1924-04-28

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto):: I desire to present a petition from adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Toronto opposing the United Church of Canada Bill.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: I desire to present two petitions, one from the officers of St. John's Presbyterian church, Cornwall, and the other from Max-ville Presbyterian church, protesting against the enactment of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I beg to lay on the Table two petitions, one signed by members of the Woodbridge Presbyterian church, and the other by members of the Presbyterian church, Mimico, protesting against the enactment of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: I desire to present petitions from certain members of St. John's church, St. Stephen's church, Westminster church and Knox church, Winnipeg; St. James Presbyterian church, St. James, Manitoba; and Norwood Presbyterian church in opposition to the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. A. B. HUNT (Compton):: I desire to present petitions from certain ministers, elders, members and adherents of the Presbyterian church of Milan and Hampden, Quebec, in opposition to the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada; also a petition from members of St. Paul's Presbyterian church, Ormstown, to the same effect.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I desire to present a petition from the Union congregation at Manor, in favour of the enactment of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.

United Church oj Canada-Petitions


Mr. R. M. GENDRON (Wright):: I desire to present a petition from the Methodist church at Aylmer, Quebec, in favour of the bill for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: I desire to present a petition from certain members of Knox Presbyterian church, Shelburne, Ontario, protesting against the passing of the proposed Church Union legislation and asking that the rights of those opposed to the provisions of the bill be fully safeguarded; also a petition from the Methodist congregation at Shelburne, Ontario, signed by 106, for the enactment of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I desire to
present a petition from representatives of the Session and Board of Managers, and Board of Trustees, of New St. James Presbyterian church, London, Ontario, against the passing of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada, and for the safeguarding of the rights of those opposed to the provisions of the bill.


Mr. WILLIAM ELLIOTT (South Waterloo) :: I desire to present a resolution from
certain Presbyterian women of Galt expressing disapproval of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada as being coercive and unfair to those who desire to continue in the church of their choice, and petitioning against the bill as presented to parliament; also the petition of James Marshall and 217 others, members and adherents, St. Andrew's church, Newmarket, against the passing of the bill to incorporate the United Church, and asking for the safeguarding of t'he rights of those opposed to its provisions.


Mr. PRESTON ELLIOTT (Dundas):: I
desire to present a petition from members and adherents of Knox church, Morrisburg, protesting against the form of the Church Union bill; also from members and adherents of Morwood Presbyterian church, against the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada without such safeguards as will conserve the interests of those who wish to continue in the Presbyterian church, also petition from members and adherents of Chesterville Presbyterian churtfh and Dunbar Presbyterian church to the same effect.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK:: I desire to
present the petition of Albert E. Jones, chairman, and E. F. Armstrong, secretary, on behalf of thirty-four churches, twenty-one ministers and 5,100 members of the Chatham district, of the Methodist church, praying for
the incorporation of the United Church of Canada, and a recognition of the right of self-determination vested in the respective church governments that seek to be united.


Mr. S. CHARTERS (Peel):: I beg to present a petition from members and adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Port Credit, against the passing of the proposed Church Union legislation and asking that the rights of those opposed to the bill be fully safeguarded; also a petition from members and adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Streetsville, to the same effect.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: I beg to
present a petition signed by members of the Sydenham Methodist church, Kingston, for the enactment of the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: I beg
to present a petition from members of St. Paul's Presbyterian church, Victoria Harbour; also a petition from members of the Presbyterian church, Coldwater; also a petition from members of the Presbyterian church, Orillia, against the passing of the bill to incorporate the United Church and asking for the safeguarding of those opposed to the provisions of the bill.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I desire to present a petition from members of Knox Presbyterian church, Selkirk, in opposition to the Church Union bill; also a petition from members of the congregation of Old Kildonan Presbyterian church, Kildonan, for the rejection of the Church Union bill.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I
desire to present a petition from members of the congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Brandon, against the passing of the Church Union bill.



HOME BANK INVESTIGATION

William Alves Boys: I desire to present a petition from 163 depositors of the Home Bank in the town of Alliston, asking for indemnification for their losses.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	Has a thorough inspection been made by the inspectors of the Marine department of the rafts and life-saving devices on passenger steamboats plying from Port of Toronto for the season 1924?
Questions

2.	What is the carrying capacity in number of passengers of steamships:	Macassa, Modjeska, Turbina,
Cayuga, Chippewa, Corona, Garden City, Dalhousie City, Toronto and Kingston.
3.	What is the carrying capacity of the life-saving equipment on these steamers?
4.	What part of the life-saving equipment would be classed as "A" No. 1?
5.	How many inspections are made each season of the life-saving equipment?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Only two of these steamships, the Dalhousie City and the Macassa have had their life-saving equipment inspected for the season 1924.
The other passenger steamers running out of Toronto will have their life-saving equipment inspected before being permitted to operate for the season.
2.	The ss. Dalhousie City is allowed by her passenger certificate for the year 1924 to carry 710 passengers.
The ss. Macassa is allowed by her passenger certificate to carry 150 passengers. (Note. This ship is given two certificates in the year, one for the whole season of navigation allowing her 150 passengers, and the other from the 15th of May to the 30th of September allowing her a larger number. This second certificate has not yet been granted).
The ss. Garden City is not operated out of Toronto, and the other ships mentioned in the question above have not yet been certificated for the season 1924.
3.	The carrying capacity of the life-saving equipment on the two steamships above-mentioned certificated for the season 1924 is: SS. Dalhousie City-Lifeboats, 104 persons, buoyant apparatus, 498 persons. In addition the ship carries 6 life buoys and 1,135 life jackets. SS. Macassa-Lifeboats, 87 persons, and in addition the ship carries 6 life buoys and 109 life jackets.
4.	The department has no classification of life-saving equipment as "A" No. 1.
5.	The life-saving equipment is inspected once each season.


MOSER'S RIVER WHARF
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Was a wharf constructed at Moser's River, Halifax county, in 1922, by the government?
2.	If so, under what conditions and at whose request was this wharf built?
3.	What public demand was made for this wharf?
4.	Was it built by tender?
5.	What did it cost?
6.	Who built it?
7.	Is the government aware that a lobster factory is attached to said wharf and premises?
8.	Is the government aware that these premises are occupied by one D. I. Turner to the exclusion of the public generally?

9.	Does the government know that the so-called warehouse on the wharf is not a warehouse but a three-story building with shop and office, all well finished?
10.	What rental has Mr. Turner paid in 1922 and 1923 for these premises?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No, but an extension to the present wharf was built during 1922.
2	and 3. The extension was built at the request of a number of inhabitants of Moser's River.
4, 5 and 6. It was built by days' labour under the supervision of District Engineer Dodwell, the extension costing 83,326.74, the shed thereon, 81,000.
7.	A lobster factory 25 ft by 32 ft. was built on the wharf extension 10 feet inshore from the departmental shed by D. J. Turner in 1923, without reference to the department.
8.	The departmental shed on the extension is used by D. J. Turner acting part of the year as agent for the Hubbards & Boston Fish Company and during the remainder of the year for his own fish business.
9.	The public shed on the extension is a two and one-half storey building. The first storey is used for salting, icing and storing fish, the second for storing fish barrels, cases, cans, etc., the attic for general storage. On the second storey is an office roughly furnished, the furniture consisting of-a desk and boxes for seats.
10.	No rental has been paid but in view of the district engineer's report that Mr Turner's occupancy of the shed is a benefit to the local fishing industry, it is intended to lease him the shed on the wharf for a rental of 810 per month, the shed located at the head of the wharf being available for freight from ss. Dufferin twice each week and other coastal vessels at irregular intervals.


DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL TAX COLLECTION
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	What are the totals of the several classes of taxes collected by the Dominion government during the past fiscal year?
2.	What are the totals of the various taxes collected by the provincial governments?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: The first question asks the totals of the several classes of collection by the Dominion government during the past fiscal year. The second question asks as to the totals of the various taxes collected by the provincial governments. I do not know that we have any record of that. We have no information and I ask that that part of the question be dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister will find that it is quite proper to ask the government for this information.

Questions


Jacques Bureau: I object to answering
questions in matters in regard to which we have no possible information to furnish. The statistical reports are open to everyone, and I do not see why a minister of the Crown should be asked for the information.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The second part of the question should be dropped, in my humble judgment. Questions relating to provincial matters are not properly to be answered by a minister of the Dominion government. The first question will stand and the second will be dropped.
First question stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL SERVICE
Mr. SAVARD:: On April 10, the government informed the House that the nearest railway to Tadoussac was the Canadian National which passes at a distance of 20 miles from said locality, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
1.	Is it possible for persons on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence to communicate with said railway from November 1, to May 1?
2.	If not, what is the distance that they must travel to Tadoussac to reach another railway?
3.	Is it possible to place vehicles on board the little motor boat which carries on the service between Tadoussac and Bay St. Catherine?
4.	Is the public highway between St. Catherine and Murray Bay. the nearest railway station, an ordinary or very rough road?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: I think I can convince mv hon. friend that the minister has no information of this kind in his possession. It is all municipal or provincial, so far as I can ascertain. I will be glad to furnish any information that we possibly have in our possession. In regard to No. 3 question, the Department of Trade and Commerce may have a boat between Tadoussac and Bay St. Catherine. As far as the other questions are concerned I have no information or no way of obtaining information.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


George Perry Graham: Of course this is not an answer to the question.


MR. T. L, CORY-INTERIOR DEPARTMENT
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	In what capacity and for how long has Mr. T. L. Cory been an employee of the Interior Department?
2.	What is his remuneration and out of what appropriation is it paid?
3.	Was he appointed under open competition by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	From February 8, 1922, to June 11, 1923, ind from September 22, 1923 to January 11, 1924, retained by the Department of Justice 'or special legal work in connection with
revision of the North West Territories Act and orders-in-council, ordinances, regulations and rulings made thereunder. From January 12 employed as temporary departmental solicitor upon special legal work in the Dominion Water Power branch.
2.	Salary of departmental solicitor, Dominion Water Power branch, $3,120 per annum, paid from water power appropriation.
3	and 4. Important legal actions pending in United States courts vitally affecting certain international waterway problems made it necessary for department to have the services of a qualified barrister in constant co-operation with engineering division. In view of urgent necessity for immediate action commission authorized department to engage barrister locally pending advertising of position for public competition. Mr. Cory selected on account previous departmental experience.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Has an investigation been held recently into the affairs of the Montreal Board of Harbour Commissioners?
2.	If so, by whom was such investigation held?
3.	If a report was made by investigators, is it the intention of the government to place such report before parliament for the information of the members?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2,	3, and 4. Answered by No. 1.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE HEADQUARTERS
Henry Lumley Drayton: *1. In what building were the headquarters offices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police located, who was the owner of the property, and what was the rental, in the year 1921?
2. In what building are these offices located at present, who is the owner of the property, and what is the rental?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Duford Building, 113 Rideau street, owner, J. B. Duford, annual rental $7,225.
2.	Larocque Building, northeast corner Rideau and Dalhousie t-Btreets, owner J. A. Larocque, annual rental $12,832.


MR. ARONOVICI
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Was Mr. Aronovici's resignation voluntary or was it compulsory ?
2.	Did Aronovici have a contract under which his services could only be terminated by notice of a certain length or on payment of 150,000 francs?
3.	If there was no contract what justification was there for the payment of a bonus of 150,000 francs, or approximately $7,500?
Questions

4.	If his resignation was compulsory, was such action taken because of the purchase of the Hotel Scribe made by or through him, and if so, of what derelictions of duty was he guilty?
5.	Has the government ascertained what proportion of the total cost to the Canadian National Railways the actual former owners of the Hotel Scribe received?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Resignation requested in connection with reorganization of the traffic, colonization and development departments of the Canadian National Railways on the continent of Europe.
2.	Management was advised by counsel that under French law and practice a reasonable settlement vrould require to be made under the circumstances, and the settlement as made was recommended by the railways' counsel in Paris.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Proper notarial documents show the amounts as paid to the former owners.


COLLECTION OF DOMINION TAXES
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the total amount collected in each of the fiscal years from 1920 to date, inclusive, under (a) the Income Tax Act, and (b) the Business Profits Tax Act, and what percentage does the total so collected bear to the total amount raised by taxation in each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Percentage of total of (a) and (b) of
(a)	(b)	Total
Business	Taxation
Income tax	profits tax	revenue
1919 20.. ..$20,263,739 91 $44,145,184 48	21.94%
1920-	21..	..	46,381,824	31	40,841,401	25	23.65%1921-	22..	..	78,684.354	80	22,815.666	58	31.72%1922-	23..	..	59,711.538	37	13,031,461	80	21.68%*1923-24..	..	54,204,027	99	4,752,680	89	17.27%
* Not final figures for 1923-4.


IMPORTATION OF BITUMINOUS COAL
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total quantity of bituminous coal imported into Canada in each of the years, 1921, 1922 and* 1923?
2.	What was the total duty collected on this coal in each year?
3.	What was the total loss in each year to the revenue, because of the draw-back of 99 per cent on bituminous coal used for manufacturing purposes?


Jacques Bureau: 1 and 2.
Imports	Customs
entered for	duties
consumption	collected
Tons	Value
1921..	.. 15,407,996 $7,245,565 93
1922..	.. 12,752,059 5,685,855 71
1923..	.. 11,166,937 4,987,916 87
	$498,946	25
	 324,609	29
	176,316	14
TSir Henry Drayton.]
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 3. 1920-21.
1921-	22.
1922-	23.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What price was paid by the Soldier Settlement Board for the former Hudson Bay land reservation, included in townships 33-R-18-W-4, 32-R-18-W-4. 3I-R-14-W-4, 31-R-15-W-4, 30-R-15-W-4, 28-R-18-W-4 and 28-R-16-W-4, and at what -price were these lands sold to the soldiers?


James Alexander Robb: (a)	No price paid.
(b)	$188,100.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many quarter sections of Dominion or crown lands were turned over to the Soldier Settlement Board, free, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	What price wras paid by the soldier settler to the board for such lands in each of the Prairie provinces?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (For Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: 1.	To be answered by Department of the Interior.
2.	Alberta, $210,806.19; Saskatchewan, $151,664.00; Manitoba, $488.00.
No. 1. ELEVATOR-VANCOUVER


Mr. GARDINER:: Was Mr. Colin McLean, now superintndnt of No. 1 elevator at Vancouver, formerly in the employ of Davidson and Smith at Port Arthur?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no information.


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Was the addition to No. 1 elevator fit Vancouver, last year, constructed by contract?
2.	Was it constructed by the Pacific Construction Company?
3.	If so, who are the officers of this company?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Contract was signed by J. L. Davidson as president and W. S. Lane, as secretary.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many employees of the Post Office Department, at Montreal, have been dismissed from the service since January 1, 1924?
2.	How many of the said employees were dismissed for personal reasons ?
3.	How many of the said employees were dismissed to conform with the government's economy programme ?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	One.
2.	None.
3.	None. The employee referred to in question 1, was dismissed from the service on account of prolonged absence from duty without furnishing any satisfactory explanation.

Chinese Steamship Crews


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Might I inquire of
the government with regard to a question placed on the order paper on 7th March last? On 19th March a very simple question was passed as an order for return, and I think the House should have the information before it. The question relates to the Department of Agriculture, and was as follows:


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the total number of employees on pay or allowance connected with the Department of Agriculture on January 1st of each of the years from and including the year 1914 to the year 1924?
2.	What was the amount paid out or due in pay or allowance to said employees on the dates and years as above?
The estimates for the Department of Agriculture are passing from time to time, and I think the House should have this information.


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I will have the matter attended to. I think it was overlooked.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. SIMPSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, passing to and from the Department of Marine and Fisheries with regard to the dismissal of Daniel S. McLean from the position of lighthouse keeper at Darby Point (Piper Cove) in the province of Nova Scotia, and if an investigation was held a copy of the evidence given and the investigator's report.


OFFICIAL SEQUESTRATORS' FEES
Mr. RYCKMAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, writings, or other documents, exchanged between the Department of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec and the Department of Justice concerning the fees payable to official sequestrators.


WOODWARD ELEVATOR
Robert Gardiner: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, agreements, leases, or other documents, passing between the Vancouver Harbour Commission or the federal government, and any other parties in connection with the purchase and lease of the Woodward elevator at Vancouver.


WAIN WRIGHT POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence during 1923 and 1924 in the possession of the government or any department thereof regarding the appointment of a postmaster at Wainwright, Alberta.


CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. GAUVREAU:: For a copy of all reports, statements, notices, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Department of Railways, relating to the request for the granting and the payment of a double subsidy in money, in connection with the construction of the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company, formerly known as the Matane and Gaspe Railway, during the years from 1900 to 1912, inclusive.


BELLE RIVER PROPOSED WHARF
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, telegrams and other communications received by or passing from the Department of Public Works, respecting the proposed wharf or breakwater at Belle River, Ontario.


ST. PLACIDE WHARF
Mr. ETHIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and engineers' reports relating to the purchase, sale or expropriation of the wharf of St. Placide, in the county of Two Mountains.
CHINESE STEAMSHIP CREWS On the Orders of the Day:


James Alexander Robb: On Thursday April
24, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) stated:
According to the Halifax Herald of April 14, forty-nine orientals have arrived there to work on the Nova Scotia coal boats. Subsequent investigation seems to show that the Chinese landed from the s.s. Cedric, Pier 2, Halifax, direct from Liverpool, England, having arrived there from Canton via the Suez canal, and that these Chinese are imported from the Orient as crews for the Wabana, Daghild, and other vessels of Canadian registration. These Chinese are acting in the capacity of sailors, quartermaster, oilers, stockers, stewards and cooks; they are to relieve the hardy Nova Scotians. The Herald states that they are in bond and that permission to land and place the Chinamen on the various allotted vessels was given under letter received from the Deputy Minister of Immigration at Ottawa.
I promised the hon. member to inquire and advise him, and I have this information:
On the 3rd instant a telegram was received by the Department of Immigration and Colonization from Mr. J. R. Mclsaac of the Steel Corporation, stating that, owing to difficulty in getting Canadian crews to remain with their steamers after signing up, it was proposed to bring Chinese from England, a number to sail on the Cedric on the 5th instant, and the remainder, about nine, to come forward by a later boat to complete a crew now on this side.
The corporation gave the assurance that, except in the case of one vessel, the Chinese were to be confined to employment as firemen and cooks and that it was hoped to secure white men for the other classes of work on
Point oj Order-Mr. Boys

their steamers. The department consented to the request of the British Empire Steel Corporation on the understanding that arrangements were completed for guarding the Chinese and that the corporation would be responsible for all penalties under the Chinese Immigration Act until a bond, satisfactory to the department, was furnished.
A bond for $105,000 has been deposited with the department, this bond to cover 105 Chinese who are to be engaged on the steamships Rosecastle, Daghild, Wabana, Lingan, Hochelaga and Kamouraska, plying between the ports of Sydney, Louisburg, Halifax, St. John and Montreal. While the bond is for $105,000 it provides for a penalty of $1,000 in the case of each chinaman engaged on the steamships mentioned. Only 76 Chinamen have come forward or are coming forward under this arrangement with the Steel corporation, the bond covering also the cases of 29 Chinese who came forward last fall for employment on the Kamouraska. There are precedents in the department for action of this nature.
These Chinese are regarded as non-immigrants and the bond deposited by the British Empire Steel Corporation will be retained until the department is satisfied that all of the Chinese covered by the same have been checked out of Canada.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I should like to ask just in this connection whether this arrangement by which Chinese are allowed here under bond is not worse than any form of peonage.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 25th, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Hewitt Bostock: Before the debate proceeds, I might ask hon. members if they have any further remarks to offer concerning the point of order which was raised the other day. My ruling is, of course, ready to be delivered, but I should not like to prevent any hon. member from stating his point of view.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Speaker, after your announcement, I realise the futility of taking up much time in discussing this matter, but we deem it of suffi-

cient importance at all events to place ourselves very definitely on record in connection with it. I do not propose to quote again the amendment that was moved before recess last Friday, nor the amendment which was moved after recess, at eight o'clock. They will both be found in the remarks of my leader (Mr. Meighen) which appear in Hansard of last Friday. I do, however, want to support the contention that he then made, and I think as a preliminary to what I have to say, I should read the rule of our own .House upon the question. Rule No. 77 reads:
If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people-
"Charge upon the people" are the words that I wish to emphasize.
-the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned to such further day as the House thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole House, before any resolution or vote of the House do pass thereupon.
This rule has obtained in our parliament for half a century. As far as I have been able to read, it has obtained in the British House for 200 years, and I submit that it should not be lightly disregarded. The objection is two-fold. In the first place, it is contended that the amendment that was made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), that reached this House at six o'clock and that was seconded by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) was subsequently altered. The first point I wish to make is this, that the only amendment before this House that had a seconder was the amendment moved by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg and placed in the hands of the Speaker before recess. After recess-and we are led to believe as the result of some discussion owing- to the fact that that amendment was considered not to be in order-it was changed. Let us first see what is the duty of the Chair on receiving a motion which is considered unparliamentary. Rule 46 reads:
Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case.
There is no question that the amendment which was moved in the House by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) was presented to the Chair. There can be little or no question that that amendment was out of order; and I submit Sir, that the first thing to have been done in the circumstances was to have had recourse tc

Point of Order-Mr. Boys
rule 46. That was not done; but for reasons which cannot be fully disclosed, the amendment that was put by the Chair after recess was absolutely different in form from the original motion. It was different in parar graphs A., B. and C. of the operative part, inasmuch as it involved entirely new features; I refer now to those provisions of the amended motion relating to all natural resources. Now, what authority was there to make that change? Who seconded that amendment? I submit, Sir, that it had no seconder then, nor has it any seconder at the present time. I do not even know that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), who did second the amendment as originally moved by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, was present when the substituted motion was put to the House. I therefore contend that inasmuch as the second amendment as put by the Chair had no seconder it is consequently not properly before the House at the present moment; and I submit that there is no power whatever to make any such changes in the original motion as were made. It would seem to me that if there is any distinction between what has been done in the matter in hand and what might be done in connection with a formal notice of motion, which would first have to appear in Votes and Proceedings, there should be more formality and greater stricture in the case of such a motion as was submitted to the House by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. Let me quote May at page 216:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice. If a motion is proposed, which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the House, or upon a renewal of the notice.
I would direct the attention of the House again to the ground upon which any modification of a notice of motion may be made, that is to say,-
If the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice.
Now, Sir, there is no doubt that the substituted amendment does differ absolutely from the motion as originally presented to the House. And if in connection with a formal notice of motion which appears in Votes and Proceedings no change may be made without the consent of the House, how much more imperative, may we argue, that in relation to a matter of this kind, whereof there is not even intimation beforehand, there shall be no change unless the House is apprised of the fact. The amendment has been changed; no one contends for a moment that it has not. I do not know
what authority may be cited in support of that change. I am aware of course that there is a reference to a similar situation in the American rules of procedure, but I submit that such would not be a proper authority for this House. Indeed, I do not even know whether the rules observed in the United States are identical with ours. In any event I contend that no precedent available to this parliament can be found for the change that has been made in the present instance; there is no precedent so far as either the British practice or our own is concerned.
Let me now come to the second point. I have already shown what has been the practice in this House for half a century and in the British parliament for two centuries; and I find in Bourinot at page 430 the following :
It is now a fixed principle of constitutional government that all propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from the ministry.
At page 431 Bourinot says:
All the authorities go to show that, when the government have formally submitted to the House the question for the revision of customs and excise duties, it is competent for a member "to propose in committee to substitute another tax of equivalent amount for that proposed by ministers, the necessity of new taxation to a given extent being declared on behalf of the Crown". It is also competent for any member to propose another scheme of taxation for the same purpose, as a substitute for the government plan. But it is not regular to propose a new and distinct tax, which is not a mere increase or diminution of a duty upon an article already recommended by government for taxation, though it is the function of this committee to impose rather than to repeal taxes.
I submit that there is nothing whatever in that proposition which brings the present case within the category of exceptions. In the first place, there is no tax at all proposed at the present time and therefore there is no question of substituting any equivalent of a plan proposed by the government. An abundance of authority may be cited in support of the position I take on this matter for, as I have said, there are precedents covering a period of some two hundred years. Let me now refer to Redlich's The Procedure of the House of Commons, Vol. Ill at page 121. Referring to this very principle which has been dealt with in May, he says:
It is one of the oldest of the standing orders now in force: first enunciated on the 11th of July 1713, it has twice been expressly reaffirmed, on the 25th of June 1852 and on the 20th of March 1866. It runs as follows: This House will receive-
And I may remark that this is order 66 of the British House-
This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service, or proceed upon any motion
Point of Order-Mr. Speaker



CX)MMONS

[Stage Direction]
for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by parliament, unless recommended from the Crown.
I think it wise to read a few lines further in order that we may gather some idea of the reasons which have prompted the continuance of this rule during the lengthy period I 'have mentioned.
By laying down this rule the House of Commons placed in the hands of the government all power of initiative in respect of the expenditure of public money, voluntarily resigning, both for itself as a body and for all its individual members, a privilege which in theory nobody had dreamed of contesting. Since the order was made it has not been competent for one or more unofficial members of the House to propose by motion or petition a grant of money for any purpose,-
Of course, there is authority to show that a charge is dealt with in exactly the same manner as a grant of money. That will be found in May.
-or for the House to act upon such a proposal unless the grant is asked for by the Crown: Only when this is done does the House vote definite sums for definite purposes.. ..The limitation of power effected by this action was undoubtedly a constitutional innovation of the deepest importance: It was, however, effected not, as might have been expected, by statute, but by a simple order of the House of Commons, liable at any moment to be repealed by an equally simple action: And yet for almost two hundred years it has been allowed to remain untouched as one of the main principles of
British finance.... The limitation is dictated by a
wise recognition of a serious danger: It is a measure of protection against the easy extravagance of a large assembly-
I am sure we all agree that this applies here now.
The House well knows how real the risk would be were each member entitled to use his eloquence and tactical ability for the purpose of calling the public credit of the country and its taxpaying capacity to the aid of any object in which he was interested.
We may have in mind, for example, Belle River at the present time.
State expenditure ought to be the expenditure of the responsible administration.
I submit, for the reasons given that the point of order raised by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) is well taken; and I urge that the House should be cautious in permitting any innovation in relation to so valuable and important a rule and one of such long standing.
Hewitt Bostock: On Thursday, April 24,
Mr. Woodsworth (Centre Winnipeg) closed his speech on the motion for the committee of Ways and Means by moving an amendment which was handed to me in order that I might put the question. It struck me as objectionable both in its form and subject matter. I always had some misgivings about the regularity of a similar amendment moved 
last year by Mr. Forke (Brandon), which, I think, might have served its purpose equally well had it been made less specific; for such motions, in order to be entertained, must be framed in abstract and general terms. Using my unquestioned authority in such a case. I conferred with the mover who agreed to make the necessary corrections.
This circumstance was admitted by Mr. Woodsworth on the floor of the House last Friday when he said:
In consultation with the Speaker and the authorities of the House-
Meaning the officers.
-I consented to make such changes in the resolution as seemed to be necessary or advisable in order that it should conform more nearly with the accepted usages of the House.
May, at page 247, says:
Even when notice of motion is not required-
As in the present case.
-the motion should be placed, in print or writing, in the Speaker's hands; as, except in the event of any informality in the form of the motion which may necessitate the Speaker's intervention, or may compel him to decline to put the question from the chair, the Speaker puts the question in the words of the mover.
An eminent authority, I may say, Redlich, Vol. 2, page 221, declares:
The possibility of the Speaker's refusing to allow a motion to be voted upon can only arise in the case of motions which are out of order either in their subject-matter or in their form. Such are motions which contain unbecoming expressions, infringe the rules of the House or contain reflections upon a vote of the House. Irregularities of this kind, may, under the Speaker's authority, be corrected by the clerks at the table.
Cushing, No. 1,233, says:
When a motion has been made merely, but not yet proposed or stated by the Speaker-
WTiich was the case in the present instance.
-the mover may withdraw, or modify it at his pleasure. This, consequently, is the time at which objections to motions, especially in point of form, are usually made, either by the Speaker, or by other members; upon which the mover may either explain and insist upon his motion, as it stands, or he may withdraw it altogether; or, adopting the suggestions for amendment, may modify it at his pleasure; and this power of the mover may be exercised, as it seems, without reference to his seconder, if the motion has been seconded.
I could either have ruled the amendment out of order or accepted the corrected draft. I deemed it advisable to follow the latter course, and in doing so I actually observed the customs and usages of this House. Had the question been put, I should certainly not have allowed it to be altered, because once the Speaker has stood up and read a motion

Point of Order-Mr. Speaker
or amendment, it ceases to be under the mover's control and can only be withdrawn by leave of the House to be granted without any negative voice, under rule 43, as so aptly remarked by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) speaking on the point of order.
As to the second objection raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) namely, that such a motion can only be made by a minister with the recommendation of the Crown, the theory is the same whether the motion relates to imposition of taxes or expenditure of public money, but it differs as to reduction of taxation. The amendment asks both for a reduction of certain customs duties and the taxation of unimproved land values. The decision given by Mr. Speaker Denison in 1858 settles the question as to levying new imposts or voting money which is governed by exactly the same principles. This most eminent authority said that there were indeed precedents in which the House had given an expression of its opinion that a certain vote of public money should be made; but it remained for the House to decide how far such intimations of opinion should bind it in the future course which it might adopt. Such intimations certainly created no new charge on the public, but they led to no practical result, and the whole question had to be begun again de novo, and to pass through all the forms of the House. (British Debates, 3rd Series, Yol. 151.
p. 1,168).
I may cite the following British precedents of motions made by private members for the expenditure of public money:
On the 9th July, 1858, the House carried an amendment expressing the opinion that the cost of the purification of the river Thames should be borne by the consolidated fund and the metropolitan ratepayers in equal proportion (Commons Journals, p. 113).
On the 24th April, 1863, it carried an amendment stating that the government should give sailors' homes such pecuniary assistance as in its judgment and discretion may be advisable (Commons Journals, p. 118).
On the 30th June, 1869, it adopted a motion stating it was expedient that the judges upon whom new duties and responsibilities might be imposed should receive additional remuneration of 300 pounds a year. (Commons Journals, p. 124.)
On March 13th, 1890, it carried an amendment that it was expedient that all deficiencies of the equipment of volunteers which were necessary to efficiency, and all debts of corps properly incurred on account of the same, be 98
made good from the public revenues. (Commons Journals, p. 145.)
There are, as we know, several Canadian precedents.
My immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker Rhodes, said from the chair, on March 16, 1921,-and I agree with him-:
Taking the general view, it does seem to me that if the House were unduly to restrict hon. members in moving motions of this character it would serve to circumscribe debate to a very marked degree, because after all few resolutions are moved which would not in themselves, if carried into effect, involve the expenditure of public money. It seems to me the better principle would be to widen the rule as much as possible in order that the sense of the House may be taken upon these matters, it being understood in all cases that these resolutions merely involve an expression of opinion on the part of the House and that they do not affect the constitutional method of placing upon the government the responsibility of initiating all legislation which has for its object the expenditure of money.
The private member's right to move for a reduction of taxation suffers no limitation under our parliamentary rules and usages. May, at page 469, says:
It follows as a matter of course that a motion to alleviate the burthens upon the people is not within the scope of the standing orders relating to the imposition of charges upon the people. A bill for diminishing or repealing a tax or other public burthen, unless the imposition of a new tax is proposed by way of substitution, is introduced without the royal recommendation or preliminary committee stage. Amendments, also, strictly confined to relief from pecuniary burthens, can be considered both in committee and with the Speaker in the chair.
And at page 506 he says:
Proposals to reduce a burthen upon the people may be made in the House or in committee, no special form of procedure being prescribed for such a motion or for the introduction of bills which are strictly confined to the reduction of a tax or charge upon the people.
On the 18th May, 1920, Mr. Fielding-one of the oldest members of the House and, I must say, a very eminent authority on parliamentary procedure-moved an amendment on the motion for the committee of Ways and Means, specifically asking for a reduction of the customs duties on the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion.
On the ninth of June, 1919, Mr. McMaster moved, inter alia, in amendment to Sir Thomas White's budget proposals:
That the tariff should be so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof.
It is true that rule 46 was overlooked in this case, but nobody suffered any prejudice or injustice from the fact. Whether or not the



The Budget-Mr. Robicliaud
House was apprised of any irregularity in the motion would not have divested Mr. Woodsworth of his right to modify it before it was put from the Chair. No member could force him to go on with it in the form in which he first read it, and he did not need the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw it as long as the House was not seized of it. So that the non-observance of that rule does not affect the situation in any way whatever, and it cannot be said to have prevented the discussion of any point of order, as it is well known that such a point can be raised at any time, even in the course of debate. This rule is more particularly a rule of practice and it cannot affect the rights of members as long as its non-observance does not cause any prejudice.
In accordance with these authorities and precedents, I must rule that the amendment as put by myself from the Chair is in order. The amendment which was handed to the Speaker on Friday by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) is therefore out of order, because no two amendments can be moved to the motion that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.


Mr. J. G. ROBICHAUD (Gloucester):: It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to add extensively to this debate. If, however, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments I hope that I shall command the generous forbearance of hon. members. It is certainly with the greatest regret that we note the absence of the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). The tidings of his illness came as a shock to the whole country, especially at a time when his great financial abilities were almost indispensable. I join with other hon. members of this House as well as with the people of the country generally in wishing him early and complete restoration of his health.
An event of great consequence was the visit to the Maritime provinces during the recess of parliament of their Excellencies the Governor General and the Lady Byng of Vimy. Never in the history of my constituency have distinguished visitors attracted keener interest. Received with an open heart by the clergy of all creeds and denominations, cheered by the multitudes of the people, acclaimed by the school children, Lord and Lady Byng of Vimy found a place in their hearts for every one who greeted them. I wish to avail myself of this first opportunity of expressing publicly the deep sense of gratitude which I feel in the signal honour which has been bestowed upon us and to express the wish that the striking spirit of democracy displayed by the vice-regal party amidst my

French constituents of the county of Gloucester may serve only to strengthen our adherence to and our love for British institutions.
Much has been said since the opening of the session in connection with the by-elections in the provinces by the sea. One of those elections at least has been the cause of a great column of smoke. The hon.
4. p.m. member who was successful in the election in the county of Kent certainly deserves our best congratulations on his pluck and his perseverance as a politician. I admire his fine qualities as a debater, and his personality is almost faultless. But Mr. Speaker, I cannot refrain from giving the hon. member a little bit of warning with respect to his aggressive inclinations and urging him to assume an attitude of moderation, an attitude that will win for his constituency the sympathy and good will of parliament. While I hold no brief for hon. members who have been guilty of the atrocious crime of laying bare the errors of the late administration, especially those committed under the leadership of the present right hon. leader of the opposition, and while I dislike acrimonious attacks as much as anyone, especially as between members of parliament, yet I am of the opinion that the people of this country cannot and will never forget the workings of the 1917 War-time Elections Act and its disregard for the sacred principles of responsible government as well as its violation of the confederation pact. Nor will the people of Canada ever forget the lost opportunity of 1911 when through a campaign of class against masses, of camouflage in lieu of true light, the electorate were led into an error that will always be regretted. We cannot forget, either, the situation in which wTe were left in the fall of 1921, and in an attempt to render his movements more strategic the right hon. leader of the opposition has just placed in the hands of the only representative of the French element to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, an amendment prescribed by the caucus of his party. I believe that the hon. member for Kent . (Mr. Doucet) is treading on unsafe ground, first, in trying to defend his party from the just retribution which is its due, and second, in committing for all time to come the peaceful peasants of the good old county of Kent to a policy of protection. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that when the time comes the electors of the county of Kent, whose interests are absolutely identical with those of the constituency of Gloucester, will not fail to put him on a better path, and that they will do this with quite a sharp turn.

The Budget-Mr. Robicliaud
Much has been said throughout the press and otherwise about the so-called Maritime rights. If such rights exist, and I believe they do exist but only in the abstract, it would be interesting to note who have been responsible for whatever is wrong. Hon. gentlemen representing New Brunswick constituencies who sit to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, have, at meetings in the constituency of Kent and in the city of Halifax, taken the ground that the present government should be saddled with the responsibility for whatever may be wrong with the present status of the Maritime provinces. But my contention is that those provinces are now suffering from the evils inflicted on them during the ten years of maladminstration which preceded the election of 1921. By the terms of confederation we were given a railroad which was to unite us more closely with the Upper and Lower Canadas of that day; the object was to repay us for the concessions we had to make in the interest of our sister provinces in the West. But what happened? In 1915 legislation was passed with the intention of taking over branch lines, and especially in the Maritime provinces. The purpose of the legislation was good but in giving effect to it the policy was overdone. Certain interests that had made large investments in railways and practically lost those investments manifested a desire to -feed at the public crib. In 1917 a policy of nationalization of railways was embarked upon by the federal administration of the time, and the Maritime provinces saw the Intercolonial, a road which was built to give effect to the confederation pact, taken from them and merged into the great National system. _ That action constitutes part of our grievances in the Maritime provinces. I submit that the Intercolonial railway-which as I already said formed part of the inalienable property of the Maritime provinces-which was built to promote the best interests of that part of Canada, should have been left intact to carry out the object for which it was constructed. An analysis of the stand which hon. gentlemen opposite from New Brunswick have taken indicates that they have been actuated by partisan and not disinterested motives. We know where the trouble lies for the present condition of affairs and where the remedy can be found. Much has been said with respect to the rights of the Maritime provinces, but I doubt whether any one party holds the brief to defend those rights. My hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. member for Kent have thrown upon 98i
the present government the blame for the grievances which exist to-day and have practically made the issue a political one. Now, to show what serious minded men in the Maritime provinces are thinking about in regard to those provinces and their rights, and the direction in which they think a remedy can be found, I am going to quote what the Hon. C. W. Robinson, a man of great experience and clear vision, who is now Minister of Lands and Mines in New Brunswick, stated in a communication which was published by the St. John Telegraph in January last. I want to read the statement just to show that the question of rights of the Maritime provinces should not be considered a political football, but rather that it should be treated in a serious light by the men of all parties and regarded as too sacred to be dealt with in a political way. This is what Mr. Robinson said:
Our influence is naturally declining along with our proportion of population. In 1867 we had, roughly, one-Quarter the population of Canada while to-day we have only one-eighth. And the outlook of the future does not indicate any improvement. Under the B.N.A. Act, unfortunately, as provinces are not treated alike. British Columbia, for instance, was safeguarded against a reduction in representation, while we have no such protection, and our representation is diminishing. With such a situation staring us in the face, our people are not happy. We are peculiarly sensitive to any action on the part of the Dominion which seems to encroach on what we consider our ancient rights and privileges. The flamboyant prophecies of the Fathers of Confederation as to the future development of our harbours have not materialized. These harbours are convenient national terminals in time of war, but Portland, Maine, looms large in times of peace. When car shortage becomes acute, it is the Maritimes which suffer most. The cost of transportation hems us in- this is not an unmixed evil-it is driving large business houses to establish centres of business in the Maritimes, on the one hand while on the other it cruelly handicaps those local industries which desire to extend their trade to the west. Perhaps we should turn our eyes oceanward and seek to reap some of the advantages of the Maritime position.
Some of us thought that freer trade with the States would help out the situation, but the verdict of the people closed that door most effectively.
Mr. Robinson, goes on to say:
Recently some progress has been made in improving our condition. The establishment of the Atlantic region of the C.N.R., with headquarters at Moncton, was a long step in advance.
The encouragement of our winter ports and giving them a preference under the Fielding tariff is already having its effect. The car shortage seems to have been remedied. The efforts now being made by the C.N.R. to develop greater tourist travel in our direction is bound to have a beneficial result. It is in the power of the railway to do much along this and other lines which will contribute to greater progress and prosperity for this part of the country, and I have confidence that the future will show that they are fully seized of their responsibilities, and in their own interest will assist greatly in our development.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
We must realize that national conditions demand that some economics be made. While it is necessaiy and quite proper for us to keep before the rest of Canada the matters which are so vital to our people, we must also think in wider circles, take pride in our country as a whole, get busy, forget our troubles, take advantage of our many opportunities, and go forth to fill our place in the larger prosperity which, I believe, is slowly but surely coming our way.
This, Mr. Speaker, is to show this House and the country what little, if any, shade of political partisanship our public men of New Brunswick are introducing into this question of Maritime rights. The Hon. Fred. Magee, the minister without portfolio in the New Brunswick legislature, a man standing high in the esteem of the people of the Maritime provinces, a man who has made a special study of Maritime rights, and whose opinion is regarded as commensurate with his immense business ability, gave the following opinion in an article he published in the St. John Telegraph Journal on the 19th January last. Referring to Maritime rights and political partisanship, the hon. gentleman, in referring to a serious question which had been put to him by the editor of the Journal, said:
In reply to your question number two as to what is the best way to secure our " rights," so called, permit me to say that we must have abolition of the doctrine of Maritime rights as a party dogma. It is a Maritime, not a party matter. No party includes all the Maritime patriots and no party should so imagine. Let this be understood. Our federal representatives should co-operate, as party allegiance is not a means to an end, in this case. Careful, sensible, practical, straightforward, impersonal, unemotional and non-partisan presentation of our case at opportune times by those we send to Ottawa is essential. Federal members please note.
In conclusion I still maintain that legislative union with Nova Scotia should be consummated that we may wield greater power and influence in the National council of Canada in which Maritime statesmen have always played a prominent and important part. I
I may interject right here, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Mr. Magee, is a fervent believer in Maritime union. I doubt very much if he is right in his belief, but after all it is very pleasant to know that he has, in the representatives from Nova Scotia on the floor of this House, quite a number of supporters in this regard.
It has been stated that this government had neglected to take care, or had refrained from taking care, of the rights of the Maritime provinces. It has also been stated that this government was going too far in its policy or in its endeavour to maintain public works in the Maritime provinces. It has been further stated that the matter of public works was becoming a public scandal. These public works have even been termed the notorious pork barrel. I wish to take exception Mr. Speaker,

to these insinuations. It matters not whether they come from Grattan O'Leary, or whether they have been inserted in MacLean's Magazine, the Montreal Star, or the Moncton Times, I claim these insinuations reflect upon the honesty of my constituents as well as upon the honesty of the representatives of the country. In support of my assertion, Mr. Speaker, I may say that when the late administration went out of power on the 4th August, 1911 the fishermen of the county of Gloucester enjoyed a large amount of protection in the way of public accommodation. A good start had been made in the improvement of our harbours, and industry itself was in a very flourishing condition. Much has been said about what has been recently termed, as I said before, the pork barrel. MacLean's Magazine was especially to the fore in articles relating to the doings of this government is looking to the upkeep of those public works in the Maritime provinces. My constituents in the county of Gloucester regard these insinuations as a reflection upon their integrity and loyalty as citizens of Canada. If we want to reconstruct or put our public works on a sound footing, it is because our people desire to pursue their occupations and to remain in the country. It is because we, in the county of Gloucester prize more than anything else the old homestead, and those parcels of the historic land of Evangeline, which were allotted to the sturdy fishermen of the Maritime provinces.
To demonstrate our position before the House and the country, let me enumerate different public works which had been neglected under the late administration, and point out to you the condition in which we found them when the late government went out of power. Of course these details are not very pleasant to listen to, but I want to make clear my point on this subject, and to show that we are not indulging in the county of Gloucester in the luxury of the so-called pork barrel. I want to make it plain that if we want our share of the public money, it is because of our industrial needs, because our fishermen, through their patriotism, desire to remain in the country, because they wish to eke out a fair living for their families, and because they are engaged in an industry which must be maintained for the benefit of Canada.
In enumerating the different public works which have been neglected by the late administration in Gloucester county, I may mention first the Miscou wharf built on the north shore of Miscou harbour where the Baie des Chaleurs herring industry is carried

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
on most extensively. Situated on the island of Miscou, this wharf was built some 20 years ago and it was of the greatest service to the one thousand inhabitants on that island. In 1921 we found that the superstructure of that wharf was almost completely gone and crumbling into pieces. I would ask any hon. member if he thinks it would be an extravagant expenditure to keep up and repair that wharf for the benefit of those poor people. Some $10,000 will have to be spent by this government: $1,000 two years ago, $3,000 last year, and the House will be asked to vote a further sum of $5,500 this year in order to complete the repairs upon the Miscou wharf. If we have to spend $10,000 to repair a structure which cost the government some $30,000 to build, is it not undeniable evidence, that public works were shamefully neglected by the late administration?
We have another wharf some few miles away at Petite Lameque, where a large fleet of fishing vessels are engaged in the fishing industry. It was found, when the late administration went out of power, that the flooring of that wharf was practically all gone and that it had to be rebuilt immediately. In that instance, we had to spend two years ago a further sum of $2,000 out of the public treasury. At Lameque where we have one of the most important groups of fishermen in the Maritime provinces and where at the expense of some SS0.000 of public money a public wharf had been built under the Laurier administration, it was found, as I say, that the structure was broken up, the flooring was gone and the stringers were breaking through,
I may state also that the caretaker of that wharf during the late administration wrote to the Department of Public Works telling them that the wharf was in a dangerous condition and, as a reply, he received orders to close the wharf if it was dangerous for public use. That is the kind of regard that the late administration had for our fishermen in the county of Gloucester.
At Shippigan, we found a wharf altogether too small for the great bulk of business that was being carried on there. The wharf was congested from one end to the other. Repeated demands had been made upon the late administration to have the evil remedied, but as in other cases in the constituency of Gloucester, the late administration turned a deaf ear to our legitimate demands. The result was that this government at the last session of parliament caused to be voted a further sum of $7,000 to enlarge and repair the wharf at Shippigan. Under the judicious supervision of the present Department of
Public Works, there has been created at Shippigan, at a very trifling expense, one of the finest fishing docks in the Maritime provinces, a dock that can shelter the whole of Gloucester county's magnificent fishing fleet, a dock which is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the people there, and a dock which is certainly a credit to the present government.
At Caraquet-and I am sorry the hon. member for St. John city and counties of St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) is not in his seat when I make mention of this structure-we found a great fishing fleet without a wharf on which to land their fish. We found that the old government wharf had crumbled; that all but two or three of the spans were broken. The fishermen were left without a wharf, and it was up to this administration to come to their aid and spend at Caraquet a further sum of about $30,000 in order to enable them to pursue their occupation. The hon. member for St. John city, in his visit to Caraquet last year, while trying to reinvigorate the fragmentary remnants of the Tory party in my constituency, paid a visit to that wharf, and he admitted that the poor fishermen of Caraquet were in a very undesirable plight. The result of my effort in this regard is that a sum of $27,500 has been placed in the main estimates of this year for the reconstruction of that wharf, and I sincerely hope that when this money is voted, neither the hon. member for St. John city nor any other representing Ms party in New Brunswick, nor Grattan O'Leary, nor the Montreal Star, nor MacLean's magazine will throw in the face of the people of Gloucester county that this wharf has been built for the purpose of capturing the votes of my constituents.
I am about half through with wharves in the county of Gloucester. The fishing industry of my constituency amounts to over $3,250,000 a year. We have engaged in tb<"-industry a large fleet of fishing boats owned by men who with their predecessors have followed that industry for over a century, and I maintain that is is the duty of this government to keep that industry in such a shape as to encourage those who are engaged in it to continue to pursue their occupation and to remain within the bounds of this country.
At Inkerman, when I was given the honour to represent my constituency, I found the farmers and fishermen were forced to use sleds drawn by horses to land the fruits of their labour, the products of the sea. I found that those who were not equipped with a horse and sled had to land their fish over the railing of the Mghway bridge. I made cer-
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

tain representations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) upon the strength of which there was built at Inkerman a wharf that greatly accommodates that very progressive little village. This wharf was made available to my constituents at Inker-man at the nominal cost of $3,500. At Grande Anse we find that a dock which was built by the Laurier government prior to the elections of 1911 had been left absolutely without repairs throughout the whole administration of the late government, not a dollar having been spent upon it. The basin has been allowed to become silted in those places where vessels of any considerable size should be able to come in, so that where formerly there was a depth of from ten to fifteen feet of water we find to-day that our poor fishermen are obliged to use rowboats instead of fishing schooners, for there is no more than from two or three feet of water.
Now, in spite of the large expenditures to which this government is subjected, I am bound to say that the necessity for further expenditure at Grande Anse is becoming increasingly keener. We have there a class of fishermen who are second to none in the Maritime provinces; but they have had to abandon their occupation and are now leaving our country and going to the United States. This is due to no fault whatever of the present government but to the neglect of the late administration; for the country cannot afford to spend a further amount of between $30,000 and $35,000 in order to alleviate the difficulties that are being felt in that vicinity at the present time but I hope that the time is not far distant when this work will be undertaken and carried to completion. At Stonehaven, I heard a few days ago, the structure of the wharf has gone and, that it must be rebuilt, and rebuilt without further delay. At Petit Roeher, at the time the late administration went out of power, the breakwater, owing to the action of the sea, was breaking in, and had to be repaired by the present government at a cost of some $14,000.
An important matter that interests my constituents is the protection which is necessary for the fishermen at Shippigan gully, which is the eastern entrance of Shippigan harbour. Shippigan gully is the only shelter between the Gaspe coast and IMiramichi bay, for the eighteen hundred fishermen of Gloucester county who are engaged in the fishing industry; there is no other place where our fishermen can put in in case of a storm. This passage has been so badly neglected that in 1913 some fourteen fishermen lost their lives off the island of Miscou. This unfortunate fatality was inevitable inasmuch as the fisher-

men could not depend upon Shippigan gully as an entrance in the darkness of night. I brought this matter to the attention of the present Minister of Public Works and also to the attention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries with the result that the lighting and buoy system in Shippigan gully has been so improved that it is one of the best that we have in eastern New Brunswick. I have enumerated the improvements that have been made, as well as the difficulties which our fishermen have laboured under in the past, in order to show to the country that after all this so-called pork barrel is not a vote-catcher but is an absolute necessity for the pioneer settlers in the Maritime provinces.
Before I resume my seat I desire to deal for a few moments with the budget, and I trust that hon. members will not tax me with exceeding my privileges. The study given to the budget by hon. members who have already spoken is commanding the keenest interest of the public, and from what I have been able to gather it would seem that hope and courage, perseverance and endurance will be restored in this land which we have learned so deeply to love and cherish. Apart from the pessimistic views expressed by hon. members to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, there is a general manifestation of contentment and satisfaction in the tone of our deliberations; and this manifestation, displayed as it is by the majority of the representatives of the people, is an undeniable evidence of the feeling which is being credited throughout the country by the efforts of this government to extricate it from the predicament in which it was placed by the late administration It has been abundantly demonstrated that the tariff reforms brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) are quite acceptable to the people of the country and that they are perhaps the best that could have been submitted for our consideration. An analysis of the budget by an unbiased mind will readily show that a great measure of relief is afforded the common people of Canada, who have suffered more than any other class during the period of deflation which has so seriously undermined their position in this country. A substantial reduction in taxation will be enjoyed by the poorer classes, and a large measure of confidence will be created throughout the country, confidence which will have an immediate effect upon the exodus of our people and which will stimulate business and hasten a much needed return to normal. It has been clearly demonstrated that several years of tariff stagnation have been very detrimental to Canada. There was the greatest evidence of this during the

period that elapsed from the termination of the Great War to the defeat of Toryism in 1921. The Canadian dollar had depreciated to an alarming extent, an adverse balance of trade was in evidence, Canadians were losing faith in themselves and unity of strength was lacking as between the different elements of our population. This situation, Mr. Speaker, could not be remedied overnight.
It speaks well for this government, that conditions have taken such a decisive and sure return to normal. That the fiscal policy of this government will stimulate this reaction is a foregone conclusion. Surely, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny the fact that the immediate help given to our basic industries by this budget will bring better days to Canada and its people.
It is very interesting to note how easy it is to set the whole political machinery working when an attempt is made to free the common people from the burden of taxation, when such reductions will reflect either directly or indirectly upon the big interests. If hon. members will recollect the campaign launched by the press to defeat reciprocity in 1911, it can very well be stated that the same propaganda is about to be let loose, that the press supporting my friends opposite is ever ready to camouflage the issue in an attempt to mislead the masses of the people.
Already it has been said that manufacturing concerns have had to close their doors as a direct result of a reduction in the import duties. If the reductions suggested in the budget-reductions which are partly upset by a rebate in the cost of raw materials-will force these manufacturers to discontinue their operations, I cannot but infer that these industrials are not imbued with that spirit of courage and determination which should characterize every true Canadian citizen. If our manufacturers cannot loyally and fearlessly put their hands to the wheel and help to alleviate the heavy burdens placed on the shoulders of our people by the extravagant expenditures of the late administration if they cannot forsake some of their profits in order to stimulate business in Canada, if they cannot muster together enough of self control, enough ingenuity, enough of that resourcefulness which we must reasonably expect the business men of this country to possess in order to carry on their business and overcome the obstacles which they profess to find in these tariff reductions-how then can they expect the farmers of the West as well as those of the East, to support the heavy burden which is imposed upon them by customs duties and otherwise? How can they expect
The Budget-Mr. Manion
a man with a family of ten or twelve, such as we so frequently find in the provinces of the East, to subsist on the meagre salary of a bushman or the scant revenue of a small farm, and pay into the pockets of the manufacturer large proportions of their earnings so as to increase the earnings of these latter to such an extent that millions of dollars are now available to wage war against the consumers.
The time is opportune, Mr. Speaker, for the country to grasp the situation with a true sense of Canadian citizenship. Never has the opportunity been so favourable to unite under one policy, under one flag, the destinies of our country; and for this reason and in the fulfilment of my most sacred duties towards my electors and my country it will be my pleasure to give my wholehearted support to the budget.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I join most
heartily in the expressions of sympathy for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his serious illness, and in the hopes which have been expressed that he may soon be in his seat again. May I at the same time express a word of sympathy with my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) who has sustained such a serious affliction within the past few days? My sympathy is all the stronger, Sir, in view of the fact that during the past two months, although a very busy man, I know that he always made time to visit his sick father at least twice or thrice every day.
In looking over the budget which is now before the House, Mr. Speaker, anyone who is at all fair in his estimate must, I submit, after considering its various aspects, come to the conclusion that if the budget is accepted and endorsed by the country at the next election, it is the forerunner of free trade for the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I hear some applause from hon. members to my left. Therefore apparently they are hoping that this will be the case, and as they are in a position to command they will probably see to it that this result follows. If this budget is accepted and endorsed by the country, it will be a departure from the fiscal policy which Canada has enjoyed from 1878 to 1923. I use the word "enjoyed" advisedly, Sir, because anyone who looks over the statistics showing the progress which this country has made on the whole from 1878 to the present time must be convinced that Canada has had a fair share of prosperity during those years.

The Budget-Mr. Manion
I may be asked in what I base my statement that if this budget is accepted and endorsed by the people it means free trade for Canada. I base my assertion upon two main points. First, upon the slashing cuts in the tariff on many lines of goods which have been made by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), cuts which, to my mind, are more marked than any which have ever been made in the tariff in any previous budget. Secondly, upon the speeches of those who have preceded m'e in this debate: Upon the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in which he, as the first member of the government speaking after the budget was delivered, in a carefully prepared statement, said that he hoped this budget was the death knell of protection in Canada; upon the speech of the hon. minister without portfolio from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Sinclair), who took practically the same attitude; upon the speech of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), who congratulated the government on the tariff cuts and hoped that the duty on boots and shoes might be reduced next; upon the speeches of my hon. friends to the left who have rejoiced in the tariff cuts, and have rejoiced also in the hope that further reductions will come in the near future, pointing out that the present reductions were only a beginning. As I stated a minute ago, the Progressive party is in a position of command at the present time; the government cannot retain power without the support of the Progressive party in this House. I say therefore that no party could carry out such a policy as this without the support of my hon. friends to the left. Consequently, being in a position of command, and being sincere in their views in regard to free trade-as I give them credit for-I submit there are very sound grounds for assuming that if this budget is accepted and endorsed by the people it means the beginning of free trade for the Dominion.
At the same time, Sir, there is, I think, great satisfaction in the minds of public men generally that at last this issue is clearly defined. I feel that it is an advantage to the people generally to have this issue defined in such a way that free traders will have to take one side of the political fence and protectionists the other side. No longer will hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), the hon. ex-Minister of Justice (Sir

Lomer Gouin) and other hon. gentlemen in the Liberal ranks be able to take the attitude of protection in their own constituencies, knowing that free trade is being preached in other constituencies, but feeling assured that if the party which they are supporting should win no damage would be done to the industrial interests of this country.
Sir, no longer will those who stand for a tariff for revenue be able to say that they hope there will be enough incidental protection to take care of the industries of this country. As a matter of fact a tariff for revenue is not protective at all: it is a false term when used by any hon. gentleman in this House or out of it as indicating in any way a protective tariff. A tariff for revenue is such a tariff as Great Britain has to-day; it is a free trade tariff, if I may use the expression-though it was stated, I remember, by someone in the last election that that was not a proper term. I submit that it is, Sir, because a tariff for revenue means a tariff upon luxuries, which can be imposed under any system, a tariff upon goods which are not produced in the country, as in England they raise five-sixths of their customs revenue from imposts upon sugar, tea and tobacco, which for the most part are not produced in their own country. But if there is any tariff put upon goods which are produced in the country, then a compensating excise duty must be put upon the commodity produced at home in order to take away any element of protection. So that our tariff for revenue men will not be able to claim that they are protectionists.
It must be a source of satisfaction to the people of the country to feel that in the next election they will be able by their voice and vote to say which policy must be accepted and carried out in the Dominion of Canada. No longer will the Liberal-Conservative party be accused of dragging in the free trade bogey by the scruff of the neck, as they have been accused in the past, because the government in power to-day, by their marked cuts in the tariff, by their promises of more to come, and by their expressed hope that this is the death knell of protection, have defined the issue upon which the next election will be fought in this country, and the people will decide the result.	So I believe we may
congratulate ourselves, Mr. Speaker, upon the defining of the issue, upon the fact that we are now at least out in the open, and that the people, not this House, will settle this question finally.
Believing, Sir, in protection as the best policy which Canada can have, believing in

The Budget-Mr. Manion
the dangers not only commercially and economically but nationally to Canada in a policy of free trade, I have no difficulty in taking sides on this question. I find myself happily associated with the group in this House who have since 1878 stood for a protective policy for Canada. Neither will my hon. friends to my left, out and out free traders, as most of them are, have any difficulty in taking sides on this question. But there are a number of hon. gentlemen in the Liberal party who call themselves protectionist Liberals who will have to come out in the open and take sides either for free trade or for protection. So that
5 p.m. the government may be congratulated, in a sense, upon having unconsciously defined the issue, even though they have done so much damage to the industries of this country.
There have been more complaints about this budget than have been offered in respect of any budget previously brought down in Canada. The farm implement manufacturers have complained, the wagon manufacturers, the steel manufacturers, the paint manufacturers-these have complained about what has been done; and the boot and shoe and the woollen manufacturers have complained about what might have been done to help them that has been left undone.
There is one quality in this budget upon which I should like to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and one quality alone, and that was its brevity, because, Sir, if he did so much damage to the industries of this country in forty minutes I find myself fearing what he could have done had he gone on for an hour and a half. It is said that brevity is the soul of wit. I must confess that I find very little either of wit or of wisdom in this budget. It is a good deal like nitro-glycerine, of which a small amount can cause a great deal of damage: this budget has done more damage in less time than any budget which has ever been produced in Canada. I imagine it was a rather difficult budget for the Acting Minister of Finance to produce, because those of us who have known and liked him for the past seven years or so in this House have looked upon him as one of the outstanding instances of the protectionist on the Liberal side. Of course, I do not suppose any one of us has the right to object to the Acting Minister of Finance standing on his head, but we do object to his standing the whole industrial life of Canada on its head.
Now, Sir, dealing with the budget, I should like to ask what there is in this budget which will do any good to the people. It might be
answered that the cutting down of the sales tax will do good. Well, I am not quarrelling with that; I submit that if the sales tax could be cut off altogether it would probably be for the benefit of Canada. But that is only naturally getting away from taxation as we get away from the war; it has nothing to do with the tariff cuts. And what have the tariff cuts done? I shall give my own opinion, for as much as it is worth, but such as it is I must lay it before the House. The tariff reductions will first of all benefit the United States industries concerned. Secondly, they will injure seriously, if not ruin, the Canadian industries affected, and they will depress all other industries, because no industrial leader knows today when the government will feel it necessary to cut off his head and throw it to the wolves in order that the administration may be kept in power. Thirdly, they will discourage, if not halt, the investment of Canadian money in industrial enterprises, because if there are two things which those require who invest in industrial enterprises, they are security for the present and stability for the future, and there is neither security not stability in this budget. Fourth, they will increase unemployment in Canada; they will drive more of the artisans and workingmen of Canada to the United States and so diminish the home market for the farmers, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Someone has said, I think it was the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton)-and it was a reasonable statement-that the men who left this country would, had they been employed here, earn an average of about $1,000 per annum each. As we lost 181,000 people last year, even dividing that number by two it means an annual loss to this country of from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 per annum. In fact, it is one of the greatest exports we have, and I presume that next year this government, which has so little of which to boast and which boasts of so little, may probably boast that they have been the producers of one of the greatest exports in that regard. I notice that this year they included in their exports settlers' effects, the property of those who had permanently left the country.
What are the compensations to the prairie provinces for the destructive features of the budget? The most that any of us, even the most optimistic, could claim would be a reduction of a very few cents in the prices of farm implements bought by the people on the prairies. I submit that it is not the tariff that is injuring the prairie provinces. It is not the tariff which is bringing about a period of stagnation and depression in this

The Budget-Mr. Manion
country-at least, not the high tariff.'In fact, may I interject that under all systems, whether of free trade or protection, in any country we have from time to time periods of depression and stagnation. But the injury to the prairie provinces has really been brought about by four main conditions. First, the world conditions, the chaotic conditions of Europe which have destroyed markets, lessened the purchasing power of the people, and so to a great extent brought about the lowering of the prices of the products of the prairies. Secondly, there is the long haul over which the prairie products have to pass to the seaboard in order that they may be distributed to the markets of the world. Third, as claimed by the people of the prairies themselves, there are the marketing conditions, in respect to which they are proposing different pooling arrangements. Fourth, there is the lack of proper credits for the farmers of the West- that. again is a claim of their own, and I put it forward for what it is worth; they claim there is an intermediate zone of credit which is not looked after. I suppose that any one of these four has a much greater effect upon the depression in the West than any effect that might be brought about by tariffs. The same conditions are injuring the wheat fanners of the prairie states, because they are in very much the same position as our own farmers in the West.
Then what is the object of the changes in the tariff? Sir, it is simply a mad desire on the part of this government to keep in power at any price. It is an attempt to purchase the votes of the West at the expense of the industrial East. Someone has described this budget as national suicide; I should like to describe it as national homicide, because it is a premeditated killing of the industrial East to gain the votes of the West.
It may be said that that language is too strong. Well, in view of the broken pledges of the present government in regard to tariff matters I do not think that the language is too strong. Let me in just a few words review those broken pledges: First, in 1919 there was the platform of the Liberal party under which free trade was proposed in many lines, but the whole was jettisoned as soon as the party got into power. Then, secondly, there was the Prime Minister's promise, quoted the other day in this House by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), that no legitimate industry would be injured if the Liberal party got into power. Certainly some legitimate industries are being injured at the present time, Then in 1922 there were a few minor cuts in
fMr. Manion.]
the tariff with a promise of more to come, and in 1923 Mr. Fielding, realizing the danger of the course he was pursuing, made a few further cuts but stated that we had gone	far	enough	and	that	stabilitywas needed in this country if we were to have industrial prosperity. Then in 1924, in	the	Speech	from	the	Throne,
we have stability thrown to the winds and promises made of further tariff cuts. Then deputations came down and waited upon the Acting Minister of Finance and the government, and the Acting Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, according to the press reports, practically promised to those deputations that they need not fear that they were going to be injured from a tariff standpoint at all. I hold in my hand editorials from strong protectionist journals congratulating the government on that attitude. However, only a few weeks later marked cuts in the tariff were announced in the budget. I do not think that a better illustration of confusion worse confounded could be given than the action of the government with respect to the tariff. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole tariff history of this government has been one of deception, trickery, and vote chasing. It has been a course of promise and recant, advance and retreat, dodge and sidestep,-in fact it may well be considered a sort of improvised political fox trot: a few steps forward, a few steps back, a sideways glide, and then turn around.
May I, Mr. Speaker, now deal with the question of free trade and protection in this country? The question of whether we shall have free trade or protection in Canada is of the utmost importance to this country. I repeat it is of the utmost importance, not only commercially and industrially but nationally. Not only does our national prosperity depend upon this issue but our national destiny also depends upon it, because in the final analysis the decision whether we are to have free trade or protection in Canada will have a preponderating effect upon our relations not only with the British Isles but with the great republic to the south. Is not that logical? Once we come to depend upon the United States as a market for our raw materials-for our timber, for our fish, for our minerals, and so on-how are we going to maintain that market in anything like a stable manner without some form of union with the United States? Suppose that again in the future, just as at the present time, another high tariff party comes into power in the United States, and they adopt another tariff, just as high as at the present time or

The Budget-Mr. Manion
even higher, against the raw materials and products of Canada, will not this country be placed in a worse position than it is to-day? And how then can we possibly retain anything like trade stability without some form of union with the United States? Sir, the policy of free trade if it were finally brought into operation in this country-as I think it will be if the people endorse the present changes in the tariff-would finally lead to the economic domination of Canada by the United States. It would then lead to Canada becoming a commercial appendage, a commercial adjunct as someone has said, of the United States. It would lead first to commercial union and then to annexation as stated by Mr. Taft and Mr. Champ Clark during the campaign for reciprocity.


Mr. HUGHES:: Those gentlemen denied
that they made any such statement.


Robert James Manion: I have their statements
under my hand. I do not know that either of them has denied the statements which were credited to him.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes they have.


Robert James Manion: There are perhaps those in Canada who claim it might be a good thing for Canada from a material standpoint to be joined up with the United States, but I believe that even though it involves some sacrifices the vast majority of the people of Canada prefer to build up" a great Canadian nation on the northern half of this continent. It might be well worth while to draw the prospect that opens before the people of this country to their attention; it might possibly be well worth while to draw that possible outcome to the attention of the people of the province of Quebec. The people of Quebec are probably the most sincerely attached to the British North America Act as it stands to-day. They do not wish to have any greater liberties than they enjoy; they do not wish to have their destinies committed to the care even of a majority of Canadians much less to a majority of Americans. And, Sir, it might be well for them to realize that if we accept free trade in this country we go a long way towards perhaps wiping out not only their industrial prominence in Canada, but also that which they value even more highly than industrial pre-eminence. I think, Sir, that most red-blooded Canadians believe in the building up of a powerful Canadian nation in this Dominion and are willing to make such sacrifices as are necessary to maintain it. They like the American people, I myself like them, but we object to being
swallowed up by them, as we certainly will be if we allow ourselves to become entirely dependent upon the United States as a market for our raw materials and other products.
I have no doubt this attitude will be derided and sneered at by many people in this country, and perhaps by none more strongly than those who hope that prospect may come true.
I should like to give some evidence of the statement I make, I should like to give some reasons-not as a flag-waving proposition at all-why I believe that what I have predicted will ultimately result. Let us look for proof to Cobden. When we discuss the question of free trade in England we naturally think of Cobden, the most outstanding example of a free trade apostle, in the English speaking world at any rate. Cobden's whole life, his eloquence, and his great ability were devoted to advocating free trade in the United Kingdom. His object was that not only should the United Kingdom continue to be a manufacturing country but that ultimately it might become the workshop of the world, that it should be put in such a position that it could dominate the manufacturing markets of the world. He made a statement that is well worth quoting. He said that if England adopted free trade, the whole world would adopt that policy in ten years and he added- and this is the point-"When the whole world has adopted free trade it will dig, delve and plough for England". That was his thought regarding countries that did not go in for manufacturing, for a broader national and industrial life. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this budget is accepted by the people of Canada, not only will free trade follow but Canadians will finally be placed in the position where they will dig, delve and plough for the United States. They will become hewers of wood, growers of grain and miners of minerals for the United States, and probably for some of the other industrial countries of the world; and any Canadian of courage, energy, enterprise who wishes to employ those qualities in other lines of industry will have to go to the United States to do so. In other words, such a Canadian will have to expatriate himself from his country and join the exodus of his fellow countrymen from Canada, an exodus which is already far greater than it should be and which will make the Biblical exodus by comparison look like a U.F.O. parade in the city of Toronto at the present time.
There is still another difference between the exodus of old and the exodus of to-day. In the exodus of the Old Testament the children of Israel were led into the land of promise by the wisdom of Moses. In the exodus of to-day the children of Canada are being driven

The Budget-Mr. Manion
into the land of the Stars and Stripes by the voice of Jacob-the Acting Finance Minister.
I shall now deal to a little further extent with the question of protection. There is a tendency in Canada to-day to accuse any one who upholds the policy of protection of being a friend of the "Big Interests." That, Sir, is done in spite of the fact that if you look over the history of tariff legislation throughout the world you will find that the majority of great statesmen supported protection for their different countries, whereas a very small minority of statesmen in the world supported free trade for their countries. Let me just name but a few of the outstanding men the mention of whose names alone suffices to bring them to the recollection of the people of Canada. In the United States there were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton-perhaps the greatest finance minister the United States ever had- Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, McKinley and Harding to name only a few of them. Of the men that I have mentioned no nobler or more honourable figure ever appeared before the people of the United States or any other nation than Abraham Lincoln. In Great Britain Joseph Chamberlain and Arthur Balfour supported protection. In France that policy was supported by Colbert, who was the great finance minister during the reign of Louis XIV, and by Napoleon; and from 1865 down to the present day all the outstanding statesmen of France have upheld protection for that country. In Germany, Frederick the Great and Bismarck were supporters of protection, and all German statesmen down to the present day have continued to be protectionists. In Canada we had Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As to the latter statesman I make this statement: Notwithstanding any quotations that can be brought forward from the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier he never made any move to introduce free trade into Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: Reciprocity which the hon. member supported.


Robert James Manion: Reciprocity, Mr. Speaker,
was based on protection. Reciprocity was based upon the very fact that you have protection in this countiy. It was an exchange of favours with the United States. The United States was giving us favours in return for favours which we gave them. It was a reciprocal arrangement, and could not be carried out by any other than a protective country. Great Britain could not have reciprocity with any other country because she has free trade. Neither could we have reciprocity with any country if we were free traders. In addition to the fact that these men whom I have named, 
who are outstanding men in the history of the world, were all protectionists, there is the fact that all the countries of the world of any importance have prospered under protection, Let me mention a few of them. France before the war was one of the richest countries in the world, a country in which the wealth was more evenly divided than in any other country in the world. The agricultural and industrial life was more evenly balanced than in any other country, and it has had marked protection for over a hundred years, but certainly has had high protection from the year 1865. Germany, from the time of Bismarck in 1870, till the present time, was a highly protected country, and before the wrar she was not only rapidly catching up to Great Britain in many lines, but had surpassed her in some lines. She was selling more goods to most of the countries in Europe; and if she had had sense enough not to start the war, but to continue along peaceful lines, she would be probably the greatest commercial country in the world. The United' States has been a highly protected country since 1861. Previous to that time the United States tried the principle of free trade three times, and on all occasions that trial was succeeded by times of panic, depression and stagnation. Since 1861 the United States has had a continuous period of protection, and I make the statement that in general prosperity, in developed natural resources and in the real wages and social conditions of the people and opportunities of life, the United States has been the most outstanding nation by long odds of any country in the world.
I have stated that all countries have built up their prosperity upon a foundation of protection. I some time ago made that statement in regard to Great Britain, and many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House took occasion to differ with me. I wish to give two proofs very briefly of my statement that England built up her prosperity upon a protective foundation. I hold in my hand Macaulay's History of England, Volume 1. This history was published for the first time in 1848. It is a voluminous work, and there is a number of volumes. It must have taken Macaulay some years to prepare it. But he makes comparison in the third chapter, which I have here marked between conditions in England in 1685 and 1845, a period of 150 years. That would be rather a long period for Canada, but would not be a long period for England, because she has a thousand years of history behind her. I do not intend to read very much, though the whole chapter deals with a comparison of these different

The Budget-Mr. Manion
periods, and bears out what I have stated, but I will read a few sentences:
Younger towns, towns which are rarely or never mentioned in our early history and which sent no representatives to our early parliaments, have, within the memory of persons, still living, grown to a greatness which this generation contemplates with wonder and pride, not unaccompanied by awe and anxiety.
The most eminent of these towns were indeed known in the seventeenth century as respectable seats of industry. Nay, their rapid progress and their vast opulence were then sometimes described in language which seems ludicrous to a man who has seen their present grandeur. One of the most populous and prosperous among them was Manchester.
Speaking of the cotton trade of Manchester, he says:
The whole annual import did not, at the end of the seventeenth century, amount to two millions of pounds, a quantity which would now hardly supply the demand of forty-eight hours.
He is making a comparison between the end of the seventeenth century and 1845.
That wonderful emporium, which in population and wealth far surpasses capitals so much renowned as Berlin, Madrid and Lisbon, was then a mean and ill-built market town, containing under six thousand people. It then had not a single press. It now supports a hundred printing establishments. It then had not a single coach. It now supports twenty coach-makers.
Leeds was already the chief seat of the woolen manufacturers of Yorkshire... But from the returns of the hearth money it seems certain that the whole population of the borough, an extensive district which contains many hamlets, did not, in the reign of Charles the Second, exceed seven thousand souls. In 1841 there were more than a hundred and fifty thousand.
About a day's journey south of Leeds, on the verge of a wild moorland tract, lay an ancient manor, now rich with cultivation, then barren and unenclosed, which was known by the name of Hallamshire. Iron abounded there... It had indeed been mentioned by Geoffrey Chaucer in one of his Canterbury Tales. But the manufacture appears to have made little progress during the three centuries which followed his time.
Most of the Hallamshire forges were collected in a market town which had sprung up near the castle of the proprietor, and, which, in the reign of James the First, had been a singularly miserable place, containing about two thousand inhabitants, of whom a third were half starved and half naked beggars... This is that Sheffeld which now, with its dependencies, contains a hundred and twenty thousand souls, and which sends forth its admirable knives, razors and lancets to the farthest ends of the world.
Birmingham had not been thought of sufficient importance to return a member to Oliver's parliament... Yet in 1685 the population, which is now little less than two hundred thousand, did not amount to four thousand.
These four chief seats of our great manufactures deserve especial mention. It would be tedious to enumerate all the populous and opulent hives of industry which a hundred and fifty years ago, were hamlets without parish churches, or desolate moors inhabited only by grouse and wild deer.
Liverpool contains more than three hundred thousand inhabitants.
And he gives the population of the time which he is comparing it with as four thousand. Then he says:
Into her custom house has been repeatedly paid in one year a sum more than twice as great as the whole income of the English Crown in 1685.
Her endless docks, quays and warehouses are among the wonders of the world.
Further on he says, speaking of London:-
English writers boasted of the forest of masts and yardarms which covered the river from the Bridge to the Tower, and of the stupendous sums which were collected at the Custom House in Thames street... Yet to our generation the honest vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to have exceeded seventy thousand tons. This was, indeed, then more than a third of the whole tonnage of the Kingdom, but is now less than a fourth of the tonnage of Newcastle, and is nearly equalled by the tonnage of the steam vessels of the Thames. The customs of London amounted in 1685, to about three hundred and thirty thousand pounds a year. In our time the net duty paid annually, at the same place, exceeds ten millions.
That is sufficient to show Macaulay's views of the conditions of Great Britain for the 150 years between 1685 and 1845, before free trade was adopted in Great Britain.
I will give one more quotation, and this is from Joseph Chamberlain. He made speeches, as hon. members all km w, in which he stated that he believed in a preference. In other words he believed in protection for England, and here are two very brief quotations from two of his speeches. At Birmingham on November 4, 1903 he said:
If it were true that protection inevitably brought with it destitution, misery and starvation, and free trade brought with it prosperity and progress, how do you account for the fact that every foreign country without exception that has adopted protection has in recent years at any rate progressed more rapidly and in greated proportion than we, the free trade country of the world.
And he points out that the once great British trade in sugar refining has gone; the iron trade is going; and the cotton trade is threatened. At Newcastle two years later he said further: Whereas in the five and twenty years after Mr. Cobden's great reform was carried, this country was an industrial centre exchanging its manufactures with other countries for their food and raw materials. Now we have ceased to hold any such position of industrial supremacy; we are daily sending out more raw materials and coal, and importing more foreign manufactured goods; that is, we are importing more and more of those goods which give the greatest employment to the working classes.
I think in view of those two opinions-and I could quote many more if I wished to-


Robert Forke: The hon. member knows the answer the people of England gave to Chamberlain?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I think I know the answer the people of Canada will give to the present government. In view of these two opinions and quotations which I have read
to the House, I think I am basing my remarks


Robert Forke: I was informed that a good many of those industries my hon. friend speaks about, were not able to compete with other Canadian industries, at Brantford, for instance. I was informed that particularly at Port Arthur large works were put up that could not carry on business because they were not able to compete with Canadian industries, not United States industries. I may be wrong.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is wrong.
I am not speaking of any industry that was built that was not competing.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend admits that some buildings were erected that were not operating?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I did not mention them. There were some plants which were built at the head of the lakes which were never occupied. But I mentioned one plant which prior to a couple of years ago employed 300 persons at Fort William. I mentioned another, which usually employs about 300 people and which is now operating with about 60. The third plant operated, to my recollection, prior to two years ago or, at most, three years ago, not to its full extent, but it did employ about 1,000 people, and it is now closed down. It was regarding this plant that I read from the last letter which I quoted. Those are industries only in my constituency. There are throughout this country many other plants of various lines which are being hit by this budget and by the danger of having their tariff protection cut. We all know about the agricultural implement industry, the steel industry, which is hit in this budget, the paint industry, and some of the paint manufacturers stated in Montreal the other day that they would
The Budget-Mr. Manwn
have to close down absolutely. There is also the boot and shoe industry and the woollen industry. The boot and shoe industry employed about 14,000 people in this country and to-day it is operating at about 60 per cent of its capacity. The woollen and knitted goods industry employed about 22,000 to 23,000 people and it is now operating today at about 40 per cent of its capacity.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Has the boot and shoe
men's employment decreased since the budget has been brought down?


Robert James Manion: I am blaming their being
closed down on the fact that the country is being inundated with British goods and French goods, particularly British goods in the case of boots and shoes, and they have not the protection they require which the budget should have given. Last year some cuts were made in the preferential tariff which did hurt the boot and shoe manufacturers. At any rate the boot and shoe manufacturers need greater protection if they are to compete against the low labour costs and the depreciated exchange of Europe, and they cannot continue with the tariff which they have at present in Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: What about those factories that closed down two or three years ago when the late government was in office or shortly after the present government came in?


Robert James Manion: I would criticise exactly in the same way. If they required increased tariff protection to keep them going, I say they should have had it. I do not know if any closed down three years ago. In 1923 some $40,000,000 worth of woollen and knitted goods was imported into this country.
I am taking that from the records of this government. Just think what it would mean to the people engaged in those industries if that amount was produced in Canada. It is true that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said the other day that you could not increase employment in a country by protection; all you do if you close up one industry is you simply drive a man into a more remunerative industry. But the trouble is that we are driving them into more remunerative industries in the United States. This is another case of the theory and the fact not agreeing. I have noticed with free traders that if the facts disagree with the theory, it is so much the worse for the facts.
Even the Toronto Globe took, and has been taking, the attitude-I have a number

The Budget-Mr. Manion
of its editorials in my possession-in regard to the woollen and knitted goods industry that they are not receiving the proper care and attention that they should be receiving. I submit that the boot and shoe industry and the woollen and knitted goods industry should get the protection which they need to keep them going.
One of our Progressive friends, speaking on this very question in a recent debate, said something to this effect: "Your Protectionists say that your industries cannot compete with those in France, in England, and in the United States". Then, quite dramatically, he asked: "What in heaven's name can they compete with!" Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a simple answer to that question: they can compete with one another; and that is all that any other country would ask their manufacturers to do in the way of competition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends no doubt are laughing at the fact that there is serious unemploj'ment in this country at the present time. But let me assure them that this unemployment is due to that very fact, that our industries are forced to compete with those outside the country. There are nearly two million people out of employment in Great Britain, and the fact must be significant to hon. gentlemen that, where this enormous unemployment exists, the industries are forced to compete with foreign manufacturers. Indeed!, Mr. Speaker, there is no country in the world that I know of that is in so pitiable a condition, from the point of view of unemployment, as the United Kingdom, which is the only free trade nation at the present time. Now, I do not know why we should make such frantic efforts to defend our national freedom when it is threatened by invading troops, and at the same time neglect our commercial freedom when it is menaced by industrial forces that are equally dangerous. And yet that is just the situation to-day.
Look back over the history of the world and you will find that those countries which have lived a broad national life and have carried on a wide and diversified industrial development, are the countries which have been best able to take care of themselves. Look at the United States at the time of the Civil War. What does history reveal in that case? Why, we find that the South was defeated mainly by reason of the fact that, unlike the North, it had no industrial development, From the very beginning it was realised that the South must lose eventually because it could not produce the goods which it needed. Again, take the example we have in the

recent war. Why were Great Britain, the United States and France able to subdue Germany ? . They could do so only because they had had a wide and a marked industrial development. Without that development they would have been beaten, as surely as I am standing here to-day. And as a matter of fact, Sir, Germany herself was able to ward off defeat for a period of four years simply because she had magificently developed herself industrially under a policy of protection.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Was she not the best equipped industrially?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but she had the whole world against her. Of course she was well equipped industrially, and that is precisely why it took four and a half years for the Allies to subdue her. Had she not been as well equipped as she was she must have succumbed within a year. Now, Sir, if this budget is accepted and endorsed by the people of Canada we shall declare ourselves to be, apart from Great Britain, the only nation that despises that strength and independence with which other countries have developed industrially by means of protection. England is the only free trade country in the world, and if we adopt this budget we shall be the second; in other words we shall be virtually proposing to fall into that state which Russia was in before she decided to adopt protection one hundred years ago.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my hon. friend would not assert that England could not play her part in the war.


Robert James Manion: No, I do not say that, nor have I said anything of the kind. I showed earlier in my remarks that England had built up the foundation for her industrial life and prosperity upon the basis of protection up to the year 1846.


Charles A. Stewart: The question I asked my hon. friend was, whether he would make the statement that England could not play her part in the war.


Robert James Manion: Not at all. We over on this side are always accused of flag-waving, but it seems that a little of this is being done on the other side now. My hon. friend is trying to make me say that England did not play her part in the war. Of course, I know otherwise.


Charles A. Stewart: I had no such thought. I do not want to interject any remarks into my hon. friend's speech, but he argues that protectionist countries have been better able to protect themselves than free trade countries. I hope he will not accuse me of waving the flag; I never do that.

The Budget-Mr. Manion


George Perry Graham: Are we not entitled to do a little of the waving at times over here? Some of the rest of us did our part in the war too.


Robert James Manion: I am not denying that
for a moment; and I wish that hon. gentlemen opposite, and to my left, would wave the Canadian flag a little more.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is not always those
who wave the flag that are the most patriotic.	.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that you
can necessarily prove that. I was about to observe, when I was so generally interrupted, that even those men who have had world wide reputations as advocates of free trade have admitted the necessity in some cases for a policy of protection. Let me put on Hansard a quotation from John Stuart Mill, who was a more outstanding free trader than even my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) or for that matter any other hon. gentleman in this House. The following statement by Mill is worth considering:
The superiority of one country over another in a branch of industry often arises only from its having begun sooner. A country which has this skill and experience to acquire may in other respects be better adapted to production than those earlier in the field; and, besides, it is a just remark that nothing has a greater tendency to produce improvement in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals should at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture and bear the burthen of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes have become traditional. A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which a country can tax itself for the support of such an experiment.


Robert Forke: And we have had protection for sixty years.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I submit that
we have been doing well under it, even though my hon. friend thought it necessary to declare recently that he was sick and tired of the policy. I do not wish to burden Hansard again with the figures that I have already given, but I can submit to hon. gentlemen the facts that prove that we have had prosperity in Canada and that it was built up on protection. It is quite true that ^.t the present time Canada is suffering; but-she is suffering a period of depression which is common to the whole world, with the exception of the United States, which is the most highly protected country we know of to-day.
In the closing years of John Stuart Mill's life he was asked by Mr. Geo. W. Smalley, of the New York Tribune, whether he still 99
adhered to the statement which he had made as quoted by me a moment ago. He replied:
Certainly; I have never affirmed anything to the contrary. I do not presume to say that the United States may not find protection expedient in their present state of development. I do not even say that, if I were an American I should not be a protectionist.
So that even John Stuart Mill who was perhaps the most outstanding free trader of his time, admitted that protection was advisable in many cases. If one cared to do so one could cite many industries in the United States which have been built up exclusively under protection. I might mention, for example, the tin plate industry- and there are many others-which did not exist in the United States, except to a very minor degree, until 1890. Up to that time it produced annually about two million pounds of tin plate; but under protection, introduced in 1890, it immediately developed until it produced 2,000,000,000 pounds, sweeping the Welsh tin plate industry off its feet and driving the tin plate workers of Wales into the United States factories. I could cite many other industries which have similarly developed under protection, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House further.
Now, in the final analysis, what is the real object of those who demand free trade? I think I can state it in a single word-cheapness. Cheapness of goods is the sole object of this cry for free trade; and I remember our good friend Dr. Michael Clark, who came from the constituency now represented in this House by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), saying on one occasion:	"We want cheap goods, and we
care not whence they come". That after all is the basis of the free trade argument: cheapness of goods is the sole reason. In other words, we are asked to sacrifice the industrial East in order that the prairie provinces may save a few cents on farm implements and boots and shoes. I say that without the slightest intention of offending the prairie provinces, but simply because it is from that section of the country that the cry comes for free trade. It is debatable whether we shall get cheaper goods under free trade. However, merely for the sake of argument, let us admit that we shall. In that case, is the cheapness worth the sacrifice that we shall make? Is not a diversified national development, a broad national life, the greatest objective at which we could aim? Is it not worth striving for to bring about such conditions as shall prevent our youth from going to the United States? Is not that state of affairs worth something to

The Budget-Mr. Manion

the Canadian people? Why should cheapness of goods be worshipped as a god? It is much more desirable that we should provide employment and wages for our Canadian people. I submit that the progress, the prosperity, and the happiness of our people depend very much more upon their ability to earn wages and consequently to purchase goods than upon the opportunity to buy those goods a little cheaper. If you will show me a cheap country, Mr. Speaker, I will show you in return a poor country. Cheap goods are of no use to anybody unless he has the money with which to buy them. I well remember quoting in this House some sessions ago the old story of an Irishman who complained of the fact that he had to pay fifty cents in New York for something which he could get for a shilling in Ireland. He was asked, "Why didn't you buy it in Ireland?" He replied, "I didn't have a shilling." That is the condition in every cheap country. The United States for the past fifty years has probably been the dearest country in the world, and yet it has been the Mecca of all the people of all the cheap countries in the world.
There is no better test of the condition of cheapness in a countiy than the labour cost test. I may be permitted, perhaps, to give two or three experiences of my own with regard to such tests in other countries. I remember before the war being driven around the city of Naples in a cab for a whole afternoon and paying two lire for the accommodation-forty cents at that time. Naples was then one of the cheapest cities I was ever in-and also one of the most poverty-ridden. Let me instance Ireland for the benefit of my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey). I remember taking a tour, at least twenty years ago, through the famous lakes of Killarney. I hired a horse-it was really a pony-to go through the gap of Dunloe. For the use of this animal for a whole afternoon I paid half a crown-sixty cents. I asked the man in charge of the horse, "How much do you get out of this?" He answered, "I get whatever you choose to give me as a tip." He was working for the owner of the horse. I said to him, "Why don't you come out to a prosperous country like Canada?" He replied, " It would take me fifteen years to earn enough money to pay my fare to your country." I remember with pain-because Ireland is also the home of my forefathers-that not only in the country districts did beggars hold out their hands for alms, but right in the city of Dublin the poverty was something pitiable. I remember in the same trip that in the native

land of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) at Edinburgh and Glasgow-particularly Edinburgh-poverty was just as marked in the slums there as I observed it in those of London; and I need not particularize the poverty there. In those parts of the British Isles labour was cheap and the cost of living low; but, Sir, at that time, according to a statement made by the late Campbell-Bannerman during the British general election in 1904, thirteen million of the population were on the verge of hunger-and he was a free trader.


Robert Forke: Does my hon. friend deny
the fact that in every large manufacturing centre of the world you will find slums and poverty?


Robert James Manion: No, I do not deny that,
but I make this statement, and I submit that it cannot be- disproved:	There were at that
time more slums and poverty in the British Isles than in the protectionist countries of France, Germany or the United States. I could easily prove this statement By the figures which I put on Hansard a few sessions ago when debating the same question of free trade versus protection, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House now by repeating the figures, and I have not got them at hand.


James Joseph Hughes: Does not my hon. friend
agree that the landlord system in Great Britain, the twin brother of protection, is largely responsible for the poverty there?


Robert James Manion: I do not accept my hon.
friend's statement in its entirety, although I think that system has had something to do with the poverty. I remember reading a book by the late Earl of Dunraven-who lived all his life in Ireland and must be accepted as a better authority respecting conditions in that country than my hon. friend can be-in which he said that the poverty of Ireland was caused by free trade, which had ruined industry and driven out the business of grain growing.


James Joseph Hughes: The enormous land rents
were responsible.


Robert James Manion: They would accentuate
the trouble, of course. I may mention two other countries, India and China, where you may hire labour for a few cents a day and those countries are mainly agricultural. Every few years millions of people in those countries die of famine and disease. In other words, in all cheap countries the people are trying to get out of them as if threatened by a frightful epidemic of some plague. And

The Budget-Mr. Manion
where are they trying to go to-cheaper countries? No, to the dearest country of all, and the most highly protected-the United States. So much so, that the American government, as we all know, has had to put in force a quota law to restrict immigration from those cheap countries.
Again, I submit that what Canada needs is employment for her people-work and wages for her artisans and mechanics. We all deplore the exodus of our young men to the United States. Will anyone tell me that these young men are leaving because of the high cost of living here? Certainly not. Everyone of them is migrating because he has not got work and wages at home. I submit that this budget will lessen work and wages, and so restrict the purchasing power of our artisans and mechanics. In a word, it means for them an empty pocket instead of a full dinner pail; emigration instead of occupation.
Suppose we do get free trade and so cut down the price of goods, will the resultant cheapness which is so much desired continue here? I do not think it will last very long. Aside from the argument-which I think is quite sound-that once the American industrialists have secured control of our markets they will begin to recoup themselves by charging higher prices for their goods, who will pay the main proportion of our taxes? I repeat, I do not mean anything offensive to the farmers in these comparisons which I am making. But who will pay the main proportion of our taxes? There is a tendency on the part of many of my friends from the prairie provinces to take the attitude that they are making all the sacrifices by reason of the tariff duties which they have to pay. I have heard them declare: Let the protectionists get off our backs. That is the attitude which our friends frequently take. I do not admit that all the sacrifices are made by the farmers of the West or by those of any other part of the Dominion. I submit that many sacrifices are made, and made willingly, by the people of our cities and towns. Who pays the bulk of the income tax? Less than 2 per cent of the fifty or sixty millions collected, according to the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), is paid by the rural districts; over 98 per cent, is being paid by the industrial centres.


Robert Forke: Why talk so much about
sacrifices when everything is all right in the industrial centres?


Robert James Manion: I am talking about my
friends to my left claiming that they are making all the sacrifices.
99i


Robert Forke: Excuse me, you referred to other people making sacrifices.


Robert James Manion: So they do. If my hon. friend and his associates are correct in claiming that they are making sacrifices, I am pointing out that the people of the East are making sacrifices too.


Robert Forke: We admit the sacrifices; you do not.


Robert James Manion: I am pointing out the
sacrifices that are being made by the East in regard to other things than the tariff sacrifices that the West complain of.


Robert Forke: That is different.


Robert James Manion: I was referring to the income tax. Let me point out also that, although it is difficult to prove, I may venture to assert that 75 per cent-yes, very much more than 75 per cent, of the customs duties are paid by the cities and towns on the luxuries which they buy.


Robert Forke: That is right.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend admits that that is right, then he must admit also that the cities and towns are paying more than their share of taxation.


Robert Forke: We admit that they have the luxuries.


Robert James Manion: Surely my hon. friend does not want to change the whole system of this country whereby men are rewarded for their enterprise and business ability? If so, he is getting back to a proposition coming from Russia with which I do not agree. Not only do the cities and towns pay the bulk of the customs duties and income tax, but they help to pay for rural education, rural roads and rural mail delivery. I have in my constituency rural mail deliveries which do not bring in enough to pay the cost, and there are very many throughout the country. I have pointed out before, but my hon. friends are apt to forget it, that nearly $6,000,000 is given annually by way of direct assistance to the agricultural interests of this country in the estimates before the House. I wish to repeat, because my hon. friend is apparently taking offence at these comparisons-


Robert Forke: No.


Robert James Manion: I wish to repeat that I
am offering no criticism of these conditions. I simply make the statement that if the industrial centres of the East are willing, as they are, to make sacrifices on behalf of the prairie sections of the Dominion, those prairie sections must not expect to make no sacrifices
The Budget-Mr. Manion

at all. If the industrial centres are largely wiped out, who is going to pay the large obligations of this country? Who is going to build , the Hudson Bay railway, which is demanded from the West? Who is going to pay the increased deficits on the Canadian National because of the traffic being to a greater extent north and south than east and west? The West is going to pay a greater proportion than she does now, if she is able, and I submit that the last condition of the West might well be worse than the first. It might be well for the people of the prairie provinces who demand free trade-and I do not need to look always to my left; I may look across the way sometimes-to remember that maxim of Shakespeare, which suggests that we should-
-rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
I fully realize that there is a depression in the West. I fully realize that relief is needed, so far as possible, but I am not admitting that we should wipe out the industrial East to bring about that relief. I repeat that the tariff is not the cause of the present conditions of the West. I have been in surgery for about twenty years and I have never yet seen an opportunity to save a man's arms by amputating his legs, nor do I think that you can save the agricultural arms of this country by amputating its industrial legs.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes you save a
man's life by cutting off his leg.
Mr. MANION': Apparently my hon. friend and his government are attempting to do that in this country at the present time. For myself I do not think it can occur in fiscal matters.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in his speech the other day pointed out that we who support protection do not realize the importance of the West to Canada. We do realize the importance of the West to Canada. I realize the importance of all sections-of British Columbia, of the prairie provinces, of the Maritime provinces, and I also realize what he and his friends do not seem to realize, the importance of Ontario and Quebec. I do not know whether I should admit that the two million people in the prairie provinces are more important to Canada than the six million in Quebec and Ontario. I submit that some remedy should be worked out whereby we can help the prairie West, and I am entirely for doing that so far as it is possible, but not to the extent of running some other section of the country.

Protection is needed in the East because of the low labour costs in Europe. One instance of that occurred a few weeks ago when there was a strike in Manchester-at least, it was so reported in the press-the operatives of certain cotton mills there demanding to be paid $7.92, not per day, but per week. Those who were running the mills said that the most they could pay aftd compete witji the rest of the world was $7.04 a week, while for the same line of work in Canada they are paying from $15 to $20 a week. This instance will illustrate the cost of labour in Europe. Then, there is the question of depreciated currency. I hold under my hand.-I shall not take time to read it-a statement by Professor H. Mitchell, of McMaster University, Toronto, in which he points out what everybody knows well who has given any study to the question, that due to the depreciated exchange of Europe there is an invisible bounty paid on the exports of Europe when they come to the United States or Canada. One of the ways that the government could help the industries of Canada would be to protect them against that invisible bounty. In passing, I suggest that in view of the facility with which this government changes its mind overnight, I should not be at all surprised if they brought in some modification of their resolutions to this end, and I hope they do, for the good of the country. At present, however, there is nothing in the budget to protect us against that depreciated exchange which, according to Professor Mitchell and other authorities, owing to the depreciation in the value of the pound sterling, gives from 7 to 10 per cent less protection to the industries of Canada.
Then, there are the handicaps to industry in Canada, the eight-hour day in many provinces; factory laws; workmen's compensation, and standards of living which are higher in Canada even than in such countries as England. In other words, if, as the labour people state, we permit the cheap products of cheap labour to come into this country free, we will deprive our own working people of employment and drive them to the United States. I believe we must help the prairie West. We must do everything we can which does not go to the extent of ruining the industrial East. A national policy for this country is one which should so far as possible help all classes, agriculturists, artisans and industrialists. I admit that it is very difficult to do anything in the line of protection to help my friends of the prairie provinces who grow wheat; I admit that very freely, I admit also that probably they would gain to a certain extent, temporarily, from free trade. But,

The Budget-Mr. Hodgins
Sir, if we cannot help them by protection, then it is our duty to help them in some other way to make up for the sacrifices which I admit they make to a certain extent through the operation of the protective tariff. But we can help the other farmers of this country: we can help the truck farmers, the fruit farmers, the dairy and poultry farmers. Tens of millions of dollars' worth of fruits, vegetables, butter, eggs and cheese are imported into this country to compete with our own products. Let us keep our Canadian markets, not only the industrial markets but the agricultural markets, for our own Canadian people. The Canadian duties to-day on the agricultural products which I have just mentioned are about half the American duties against similar products entering the United States from Canada. Under a proper national policy for this country agriculture and industry could progress and prosper hand in hand, as they should progress and prosper. That Sir, should be the goal of national greatness to which we should aspire; that is the goal to which we will attain if. in the words of Lord Chatham, on another occasion, "we have no craven fear of being great" in this country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. L. HODGINS (East Middlesex):: I desire to occupy a few minutes in expressing my views concerning matters which have been brought forward in the budget, and I can assure hon. members that I shall not speak at undue length. First let me extend my congratulations to the Acting Minister of Finance on the concise and businesslike character of his financial statement. I also desire to sympathize with the Minister of Finance upon his illness, and with the leader of the opposition in the loss which he has just sustained.
As to the budget itself I am in perfect accord with some of the criticisms which have been made. I believe that the surplus for which credit has been claimed is largely a matter of bookkeeping. But the tariff changes which the budget makes undoubtedly create a line of cleavage between the protectionist and the free trader in.this country. I believe with the previous speaker that the budget has brought the issue of protection versus free trade before the country in a way it has never been brought before. When one studies world history one cannot fail to be impressed with certain peculiar features which have attended
the development of this issue. For example the farmers in England to-day are asking for protection while the people who want free trade are the manufacturers. In the United States a few generations ago the farmers were the free traders and the manufacturers were the protectionists. To-day the reverse is the case: The farmers are the protectionists and the manufacturer, or to be quite accurate, the big financial interests of the country, are commencing to clamour for free trade. And why are they doing so. Because they find that in order to market their own products they must trade with foreign countries, and there must be a lowering of the high tariff duties before the products of other countries can secure admission to the United States market. International trade is not trade between nations as nations. What it means is that individuals or firms of a particular nation trade with individuals or firms of other nations. As it appears to me customs duties are simply fines placed upon individuals in return for the privilege of trading with individuals of other countries. If we were to place such fines upon individuals trading with each other in our own country we should look upon it as a very absurd proposition to say the least. But because the other party to the arrangement happens to live in another country the system of imposing fines is regarded as quite proper. But if fines are levied on transactions between different countries why not carry the principle to its logical conclusion and impose duties in the case of transactions between different counties or different provinces of the same country?
If we take the experience of reciprocity in the past doubtless thousands of residents of the United States opposed reciprocity with Canada because they thought it would be profitable to Canadians. Probably, too, reciprocity was opposed by many Canadians because they thought the United States rather than Canada would benefit from that pact. But even if the other country is going to benefit to some degree why should that be disadvantageous to Canada? Under free trade the labour and capital of our country would be forced out of artificial channels and into occupations which would produce with greater efficiency, those articles which we need most. It follows then that if we attain the best results by our tariff policy we shall attract more immigrants and more capital to the country. Then instead of admitting immigrants into Canada indiscriminately we should be able to cull our future citizens from the immigrants that offer and let into the Dominion only the very best.
The Budget-Mr. Hodgins

Taking the four great fundamental industries of our country from which we really derive all our wealth, namely fishing, mining, lumbering and farming, which policy, protection or free trade, will prove the more beneficial to them? If we take the products of those four industries and ask ourselves how much protection has increased the selling price of them, we will have to admit that it is very little, if any. Then we take the materials we have to buy and ask ourselves how much protection has increased the price to us, and in almost every case we must admit it has done so to a considerable extent. We cannot help but realize that protection is far from being a benefit to the people of this or any other country. If it is necessary -and I do not believe it is-to have a protective tariff to enable the manufacturers in this country to live and carry on, we should also have a protective tariff to enable the farmers to live and carry on, and as it is an impossibility to protect the farmer in the greater amount of his products, as he must look outside our country for his market, we should, to place him on an equal footing, grant him a bonus on every bushel of wheat, every pound of beef, every pound of pork and a great many other articles which he produces at the present time. If our protectionist friends wish to come across with a proposition of this kind, they might hope to get some support from the farmer, but I think the foolishness of this is quite evident to them, and I cannot see why they should not be sensible about the tariff arrangements, and be manly enough to stand on their own feet and not to resort to a legalized form of robbery in order to carry on their business. One might just as well allow a merchant in this city who is not making' a profit in his business to come down the street and rob a fellow merchant who is not making any more profit than he himself is making.
Reductions have been made in this budget along some lines, but I believe it is just as necessary and perhaps more so, that reductions should be made all along the line. Taking our boot and shoe industry, there is no reason that I can see why it should be protected to the extent of thirty per cent and other businesses have little or no protection. Building is cheaper in Canada than in the United States. The workers in these factories do not receive as large a wage as in the United States. The machinery which is necessary in these factories is put into the factories in the United States and Canada by the same company and on the same terms; the lasts which are necessary are made from Canadian wood which is right at hand, and 
they have the advantage in freight rates on account of being closer to the Canadian consumer. With all these advantages there is no reason why they should need this protection, and it is the same practically with all the other manufacturing interests. Every other manufacturing business in this country I think would come pretty nearly into the same category. We find to-day a paper company selling paper in the United States cheaper than in Canada and doing so on account of the protection it enjoys, and yet we find the president of the same paper concern going up and down this country preaching the fostering of home industries. It seems to me that that is not exercising very good judgment and is not a consistent policy. If it is necessary that we should retain our custom duties in order that we might raise our revenue, I might suggest to the minister that he place an excise tariff which would be almost if not altogether equal to the present customs tariff, and thereby the country would get the revenue which is at present going into the pockets of the manufacturers; but I would also suggest to the minister that he could collect more money and collect it easier and cheaper by placing a direct tax on the assessed value of the different businesses and occupations throughout the land. I have in my hand a clipping from the California Farmer which says:
All that the farmer can hope to demand is fair play, the removal of unequal burdens, with free access to the markets of the world.
And I might say that that is all we want.
This he will not get at once from any political party, but in proportion to his recognition of his real needs, he can compel their alarmed attention. The prosperity of the few, in which half the nation does not share, is built on sand, and cannot be stable until the farmer comes into his own.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stan-stead):: The tariff of the country is a subject of the greatest controversy and this to a large extent is true of almost every country in the world. The budget in this country and the tariff in the country to the south of us have until very recently been subjects of very great controversy. In the years 1919, 1920 and 1921 we had the strongest evidence of antipathy between the then government and the little group in the far-off corner. Very hard words were spoken in those years. And if the group has grown to its present magnitude, it is on account of the fact that the opposition to the government in 1911 fought desperately against reciprocity in natural products, which had been advocated since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1865. The emissaries of this country were

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
often in Washington trying to renew that treaty. Prominent men of the day, including Sir John A. Macdonald and members of his cabinet, travelled throughout the country and advocated the renewal of the reciprocity treaty. When the time came that President Taft made overtures to this country to renew that treaty, desperate means were taken to defeat it. The acting leader of the Progressives (Mr. Johnston) the other day made a positive statement in regard to it, and I have not the least doubt that what he said was true, that when the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding went to the great metropolis of Montreal in 1911 and told the interests there that they would make a mistake by turning down reciprocity the result was that they fought desperately against it and contributed freely to the campaign funds to be used against the proposition to adopt that treaty. That caused the defeat of the reciprocity measure.
We should remember that about two-thirds of this great country lies to the west of the province of Ontario, and that for the last two sessions the members of the Progressive party have spent a great deal of time and energy in this House advocating such a measure. They have continued to debate for two sessions with their very extensive vocabulary, and with the full force of their personality, and individuality, and I hope their vocabulary is not larger than their hearts. But this country had come to the point where somebody needed to strike out boldly and endeavour to ascertain if anything could be done in this country, by give and take, to make Canada a country worth living in, where the people would be united, with a tariff that would do the greatest good to the greatest number.
I am glad that we have an Acting Minister of Finance who has proclaimed many times in the past six years that he would not destroy any industry in this country. In other words, he might be considered a protectionist, as I am. I represent a very large industrial community as well as an agricultural community, but I recognize the fact that something must be done in Canada. I was out in my constituency during the last few days and I heard no criticism. On my return I stayed in Montreal for a day and I heard some criticism. As I diagnosed the situation, as nearly as I can find out, the criticism all came from the Manufacturers Association of Canada. Personally, I am a manufacturer. I am identified with many industries as well as a number of businesses. Nearly every dollar that I have is invested, either directly or indirectly in the great industries of this country, so that I would not do and
I should not support anything in the shape of class legislation. We cannot continue in the same way as we have been doing, milking the same cow in the same old way for all our revenue. I am proud of the Acting Minister of Finance on broadening out and adopting a policy that will not bring the forces of this House into great antagonism.
Let me say for the good of the manufacturers of this country that they possibly could alleviate their own condition if they see anything facing them that scares them. First, I would recommend that our manufacturers go down to their offices and unlock their doors at seven o'clock, instead of living in better houses than other classes who are watching them closely, living expensively, dressing gorgeously, driving expensive cars, taking long holidays and neglecting their business. If you say to them: "Why can you not get hold of your business as your fathers did?" they will say: "Oh, I have an organization; I cannot dissolve that organization; if business should pick up and the organization was dissolved, I could not handle the business because the organization would be gone." I put the question personally to some of those men. I have an illustration of a man who left Scotland more than fifty years ago. He came to a growing city in Canada and he went into the clothing business. He was his own buyer, his seller, his cutter and his accountant. If he had any assistants, he was the man that guided them on. He built up from a small business to a larger business, a larger business. No less than eight different places did he enlarge. Before his death-and he died too soon-he built a large manufacturing establishment in which he put the name of the company, and he hoped that it would continue. When the son came into the business and one other person whom I well know, I happened to go into the place, and what did I notice? I observed as I went in at the door, that the office had been fitted up with $5,000 worth of mahogany. It was gorgeous, I assure you. Not very many years after I happened to visit the place, and the man whose father had built up the business said:	"Things are going bad; do
you know where I can get $100,000?" I said: "When I came upstairs, I cast an eye back at the office and I noticed that what you call your organization were not busy; I observed that the female members were chewing gum and probably pinching themselves in order to keep from going to sleep. I noticed that the men were not working. I know another organization that has three stenographers, a financier and an-

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin

other man to assist. The man sat in his office and he wrote five-page letters when two sentences would have been better, and his business went to the dogs. " Now," I said, "young man, will you take an old man's advice?" He said: "This is getting desperate, and I do not know where I am going to land." I said:	"Would you rather face
bankruptcy than go down to the office with a smile and say to them: 'My father built up a business that I have inherited. He knew his business but I do not know mine. I must come into the office to-morrow morning at fifteen minutes before seven, unlock the door, learn the business and see where I am going.' " His organization was costing hinj twenty dollars where it should not have cost him over two dollars, and I am right. I might expatiate further, but that is a criterion of what is going on throughout this country. The young men should take their father's place and go down to the business and learn it. When a customer comes in and asks him a question, they will say: "Oh, I do not know, I will find Tom, Dick or Harry." That is true, not in one business alone, but in thousands of businesses that have an organization that is running the business. Be it to the credit of the Jew, he has the clothing business of the United States largely and he will have it in Canada because he is running the organization. Some day he will have saved up enough in salaries to buy the institution which others cannot handle.
I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speak about free trade in 1920, I think-and he made a fine speech-but in his concluding remarks he said that while it is good in theory, it cannot be in practice, because practically every country in the world is to-day under a protective tariff and therefore we have to have one. I have heard the first leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) say that we have to have revenue and we have to have a tariff to raise it. During the present session I heard the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) say: "I would not support a measure that would cripple one legitimate industry in Canada."
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Has the Acting Minister of Finance kept faith and brought down a budget as well as any other man in this House could do? The question was a great one to cope with. In my opinion, although I have not spoken to him nor sent a delegation or any advice,-and I think that is something remarkable throughout this House he has looked at every thing in the country from all angles. If we consider the 
remark that has been made by the leader of the Progressive party that he would not cripple or do injury to one legitimate industry in Canada, is it right for our Acting Minister of Finance to bring down in this House a measure that will assist those who for two sessions have been hammering away in this House? I am not criticising them for doing that; they knew best their personal trouble, but there was about their speeches a personality that was astonishing to the old liners.
The people in the province of Quebec have had their troubles just as the people in the West and in the Maritime provinces have had. Indeed, it has been pretty much the same all over the country so far as the agriculturists are concerned. But we have had to take our medicine. W; have heard from the official opposition during the past two years, and particularly from the leader of that party (Mr. Meighen) the statement oft repeated that we on this side are more protectionist than the Conservative party. And shortly before the budget was brought down the right hon. gentleman said that we had only to wait and see and we should find that when the budget was disclosed nothing would be done. I d'o not think that anybody outside the cabinet had the slightest inkling as to what the budget would reveal, but personally I had perfect confidence in the course the Acting Minister of Finance adopted when he delivered what I think was the shortest budget speech that has been made in this parliament in many years. I believe that the minister has acted boldly and courageously in the interests of the greatest number of the people.
I submit that we ought to stand at his back and support him, and if his proposals do not succeed as well as we hope, then they can be changed. As a protectionist I would not only do what the minister has done; I would go further; I would adopt the tariff of the United States in many respects. They are exporting to this country over $90,000,000 of agricultural products, and I suppose that it is because the agriculturists in this House were sincere in their free trade professions that they did not insist on being protected themselves. But I think that we might have kept the agricultural products of the United States out of this country just as they do ours, because I believe in self-preservation. However, there are more years ahead of us, and in the meantime I support the present budget believing that no harm will be done the great industries in my country. There has been a great deal of hue and cry on the part of the woollen manufacturers; but I think that the

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
reduction in the sales tax will about equal the preference on English goods coming here. I hope so at any rate, and I trust that things will work out well for the woollen men. On the whole I think the minister has given us a balanced budget; there is a surplus of some 830,000,000 in the year's operations and there will be saved to the taxpayers for the next year $24,000,000, How could the Acting Minister of Finanee have done better in the face of present conditions.
MacLean's magazine has been writing a lot about the scandalous extravagance of the government and has been comparing the Liberal party to the Conservative party with its corruption; it has been talking about graft in connection with everything, and has dealt particularly with the over-manned Civil Service. I do not wonder that there has been an uprising in this country when we have had the Civil Service increased by the late government from 11,000 to 60,000. It is not surprising that some able man in the press gallery should have undertaken to write the thing up. I have copies of MacLean's magazine and I presume every other hon. member has; and in the face of these facts, what do hon. gentlemen expect, in the name of common sense, that the Acting Minister of Finance should have done but to have brought down such a budget as we are considering to-night? Was he to have given us the old see-saw budget without making any effort to alleviate the conditions of the poorer people? I am pleased indeed that the government should have reduced the Civil Service by some 8,000. Suppose we had a business man who acted in a pussy-footing sort of way, wintering in California or Florida, what would one expect from such a man? Yet this is the type of man who would pray in this fashion;
O! Almighty Dollar! Thy shining face
Bespeaks thy wondrous power.
Make my pocket thine abiding place.
I need thee every hour.
Let the manufacturers sympathize with the labourer and the farmer. I happen to be one of those who rise at five-thirty every morning and even earlier, and I work fifteen hours a day. I do not like being personal to this extent, but I think that a little outspokenness occasionally does no harm. I have lived nearly seventy years and there is not a betterfeeling man in all Canada. I live for the joy of living and work cheerfully, and in the long run I think the cheerful worker has everyone beaten to a showdown. I have demonstrated that hard work hurts neither man, woman nor child. Indeed, some people contend against child labour, but I would let children work if
they wanted to. If we did we would have better men and women.
Now, my hon. friends opposite are shouting protection all the time, and this cry was their only hope in the election campaign of 1921. But it did not avail them anything.
I might say that the man who opposed me in my county lost his deposit, and I had a thousand to spare on my side.
Mr. SUTHERLAND; The hon. member was not talking free trade then.


Willis Keith Baldwin: No, sir, and neither am
I now advocating such a policy, but let me tell you something that was said at the nomination convention. A most distinguished lawyer from Montreal got up and said:	"If
you vote for W. K. Baldwin the people in Magog who work for the Dominion Textile Company will go with empty dinner pails, if they do not even eat rats." But I feared no such talk as that; I am like my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond)-there is a closer relation between myself and my constituents than dollars and cents. My constituents live honourably and work hard, and they are charitable to the poor and the deserving. There is not one of them who is an autocrat.
Talking about the customs tariff. I have an absolute experience to relate. I received from Lamonte, Illinois, some very alluring prices on aluminum ware. For instance, teakettles for which I would pay $3.50 in Ottawa in war time were quoted at 80 cents, and every article on the long list was subject to a special discount of 25 per cent during the month of February. After several lists had been sent to me I called up the customs office at Coaticook and asked the tariff on aluminum-ware. They informed me the rate was 30 per cent. Thereupon I sent my order, and in due course the goods came forward. I sent the triplicate invoices down to the customs offices. Did I pay 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. It was plus, plus, plus. The duty came to slightly over 40 per cent. Well, the sale that I had on was slightly embarrassing to me, because on an order of $124.85 the duty amounted to $48.75. The freight was remarkably low, for in that great centre of Chicago they get exceptionally low rates to New England points, and it seemed to me that they got a very low rate indeed to the town of Coaticook. I have no fault to find with the great school of experience, which is the best educator in the world, but I assure this House that the next aluminum ware I want I will order from Oakville, Ontario,-just a little south of the constituencies represented by the Toronto members. Certainly I shall not send
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin

any more orders to the United States, for the duty is not what it appears to be. I am told that when the rate of duty is 40 or 42 per cent the actual percentage paid by the importer is over 50 per cent. So what in the name of common sense is the Manufacturers' Association hollering about? If that is not protection enough for them, what do they want?
I had not intended speaking on the budget, but I have been prompted to address the House by reason of some criticism that I heard in Montreal the other day from the Manufacturers' Association respecting the budget, They have worked very, very hard to get me into the Association, but I prefer to run my own business rather than allow any organization of manufacturers to run it for me. I want to be in touch with my business and be able to do the dirtiest job; while other people are dreading such things. I never saw a dirty job yet that could not be fixed all right with soap and water. If any men are losing business as a result of the budget, I ask them to live as modestly as do the members composing the Progressive group; I ask them to economize, to tell their dear wives, "I am not making so much money, perhaps, as you think I am, and probably it is our neighbours after all who tell you how rich I am." It is a very common practice for an acquaintance to say, "If I had your money I would do so and so." But so far as I am concerned, I spend my money to the extent of my credit, and I do so for the development of this great, grand and glorious Canada, as I am a Canadian first, last and all the time. I believe that we should go north and develop our great resources. I see the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) is in his seat. The other night-and I say it in all kindness -he was telling about the Laurier government building a railroad away in the northern part of Quebec. He knows what I am going' to say now. I say to him, "Just cast your eye on the map and you will see that more than nineteen-twentieths of the great province of Quebec is north of the railway."


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the hon. member tell us about the population north of the railway?


Willis Keith Baldwin: There are few people there; but I believe there is untold wealth in that country awaiting development, and I am willing to risk the money I have to help find it. It is claimed that the gold vein which is making the province of Ontario so rich runs through northern Quebec down to the Labrador coast and up to Hudson straits. I

ask hon. members to visualize the wealth that God in His wisdom has placed in the midst of that country-wealth that will enrich the Dominion. The great clay belt alone is capable of producing immense wealth. When I read in the newspapers the troubles and deaths by accidents at the coal mines in the United States I say to myself: Canada should rid herself of paying the United States $100,000,000 a year. Instead of sending all this money out of the country we should create a better, a cleaner and a more serviceable power in our own country than we can generate from American coal. Eventually our water-powers will warm us as well as give us power and light.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I stand at the back of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr Robb) because he has had the boldness and the courage to bring down a budget that few men in this House would have dared attempt. I congratulate him on his sound discriminating judgment.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to speak very briefly on several aspects of the budget. The effect of the budget and of the subsequent addresses delivered by several hon. members on the other side of the House, particularly by the members of the government, has been to create a feeling of uncertainty and apprehension throughout industrial Canada. A further result has been to bring the issue of protection more prominently before the House and before the country.
Last year there was an increase in the British preference on knitted goods, and in spite of the bad effect that that had upon industry, this year there has been another reduction in the tariff on farm implements. The injury brought about by these changes in the tariff has been greatly increased by the suggestion involved in the hope expressed by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that these reductions should be the death knell of protection. Last year I pointed out to the House the serious consequences which the increase in the British preference would have upon the woollen industry of this country. There has been sufficient evidence before us during the past year, both through statements in the press and in speeches made in this House, to justify fully the warnings which were given at that time. I think it was the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who made the statement in the House not long ago that 40 per cent of the machinery in our woollen mills had been closed down.

The Budget-Mr. Senn
Now, these are the results which we have already seen in respect to the change in the tariff on woollen and knitted goods, but there are results which we have not yet known anything about. Our woollen industries and our knitting industries are struggling along as best they can to retrieve their position and to keep their heads above water. There is a certain amount of momentum which a well regulated and a well organized industry always has which enables it to carry along for a certain length of time even under adverse circumstances, but if those conditions do not improve that momentum must gradually fail.
I could inform the House, if I were at liberty, of companies who are in the woollen business who did not feel the immediate effect of the increase in the British preference, whose sales for the past three months of this year have been practically cut in two compared with their sales of a year ago. Many companies are in the same predicament, and the result must be that large numbers of their factory operators will be thrown out of employment and possibly will have to migrate to the States to earn a living for themselves and their families.
There is every indication that the volume of imports will go on increasing. I have in my hand a clipping from the Daily News Record, a financial paper published in New York, of the issue of April 21st, 1924, which shows very clearly that the people across the line are looking to Canada for an outlet for their surplus product in woollen and knitted goods. The caption of the article should, I believe, demand the attention of hon. members. It is this:
Canada One of Largest Outlets for all Classes of Knit Goods.
The article says:	[DOT]
Canada forms one of the largest foreign outlets for nearly all classes of knitted goods, especially cotton and silk hosiery, and cotton underwear, the greatest bulk of imports of these articles being from the United States. Great Britain, however, practically controls the market in Canada for foreign made knit goods.
It goes on to state the amount of cotton, woollen and silk hosiery imported during the past year, showing that the total value of the import of these articles was 85,100,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1923, as compared with $2,800,000 in 1922. It points out also that for the fiscal year 1923 the share of Great Britain in the 9 p.m. total import was 63 per cent. It says further that although the United States share of this trade has shown a marked increase, Great Britain still retains
a strong hold on the market for wool hosiery-and underwear. That is sufficient to show the House, I believe, that the United States as well as Great Britain are looking to Canada for an outlet for their woollen and knitted goods. Another significant fact is that Mr. Walter Schwaebsh has been in Canada recently on a mission to promote the sale of German knitted goods. Among other things he told us while here, through an interview to the press, that the scale of German wages for woollen operatives was 40 cents per day. It is readily to be seen, how impossible it will be for our woollen and knitted goods manufacturers to compete with a wage scale of that kind.
I want to make a comparison between the duties imposed by the United States and by Canada on woollen goods and knitted goods, a comparison which I think will be of interest to the House. I have taken for the purposes of comparison the line of knitted sweaters, which are sold at the rate of 815 per dozen by the British manufacturer. The Canadian duty under the British preference on these articles is 20 per cent, which amounts to 83 a dozen, while the American duty on the same line of goods is 45 cents per pound, and 50 per cent ad valorem, which amounts to $9.75 per dozen. This is only a sample of what might be shown in artificial silk goods, stockings, and so on. I have made this comparison to show the difference between the attitude of the United States toward their industries and their workingmen and that which has been adopted by the government of the day in this country. The result is that our operatives are leaving Canada every day to go to help build up the protected industries of other countries particularly the United States.
Under the tariff regulations of 1923 a duty was placed on artificial silk fibre coming into Canada. We were informed by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) that its purpose was to encourage the establishment of an artificial silk industry in Canada. Incidentally I might say that that was an acknowledgement by him of the value of protection. A duty was also placed on artificial silk tops, which are very largely used in our spinning mills. I am credibly informed, however, that this new industry which was expected to be in operation at the beginning of next year does not intend to manufacture artificial silk tops, therefore there is no necessity for adding duty to them with a view to encouraging their manufacture here. This matter has been

The Budget-Mr. Senn
drawn to the attention of the Finance Minister on more than one occasion, but as yet no remedy has been applied. It seems too bad that our Canadian manufacturer has to buy these silk tops at a higher rate because of this duty than does the British manufacturer who is selling his goods in competition with ours in the case of the finished article. In'spite of the very apparent result of the increase in the British preference upon the woollen and knitting industry the government have seen fit to reduce the duty- on agricultural implements. It is contended that this has been done for the purpose of aiding agriculture,, but I feel sure that instead of aiding agriculture it will in the end have a disastrous effect.
There is no use denying the fact that agriculture in Canada to-day is not in a prosperous condition. There may be some difference of opinion as to the reason for this, but I believe there are three reasons, briefly stated: The first is the loss of purchasing power in Europe. The second is the high tariff walls raised by the United States against our products, and the third is the large importation into Canada of agricultural products from the country to the south. The third reason, it seems to me, is the most important one and the one to which you must turn for a remedy for the existing state of affairs to-day.
It goes without saying that we have little or no control over the purchasing power of Europe, nor over the tariff barriers imposed by the United1 States, but it should be the duty of the Canadian government to do everything possible to adjust conditions in respect of the unequal deflation of prices. As usual the government has proceeded in the wrong way. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said in his speech last Monday as reported on page 1338 of Hansard:
We took into consideration the fact that we should, not to any extent, injure the manufacturers of farm implements in Canada, and it is not the desire of the government to interfere with the interests of any industry in Canada. But let me say that, when the full effects of these reductions are felt and when the encouragement which will be given to agriculture permeates through the business of Canada, there will be less unemployment and less emigration to the United States than under existing conditions to-day.
Notv, I should like to examine for a moment or two just what benefit the reduction in the tariff on agricultural implements will be to the Canadian farmer, and in this connection I have taken the trouble to obtain a list of the prices of agricultural implements as they are used on the ordinary Ontario farm. These are the prices at which agricultural imple-

ments are offered the Ontario farmer by a well
known and reliable firm:
Manure spreader		$227
Disc-No. 16		73
Spring tooth harrow (17 tooth)	 37
Harrows-16 ft	 34
13 disc drill	   160
6 ft. mower	, .. ..	109
Dump rake	  47
Loader	, ,.	1277	ft. binder	
284Wagon 3t x 11	
122Verity No. 8	
62Walking plough	
25Corn binder	256Cultivator	
48Small tools, axes, forks, shovels etc	
100
To this price list I desire to add the sum of $290 for "sundries" such as light wagon harness, and so on which will bring the grand total to $2,000. If the farmer could get the full benefit of the reduction in tariff on the price of these implements it would only mean a very small amount per year, taking the average life of these implements at ten years-in any case it would not amount to over $10 a year. Yet the Minister of the Interior tells us that when the effect of this reduction is felt, the encouragement afforded to agriculture will cause a wonderful revival of business. Could anything be more absurd than to have a minister of the Crown stand in his place in this House and intimate that because a farmer is going to enjoy a $10 reduction of yearly cost in his implements the government has removed all his difficulties and that all he has to do is to go ahead and prosper. The government are really saying to the farmer "We cannot do anything to increase your revenue, but if you are not prospering we will see to it that other industries are not prospering either-we will do our best to destroy the market you have in our own centres of population."
Before agriculture can prosper in Canada the price of farm products must be equalized in comparison with that of other commodities. In my opinion the way to do this is not to seek to reduce the price of other commodities by the lowering of the tariff wall, thus driving our industries out of business, but to strive to bring the price of farm produce to a higher level. Our people were never so prosperous as when prices were on the high level, of years such as 1920-21. The way to accomplish this is to retain and to enlarge our home market. In spite of a determined effort on the part of certain hpn members to minimize the value of our home market, it is and will continue to be our greatest asset.

' The Budget-Mr. Senn
The Minister of Agriculture the other night, when .speaking on his estimates, expressed the view that the imposition of high duties would increase the price of farm products. He was discussing apples at the time but the inference was plain. I contend very strongly that instead of trying to lower the price of commodities which farmers have to buy-by reducing the protective tariff-and incidentally increasing imports and driving our people out of the country to find employment-we should keep them employed and keep them consuming our own farm products. These they would be able to purchase even under a higher tariff which would increase prices.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) spoke in the same strain as the Minister of Agriculture. He went to considerable length in trying to convince the House that it was not necessary to increase the duties on farm products. Among other things he made special mention of fresh fruit and cheese, and tried to convince the House that the importations of farm products were largely of a kind not produced in Canada. He also told us that a large percentage of the fruits imported were not of a kind produced in Canada, and that the same was true about the importations of cheese. I do not wish to contradict these statements but let me say that every bit of imported fruit and every pound of imported cheese consumed in Canada displaces just that much of our Canadian products.
Then again in regard to eggs. The minister told us that the great bulk of imports are made during the months of December, January and February, just at the time when our own production is at its lowest. The same is true of vegetables. But the effect of the low duty on these articles is that the American producer has been and is still enjoying the benefit of the Canadian market when it is at its best-in other words, he gets the cream while the Canadian producer gets the skimmed milk. There is another side to this question as well. Importations of farm produce at that time of high prices displaces our eggs and vegetables, which are being held and have not been disposed of. I think the Minister of Agriculture the other night made the statement that our cold storage eggs were second to none in the world. I cannot see what difference it makes to the Canadian consumer whether he gets his first taste of new potatoes or fresh eggs in April or later on so long as he gets it at some season of the year. The ordinary artisan or labouring man does not buy new potatoes when prices are at their peak. It is only the well-to-do that benefit from the importation of American
products when our prices are high. The producer and the artisan get the worst of the deal both ways. One way we can help agriculture is by increasing and enlarging the home market. There is another way, I think, in which we can benefit very largely as agriculturists. We need a substantial reduction in freight rates. The Ontario farmer is suffering very materially from high freight rates, and I believe great injustice was done him by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates in 1922. Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, made the statement before the Transportation Costs Commission that the chief objection to those rates was the fact that it would prevent the downward revision of rates in Canada generally. These rates affect my own constituency very seriously. I do not think there is a constituency in the province of Ontario which ships more hay and straw than my own. These commodities are naturally very bulky and the freights are very heavy. Most of these commodities are shipped only a short distance, namely 60 miles to Toronto, and yet the freight rate on hay and straw leaving the five principal shipping points in my own constituency amounts to $2.75 a ton. . There are many thousand tons shipped out during the year, and if we could only have the same reduction of freight rates which the farmers of the West were granted by the restoration of the' Crowsnest agreement it would amount to thousands of dollars to the farmers in that neighbourhood.
It is difficult to understand in the face of the serious situation forced upon the woollen and knitting industries by last year's tariff reduction, why the government will threaten the existence of other industries by tampering with the meagre protection which is now afforded. One is forced to the conclusion that the retention of office is the government's first consideration and that it is of more importance than the welfare of our industries.
I am not in a position to speak about the West but am free to say that the Ontario members of the Progressive group do not represent agricultural Ontario on this question. The Ontario farmers spoke in no uncertain way in the reciprocity election of 1911 and will do so again at the very first opportunity. They realize the value of the home market and the policy which will appeal to them more than any other is one which will retain and enlarge their home market; a policy of adequate protection not only for the manufacturing industries but for their own agricultural product.

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard


Mr. JOHN PRITCHARD (North Wellington) :: In rising to speak for a few minutes on the budget, I feel that it is fitting to make some reference to the fact that death has again visited our midst. While it has not taken one of our number from us, it has affected a gentleman who has occupied one of the first positions in our land, and to-day we have a number of the members of the government prominent in the public life of the country who have not been able to appear in their places on account of ill health. We are again brought to think of the lines:
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints in the sands of time.
We are sorry to think that men who -have occupied prominent positions in this land for a number of years will, we fear, never again enter into the active duties of this parliament. I do not want to be pessimistic, but I think we all believe that; and furthermore some of us who believe we are in the activities of life, when we stop to think, realize that it will only be a few short years until we also will be called upon to depart from the scene of our present activities. May it be said of us as we can honestly say of some of our predecessors that we also have played our part in the work allotted to us.
Perhaps I might also pay the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the compliment of saying that while his budget does not please us altogether-for some of us are very hard to please I will confess-it is perhaps a step in the right direction. Now I am going to give my opponents credit for being sincere in their endeavours to do something in the interests of Canada, so far as our trade relations are concerned. I would like for a short time to view the situation as it exists, and to see what the actual conditions are today. Any remarks I may make are based on what I have heard while sitting in this House for two years; and, in common with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride)-and I came from the same stock politically as the hon. member-I have been persuaded more and more as I have listened to the debates in this House, of the weakness of the arguments of those who are endeavouring to build up this country by a high tariff wall. Perhaps there are no arguments from any comer of the House that have convinced me of the fallacy of their contention more than those which they themselves, have advanced. I have listened to their speeches with great interest, and I will endeavour to-night to make a few remarks about some of them, to

show what I consider the illogical line of argument they are endeavouring to pursue.
What is the condition in this country today? We hear from that corner of the House to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, of the terrible disaster that has overtaken the manufacturers of this country-the same disaster that has been overtaking them for the last two or three years-and they connect it with the budget which we are discussing to-day. The protective policy has been in operation for about forty years and if there have been any results affecting the economic condition of the country these results have been brought about by the tariff which these hon. gentlemen and their predecessors put into force. We have proceeded, by an over-industrialized condition to bring about a situation in this country, as I remarked the other night, where we have more manufacturing concerns than can find a market for their products. These hon. gentlemen admit that Canadian manufacturers are unable to sell commodities to any other country; but now they wish us to bring other manufacturers into the country and support them, if possible, in order that they may in this way build up the country. I can think of the proposition in no other way than as that of a man endeavouring to lift himself up by the lugs of his boots. It is just as impracticable.
The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), speaking before six o'clock, endeavoured to show us that while we were paying the taxes, the manufacturers were really paying them. I would like to see how he reasons it out. The manufacturers fix their price, and when they are fixing their price they add their labour, all their taxes, municipal and every other kind, all the cost of the products, all the overhead expenses, and charge everything up to the consumer. We all share in paying the tax to the manufacturer, and as I think the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-man) said, we pay even the sales and income taxes. But another hon. gentleman says we do not pay them. Whom are we to believe? Let us look into the situation.
These gentlemen say they cannot carry on unless they have adequate protection. I would like to know how much would be adequate protection. While in Toronto at Easter I was talking to a gentleman and he said "If I were fixing the tariff I would make it so high that the sun would not shine over it." I said, "In any event, suppose you should make the tariff as high as Haman's gallows, what then?" He will stop all intercourse with outside and he will succeed in

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
developing this country into a manufacturing country. After he has done that, what is the manufacturer going to do with his product? He tells us to-day that he cannot compete with England because they have cheap labour, and he cannot compete with the United States because they have dear labour. What does he want? He will tell us on the one hand that people coming to this country from Europe are going to the United States to produce stuff that they are selling, in many cases, 20 per cent cheaper than the home market with dear labour.
I want to go back to the question of the fruit situation which I was discussing the other night, as I did not bring out my argument fully with regard to that. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), when speaking on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, was looking over the statistical reports, and he showed the quantity of agricultural products that we, instead of growing ourselves, were importing from the United States. I think when some of the hon. gentlemen here began to look into and analyse his figures, they found that quite a quantity of that stuff was in the nature of oranges and other fruit that we cannot grow successfully in this country. I believe they do grow them in Ottawa; if not, they grow them in Guelph in very limited quantity as an experiment in hothouses, Supposing we take the hon. member's suggestion and produce this stuff in our country. We start at Ottawa, put up a large hothouse plant and employ a number of men to grow oranges and bananas and all that kind of fruit. We develop a wonderful industry at Ottawa. We then say: "Oh, we cannot make it pay; we must get protection; we shall have to raise the , duty on oranges and bananas coming into Canada because we are not making any money in this business and we cannot afford to let these people go out of employment. Look what it will mean. These people will go to the United States because we are not giving them work growing oranges and bananas in Ottawa." Hon. members may think this is ridiculous, but it seems that nothing short of extremes will show these hon. gentlemen the fallacy of their argument.
I remember Mr. Speaker while addressing some of us whom he was entertaining at luncheon, saying that the members of this parliament should be like a board of directors. I should like to look at this matter from that angle for a few minutes, because I thought the suggestion a very good one. We have been advised from the corner where we get so much advice, that we should go into mixed farming. Let us look at that suggestion for
a little while. We have a great big farm here in North America, about 4,000 miles one way and about 1,000 miles, more or less, the other way. It is a wonderful farm. We have the finest wheat fields in the world; we have the finest timber reserves in the world, and back in that stony ridge we have the finest mines in the world. We have the greatest fisheries in the world, and the greatest country in the world to absorb a population that is willing to get down to business and produce. But what is the reason that, with this tariff policy for forty years in this country of ours, we have a population of scarcely 9,000,000 people, and we cannot keep them here to-day when they do come. What is wrong? Is it free trade that has brought about that condition? Do you tell me that Canada is prosperous when we stood up in this House last session and opposed the immigration policy of the government of bringing in people from Europe whom we could not keep, and in order to bring them here taxing the people on the land who could hardly make a living? We know we have a country that can support
100.000.	000 people; yet we cannot support
9.000.	000 people, and we are talking about unemployment. What is the reason for unemployment? We have this big farm, and the policy of the government was to put people on that farm. But what did you do with the few Scotchmen who came over here and who came to Ottawa after this session began? Did you give them any employment? You could not give them employment in your manufacturing establishments, although you have been developing them for forty years and you say that you are building up this country. The farmers could not pay the wages. Why? Organized industry and organized labour have fixed their prices, and they dictate to the consumers what they shall pay for the product of their labour and their plant; whereas the other half, or a little more than half of the population, having no organization to control the price of their output or the price of their labour, have to compete with the cheap labour in Europe, and they are doing that.
Hon. gentlemen talk about keeping the Canadian dollar at par. Look at the statistical reports and see where the money is coming from. Is it coming from the manufacturers or from the farmers of Canada who are working for a dollar a day? If those men cannot make their businesses pay, why do they not follow the example of the farmers, either do the Work themselves or go out of business? They will not do that. Last session we had a howl from the woollen

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
manufacturers. They came to Ottawa repeatedly because there was a little reduction in the tariff on goods coming from Great Britain. Not long ago I picked up the papers and noticed where one of those woollen manufacturers, in this ruinous year of their business, was declaring a dividend of 7 per cent. There is an island in Muskoka-I think they call it Penman's island-of about fifty acres where you will find launches, boats, and I do not know what all. There is another gentleman who comes from a constituency somewhere around Hamilton who also has an interest in that island. What do you find? I believe the manufacturers of the wealth of this country are the producers in whatever sphere they may be moving. If they are not producers, they do not deserve to have the luxuries and the good things of this life. If they toil not, they should not have anything for a reward. When I was making a comparison between the daughters back on that island in the summer time and some of the daughters on the farm, I could not help thinking that back on that island at Muskoka: "They toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
Where did the money come from? I suppose it came from their fathers in Toronto. They do not want to pay the income tax, they have been telling us from that comer of the House that they should not pay the income tax; that we are interfering with industry. They claim that it is perfectly legitimate for 90 per cent of the money of this country to go into the possession of one-tenth of the people, to be exploited and done with just as they please at the expense of the 90 per cent. I feel that we want a policy that will give at least 50 per cent of the money to 90 per cent of the people. But they personally refuse to stand for anything of the kind. They say that they will fight anything that will interfere with the conditions under which they are living. They have been endeavouring constantly ever since this House met and since I came to this parliament to show that farming is paying.
I have been a practical farmer and there are a good many practical farmers in this comer of the House. I have been told-and I know this is correct-that for quite a number of years there were in this parliament few practical farmers, and I think the business of the country is showing the result of that to-day. We have had men trying to represent us in parliament who do not 
know agricultural conditions. These hon. gentlemen could get away with all this kind of stuff and make people believe it. When we consider the fight that we have to put up in this House to convince the intelligent representatives of this country of the actual facts, it is astonishing to me to think that we should be obliged to reiterate the facts year after year before we can get them to be admitted. Is it possible that men are ignorant of them, or is it that they do not wish to accept the actual facts when they are convinced of them? I do not know which alternative to take. I know that in some cases it is due to ignorance of the situation; but in other cases I am sure that those who refuse to admit the facts are doing so wilfully.
I referred a moment ago to the peculiar situation as regards the competition of our manufacturers, with the cheap labour of England on the one hand and the dear labour of the United States on the other. We farmers produce our goods and sell them to the men who are engaged at low wages in England. I have here an interesting little statement which I prepared in order to show the position of the working man in England as compared with that of the working man in Saskatoon, from the standpoint of the cost of living. And this is only one out of a number of items. The working man in England can buy 6i loaves of bread weighing 4 pounds to the loaf, which is a fairly good supply of bread for a small family for 7 days, and can have 15 cents a day over or SI .05 a week for milk. The working man in Saskatoon gets considerably less bread for the same amount of money; in other words, the man in London or Bristol gets 40 pounds of bread for $1.70 as against 25 pounds for $1.70 in Saskatoon. It is obvious therefore that the cost of living in Canada is too high. As a matter of fact I think this is the dearest. country in the world to live in. In the United States we can buy things 25 per cent cheaper, as was proved last year, in regard to a good many articles, in the inquiry which was held by the special committe on agriculture. And the same thing is true in England. Yet hon. gentlemen want to tax us stUl higher; they say that the tariff is not high enough. My opinion is that the tariff is not the whole trouble; I will admit that. Nevertheless the tariff is a considerable item in the high cost of living; and the wage trouble is one of the most difficult problems that we have to contend against. You cannot separate wages, taxes and the tariff; they are all interwoven. The question was asked the ex-Minister of

The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day, why the manufacturers could not sell in the United States; and he could not answer that question, because he was unable to. If the wages of the artisans were reduced to the level of the wages which the farmer is able to pay, the manufacturer would be able to sell his goods anywhere. But the working men refuse to adopt the standard of living which they expect the agriculturists to adopt. In order to exist on what the people in cities are willing to give them for their products, the farmers of Canada would have to live under the conditions of serfs; they would have to adopt the mode of life which some people say the Chinese and the Japanese follow. The; tariff is the issue, and it will be fought to the finish. It was said this afternoon by some hon. gentlemen that the tariff would be the issue before the country for some time to come, and I have no doubt as to the truth of that statement. We cannot, as I say, separate the tariff from the question of taxes and from the wages that are paid. In that direction I heard a criticism of the government by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) the other night. The hon. gentleman was referring to what he termed the extravagance of the government in connection with the running expenses of the country, comparing the year 1914 with the years 1922, 1923, and 1924. I took the trouble to work out his figures from my way of looking at the facts and I found that wages had gone up practically 60 per cent in that time, whereas the expenses of the country had increased only 30 per cent. Allowing 50 per cent of the cost of running the country now for wages, it would appear that the country is being managed to-day at a lower cost than it was in 1914. A good many charges are levelled at our public institutions and our local legislatures on account of the extra cost which is involved at the present time in administration. But the great trouble to-day is the wage problem.
As a practical farmer I should like to state briefly what I would do, and what I think every intelligent farmer does. I would not attempt to grow oranges on my farm, nor would I raise peaches. As I said the other night, I looked around to see what my particular locality was adapted for growing, and when I ascertained that, I produced that crop. Hon. gentlemen talk about the home market, and it makes me tired. Every one of these high tariff men harp, upon that string, and it is no use laughing at them if we do not meet their arguments. They tell us that if we build up the cities we shall have a home market. Well, that would take 100
altogether too long; we should have to wait several hundred years for such a market, and we are too practical to do anything of the kind. We are told that we are producing too much wheat for the market, and the western farmers are described as miners and not farmers. When travelling through southern Alberta last summer, however, I met a real farmer, a man who was by no means a miner. Now, I believe there is some truth in that assertion; I will not altogether refute it. I believe we have men who are not good farmers. But this man had been on a farm twenty-five years and he had a good stable and a good pile of manure. He was taking care of it and I said to him, "Charlie, what are you doing with that pile of manure?" He said he could not do anything with it yet as his crop was ready to cut, The crop was very good in some places, while in other places it was quite heavy; and he said there was only one little spot where in twenty-five years he had found the slightest need of manure. Had he used the manure on his land it would have been all gone; but the time will come when it will be needed. In the older section of Ontario where we have been cropping the land for fifty years I can show any hon. gentleman farms that have been constantly cropped and are yielding as good crops to-day as ever in their history. And a hundred years hence they will be producing just the same. There is one difference between our farms, properly managed, and our mining and other industries. Our timber resources may-and will-fail, our fisheries may fail, our mines may be worked out; but you will never work the land out. The land will be a national asset for all time. And we have the promise that as long as the world stands seed time and harvest shall not fail.
Now, then, the question is:	Are we going
to encourage our basic industry, or are we not? They tell us that we have over-production of wheat. What did the most expert men to be found on the North American continent testify before the Agricultural committee two years ago? They stated, and I believe them to be correct, that every year a market is found for all the wheat the world produces. We know very well as practical farmers that in Ontario we can consume a great deal of the wheat that comes from the West. We are consuming screenings, and we want more of them. There is no duty on corn coming in from the corn belt of the United States, we have been getting it free of duty for the last forty years. We are not objecting to that. When it is shipped in from the United States to our market it does not seriously



The Budget-Mr. Pritchard
hurt our market because the surplus agricultural products of the United States will reach the same market as our surplus will go to eventually. The same remark applies to importations of eggs or butter or cattle. For instance, a drover from Toronto goes to Chicago and buys cattle by the trainload, brings them into this country and eventually ships them to Great Britain. What difference does it make to us? Ultimately they all go to the one market. As I said before, the 20 per cent exportable surplus regulates the price of the home market. And anything we cannot produce successfully and find a market for we have no business to produce at all. The other night the fruit situation was discussed, and we were told that our British Columbia fruit farmers cannot sell their product in this country without a protective tariff. I noticed in the paper a few days ago that British Columbia apples are shipped as far east as Nova Scotia. But I know for a fact that in the county of Oxford one of our fruit growers made a substantial profit on his apple crop. He did not care about protection; he could compete with the world in growing apples. Therefore when the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) asks to have price regulation for farmers' produce I am astonished, for we have a soil and climate that will produce almost anything we need in the agricultural line, and consequently we have no competition to fear from any quarter of the globe.
Now, I do not wish to knock our industries, if they are essential; but I believe we have industries that we might as well be without. If they are not self-supporting and able to carry on business efficiently, I say they should be eliminated. We need manufacturing industries, but they should' follow agriculture in this country and not undertake to lead our national development. That is my opinion.
I believe that certain industries will have to be closed up, for we have too many. I remember fifty years ago in my town we had two foundries and! several other small industries. The people left the rural sections for the small towns, and eventually they left the small towns for the cities. What happened? The larger concerns came in and deliberately put the small industries out of business. Having killed the small industries and the small towns, the big fellows now are afraid they are going to be hit and they set up a howl. We had two of the finest packing plants in my district, but they were put out of business by the big packing interests, who used for the purpose the money they made out of our earnings, for they got it from nowhere else.

As I said before, the budget is not exactly what I would like to have seen. But. remember, I do not mean to say that I want greater reductions. What I want is to have the duties lowered on the necessaries of life for the working men. I am going to vote for the budget for the reason that I think the government have gone as far as I would ask them to go at the present time, but I believe the amende ment calls for something that in. the future we should have. But I am not going to lie down under the charge of being a free trader. I am not a free trader. I believe that the tariff should be lowered somewhat, for, as I said before, I think wages must be dealt with. The question of wages is the most difficult problem before us. That is one reason why I should like to have seen the resolution of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) brought before the House and discussed intelligently. After hearing the complaints and charges brought by the Civil Service in this city against the government and against hon. members, I think we must admit that they have grounds for their contention that we are willing to cut the other fellow's income but not our own. In one sense I do not think we are getting too much. But Mr. Speaker are we here for dollars and cents or in the interests of Canada? If we are here for dollars and cents we are not worthy of our positions as representatives of the people. But I think we are here in the interests of the country, and that whatever is for the welfare of the Dominion as a whole we want to accomplish. I believe that we cannot convince these men of our sincerity until we set them an example. For my part, I am willing to deal with wages just as I would deal with the tariff, that is, I would apply a 12i per cent cut to every member of the government service who is getting $3,000 and over; I would not confine the cut to the Senate and the House of Commons. I would attempt to bring things back to a balance so that the man on the farm and the manufacturer could both hire their help and work together harmoniously. In this way we could develop agriculture and so create real business for the manufacturers. It will hit. some of our industries, but I believe it is quite possible, if agriculture gets a chance to develop, for it to soon create such a volume of business as will give all our manufacturers full opportunity. to employ not only their present hands but many additional ones.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is very much left to be said in connection with the budget; the ground has been pretty well covered. To

The Bridget-Mr. McBride
me the budget is a business statement and has been brought down in a businesslike way, and I think the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the government deserve a great deal of credit for bringing it down as they have.
A good deal has been said in connection with the tariff. A number of members on this side of the House criticised the people in British Columbia for trying to get a fair price for their apples. The other night they took up two hours of the time of the House on the subject. I hold in my hand a letter from the Grain-grower's co-operative organization which shows that organization makes 60 cents per box, whereas the man that raises and packs their apples only gets a dollar a box. I would ask some of my friends who is the greatest grafter jn that transaction, the man who raises the apples or the man who gets the 60 cents. Here is the letter, written by one of the officers of the grain-growers' organizations.
There are many points in connection with the tariff that might be touched on. I think that there was a tariff reduction coming to this country. I am not a free trader by any means, but I do think that the government deserve a great deal of credit for the reduction they have made and I hope to see them go still further in that direction later on.
A great deal has been said about the poor wage earner in this country. Some people make a special plea with regard to the wage earner; they seem to be always fighting the wage earner's battle. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made the statement that about 50 per cent of the cost of manufacturing articles went in wages. I would like to quote a few figures in that connection. Before doing so, I wish to say that there has been a good deal of talk about the reduction of the tariff driving people from Canada to the other side of the line and also closing up our factories, but I see by reports from the other side that factories are closing up there also.	I saw an item in a
newspaper which stated that one United States factory had closed its doors and that 3,800 men had been thrown out of employment. If this cut in the tariff is throwing people out of work on the Canadian side I should think it would increase the activities of the factories on the other side, according to the statements of some members of this House, but people seem to be thrown out of employment in the United States just as they are here.
The following statistics were sent to me since the budget was brought down and since the statements about the poor workingman
100i
have been repeatedly made on the floor of this House. The figures are based 10 p.m. on what the workingman gets out of the manufacturers' cost, not the retail price. For instance, if the amount paid in wages based on the cost of manufacture was 18 cents, when it would get down to the consumer it would be about 9 cents. Now, here is what the wage earner gets on the dollar: in cotton goods, 17 cents; silks and woolens, 16 cenits; hosiery, 18 cents; glassware, 30 cents; sugar, salt and linseed, 3 cents; aluminum goods and gloves, 18 cents; shoes, that we hear so much about, 27 cents; carpet and rugs, 20 cents; gas engines, 23 cents; electric machinery, 23 cents. Where does the rest of it go? We do not hear that mentioned. We do not hear what the manufacturer gets, but. this is what the wage earners get. The writer of the letter I am quoting these figures from goes on to say:
A girl running a number of machines will knit 1,800 pairs of socks in a day, at a cost of 2 cents per dozen or one-sixth of one cent per pair.
Not very much in wages, is it? He goes on to say:
A man running a number of machines making spark plugs for automobiles turns out a spark plug in six seconds, at a wage cost of one-eighth of one cent.
That is what the poor workingman, whom we hear so much about, the man we are supposed to foe driving out of the country, gets out of making spark plugs. He says in conclusion:
The next time you hear any of your manufacturers wax eloquent on the high wages paid to factory workers in this country you can produce the above figures to them and ask them for an explanation.
I might say I have not got that explanation yet. Now I would like to say a few words on immigration. I saw in a Montreal paper a few days ago the following words uttered in a speech made by a certain gentleman-I do not know that I will take his name in vain just at this time. He said:	"The western
farmer and the city worker are both slaves." When I read that I could not help thinking that it was unfortunate for Canada that that class of people was allowed to land on our Canadian shores, as it is not in the best interests of Canada that such statements should be made. That- is not the kind of statement that will build up homes in this country or make our Canadians contented. We do want, immigration in Canada. I know out West it is a difficult proposition to get help on the farms. I am referring to British Columbia. We want immigration, but we do not want the class of immigration who is whining all the time. We want men who
The Budget

Mr. McBride

are willing to work and to make Canada what it should be. After nearly thirty-two years of experience I am here to say that there is no country that offers such opportunities to a young man or young woman as Canada does. There are many resources here to be developed and the country offers many splendid opportunities.
There is another kind of immigration that we do not want. I will refer to that very briefly, because the hon. member for Comox Alberni (Mr. Neill) dealt fully with it the other evening. I am speaking now of oriental immigration and I want to thank this government for what they have done in the past in preventing the oriental from coming to our shores. This government have done more to put a stop to orientals coming to Canada than all other previous governments. They have practically stopped the Chinese from coming in; last year only about seven or eight entered Canada. I would ask them, however, to go a little further and to apply the same act to the Japanese. It has been said that the Japanese have very elevated ideas about their own ability and that the Canadian people do not want to hurt their feelings. What about their hurting the feelings of the Canadian people? What about their coming to a country where they know they are not wanted? No people know better than the Japanese and the orientals in general that they are not wanted in this country. In that case why should they have this right to come and impose themselves on the people of Canada? I would ask the present government to apply to the Japanese the same act that is now in force against the Chinese. If they do they will find themselves commended in history for keeping Canada a white man's country as Australia is doing.
There are one or two other questions I should like to bring to the attention of the House. It is true they are local in their character but they are not the less important because of that. One of them has to do with the transcontinental highway. When British Columbia entered confederation it was with the agreement that the Dominion government would build a railroad from east to west so as to connect the province with eastern Canada. At that time we had a highway from the coast up into the interior of British Columbia. Some people may say that that thoroughfare was not a first class highway, but I have talked with men who frequently used it in trading operations and when six yoke of oxen were able to haul ten tons of supplies the road could not have been a very bad one. In fact I will give some figures which the engineers of the Highways Commission have compiled to

further demonstrate its favourable character. They admit the liability of the government to put that road in repair. In the first place they say, "The old Cariboo road varies in places from twelve to eighteen feet wide." They also say that it was in fairly good shape when the Canadian Pacific railway was begun. According to the report of the Canada Highways Commission to the Department of Railways and Canals the location of the road, its grades, the crib work, retaining walls, and other engineering features were all of a high order. For many years after the construction the Cariboo road was the only trunk artery into the interior of the province, and tourist traffic along the scenic Fraser route has given a new value of importance to the old road. Traffic is now impossible, as about sixteen miles have been closed as a result of accumulation of slides caused by the construction of the government built railway. The report continues:
Owing to the utilization, in part, of the general location of the old Cariboo road, pursuant to the desire of the Dominion government as expressed in instructions to their engineers to secure a good serviceable, reliable railway with the least possible outlay, it would seem that the Dominion government, should not be called upon for the cost of rebuilding the Cariboo road, destroyed in construction of railways, unless the provincial government want to reconstruct the whole Cariboo road.
That is just what the provincial government is doing at the present time. It is constructing the road, and the people out there think the Dominion government should put into condition that portion of the road which was destroyed when the Canadian Northern and Canadian Pacific railways were constructed. The estimated cost of re-establishing that portion of the road injured by the construction of the Canadian Northern would be $153,897, and the making good of the damage done by the Canadian Pacific railway would amount to $217,500. Now the British Columbia portion of the latter railway was built by the Canadian government and accordingly the province's claim in connection with that line is a reasonable one. Under the federal Highway Act a splendid system to connect roads has been constructed on the coast side of the mountains, and also in the interior of British Columbia. The Fraser river road referred to being the only link connecting the two I should say it is exceedingly important that the Cariboo highway should be opened with the least possible delay.
As I have already explained it is in regard to these portions of the old Cariboo road which were destroyed by the railway construction referred to that I am requesting the assistance of this government. The Cariboo highway has been given the status of a

The Budget-Mr. McBride
gazetted road by the provincial government, which to date has not abandoned any portion of that highway. I think it is up to the Dominion government to make a special grant in aid of the reconstruction of that road. According to the evidence of their own engineers it was the construction of Dominion railways that put the Cariboo highway out of operation and it is very important at the present time that that highway should be reconstructed. The estimated cost of the work,
I should explain, is about $1,500,000. The provincial government is not asking the federal authoritites to defray the whole cost of construction, but only a certain amount of the expense.	,
There is another matter I should like to bring up. It is in connection with the returned men and I regret that the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is not in his place. At Tranquille in British Columbia there is a sanatorium, which accommodates quite a number of returned soldiers. Those men were deemed good enough to go overseas and fight for Canada. Unfortunately while they were there quite a number of them contracted lung disease and are now in this sanatorium. Some of them have been cured as far as the treatment at the sanatorium will allow, but when they leave the institution and return to the coast they find the climate there too damp for them and very often they experience a relapse. If they seek admission in boarding houses in Kamloops, or any part of that district they are not wanted. When they leave the Tranquille sanatorium they are looked upon by many people as actually having tuberculosis and consequently these poor fellows are not wanted in boarding houses, the other lodgers would not care for their company. If the government would make a grant of say $25,000 it would be possible to purchase ten or fifteen acres of land upon which ten or twelve cottages might be erected as an experiment. By making provision of this character the government would go a long way to satisfy the returned men at the sanatorium. When they left the hospital they could go there and enjoy some of the comforts of life, and have their wives and families with them. It seems to me to be pretty hard that men who went overseas and fought for their country should have to live divorced from their wives and families when they return to Canada. For that is what it means-the wife and family live at the coast while the man himself is compelled to reside in the interior because his health will not permit him to return to his loved ones. Now, a man at Kamloops with a cottage and an acre of land could raise all the vegetables he
needed and he would be kept employed for a large part of the summer. I think the government would be well advised if it would set apart an appropriation of $25,000 for the purpose of making this experiment.
There is still another matter to which I wish to allude. The Dominion government owns a telephone system in British Columbia. That province differs from the other provinces in the fact that it is very much cut up by mountains. You can go into some of the mountainous regions and find there only ten, fifteen, twenty or maybe fifty families who are practically isolated from the rest of the country. If the government would be a little more liberal in its appropriations for telephones better facilities could be provided for the people to whom I refer and they would be in a much more contented frame of mind.
While I am in favour of immigration being brought to this country, I have always maintained that a man raised on a farm in Canada is twice as valuable as the immigrant brought in. Men brought up in the country know its ways and can readily adapt themselves to varying conditions.
I should like to say just a word about the value of the telephone in helping to bring contentment to outlying and sparsely settled districts. There are districts where telephone lines have been installed and it seems to put new life into people and to make them content. I am not saying that it is the right and proper thing that the Dominion government should own the lines. I think it should be a provincial matter. However, I am taking the matter as it stands. The Dominion government owns these lines, and has owned them since confederation. I think it would be money well spent if the government would build a number of extensions in the outlying districts. The Minister of Public Works should give special attention to the question.
On motion of Mr. Marler the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Tuesday, April 29, 1924