping combine, that the government has decided to sell a large number of the merchant marine vessels, because the only opposition that this shipping combine had on the lakes was in the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. They could have gone from the ocean to the head of the lakes with coal and the manufactured products of the East and from the head of the lakes back again with the basic products of the West.
The exports of the United States to the British Empire alone in 1923 amounted to pretty nearly one and three-quarter billion dollars. Argentina took 33 per cent of her total imports from the United States in 1920 as against 15 per cent in 1913; Brazil in 1921, 32 per cent as against 16 per cent in 1913. Chili, 32 per cent as against 17 per cent; Peru, 55 per cent as against 28 per cent; Australia in 1920, 24 per cent as against 12 per cent in 1913; New Zealand 19 per cent as against 10 per cent; India in 1921, 10.5 per cent as against 2.6 per cent in 1914; China in 1920, 18 per cent as against 6 per cent in 1913; Egypt in 1921, 15 per cent as against 2 per cent in 1913. So we see that the United States, as a result of the war, and with a great merchant marine, has gone out into the seven seas to-day and is turning the balance of trade against the British Empire, including Canada, and every other country in the world.
These are some of the causes of the agricultural and general depression:
1. The continued economic depression in agriculture.

The Budget-Mr. Church
2.	Inequalities in prices between agricultural commodities, resulting in a relatively inadequate return to the farmer for his labour and upon his investment.
3.	The existence of surpluses available for export in agricultural commodities.
4.	The necessity in part for the existence of such surpluses in order to safeguard the domestic market against uncertainties of yield, and the economic impracticability of immediately preventing the continued production of such surpluses.
5.	The dependence of the prices of such surplus commodities upon the lower prices in foreign markets due to unsettled world conditions and lower costs of production.
6.	The loss of purchasing power in the great food consuming countries consequent upon the Great War.
7.	The practically prohibitive tariff of the
United States, in the main directed against Canadian farm products.	_
8.	Deflation of prices,.in particular of grain and live stock, without similar reductions in his costs of operation.
9.	A period of high prices in money, labour, exchange, materials, high freight and passenger rates brought about by the war and world disturbances, of industrial equilibrium.
10.	Instability of tariff and tariff tinkering.
11.	Tinkering with the sales tax.
According to the experts every million
dollars' worth of coal and steel imported into Canada displaces 500 men who should be employed in Canada and not in the United States, and that is true of various other industries which I have described.
It seems to me that the main game which is being played in this legislature by the Progressives and the Liberals is the game of rugby. The football used is the dinner pail, the strong boxes, the tariff tinkering, the budget and the sales tax. But when you kick the football to and fro like that, it is going to lead to depression, instability in tariff, unrest and many other conditions of hard times. To-day the manufacturer and the toiler in the cities and towns of Ontario are wondering what is to become of them.
As regards the income tax I am surprised at the answers of the government, that they cannot tell what the income tax bill of Toronto is. A return was brought down in the House the other day, and it is, if not the most illustrious, the most illuminating document ever brought down by the respected and honourable Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), who is one of the most obliging ministers I think we have. Hon. members from the city of Toronto asked what the amount of income
tax from Toronto was, and the answer was that Toronto is not a district, but that it is linked up with London, Hamilton. Guelph and many other places and they cannot give any amount. I read the Globe, and the Globe to-night says that of nine million dollars collected from this district, eight million dollars belongs to Toronto, and one million dollars for the rest of the district from London right up to the head of the lakes. Therefore, if the minister cannot get the information, I would refer him to this evening's Globe.
Another return brought down shows the customs returns for Toronto as $28,000,000 The customs returns, according to the return presented by the Collector of Customs of Toronto, amounts to $60,000,000 for the present year. The sales tax is another important item, and the post office receipts of Toronto amount to some $6,000,000. That magnificent organization, the Canadian National Railways, say that they cannot tell us what they are making in Toronto, Hamilton or Oakville. The answer which is given to that particular question by Mr. Graham Bell, is so illuminating that I think the House should recei\ e the benefit of it. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that it is impossible to give the revenue earned by the Canadian National Railways in the form answered by the hon. gentleman. The question was:
What are the earnings of the Canadian National Hallways in Toronto and in Ontario?
It was the old province of Ontario in which the Grand Trunk made all its money. They took $122,000,000 worth of credit and $22,000,000 worth of cash out of the Grand Trunk and they invested that in that western scheme known as the Grand Trunk Pacific, with the result that the Grand Trunk went bankrupt in Ontario with no money for extensions. betterments, branch lines or stations, or for the building of a station in Toronto or the Toronto viaduct. Originally the city of Toronto spent $15,000,000 providing a right of way.
Before I leave the railway situation, I may say that the Canadian National Railway management object to telling us the salaries of the higher paid officials in that railway. According to the order in council, the salary of Sir Henry Thornton is $50,000 per year. They will give the salary of the head of that railway, but not the salaries of the officials under him. Is that not a nice business method in the administration of the Canadian National Railways? We are told that the Canadian National Railways must be taken out of politics. The Canadian Pacific Railway Com-
The Budget-Mr. Church
[Stage Direction]
pany tell their board of directors all those facts. They have a schedule of the railway system before them every morning. They can tell down to a dollar what the Pacific division is making in freight and passenger traffic, what the overhead is, what the cost of operation is, the number of trains on time, the number of trains behind time, the number of freight trains hauled over that division. The same is the case of the prairie division and other divisions of the Canadian Pacific. They have that information before them next morning in the head office. But under the administration of the Canadian National Railways, the high court of parliament is not entitled to any information, if we are to believe their brilliant geniuses such as Mr. Graham Bell and others. I can say that the revenue of the National Railways in Toronto is the largest of any city in Canada, if not double that of any other city, and yet we cannot get a few million dollars to build a viaduct. We are not asking for a fabulous amount. Some ten or twelve years ago a contract was made. That contract was passed on by the non-jury sittings of the Supreme Court in the city of Toronto, by the Court of Appeals in Ontario, by the Supreme Court of Canada, by the Privy Council of this Empire, and finally by the Privy Council of the Dominion of Canada. It was decided in 1913 that the order -was binding on all parties; that the parties had power to conduct; that the older was intra vires of this legislature; and that the Esplanade was a highway under the Railway Act. It is going to cost each of the railways about eight or nine million dollars aud it will cost the city of Toronto through its Harbour Board about the same amount. The city of Toronto has spent, as a municipality, $21,000,000 of its taxpayers' money on its own harbour There is no city in Canada which has contributed, as Toronto has done, one cent of the taxpayers' money to the upkeep of its harbour. Has Vancouver done so? No; nor has Quebec. Money has to be voted by this parliament for the purpose so far as these cities are concerned; but out of a cost of $26,000,000 incurred in the city of Toronto the taxpayers have supplied $21,000,000, only some $o,000,000 or $6,000,000 being put up by parliament. That S21,000,000 was the hard-earned money of the manufacturers, the workingmen, the business men and the taxpayers generally of the city. The total cost of the Toronto viaduct to this parliament would amount to about $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 spread over three or four years, or the cost of one or two branch lines. Our free (trade friends have great 
confidence in the law of supply and demand, and we shall be satisfied if they will apply the same principle in the case of the Toronto viaduct; for I can assure this House that if the work in connection with the viaduct is carried to a completion it will more than justify the expenditure which this parliament may vote towards it. With the increased volume of business which would follow, both in freight and in passenger traffic, the viaduct would pay for itself.
Coming now to the post office, some questions have been asked about the receipts in the city of Toronto. In this regard, it will interest the House to know that the receipts of the post office in Toronto are equal to those of many cities put together, having amounted last year to the sum of $5,798,000. This year it will exceed $6,000,000, and notwithstanding this fact the city of Toronto cannot get decent post office accommodation. It has to put up with a lot of ramshackle buildings in which its business men finS it extremely inconvenient to do business. In this connection, I must express my disappointment at the fact that the budget has not disclosed a return to the two cent postal rate. This reduction would in my opinion be a step in the right direction, because nothing retards trade and commerce so much as high postal rates.
So far as the sales tax is concerned, it seems to me that the ingenuity of a Philadelphia lawyer is required to work out the government's scheme, which strikes one as a makeshift affair. The impression that one gets is that we have a landed aristocracy and a retail aristocracy in Canada. The tax in its new form is on the basis of robbing Peter to pay Paul-one figure being taxed one class and another figure another class of the population. I believe that the city of Toronto pays between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000 of this tax, although it is difficult to get at the returns, that city being linked up with other places.
In regard to the Canadian National Exhibition, I may say that the taxpayers of Toronto have spent between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000 on grounds of permanent buildings, permanent exhibits, and so forth; and during the war the exhibition was continued, thus keeping up the morale of the people. How much has this parliament contributed towards the maintenance of that institution? In 1920 parliament voted $5,000 but in 1921 the grant was disallowed, and since then the Dominion has given nothing; it has not even offered what one might call pin money to this highly deserving national institution. The taxpayers of Toronto, I would add, have

The Budget-Mr. Church
also paid out of their pockets nearly $2,000,000 for the purpose of carrying on the educational work of the Department of Agriculture, having spent this money on the erection of a Coliseum for the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. But out of this expenditure the city has got nothing, although other parts of the country have profited thereby.
I hope that this year something will be done to improve present conditions in regard to the income tax. The United States are doing something for the working classes in that country in this connection, and I am personally absolutely opposed to any doubleheader tax; I do not believe that people should be called upon to pay an income tax to the Dominion in addition to what they pay to the city. On May 1, the income tax will be payable to the Dominion and on May 9 to the city of Toronto, and this double [DOT] tax reacts on all the working classes of the city. In my opinion no one should be called upon to pay a federal income tax on an income below six or seven thousand dollars; and as a matter of fact I do not know whether it is just constitutional to compel people to pay that tax to the Dominion at all. To my mind, it is just a question whether this parliament has power to impose an income tax upon the people except for war purposes or for the purposes generally of militia and national defence. And the war having concluded years ago, I think the time has come when we should do away with that tax because it bears heavily on small wage earners in the cities and towns. Even the poor school teacher has an income tax to pay as well as those who are in better financial circumstances than himself.
With regard to the subject of public health, I want to say a word in approval of the policy of President Coolidge, who has appointed a commission to look into the question of public recreation and to formulate a programme in this connection. A few years ago we had no public health department in this country, but such a department having been established is now doing good work, and I would commend to the attention of the government what President Coolidge has done in regard to outdoor recreation for the people. No doubt some responsible minister of the Crown could take this matter up and do something for the good of the people.
Before I conclude I want to say a word concerning the necessity of a grain elevator in Toronto.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh, but if that is all the argument they have it will not carry much weight. No doubt a similar reason prompted Oliver Goldsmith to write the following lines:
The watch-dog's voice that bay'd the whispering
wind,
And the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind.
Let me tell hon. gentlemen that their own party, the United Farmers of Ontario, represented by Mr. Manning Doherty, Mr. E. C. Drury and Mr. J. J. Morrison, proved to the Union government that Ontario was paying a huge sum of money for the establishment of grain elevators all through the West while that province had no central elevator of its own. They came down to Ottawa -a whole carload of them-accompanied by Mr. L. H. Clarke to make their representations; and I may say that I came with them as one of the harbour commissioners. We presented a memorandum to the government showing that neither Toronto nor central Ontario had an elevator, although Ontario grew a lot of grain for feed purposes, that an elevator was a great necessity, and that Toronto had been paying taxes to provide elevator accommodation for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Elevators are necessary to the grain growing provinces, and we hope they will get more accommodation of this character. A central elevator has recently been built in Edmonton, and another in Halifax-with a by-election in sight there. We had a number of old but small elevators in central Ontario some years ago, since abandoned, and we hope to have a government elevator established very soon, because we have had a promise from the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) that he would come up and study the situation.
In conclusion I may say that while I could go on indefinitely-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Go on.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you. The hon. member for West York says: "Go on." He can go on himself if he wishes, I will give him part of my time. I have prepared, after a great deal of study extending over pretty nearly a year, a voluminous brief, and if he or any other member from the Toronto district wishes to carry on, I shall be very glad to hand this brief to him, although I could go on at greater length proving the psychology of protection and the need of its being brought up-to-date.
The Budget-Mr. Raymond


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very much interest to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) I am sure his account of the trials of Toronto tax-payers affected the House quite visibly, and, with others, I wept at his recital. I have to say that the constituency which I represent is probably more affected by the changes in the tariff than any other constituency in the country, and therefore it may seem appropriate that, although the hour is late, I should say a few words upon the motion and the amendment before the House.
I was trudging along the government highway contentedly when I came to a fork in the road-not necessarily spelt with an "e" Mr. Speaker-and surveyed the path. I thought I would keep to the right hand road, for that to the left seemed to lead down to a land of swamp and muskeg, of sloughs and quagmires, where parties were chasing that ignis fatuus, that will-o'-the-wisp,-free trade. It has been said that imitation is the sincerest flattery, Mr. Speaker, so I will endeavour to follow the very good example set by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), in his speech, which was a model of brevity and conciseness, and explain in as few words as possible my position upon this question.
In the budget presented by the Acting Minister of Finance there is, of course, a great deal that must be a source of congratulation to everyone in the country; there is no denying it. For the first time for many years the account has been settled on the right side of our national ledger; we have been able now to produce a surplus that will go toward reducing the national debt, and I look upon it as the turning of an important corner in the country's financial history.
Taking off the sales tax on many articles entirely and reducing it on some others is something for which also we must add a word of congratulation to the minister.
As to what he said about the condition of our national railways, I have always regarded the system as one of the most important to this country. It is a system that we should all watch with the greatest interest, for it is not only the greatest railway system in the world, it is Canada's greatest national asset, and upon it depends all our avenues of wealth, of commerce and of industry, all our basic industries, and every other industry. The progress that has been made by our national railways in the last year and a half in efficiency, in the service they render, and in the improvement of their financial position, is phenomenal. From the time when the president, Sir Henry Thornton, was appointed,

is not much more than a year and a half ago, and what has been accomplished in that time is extraordinary and is something that should be a source of hearty congratulation to every Canadian who takes an interest in his country and feels the importance of this great national asset.
One matter that I should like to have seen touched upon in the budget-I have mentioned it before-because I think it is one of the forms of taxation which touch everybody, and perhaps the general population almost equally, is the war stamp on letters. I should like it to have been possible for the Acting Minister of Finance to remove this tax. We are almost the only country, I believe, that retains it. I hope the time will come in the not far distant future when the general taxation of the country will be reduced by the removal of the war stamp on letters. It would be a boon not only to business men but to correspondents all over the country and would do away with the anomaly that I pointed out last year, namely, that letters can be sent cheaper to Mexico and the United States than to the Old Country and many of our British possessions.
These are matters of congratulation; but when it comes to changes in the tariff I cannot congratulate the minister, I cannot say that they quite meet with my approval in the same way, and I shall endeavour to show the reasons why, and in doing so to point out that those reasons are applicable not only to Brantford, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and to the province of Ontario generally, but to the whole Dominion. A great American, Bayard Taylor, said, that as no two human beings observed any object by the same ray of light, it could not appear exactly the same to any two of them; and it seems to me that I observe these tariff changes from a different point of view to that of any other member. Therefore I shall endeavour to justify my attitude, and if it seems to you, Sir, that I am ploughing a lonely furrow, I assure you I shall endeavour to do so with a Brantford plough.
I may say that duties on agricultural implements have a kind of history which, if you will bear with me, I will briefly relate. I believe in the time which has been so often referred to by gentlemen opposite, when the National Policy was introduced, the duty on agricultural implements was not less than 35 per cent. That duty was from time to time reduced,-indeed on an agricultural necessity of production, binder twine, it was removed altogether, and the article made free. Wtehad then two factories in Brantford, and there were

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
some 24 throughout the Dominion; to-day we have one factory in Brantford and there are two others in Canada, the other 21 having vanished. Now, when the duty on agricultural implements was reduced in 1919 it was 22i per cent on ploughs and 174 per cent on binders. An additional 5 per cent was taken off in that year. The duty on binders was reduced to 124 per cent, and on ploughs to 174 per cent. Representations were, of course, made in this House. At the same time farm tractors below a value of some $1,400 or $1,500 were made free. The result was that in the next two years $20,000,000 of farm tractors were imported, and the two farm tractor industries in Brantford went out of that line of business entirely. That so much affected the industry in Brantford, and the feeling of the people in Brantford at that time-I am speaking of five years ago-was such that the representative of Brantford then found it necessary to vote against the adoption of the budget of. his own party, because he was a loyal Conservative and it was brought down by a Conservative government. He voted against that budget protesting against the reduction of the duties on this industry, because it seemed as though the agricultural implement industry had been singled out for reduction ahead of all other industries.
Two years ago, in 1922, a still further reduction was made of 2i per cent on ploughs and 2i per cent on binders, reapers and mowers, reducing the duty on ploughs to 15 per cent, and on harvesting machinery to 10 per cent. At the time of the general election when I became a candidate in 1921, we had felt these various reductions in the duties on our principal industries, because as you are aware the agricultural implement industry is the principal industry of Brantford. The present duties will affect some seven or eight of our largest factories in Brantford, and at the time of that election the question of the duty was, of course, a very, very ddicate one, and it was felt that it was not in the interest of the city, and not in the interest of the workmen in the industry and those who had their homes there, nor in the interest of the factories, that the duty should be still further reduced, and when I became a candidate at that time a part of my platform was that I would oppose any further reduction in the duties on the industries of Brantford, any duties that would act in a way that would be inimical to the best interests of the factories or industries of Brantford. I did not think at that time that I would be called upon in the first year I came into this House, that was two years
ago, to see a still further reduction of 21 per cent, which, as you will remember, was made; but that having been made, it seemed to me that we had reached the irreducible minimum on agricultural implements. The duties were then lower than on any other articles of manufacture that were made in Canada, and I thought, and it was the opinion generally of the people of the city and of those engaged in the industry, that having reached that point it should be considered the irreducible minimum, and that no steps should be taken below that to give American competitors the advantage of obtaining access to our market. Now when that is the case, I think that every member of this House will see that my duty is clear as far as this budget is concerned, with reference to those resolutions that still further reduce the duty on agricultural implements.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Was it not the
policy of the party which the hon. member represents to remove the duty entirely from agricultural implements?


William Gawtress Raymond: Do you refer to the
reduction made in 1919?


Donald Sutherland: I am referring to
the tariff on agricultural implements.


William Gawtress Raymond: The tariff on agricutural implements in 1919 was reduced by the government then in power, and that was not the government of the party of which I am a member.


Donald Sutherland: I am referring to the issue in the last election. Did not the hon. gentleman support the policy of the party With which he is now associated, which was to remove the tariff entirely on agricultural implements?


William Gawtress Raymond: That was never a part of my policy. I will tell the hon. member from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), I was not in politics in 1919, if he refers to that platform. I never subscribed to it, I had nothing to do with it, and I was not in politics at that time. When I referred to that year I was referring to the reduction of the dtity on agricultural implements that was made by another party, not the one I belong to, when they reduced the duty on ploughs from 22i per cent to 174 per cent and on harvesting machinery from 174 per cent to 124 per cent, when they made tractors free and swept two tractor industries out of Brantford, and led to the importation in the next two years of $20,000,000 of American tractors. The hon. member must know what party was in power

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
in 1919. With me it is not so much a matter of party; it is a matter of principle. My idea is this: Whatever party it comes from or came from, there is a lack and has been a lack of equity in the placing of the tariff on agricultural implements. I fail to see the reason why they alone of all articles in the tariff should be made to sacrifice; that is my position. It has been done not by one party, nor by the other alone. This party here took off 2i per cent last year, but before that when there was not the same demand for it, when the West was not making the same appeal for it, the reductions I have spoken of were taken off in 1919.


Donald Sutherland: Was my hon. friend a candidate in 1919?


William Gawtress Raymond: No. When I told my hon. friend I was not in politics in 1919, he might have understood that I would not be a candidate because I could hardly be a candidate without being in politics.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member say the reductions of 1919, from 171 to 121 per cent, were unjustified?


William Gawtress Raymond: I say that from the
Brantford point of view, when those reductions were made upon these Brantford industries, we resented them.


Arthur Meighen: Then why did the hon. gentleman support a further reduction in 1922?


William Gawtress Raymond: I did not support a further reduction in 1922.


Arthur Meighen: Not in the budget of
that year?


William Gawtress Raymond: There was 21 per cent taken off in the budget of that year, and it was opposed by me in committee, but it was only one item of a very important budget, and I did not see fit to oppose the budget on that account. Is that not satisfactory?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is as skilful an answer as anybody could be expected to give.


William Gawtress Raymond: It is not so much the skill of the answer as its plain truthfulness that I am concerned with. This is not as far as il am concerned, a matter for skill at all. It is a matter rather for plain statement, and I say that was the condition then, and that was why it was I ran on the understanding that I would oppose any further reduction. I might say that that was why it was that when the right hon. leader of the opposition came to my constituency at that time, and spoke as he did very eloquently of the benefits of

protection, we had a large number of idle men at that time, and it was remembered that this reduction had been made, and therefore it was felt by the people of Brantford that the agricultural implement industry had been singled out for all the free trade experiments that had been made in the tariff, and that is what appears to me not to be fair, and not to be equitable. I do not think that all the duty should be taken off agricultural implements, while other articles just as necessary just as essential, are left with the full protection of the tariff -and enjoying all its benefits. Why, the right hon. leader of the opposition himself (Mr. Meighen) in- his election address or in one of his speeches at that time made use of a sentence which appealed to me as very good. He said that system could not endure which stripped the protection off some industries and left others enjoying the benefit of protection. That was our position exactly in Brantford, and I think that was how his speech on that occasion did not have the effect that he wished it might have upon the electorate. I should like to point this out, that if hon. gentlemen are anxious, as they claim they are anxious, to help our basic industries ; if that is the reason why duties should be taken off agricultural implements and saw-milling machinery-both of which are made in Brantford; I do not think there is a country in the world where lumbering is carried on to which that machinery has not been exported-at some time or other from Brantford-there is something that could benefit each one of these industries-these basic industries as they have been termed-and that would benefit the key industry, as I call the industry that makes the tools for them, and that has to do with our national railways. Now, hon. gentlemen who can look with such keen eyes into what the duty is, what the profits are, and what the dividends have been in the implement industry, who rise in this House and speak as though they were anxious to do a good thing for our basic industries, seem to have overlooked the fact entirely that all the supplies that go to our National railways have to pay a duty of 30 per cent, some of them I believe 35 per cent. Why not take the duty off locomotives, off railway cars, off the thousand and one other things that 'are used on a railway and not simply off ploughs. Hon. members opposite have said several times that they believe in justice and in a square equal deal for all, and special privileges for none. The feeling of a man who is working in an industry where his product, we will say, is sold in an unprotected market has been expressed many times by the hon. members of the Progressive party. They

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
have told us that they had to sell their products in an unprotected market where they cannot be helped and therefore must buy their goods cheap. Does not the same thing apply to a man who is working in a factory? It seems to me that if he is asked to abandon protection on the goods he produces, that then all that he requires for his own use, for his family's use, for his household use, as well as his raw material should be produced to him free or else he is not on an equal basis. Unless that is the case you will find yourself with the idea either of a certain rational and reasonable protection or else free trade. It must be one or the other it seems to me, and as far as I can view the matter I cannot see that it is in the best interests of this country to adopt the policy that is entirely free trade. I do not think it is although I have listened to the kind of academic discussion that we have here from the philosophers every year upon the question of free trade or protection. When the tariff is mentioned we are taken away back into the past and treated pretty much to the same discourse on Cobden and Bright. But this year we were taken back even as far as Walpole and Pitt. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) began bis speech this year, I think with Walpole and Pitt, and then went on from Cobden and Bright down to John Stuart Mill. I was pleased to hear John Stuart Mill. But I could not help thinking that it is the part of an advocate to take just what he wants and use it in his argument and leave what he does not want for somebody else. Why did the hon. gentleman quote John Stuart Mill to us? He never knew anything of Canada, he died before- the industrial movement was born, he was not a business man, and yet the hon. gentleman quoted John Stuart Mill. The hon. gentleman in his speech quoted the dictum of John Stuart Mill and then he quoted his retraction. What does that matter to-day? Supposing we were to quote John Stuart Mill to the hon. member for Brome and tell him that according to the confession in his own autobiography he was an avowed atheist, would that suit the hon. member for Brome? Would he want to take his religious philosophy from where he took his business philosophy when we knew that John Stuart Mill knew nothing about business?


Mr. HOEY:: I think it is only fair to the
hon. member for Brome to state that in quoting John Stuart Mill he was replying to a letter quoted by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion).


William Gawtress Raymond: Very well. I do not know the exact circumstance that caused him to bring it in, but I presume that when he introduced the great philosopher's name he expected it would have some weight with us. I could not say what weight it could have in Canada, which he did not know, and on a business question when he knew nothing whatever of business. His principles were so peculiar and so erratic it seems to me he would hardly be considered an authority even on an economic question when that question is to be decided in Canada.
But with regard to John Stuart Mill, if the hon. member wishes to pay attention to that great philosopher I would respectfully refer him to his work on logic, his unrivalled work on logic. If he refers to that work he will find in it many times cautions against misstating a coincidence for a consequence; that one of the fatal mistakes in logic is to mistake a coincidence for a consequence. And when the hon. member tells us that in Britain, along in the times he mentions and close to the "hungry forties," trade began to grow and expand and increase by leaps and bounds-when he attributes that to free trade he will find if he looks a little more accurately into it that while it was a coincidence it was not by any means a consequence. Because there were authorities in that day who said that that wonderful progress came from what has been called "the industrial revolution"; that it came from the fact that English inventors in the textile industries, in the engineering industries, in the shipbuilding industry, and in others, made wonderful advances; that steam was applied to technical use and used in all her factories-used in all her factories to such an extent that writing at the moment Emerson said, "Steam may be called an Englishman," and that has been said by some to be the cause of the wonderful progress and advancement that was made in her commerce. It was also the time of Britain's colonial expansion, it was the time when Australia was settled, when business was opened up with India. These are some of the reasons given for the commercial advancement of that time. So I say it is impossible to prove that it was a consequence of free trade, although it was a coincidence. And when gentlemen say, as they have said in this House, that the United States has progressed and got -wealthy in spite of and not because of protection it seems to me that we may take that just in the same way. I do not think the tariff has made or marred either of these two countries. I do not think it has been the one essential that made

The Budget-Mr. Raymond

the United States have a protective tariff, nor do I think it was free trade that made England so happy and prosperous as she was.
But these gentlemen talk of the wonderful attainments in England at that time, and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) read a very delightful- editorial from the Journal, I think it was, on "Hats off to Britain." It was a most delightful article and I was very glad to hear my hon. friend read it, I quite enjoyed it. But the gentlemen who take that side of the argument and use Britain for an illustration, lose sight of just one point of the British character-they seem to me to have completely lost sight of it. Why, the British tariff or the American tariff is only an incident. It is not a cause of a nation's success or failure; a tariff is a tax. I maintain that the quality that these gentlemen lost sight of is the predominant quality in the British character-it is their love of justice. They would not support a tariff that stripped the protection off one set of industries and left others enjoying it. So that if these gentlemen want to applaud Britain, if they really want to endorse and sympathize with the British character, never let them forget that one quality of justice. It was that quality of justice that led to all the great advances in that country, not perhaps commercial or financial; but it was the quality of justice that made them remove the disabilities on Roman Catholics. It was the quality of justice that made them enlarge the franchise in the Reform Bill of 1832. It was the quality of justice that made them in 1833 free the slaves and pay the bill out of their own pocket. The quality of justice should never be forgotten, and what I complain of in the treatment of Brantford in reference to agricultural implements is that I do not think that quality has been observed. Brantford seems to have been always made the goat for all the experiments in the treatment or reduction of the tariff, more than any other manufacturing city in Canada.	,
Some seven or eight of our largest factories are now affected by the reduction in the tariff. They do not like it of course, because it came at a time in their history when, on account of the depression in agriculture, their sales had been slow. The sales had fallen off in the United States, and consequently it was simply an invitation to the United States manufacturer to send his surplus to the Canadian market. The importation of implements increased SO per cent last year, if I am not mistaken. They increased from S9,000,000 to something over $13,000,000, just at a time when our factories needed the money, and our workmen needed the work, in order to support their 
families. When the work was of the greatest importance we had the mortification of seeing between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000 worth of agricultural implements brought into the coun-trq, when in the year previous only about $9,000,000 worth of machinery was brought in. The same year some $7,000,000 worth of binder twine and $6,000,000 worth of tractors were imported, making some $26,000,000 that should have gone to employ Canadian labour, keep up Canadian homes and help support Canadian industries, but which went over to the United States to give employment to Americans. I do not think it is strange that that should seem mortifying to the people engaged in these industries.
People have said, and hon. members have sometimes said, "Oh, they pay no duty in the United States; why don't your implement factories export implements to that country?" Someone read something from a book which said we had exported over a million dollars' worth to the United States. Very good, we imported thirteen to fourteen millions at the same time. Some of the goods we send over there-and I say this without fear of successful contradiction-are sent over simply because they are absolutely unrivalled by any of the manufactures in the United States. One particular implement used in the southern part of the West, I think it is called a reaper-thresher, is a very exclusive machine, for which there is not much market in Canada, but a large market in the States, and a large number are made by the Massey-Harris Company, Toronto, and sent over there. With that exception, it is impossible for us to send much over to the United States, and why? Because when our salesmen go over there, and tell them these implements are just as good as theirs-and perhaps they recognize that they are-they will say, "Well, they may be good implements and may be just as cheap or even a few dollars cheaper, but I am 100 per cent American, and I want my money to go to the American people, to build up and support American interests." I do not know if it is necessary to point out the inference, but to me it is veiy plain, that we want in this country people who are rather more than 100 per cent Canadian, and I think if we had enough of that class we would never find such a large importation of implements as we had last year. Speaking of the importation of that large number of implements, it is an acknowledged fact throughout the West that there was a decided and determined propaganda urging the farmer to buy American implements. Part of it I believe came from the grain growers and part of it from other agricultural associations, and that led to an increased importation of some-

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
thing over 50 per cent more than the previous year.
I wish to make my position plain. With regard to agricultural implements, I have stated my position and why I feel it my duty at the present time to vote against any reduction in the tariff on these articles. When, as at present, the American manufacturers have a surplus of implements on account of the depression in agriculture in the United States particularly, it is simply an invitation to them to send more implements to this country. Again I considered that when ploughs were at 15 per cent and harvesting machinery at 10 per cent we had what might fairly be considered an irreducible minimum, and attention could be paid to something else that might require the duty to be taken off. If our national transportation is of the importance I think it is and when we have some $400,000,000 worth of rolling stock imported, if a part of the 35 per cent duty on that were taken off, it would conduce more to the general good of Canada of the basic industries, and of merchants and consumers alike; than to pick on the poor agricultural implement manufacturers and reduce the duties on their production, while other articles are left entirely untouched.
Referring to the amendment which has been introduced by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) who stands in this House as the leader of the Labour party, I have always thought that that title was an anomaly, because I have heard views expressed in this House that I was quite certain were not the views of the Labour party of Ontario, and not the views of the Labour party at Brantford. The amendment is quite contrary to the policy of the Labour party in Canada, as expressed at page 55 of this book which I hold in my hand, which is the report of the convention of the great Trades and Labour Council, the chief arm of labour in the whole country. This is the annual report of the convention held in Winnipeg in 1921. Hon. members would think that when this labour convention was held in his own constituency, the leader of that party would be heard from, but his name is not. in the book from one cover to the other. And why not? Because by the Trades and Labour Council of Canada he is not recognized as a leader or labour representative, and yet he stands in this House as a representative of labour, and as a representative of labour introduces that amendment. I want to say on behalf of the labour people of Brantford, and on behalf of the great industrial centre I represent, that the sentiments of the Labour party are not contained in his amendment at 113i
all but are quite contrary to it; and that the expressed opinion of the Trades and Labour Council, as set forth in one of the articles, is that they believe that a tariff should be maintained for the protection of Canadian workmen against competition from outside the country, and that no change should be made in that tariff until a tariff board has been established and the matter looked into with the greatest care. I am not quoting the exact words but they are in this book, if anyone wishes to read them.
Now in order that we may be exact, I have here a letter from the secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of Brantford enclosing a resolution dated 7th March, which reads :
Moved by Del. Sevigny and seconded by Del. James:
Be it resolved that in the opinion of the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Brantford the most satisfactory solution of the recurring tariff controversies, which have raised so much political confusion and instability in matters of trades and commerce, and thus of serious concern of the workers employed in industry, is to be found in the very clear and decisive declaration, repeatedly adopted by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in annual convention an extract of which appears in the annual reports of the Hamilton convention of 1919. the Windsor convention of 1920, the Winnipeg convention of 1921, and the Vancouver convention of 1923. Said extract reads as follows:
"During past years there has been carried on a very active campaign by certain interests for the adoption of a free trade policy in Canada. To the numbers of workers engaged by Canadian branches of United States industries, and other industries claiming tariff protection as necessary for their existence, this question is a vital one. Your executive are of the opinion that tariff decisions should cease to be made a matter of political expediency and the decision for their maintenance or abolition, should be reached only after exhaustive inquiry and with a view to enabling the worker, in such industries to be paid proper wage standards without destroying the industry by unfair competition from industries outside of Canada. We recommend the formation of a tariff board, on which organized labor should have proper representation, created with full powers to deal with this subject in a similar manner to the powers exercised by the Railway Commission on railway matters."
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Yours very truly,
The Brantford Trades and Labour Council C. L. Sevigny.
That is really the Labour party of Ontario. A second letter is dated the 23rd April, 1924, which I would also like to have copied in Hansard and which is to the same effect, giving the platform of the Trades and Labour Council exactly. It reads:
Mr. TV. G. Raymond, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-I am instructed by the Trades and Labour Council of Brantford to address you and request your serious consideration to the following resolution.
Resolution: "Tariff decisions should cease to be made a matter of political expediency, and the decision for
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

their maintenance or abolition should be reached only after exhaustive enquiry and with a view to enabling the worker, in such industries, to be paid proper wage standards without destroying the industry by unfair competition from sources outside of Canada. We recommend the formation of a tariff board on which organized labour should have proper representation, created with full powers to deal with this subject in a similar manner to the powers exercised by the Railway Commission on railway matters."
The above resolution i3 the attitude expressed by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and we think a very fair and impartial attitude protecting all industry, labour, and consumer.
We are also willing to offer for your consideration, if you should think the resolution too severe, the adding of the advisory reading. We recommend the formation of an Advisory Tariff Board.
Hoping this will receive your consideration and be brought forward on the floor of the legislature for discussion.
Respectfully yours,
C. L. Sevigny.
The third letter that I have here is apparently an answer to some communication that they have had with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). In it they do not appear to have quite agreed in the course of their communications with one another, but they state that at the last provincial election in Ontario the Independent Labour party, which, I believe, is the one represented by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, were not able to elect a single man, although they ran candidates in all the chief industrial centres of Ontario. It goes on to say that the party was so far disorganized by this that they did not hold their annual convention on Good Friday as they should have done. That was apparently, the writer says, the end of the party, and they even asked for no flowers at the funeral. I say then that, in order that the stand of the workmen of Ontario shall be rightly understood, this position should be rightly understood. They are not in favour of that amendment; they do not want it, and *if there is that sympathy between labour as the Progressives have claimed from time to time in this House, they should vote against this resolution as every representative of the Trades and Labour party in Brantford would vote against it. I maintain-and I do so with respect-that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg stands in a false position in this House when he pretends to represent the Labour party of that part of Canada from which I come, and I know whereof I speak. Therefore, from what I have said, hon. members will imagine that I cannot vote for the amendment.
In conclusion, let me say just this, that I think the true aim and policy of all people in this country is to arrive at some kind of a

policy on which we can be agreed. It is certain that if we follow in one direction so that certain parts of the country are under a free trade system, then, in equity and in justice, the whole country will have to go on with that system. I am aware that at the present time efforts have been made by the manufacturers to make representations to the government that if certain concessions were made on their raw material, that would help them to stand the cut in the duty, and I believe the government have done what they can to meet this. But in spite of that, I think and I maintain now seriously that the duty as it existed should be considered as an irreducible minimum upon agricultural implements. I think we should endeavour to establish a board of tariff reference, as the Labour party have asked for-and it has been part of their platform for years- a board which, of course, we understand, could not have any legislative power, which could not impose or take off tariffs, but which could obtain from an independent source whatever information was required by the government of the day and place before it that information in order that it might make for the country the most scientific tariff possible.
1 am not going to be drawn into the old argument of free trade and protection, because I do not think free trade is sensible or practical. It is a mere theory; it is something that does not exist. I do not believe, ff the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) were Minister of Finance, he would go any nearer free trade probably than the present budget, in spite of all his protestations. There are certain things that exist in,theory and that, in theory, are very nice, but in practice are utterly impossible. One of them is universal peace. Who would find fault with the man who advocated universal peace and loved the idea, and yet what word was more hated during the war than the word "pacifist"? It was hated just as much as the word "traitor", because when the country was fighting for its very life, vre knew that the pacifist was almost as much an obstruction to our success as the traitor.
Another thing that great professors and minds have sought after is perpetual motion. No sane man ever started after perpetual motion and remained sane very long. No man ever attained perpetual motion, unless, perhaps, the hon. member for North Toronto. (Mr. Church). I mean to say that no man ever followed the pursuit of that subject and retained his sanity. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the question of the-

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
oretical free trade is very much the same. When I listen to those men who follow it and who rise and discourse here eloquently upon free trade and its advantages, I often think of what has become of that other will-o'-the-wisp, perpetual motion, and those who have pursued it, many of whom you will find in lunatic asylums. I hope that will never be the case of those men who advocate that financial and fiscal policy for our country.
What we want is a policy that will build up the industries of the country, that will tend to the development of its resources, that will bring from northern Ontario those vast treasures that were so eloquently described by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) in his admirable speech. What we want too. is a tariff policy that will protect labour in this country, that wall protect the labouring man, and as labour is added to every article from the raw material to the finished articles, let there be enough protection on that man in the way of a tariff that his industry may be protected. In that wTay we can in time develop this country so that the raw material that we are now exporting to other countries and that they are making money on by manufacturing, we shall be able to manufacture in this country. I do not advocate a policy of exclusion; I do not say that we can be absolutely self-contained. But Canada should export manufactured goods instead of raw material, allowing somebody else to export the manufactured goods, because we know that the one who exports the manufactured goods makes by far the larger profit.


Mr. FORKE:: Why can we not export the manufactured goods?	.


William Gawtress Raymond: I say: Why can we not? Those that we have to export we can and do export; but when it comes to the raw material, the hon. member might have heard the hon. member for North Toronto a few minutes ago instance asbestos down in Quebec, how that was dug out of the bowels of the friendly earth, how we sent it to the United States where some $9,000,000 worth was turned into a value of $60,000,000.


Robert Forke: Why do we send it to the
United States?


William Gawtress Raymond: Because we have no
factories here to manufacture it. We want to develop those factories, those industries. If we do not do that, we shall never be able to export the manufactured article, because they have the factories in the United States
and we shall have to send the raw material to their factories to be manufactured. The difference between the American tariff which gives them protection and ours was rather hidden by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) this afternoon, when he said that they collect in duties $450,000,000 and we collect 8105,000,000. W'hat is the truth about the American tariff? If hon. members examine it for themselves, they will find that articles that the Americans want in free they allow to come in free; but as regards those articles which they do not want, you cannot climb over their tariff wall. Their duty on woollens is 100 per cent; their doty on cottons and textiles is over 50 per cent. As regards the duty on everything which they want to make and on which they fear the competition of Britain or Germany, they impose such a tariff that no imports appear on their list at all. To-day we import cloth in worsted and tweeds, about as many square yards as they import into the United States, because where we have a duty of 25 per cent, they have a duty that runs from 75 to 100 per cent. That is why that article does not appear to swell the amount of their imports.
But to go back to the development of Canada, we want a policy that will develop these industries, that will develop factories to manufacture these raw materials, that will protect the labouring men working in Canada, not unreasonably, not irrationally, but so as to give them a chance to carry on their business in this country. If that is done, as it may be done equitably, I believe the tariff board such as is asked for by the Trades and Labour Council, to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister or Acting Minister of Finance, will be found to be of great assistance. With such a policy, and with the wonderful natural resources of the country developed, then I think we should enter upon the era of prosperity that we are all looking for. It is true that the returns now show in certain respects that it is even coming upon us; there is a sign as though trade were now beginning to improve in this country. I always like to look at these situations in a hopeful way; I do not like the shadows in my path to be any that I cast myself, either from imagination or reality. I think that times are mending and business will improve; and such a tariff policy, so framed, so formed to protect labour and industry, would act wonderfully in the development and expansion of our trade, our factories and our natural resources.
177S
The Budget-Mr. Brethen


Mr. G. A. BRETHEN (East Peterborough):: No matter how we may differ in our conclusions, from the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), we' all listen with great interest to his addresses and we certainly agree that they are kindly and that the hon. member's earnestness for the city he represents would draw tears almost from the very stones themselves. However, what is the situation in Brantford? I am reminded that just a few weeks ago a certain delegation from the city of Brantford, including these very same implement manufacturers of which the hon. member has spoken and to whom he is so admirably loyal, arranged several meetings with different groups in this House including a number of representatives of the Progressive party; and the question occurred to me whether these implement manufacturers of Brantford were as loyal to the hon. member who represents them as he has been to them. To our surprise, after waiting for half an hour or more, the implement manufacturers from Brantford who were on this delegation failed to show up. However, a certain manufacturer from the city who undertook to speak for them stated their case, but I do not know that he succeeded in putting it very -well before us. Several questions were asked, among which were the following important queries: First of all, what is the condition of the different manufacturing concerns in Brantford, with special reference to the binder twine industry? To this question that gentleman was forced to confess that the binder twine industry, although on the free list and without any protection, was the only manufacturing concern in Brantford that was running on full shift and making full speed ahead. The question was next asked him: What is the problem of the manufacturers in the city of Brantford-is it a question of protection or one of lack of sales? Further, if any government in this country were to increase protection would it have the desired effect of giving impetus to the manufacture of implements in Brantford, or would it solve their problem? In reply to this question he was also obliged to confess that the problem was one of lack of sales and that not only would protection fail to solve it but that it would only aggravate the situation; in other words, if sales were the result of conditions favourable to buying, an increase in price due to increase in protection would simply aggravate the situation by reducing the purchasing power of the consumers. Now, there is a direct relation between the implement manufacturer and his purchaser, who in this case is the Canadian farmer; and the real problem is not so much one of protection as one of inadequate purchasing power 
on the part of the farmer. So that anything we can do in this House to increase that purchasing power will indirectly bring added prosperity to the manufacturer.
We have to-day been discussing in this House the fiscal policy brought down by this government, which has aroused unusual interest throughout the country. As the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) showed this afternoon, while some two-thirds of the electors of this country supported in the last election candidates advocating a line of action similar to what is proposed in the policy of this budget we find that until now the government has taken little action in that direction. For two sessions in this House we have had budgets that have only made a gesture towards tariff reduction, and this is the first budget brought down by the present government that has actually budged. Because, therefore, this budget follows a line of action which we in this part of the House believe will not only promote the best interests of the agricultural community but will also improve the condition generally of the people of Canada, we feel more kindly towards it than we have done to any budget that has been presented to the people for several long years. While we can and do agree with our friends to the right that the reductions proposed by this budget may provide little immediate, relief to the producers of the country through the medium of the reduction on the implements of production, at the same time we deny that the proposed changes will have either the disastrous or even harmful effects upon the makers of these implements which some of our friends to the right prophesy. It is true that certain manufacturing concerns in this country are in a bad way financially. But the crying need of the Canadian manufacturer to-day is sales; his most remunerative matket is the home market, that is to say, Canada, and particularly agricultural Canada. His sales bear a direct relation to the purchasing power of his customer, who in the case of the implement manufacturer is the Canadian farmer. No group in this House is bold enough, facing conditions as they are, to suggest that the condition of the Canadian farmer is in any way bright; in fact, his purchasing power is extremely limited. And such being the accepted fact in regard to the condition of the customer, what is the proper course to pursue to provide the remedy? Some like the hon. member for Brantford would suggest more protection. But this, we believe, would only aggravate

The Budget-Mr. Brethen
the trouble. Higher protection, if it means anything, means the power to increase the selling price of the protected goods. Would anyone be bold enough to say that by raising the selling price we are going to make the purchaser buy more freely? Fifty years of this policy has proven the fallacy of attempting by such a system of taxation to make the country rich. I insist, Mr. Speaker, that you do not increase the taxable wealth of Canada by taxing a gentleman in East Peterborough and giving the benefit of that tax to a gentleman in Toronto. Such a course prevents the natural and honest distribution of wealth, but it does not create or augment wealth.
Let me illustrate the very important relation which exists between our producers and consumers. Last September I paid a visit to the western provinces, including British Columbia, and from Kamloops I took a motor drive of 370 miles through the Okanagan valley. There to my surprise I learned firsthand from the fruit growers that their condition was probably the most discouraging of that of any other producers in the Dominion. I was very sorry to learn this because the evidences of great production were to be found everywhere. One particular fruit grower told me he had cut down his peach orchard and was planting it with apples, and although the fruit was of immense size and quality only one-half of the peach crop would be harvested. He added that only one-half of the cherry crop had been harvested. In asking for an explanation I got the following, and I give it for what it is worth. I was told that the fruit industry in British Columbia was built up upon the prairie market when the prairies were in a more prosperous condition than they are to-day, and that when the purchasing power of the prairie farmer failed the result was instantly reflected in the returns to the fruit farmer of British Columbia. Talking to a man on the train who had some experience in growing fruit and also in selling it on the prairies, he told me: "It is just this way, when the prairie farmer is properous he does not go into a store and ask for one or two baskets of peaches, as you do in Ontario; he says to the storekeeper, "What are your peaches a crate today?" And upon being told the price he added: "I will take four or five crates.'" The fruit industry of British Columbia was evidently built up on that kind of market. But in a year like last, when in spite of a bumper crop, the largest in the history of Canada, he finds his cash returns depleted to the extent of seventy million dollars, somebody besides the farmer is going to feel it; it is going to be reflected in some other industries besides fanning, in fact it will be reflected in every industry of this country.
This question of sales has a very important bearing upon every industry. A week or so ago while I was down in the city of Halifax I noticed in one of the local papers this headline: "Cross Fertilizer Company Goes into Liquidation, due to the Reduction of the Tariff." I thought the budget was acting very quickly on the fertilizer industry, so I made inquiries. To my surprise I found the explanation given by the farmers was that for the past couple of years this particular company had been unable to sell their fertilizer because it was unsuitable, not being water soluble, and after the farmers had tried it and got no results they simply quit buying. Thereupon the fertilizer company went into liquidation not because of any lowering lor raising of the tariff, but simply because they were turning out a product which the farmers would not- buy. But see the camouflage of the situation!
I was interested to-night to hear the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) refer to farm tractors. We hear in this House that the manufacture of tractors ceased in Brantford and in other manufacturing centres of Ontario because of the removal of the duty. I have often wondered' if that were really the explanation. In my trip through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta last year I only once saw anything that looked1 like a tractor operating on summer fallow, and it was so far away that I could not be certain whether it was a tractor or not. I saw several threshing machines running,' but the great work of the tractor in past years on the prairies was conspicuous by its absence, the reason being not because in war time days the tractor was not considered a valuable asset to the farmers of the West, but because in these days when horse flesh is very cheap-practically unsaleable-when harness is cheaper and when horse feeds net the farmer little or nothing at his own barn, it does not pay him to operate tractors, and therefore the farmer has ceased to buy them. As the manager of the Brandon experimental farm expressed it to me, "We are past the tractor stage." The very fact that all the farmers of the West have ceased buying tractors would seem to me some explanation why the tractor industry in this country should cease-lack of sales. Possibly that had as much or greater influence on its cessation than the removal of the duty.
The Budget-Mr. Brethen

The prosperity of industrial Canada is certainly based upon the prosperity of agricultural Canada, and the sooner this truth is recognized the quicker 'will come that national prosperity we so fondly look for. Without any bitterness in my heart to our great industrial magnates, I am reminded that the present situation in which they find themselves, due to the lack of sales, in other words, due to the lack of purchasing power of their best customers, the Canadian farmers, is very largely the result of their action in 1911. In that year there was offered a market to the Canadian farmer that to-day the people very generally believe was a real market and would have meant very much in bettering our agricultural condition. But what did we find? At that time these very industrial magnates and financiers, although this was a question of reciprocity on natural products and, in a sense was none of their business, butted in and robbed the farmer of that market and of that industrial encouragement which would have been theirs. And so, to-day we find these very men, largely as a result of their action at that time virtually frying. in their fat. The crying need of the hour is to make the basic or primary industries of this country prosperous. Then general prosperity will follow as naturally as day follows night. By attempting to bridge the chasm between the high cost of everything which the farmer buys and the low price he receives for everything he has to sell, the government in this budget I believe has made an honest attempt to bring about better conditions and greater prosperity for the people of Canada. I am not one of those who have altogether lost faith in Canada. Neither do I belong to that cult in this House who seem to think because we have lost a good many real Canadians to the country to the south of us that we should advertise in this parliament to all the world that Canada is going to the bow-wows. I have here a letter from a young man who was employed for some years in the Civil Service and who a few weeks ago considered that he could better his condition by seeking employment in the great city of Detroit. After he had walked the streets of Detroit for two weeks he wrote imploring me to try and find him something in the way of a job. This is what he says: "Employment is very scarce here. Hundreds, yes thousands, walking the streets." This bears out the knowledge I have with regard to certain other young men who left our locality for different places in the States, very many of whom, at least fifty per cent, are 
now back home again because they could not get work. Some of them have already secured jobs of a permanent nature at home, which indicates that they have not the slightest intention of going south again to try their luck. I have here a clipping from the Toronto Globe of April 24 last:
The only large cities in the United States in which there is still an acute shortage of houses, accompanied by increasing rents, are Philadelphia, Chicago and Pittsburg. Canadian building trade mechanics who have been taking part in the building boom across the border will soon be coming home again.
I cannot help believing that much of the emphasis that has been placed on this emigration to the United States has been done purely from a partisan attempt to discredit the work of this government, and I would say that if the tariff policy of this government has had anything to do with sending these men to the States in the last two years, the onus must be shared equally by both the old parties because the present budget represents the first real distinction in the fiscal policy of the two old parties for several years.
I am about to ask a question that I wish I could answer: What is wrong with Canada? I think if some of the brightest minds in this House would pay to this question the attention it deserves, instead of wasting their efforts in fighting their election battles over again, it would be far more in the interest of Canada. What is wrong with Canada? The increase in the national debt from 8336,000,000 in 1913 to $2,453,000,000, which was the figure that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) gave for 1923, cannot fail to mean increased taxation, and not only an increase in direct taxation but a much greater increase in indirect taxation, and this increase in indirect taxation I believe is reflected in the increased cost of distribution, in the increased cost of manufacture, in increased labour costs, rent costs, and so forth, which combined to bring about that very grave situation in Canada, the high cost of living. The protective tariff does not benefit the producer of our wheat, of our meats, our fish, or our cheese, because these products are sold in the markets of the world, and while a very large percentage of these products may be consumed in Canada it is the exportable surplus that sets the price. A lower cost of living is the only salvation for such a producer in the face of world competition.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the time for a national audit. Can we cut the cost of government, or the high cost of distribution that is throttling the very life of this country? Can our House of Commons and

The Budget-Mr. Brethen
mate be reduced to a size commensurate with our ability to pay? I believe that the co-ordination of portfolios, that of the Solicitor General with the Minister of Justice, for instance, is just as important as the co-ordination of railroads. I would also suggest to the government that the intent of the resolution of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) be put into effect, and the war time indemnity be reduced to harmonize with the present condition of affairs. Economy, like charity, should begin at home, and no strong appeal for economy in the country at large can come without the members of this House showing their willingness to blaze the trail by attacking their own purses. I, have heard it suggested in this connection that not merely the present indemnity but possibly an increased indemnity is necessary to attract the best men to this House. That I do not believe. I do not believe that the lure of the dollar will ever' in this country, or in any other country, appeal to the truly great man like the call to service. In coming up from Halifax with the rest of the Progressive members a week or so ago we had the good fortune to meet an Australian on the train, and upon our invitation he gave us a very interesting talk upon that dominion. He was well informed and I doubt if any press agent was better fitted for the task of placing his country in a good fight before the world at large. That experience made me think that probably we might follow the Australian gentleman's example and apply the same attitude to our own country. Let us have faith in Canada. Let us, if I may be allowed to use the term "Sell Canada to Canadians." I am not pessimistic enough to believe that because they have cheap labour in France, or Italy, or some other European countries that we cannot in Canada compete with it. As the Australian already referred to said, "In Italy they just muddle along in agriculture. The idea of one man leading a horse attached to a plough, and another man holding the plough handle!" And just such conditions as these render it impossible for European countries, even though they have cheap labour, to compete with the efficient agriculturists of Canada.	[DOT].
I believe that the greatest asset of the National railroads of Canada is the patriotic spirit of the people of the Dominion toward their own railway system. I quite agree with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), when he suggests that we should be 100 per cent Canadian, and whenever we can buy Canadian made goods at anything like the same price as foreign goods I believe we should do so. It will be this "get together spirit" on the part of the man on the farm, the man in the shop, and the man in the home to buy Canadian made goods-because they are the best and because they were produced by Canadians,-that is going to solve, or help very largely to solve, the financial and economic difficulties through which Canada is passing.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Kingston) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.
Tuesday, May 6, 1924