1924-05-06

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the third report of the select standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Limes.
Mr. CAHILL moved:: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in their third report, the select standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines be given leave to sit while the House is in session.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent,
of course.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I offered my objection to this when the motion was presented in the committee to-day, and I desire to repeat my objection now. My objection is this-and I think it will appeal to the Prime Minister and the government-that we have a very important and large committee sitting while the House is in session, and, as far as I can see, there is no particular rush for the bills that are immediately before the committee. I think that about half of the Canadian National Railway bills passed the committee this morning, and the committee passed several other bills, as the report will show. There has been no delay, in fact everything was done to facilitate the passing of the bills this morning. Under these circumstances, I see no reason whatsoever why this committee should sit while the House is in session. I think that we ought to bear in mind that the privilege of sitting while the House is in session should be granted to a committee only under extraordinary circumstances; that is, when we have a large committee, or when they have an important question to deal with, such as the revision of the Bank
1782	COMMONS
United Church oj Canada-Petitions
Act last year, or any matter of major importance. The ordinary routine work of a House committee should not occasion the sitting of the committee while the House is in session. Personally, .1 very strongly object to it.


Frank S. Cahill: Many members of the
committee are anxious that the business of the House should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible As my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre knows, it is necessary to have a number of the officials of the Canadian National Railways present at the committee meetings. It is true, a large number of bills were passed this morning, but they were passed largely with the consent of members of the opposition who have been opposing these bills. It would hardly be possible to get through in the two hours in the morning, without taking up a very long time; and in every case the representatives of the railway would have to be asked to come here. I do not think it is' the desire of the government nor of the committee that the work should be rushed any more than is necessary even if this resolution be passed. I think we can have an understanding with the opposition that we can proceed with the bills while the House is in session, so that we can keep the officials of the railway here and continue the work from day to day until it is completed, at whatever time would be suitable for the members of the opposition. I do not think it would be necessary to sit this afternoon, as suggested by the committee, but I think the motion should be allowed to go through so that we can have the officials here to continue the work, instead of calling them for a morning session once or twice a week.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion can only be passed by the unanimous consent. If the House is unanimous the motion will carry; if not, notice of motion will have to be given. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Lost.


Frank S. Cahill: I beg leave to withdraw the motion, and give notice of motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion has been
declared lost. Another notice of motion can be given later.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations, severally 
praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada be not enacted :
St. Stephen's Presbyterian Church in British Columbia,-Mr. Clark.
Knox Presbyterian Church, Red Deer, Alberta ; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Olds, Alberta. -Mr. Speakman.
Collingwood Presbyterian Church; West Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church; Nassaga-weya Presbyterian Church; Duntroon Presbyterian Church; Nottawa Presbyterian Church; Penetanguishene Presbyterian Church, all of the Province of Ontario,-Mr. Wilson.
Chalmer's Presbyterian Church, Toronto.
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House to incorporate the United Church of Canada be passed during the present session:-
Deer Park Presbyterian Church, Toronto; Wesley Methodist Church, Montreal, Quebec; Methodist Churches at Walsingham, St Williams and Port Rowan; Union Churches at Monticello, Campania and Tarbet; Wellington Street Methodist Church at London; Mount Zion and Rockford Churches at Townsend Township; Methodist Churches at Mal-lorytown, all of Ontario; Union Church at Tregarva, Sask.; Methodist Church at St. Mary's, Ontario,-Mr. Maybee.
Bloor Street Presbyterian Church, Toronto; Hope and Ebenezer Methodist Churches at Alvinston, Ontario; United Church at Marmora; Methodist Church at Bear River, Nova Scotia; Presbyterian Church at Esterhazy and Little Harbour, Sask.; Methodist Church at Ford, Ontario; Union Church at Wananesa, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Flinton, Ontario; St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Winnipeg, Man.; Methodist Churches at Cottam and Aberna,-Mr. Stevens.
Davenport Presbyterian Church, Toronto; Methodist Church, Wyoming, Ontario; United Church at Moosbank, Sask-; Methodist Church at Baldoon, Ontario; of Isaac Bowman and others, Miami and other places; Methodist Church at Ancaster, Ontario,- Mr. Lucas.
Members of the Presbyterian Church at Toronto, Ontario; Methodist Church at Alien-ford, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Rolling-dam, N.B.; Methodist Church at Tiverton, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Oakner; Fairmont Ave. Methodist Church, Montreal, Quebec; Union Church, Anglia, Sask.; Young Methodist Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Presbyterian Church, Waweig, N.B.; Methodist

United Church of Canada-Petitions
Churches at Prospect, Manchester and Prince Albert, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Montreal, Que.; Methodist Church, Lansdowne, Ontario, St. Mathews Presbyterian Church, Montreal, Que.; Presbyterian Church, Pointe Claire, Que.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, at Cedar Hill; Methodist Churc.. at Antrim, Ont.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, Pakenham, Ontario; Methodist Church, Gesto, Ontario; Methodist Church, Granby, Quebec; MacVicar Presbyterian Church, Montreal, Que.,-Mr. Caldwell.
Methodist Church at Southampton, Ont.; Union Church at Hawarden, Sask.; Methodist Churches at Greenwood, Ont.; Mary E. Mather and others, of Melbourne, Ontario; Memorial Methodist Church at St. Catharines, Ontario; Union Church at Cabri, Sask.; Methodist Church at Point Edward, Ontario; Kew Beach Presbyterian Church, Toronto, Ontario,-Mr. Halbert,
Central Methodist Church at Sarnia, Ontario; First Presbyterian Church, Alix, Alberta; Methodist Church, Yankleek Hill, Ont.; Union Church at Donville, Quebec; Presbyterian Church, Norwood, Winnipeg, Man.; Springfield Church, Springfield; Presbyterian Church, Oakney, Man.; Congregational Church at Point St. Charles, Montreal. Quebec; Methodist Congregations at Waterloo and Warden, Que.; St. David's Presbyterian Church, Toronto, Ontario; Methodist Church at Armstrong. B.C..-Mr. Charters.
United Church, North Rosedale, Toronto, Ontario; Methodist Church at Gananoque. Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Sonya, Ontario ' Session of the Presbyterian Church at Clinton. Ontario; Methodist Church at Shiloh; Methodist Church at Sharon, Ontario; Port Simpson. B.C.; Methodist Church at Tillson-burg, Ontario; Congregation at Ethelbert, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Sunny Brae and Cherryfield, N.B.; College Street Methodist Church at Toronto, Ontario; First Congregational Church at Granby, Que.; Methodist Churches at Salem, Peniel and Manilla, Ontario; Rosemount Methodist Church, Ottawa; Wesley Methodist Church at Toronto, Ontario; Knox Presbyterian Church, Miami, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Paris, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Strathclair, Man.; United Methodist and Congregation Churches at Georgville and Tomafobin and Fitch Bay, Quebec; St. Cuthbert's Presbyterian Church at St. Lambert, Que.; Union Church at Ross-burn, the . Methodist Church at Liverpool, N.S.; Methodist Church at Morven, Switzer-ville and Violet, Ont.; Griffen Union Church, Griffen, Sask.; Dominion Methodist Church,

Ottawa, Ont.; McDougal Methodist Church, Winnipeg, Man.; Saltcoats United Church at Castleton, Sask.; United Churches at Fillmore, Crieff and Huronville, Sask.,-Mr. Hoey.
Methodist Church at Adolphustown and Sillsville, Ontario; Augustine Presbyterian Church, Winnipeg, Man.; St. Andrews United Church, Winnipeg, Man.; St. Pauls Methodist Church at Harrowsmith; Holleford Methodist Church at Holleford and Hartington Methodist Church, Ontario; St. James Methodic Church at Simcoe and the Methodist Church at Lynnville, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Bay Fortune, P.E.I.; Presbyterian Church, Talamagouche, N.S.; Presbyterian Church it Souris, P.E.I.; Methodist Church, Ormstown, Que.; Victoria Presbyterian Church, Toronto, Ont.,-Sir Henry Drayton.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: I beg to lay on the Table of the House return to an order dated 9th April, 1924, for-
Copy of all correspondence, telegrams, writings, or other documents, passing between the Department of External Affairs and the British government with respect to the naval base at Singapore.



AGRICULTURAL CREDITS

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration) :: I beg to move that the report of
Dr. Tory, tabled on the 15th April, be referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	79	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Douglas Lewin-Mr. Boys.
Bill	No.	SO	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Mary Quinn.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill	No.	81	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Marie Darling Irving.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill	No.	82	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Margaret DeMello.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill	No.	83	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Mary Caroline Dooley.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill	No.	84	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Barbara Gibb Duncan.-Mr. Martell.
Bill	No.	85	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Nellie Sinkins.-Mr. Martell.
Bill	No.	86	(from	the	Senate),	for	therelief	of Catherine Jean	Livingstone.-Mr. Sheard.Bill	No.	87	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Alice Maud Knowles.-Mr. Sheard.
Half Breed Scrip

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I wish to call the attention of the government to an order that appears under Public Bills and Orders, namely, the third reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code, by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy). This is a bill which has been introduced, I think, every year since this parliament opened. It is a bill which treats of a subject that is more appropriately dealt with in a government measure. It does not look as if, in the ordinary course, we are going to reach it this session. I am not aware of the fact, but it may have been called and not gone on with. I would suggest to the government that they should take this legislation over. Nobody in this House that I know of is opposed to it. Why, then, should we not get rid of this annual whine on this subject and have it disposed of?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I do not know that it is necessary
for the government to assume the paternity of the bill, but I agree with my right hon. friend that an opportunity should be given, by unanimous consent of the House, to have the bill read a third time.
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: What is the intention of the government, with reference to the proposed Civil Service superannuation measure?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will recall that on
April 15, the government gave notice of a resolution to advance this measure, and just as soon as the budget is disposed of we propose to proceed with that resolution and pass the bill on to a special committee for consideration, where all interested parties will have an opportunity of being heard.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: In case the Superannuation bill should not pass, does the government intend to extend the Calder Act for another year?


James Alexander Robb: That will be a matter for
consideration later on as we proceed in the session and see what progress will be made in committee.
POSTAL SERVICE SALARIES On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): I should like to ask the Prime Minister, what is 
the present position in connection with the application of the government postal employees for a revision of their salaries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration j I think that is about all I can say,
LAUSANNE TREATY On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: When are we to have
any further illumination on this subject of the Lausanne Treaty correspondence? I though* my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) was likely on that again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I stated that as
soon as the budget debate was over, I proposed to take up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and that we could then deal with the matter very fully.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the Prime
Minister would make a statement on the matter later on when correspondence under way had reached a further stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been
endeavouring to get the British government's consent to have the correspondence laid on the Table of the House. I am still hoping it will be possible to get that assent, but up to the present time I have not been able to obtain it.


Arthur Meighen: I notice the British government keep repeating that they are trying to get the consent of the dominions. Where is the trouble?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Having noticed the despatch to which my right hon. friend refers, I sent a cablegram this afternoon to each of the dominions to ask if they had any objection to this correspondence being laid on the Table, that is, such of it as relates to Canada and Great Britain, and I hope the replies received will indicate which of the dominions is opposed to having it laid on the Table.


Arthur Meighen: The point is this: This is correspondence, so far as we are concerned, between Canada and the British government. We are now in the position that both governments are ready to lay it on the Table and make it public. Does the Prime Minister take the position that, with both governments consenting, we have to get the consent of every other part of the Empire?

The Budget-Mr. Boss (Kingston)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not take that position, but I understand that is the position which the British government takes.
I hope to be able to inform the British government that the other dominions acquiesce in the desire of Canada to have the correspondence placed on the Table of the House, either here or in Great Britain, or possibly in both places.


Arthur Meighen: If Great Britain is willing and we are willing, what difference does it make about the other dominions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman informs me that the British government is willing. The only reference I have seen to the effect that the British government is willing is the one that comes in today's news despatches stating that they are willing, but that the other dominions will have to be consulted. I hope the other dominions will agree to have the correspondence placed on the Table. I think the whole of it should be laid on the Table both here and in Great Britain.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 5, 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.
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this debate by way of congratulation to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb); but for my part I can find only admiration for his apparent coolness and courage as a messenger in the great surrender of the once great Liberal party. For some time, we have watched the contest waging between the Liberal trenches and the Progressive trenches as to which one of them would be the greater. Here a post office gift, there a breakwater, here a branch line railway, have gained supporters, and we have seen one deserter from the Liberal trench crossing over the aisle, two from the Progressive trench going over to the Liberal trench; but finally illness overtook some of the great warriors on the Liberal line and laid them aside from the fight. Then the white flag was hoisted, and after a consultation between the great leaders, the terms of surrender were accepted by the Liberal party. Or, we might put the matter in nautical language, of which the hon. member
for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) is very fond, and say that the pilot, realizing his difficulties and recognizing the black flag of mutiny being hoisted on his ship, has decided to save his life, has scuttled the great Liberal ship and has taken refuge on the Progressive cruiser; -I may be pardoned for calling the group across the way a party; for, if we accept the definition of that word as given by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), they can hardly be regarded as coming up to that standard; the hon. gentleman's definition of the word " party " given last year was this:
" A party is a' group of men who have decided to advance the public interest along certain lines which they hold in common.'; This is a splendid definition; but if we measure the group across the way by the standard therein stated we cannot come to the conclusion that they are of the full stature of a party. The hon. member for Brome construed the principle of common interest to mean an attit.ude of mind concerning the trade question; while the late member for Halifax said that it was a Liberal mentality towards a reduction in taxes. But if we consider the speeches of hon. members who have composed the group opposite, both in the past and up to the present time-and one might include, if one cared to venture a prophecy, those who may compose it in the future-we can find no common interest actuating the whole party.
It is interesting to note the effect of this budget on different members of the House, and, I think, most interesting of all is the effect that it has had upon the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil). He at once began to toll the funeral bells of protection and to pronounce its death knell, and in his speech he declared that after having lived in Ontario he could see no signs of industrial prosperity there. Let me inform him that since he left that province there has been a great deal of progress therein; and I should like to cite a bit of history in regard to the industrial progress not only of the province of Ontario but of all Canada. There are four or five points from which it would be well for the House to consider this question. First of all, there is the point of the capital invested in manufacturing. The following table shows the comparative sums invested in the period from 1870, in round figures:

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Manufacturing Industry in Canada
Year	Capital Invested
1870	$ 77.964,000
1880	 165,300,000
1890	 353,213,000
1900	 446,916,000
1905	 833,916,000
1910	 1,247,583,000
1915	 1,958,705,000
1920	 3,443,000,000
It will be observed that the figures for the year 1920 show a large increase due to the effects of the war. The second point from which we may consider the subject is the number of employees engaged in the manufacturing business in this period. The table follows:
Manufacturing Industry in Canada
Number of
Year	Employees
1870	 187,942
1880	 254,935
1890	 369,500
1900	 339,100
1905	 383,000
1910	 515,000
1920	 685,000
The third point is wages paid:
Manufacturing Industry in Canada Year	Wages Paid
1870	 $ 49,000,000
1880	 59,000,000
1890	 100,000,000
1900	 113,000,000
1905	 162,000,000
1910	 241,000,000
1915	 283,311,000
1920	 816,000,000
We come now to the value of the products manufactured in Canada:	.
Manufacturing Industry in Canada Year	Value of Product
1870	 S 221,000,000
1880	 309,000,000
1890	 469,000,000
1900	 481,000,000
1905	 706,000,000
1910	 1,165,000,000
1915	 1,381,000,000
1920	 4,024,000,000
It will be seen what remarkable progress has taken place in the industrial activities of Canada over the period of years I have given. In 1900 there were 14,650 industries employing five or more hands while in 1920 there were 43,200 of these concerns. I need do nothing more than give this table in order to show the remarkable development that has taken place industrially in Canada, and I have no doubt it will be sufficient to disprove the testimony of the Minister of the Interior. I would also remind the hon. gentleman that since he went to Alberta a pitiful change has come over the

situation there. When he left Ontario for that province, Alberta was a land of prosperity; the young men were going from the East to the West, and we all remember how they would return in the winter with money easily won from the fields of Alberta and of western Canada generally, decrying and criticising the young men who stayed at home tugging at the stumps and rocks in these eastern parts. Since the Minister of the Interior has had his guiding hand over that province, sunny Alberta has gone back; but we observe that only one year after his departure from the province, Providence has seen fit to bless that land with one of the finest crops the people have ever had there. I have no doubt therefore that Alberta is praying for his continued absence. The hon. gentleman's knowledge, of the history of the former Liberal party and its relation to the tariff is, I think, about as poor as his knowledge of the industrial growth of Canada: he ascribes all the ills of the country to the high tariff of the Con servative party and says that with the introduction of the low Laurier-Fielding tariff he can see signs of prosperity on the horizon.
Let me deal in a few words with the history of this country in its bearing on the tariff. From 1854 to 1866 we had a reciprocity pact, and there was an agreement between the United States and Canada, or at all events what was known as Canada in those days, that the treaty might be abrogated after one years notice. That notice was given by the United States in 1865, the treaty tvas abrogated in 1866, and there ended' our reciprocity with the country to the south. This reciprocity treaty was ended for two reasons: first, Canadian and British sympathy towards the southern states; and, secondly, the heavy internal taxation of the United States following the Civil War. By this treaty there were reciprocal rights in fishing: Canadians had rights on American shores north of the thirty-ninth degree of latitude, the Americans having rights along the shores of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton and other parts of this country. The Americans also had the use of our canals and of the St. Lawrence for purposes of navigation, and there was a reciprocal free admission of nearly all natural products of farm, forest, mine and sea.
Now, I would draw the attention of all parties to this fact, that Canada took no steps to abrogate that Reciprocity treaty. It was generally agreed that Canada had not by any means the best of the agreement, but she was willing to keep her promise and

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
so preserve her national honour. I would also point out that Canada took steps to continue the Reciprocity treaty. In 1865, Galt, the then Minister of Finance, went to the United States and endeavoured to secure a renewal of the treaty; in 1866 he and Howland made another unsuccessful attempt; and even during the years 1866 to 1868 our canals were allowed to be used by the Americans under the terms of the expired treaty. In 1867 the first confederation tariff was put in operation, its maximum rates being from 15 to 20 per cent. In 1869 Sir John Rose, the then Minister of Finance, again renewed the offer to the United States to put in operation the Galt terms of 1865. It is very interesting, in the light of what is said about Sir John A. Macdonald and his " high tariff government," to note that at that very date John A. Macdonald, as he then was, was in the United States endeavouring to get free entry to their markets in return for our fisheries and transportation facilities.
From 1869 to 1873 there was a period of world-wide prosperity, in which Canada had a large share. Unfortunately Nova Scotia alone was suffering, and to her honour and credit be it said that in spite of the disadvantages which handicapped her under confederation she has never been greedy in her demands. In 1874 the Mackenzie government came into power. Now set in one of the worst periods of depression in the history of the country. Industrial depression was prevalent in nearly all other countries, and -while George Brown was in the United States seeking, on the instructions of the Mackenzie government, to secure the restoration of the markets of the United States, Canada was becoming the dumping ground for manufactured products from every other country. It is very interesting to note that while at this time depression was rampant in most countries, the United States was the most prosperous nation in the world. She was extending her boundaries and filling her western lands with endless streams of immigrants. And it is significant that she was protectionist beyond all her rivals. Canada, on the other hand, with her low tariff of 15 per cent, was having serious deficits year after year under the financial administration of Sir Richard Cartwright. In 1878 came into office John A. Macdonald with his National Policy. This was a policy of moderate protection, but always containing-and this is an important point, contradicting the statements made in this House day after day- always containing the offer of reciprocity with
the United States. Not only so, but in 1886 an unsuccessful attempt was made to renew the treaty of 1866, and again in 1891 another unsuccessful attempt was made.
Now I come to 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was returned to power. His government at once made a further attempt to renew the Reciprocity treaty and open up trade relations with the United States. An embassy was despatched to Washington for [DOT]this purpose, but returned without success, and as a result of this last break-
4 p.m. down Sir Wilfrid Laurier uttered those words which are so well known throughout the Dominion, that "there would be no further pilgrimages to Washington." He then inaugurated what is now known as the Laurier-Fielding tariff, of which the following are the outstanding features,-although (they are often forgotten, notably so by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart)-: First, raising the Canadian tariff to the level of the tariff of the United States,-that sounds very similar to the position we should assume to-day; second, instituting an anti-dumping clause; third, inaugurating a policy of tariff administration, calculated to be just as exclusive in its operation as the tariff administration of the United States was found to be. These were the bases of the Laurier-Fielding tariff. The tariff also included these further points: First, "no further pilgrimages to Washington;" second, no appeal to foreign gods; third, no reduction in tariff; fourth, stability for the business of Canada. These are the strong points of the Laurier-Fielding tariff which brought prosperity to this country.
Now, what happened at that time on the United States side? This brings out a very interesting fact. In 1896 the Republican party gained power and under a strong protective policy established a new high level of tariff rates towards the wh-ole world. The result of that was-and I would draw the attention of the House to this point-that the Laurier government was forced to establish a tariff much higher than any which had heretofore been put in force. So the myth of the Laurier-Fielding tariff being a low tariff is exploded. Theirs was the policy which should be adopted to-day. Included in that tariff was a British preference, thereby gaining for the Liberal party a large increase of English-speaking support throughout the Dominion. The Laurier regime lasted from 1896 to 1911, and under its tariff policy this country, we are told, enjoyed the most prosperous period in its history. But in 1911, at the request of the United States government, Sir Wilfrid
17SS	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. RctSs (Kingston)
Laurier sought the sanction of the people to a reciprocity agreement with the United States, an agreement which would have given to our neighbours concessions even greater than those which had been asked for in the past. The Laurier government was defeated, and was succeeded by a Conservative government, which, so far as the tariff was concerned, introduced little or no change. In 1922 the Liberal government lowered the intermediate tariff schedules to France and other countries and increased the British preference. Unfortunately Mr. Fielding did not realize that the depreciated currency of those continental countries placed Canadian manufacturers at a great disadvantage.
Now, Sir, in opposition to the declaration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that there were to be no more pilgrimages to Washington, which he supplemented by a policy of protection higher than that inaugurated by the National Policy of the Macdonald government, the hon. Minister of the Interior asserts that his government to-day is opening the door to American industries, and, in his imagination, has lung the death knell of protection." The Laurier-Fielding protective policy brought prosperity to Canada. The King-Robb-Stewart-Crerar tariff has already brought about lessened receipts in this Dominion of ours, and the funeral bells which they are ringing are deadening the factory whistles of Canada at the present time.
Let us now examine some of the points contained in this budget. There is first the matter of a surplus. Apart from the criticism of that surplus on this side of the House we have the strong stand taken by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Mar-ler) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), that there is no surplus, and as a party we are quite content to let that idea go to the country, because when a government differ among themselves you may be quite sure that there is something wrong. This surplus that is so often mentioned reminds one of the speech made by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) lately in which he pictured the little boy praying for a toy. We might continue that story and say that the speeches on the other side, following the deliverance of the budget, put one in mind of the little boy after he has got his toy, saying: "I have a toy, I have a toy," for the speeches one after the other continue to repeat: "We have a surplus, we have a surplus." But when they differ among themselves I think that surplus can rightly be considered only a myth.
Second, there is the trade of Canada. There is always something to be said on the matter of our increasing trade, b.ut it is worth study-
ing to see whether or not this increase in trade is worth anything to the country. The imports under the French Treaty mean a lot of money going out of Canada, and nothing coming in. According to our Bureau of Statistics, there is contained in this statement of trade the fact that we have imported half as much whisky and exported twice as much as we did in the two years previous. That, of course, increased our trade, but it did not add very much to the prosperity of our country. I would also draw to the attention of the House that our friends to my left, who are perhaps the strongest supporters of this treaty, have perhaps not studied its results. I have here a table which concerns the trade of our country, and no doubt these imports are included in the total trade. It is a very interesting table and I w7ould like my friends to my left to study it and see what they have done for the benefit of this country. There has been imported into Canada from September 1, 1923, to February 29, 1924, the following imports of brandy and other potable spirits and wines:
Potable Spirits- Brandy	gallons	93,759	Value $ 594,049Gin	101,543	1,404,831Other potable spirits from France and other countries	527,533	9,245,885Wines, non-sparkling.. ..	'	344,138	521,144. Wines, sparkling in doz. bottles	1	pt.	3,996	33,678Wines, sparkling in doz. bottles	1	qt.	6,632	981882Wines, sparkling in doz. bottles	pt.	529	1,723
The total quantity of wines imported from France was 221,816 gallons, valued at $434,276. Those are wines imported into this country to compete with our own industry. These figures will all be counted in our trade returns, and unless one examines into all these things one would come to the conclusion that we were building up a great trade that was of some importance to Canada, instead it is a great injury.
This budget which has been presented to us is one of "Wait and see." The funeral bells are ringing, and we are told that they will be ringing much louder next year. It is a policy of a hand-out to the United States without any return for us. It is a policy which divides us as a people into classes. It hits one class of manufacturer, but not the others. It. benefits one class, the farmer. Why not other classes? If it is for the advantage of the farmer to get his plough free, why not for the carpenter to get his hammer, and the mason his trowel? This budget illustrates the government's habit of jumping without looking where they are going.

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
The government made the French treaty without a proper study of the situation; it made a Fisheries treaty without a proper study of the situation; it bought a hotel in Paris without a study of the situation and not through a proper representative of this government; and now it makes a tariff without a proper study of the situation.
One point that is strongly emphasized, and which perhaps has brought about this great surrender and the disappearance of the Liberal party in its amalgamation with the Progressive party, is the western situation. On our tariff policy of the past has been laid the blame for all the troubles of the West at the present time, but a careful study of the West will show that there are certain conditions which have hot been sufficiently considered by this House. There is first of all the survey of the West which divides it into sections, half sections, and quarter sections. By that survey the roads were not at all convenient for those living in the West, and1 it clearly prevented community living, which is the proper ideal of agriculture.
There is next the careless farming. If the early settlers of any one of the eastern provinces had farmed in the same way as a great many have done in the West there would be a different story to tell to-day in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The eastern part of this Dominion had just as many hardships to contend with, and I believe more severe ones, than the West has ever had.


Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member spoke
of the carelessness of the western farmer, but he just made a blanket statement. I should be very glad if he would give some examples of that carelessness.


Arthur Edward Ross: It would take all
afternoon to develop the question, but if you will listen for a few moments I will mention one or two. I am very sorry I have not with me at the moment a letter that I received from a very prominent Liberal who is much opposed to this tariff, and who was a former agent of the Liberal government. This letter was written, not by a man simply passing through the West on a train, but by one who had been through all parts of the West, and I will refer to one or two points-there are too many for me to take them all up. The farmers of the East who came here from the Old Country took up their abode on the shores of lakes and rivers. In those days they isolated themselves; there was no possibility of their returning to visit their friends or relations during their lifetime; they absolutely cut themselves loose from their former home ties. But in the case of those easterners who went to the West in the early days-I am speaking of some of my own relations now- they returned to the East each year and spent the winters here living on the easy money they had made and causing dissatisfaction among the people they encountered. But- and that is what this letter in question points out-the careless handling of the land and of implements in the early days of the West resulted in great waste-a greater waste than any tariff will be able to make good. Another point in regard to the western situation was the development there, following prosperity, of land booms and all sorts of frenzied speculation. In the next place there was the adoption of all sorts of fads with respect to taxation. These land booms and foolish forms of taxation have strongly militated against the introduction of capital into the prairie provinces of the West. A point that has been raised in connection with the tariff has been the cry that so much has been done for the manufacturers and so little for the agricultural interests. It may be asked what the manufacturer has received from this country outside of a protective tariff, to which we all contribute our small quota of some eight or ten dollars a head. On the other hand, what have the agricultural interests received from Canada? First of all federal contributions amounting in 1923 to $7,110,500. Towards agriculture Ontario contributes $1,529,000; Quebec contributes $824,200; New Brunswick, $92,912; Nova Scotia, $46,073; Prince Edward Island, $17,621; Saskatchewan, $1,060,975; Manitoba, $664,245; British Columbia, $398,370; and Alberta, $330,000. These sums do not include the grants that have been made by the different provinces towards the construction of colonization roads, a total almost as much as the direct contribution to agricultural development. So that when we compare these two aspects of our life in Canada-and I wish to be fair; I am no more interested in manufacturing than I am in agricultural development-we must admit that our industries have not been the only ones aided.


Mr. WARNER:: Was the federal grant to which the hon. member alluded given altogether for agricultural roads?


Arthur Edward Ross: No, I did not say anything of the kind. The colonization roads referred to have been aided altogether by the provinces to encourage the development of sparsely settled districts, and to provide avenues for transportation and marketing.

1790	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)


Daniel Webster Warner: Are not these roads used by cars generally; they are not limited to cars owned by farmers, are they?


Arthur Edward Ross: In the early history of these colonization roads there were very few cars in use, in fact we might say none at all. To-day almost every farmer has a car, and I am going to speak later on the subject of cars. Instead of destroying industries we should build them up as far as we can believing that they add to the development of the great agricultural interests. Just here there is one point I would like very much to stress. There seems to be a demand in certain quarters for a low tariff. Now, it is very interesting to know that every country with a low tariff is a cheap labour country. The other night the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) spoke of the southern states. Those states were always supporters of low tariff, and it is largely because their vote was absent from congress in I860 or 1866 that the treaty providing for reciprocity with Canada was abrogated. The southern states had Negro or slave labour. They were low tariff communities, and you can set it down as a regular thing that where there is a low tariff there is cheap labour. Do we wish to make Canada revert to the condition of these low tariff countries? I say, no. We have to maintain a different standard of living for our citizens, and I do not think it is in the interest of the Dominion as a whole that Canada should ever become a cheap labour country. I maintain that the budget, instead of considering the public good, has been devised in order to promote the political advantage of the government. Instead of considering all the conditions I have mentioned they have considered only party advantages.
In the budget a reference was made to economy. The government loudly proclaimed the necessity for economy, and that theme has been dwelt upon by several speakers during the present debate. But instead of acting upon their own advice the government have been most extravagant in their expenditures. Instead of placarding the country with notices advising the people to move cautiously the government have shown a bad example by their extravagant outlays. They should have again and again advised the people that the easy-money days were passed and it was time to exercise thrift. Instead of following that course, however, the government have devoted themselves to weakening the industrial position of Canada. They have embarked upon the extravagant 
and unnecessary construction of buildings to the extent of $6,000,000; they have appointed partisan officials at staggering increases in salary; they have made unnecessary additions to the public service. Typical of the latter class is the recent appointment of a Commissioner of Immigration to China. This is one of the acts of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and illustrates well the methods employed by him in his department. The government have simply capped the climax in the matter of expenditures. They have encouraged feverish expenditures upon, railways, and it is well to recall that this is not a new era inaugurated by them. From 1853 to 1860 the same wild expenditure existed. Ontario was the field of foolish expenditure at that time, as the West is today. In Ontario we had charters and requests for such parallel branches of railway as from Cobourg to Peterborough, Port Hope to Peterborough, Belleville to Peterborough, Brockville to Ottawa, and Prescott to Ottawa, all parallel lines within a few miles of each other. And what was the result?-I am only mentioning these few because they are close to my home, but cases of those kind were found all over Ontario and other parts of Canada. While this form of speculation was going on municipalities were going head over heels in debt under what was known as the municipal loan fund system that was permitted by the provinces. The result of it all was that half of the projects had to be given up. Many of the railways after being started were stopped, because wages rose to a dizzy height, men with contracts gave them up, and the contracts had to be relet at higher prices. The result of all this was that the capital expenditure in these railways became very much higher than anybody expected, and municipalities could not meet the interest and had to default. This old part of Canada received a severe blow, from which we have hardly recovered. The same thing is going on at the present time. Railroads are being built now without any question as to whether they are necessary or unnecessary. There is demand coming from people who have to draw their produce many miles from the market, that a railroad should be built. Even at the present time, with all the railroads we have in the oldest counties in this oountry- Dundas for example-a farmer has to draw his produce a considerable distance. If we take the map and measure straight across as the crow flies we find a distance of eight miles, but the farmers in that locality would have to draw their produce perhaps sixteen miles. In North Renfrew where the distance

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
in a direct line is ten miles, and South Renfrew where the distance is twenty miles as the crow flies, they have to draw their produce twenty-five and thirty miles. In Peterborough county they have to draw eighteen miles. In Bruce the distance to a railway is fifteen miles, in Grey eighteen miles, Peterborough twenty miles, Northumberland twelve, Hastings ten, Addington eight to ten, Lambton fifteen, Frontenac eighteen to twenty miles, Leeds twelve, Grenville twelve. In an old well settled county like Lambton they have to draw their produce fifteen miles in certain parts, and even in the constituency of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) (Argenteuil) they have to draw their produce twenty to tweny-five miles to a market. I am taking the distance to the nearest point of the railway, but we must also consider that these points on the railway are not always market points where a farmer can make a sale of his produce. So that even in this old part of Canada the farmers have to draw their commodities long distances. And yet we are r.ot looking in all cases for a railway to relieve the situation.
In addition to this feverish haste I have mentioned, there is also a lack of energy shown by the government in dealing with very important things that should be dealt with and which should come under this budget. I wish to remind hon. members of the condition that I spoke of in the Speech from the Throne, and that was in reference to continuing the levels along our Great Lakes. This is a very important matter to us in the East. I spoke of it from a health or sanitary point of view, and I wish now to speak of it from an economic point of view. The United States are taking steps to protect themselves, but Canada will be a great sufferer in this matter if the lowering is allowed to go on, unless drastic steps are taken to prevent it. The West will suffer more than any other part of the country that I know of. I do not know whether it is generally known, but it is a fact that the boats coming down through the Great Lakes at the present time are lightering from ten to twenty thousand bushels a trip. Each boat is carrying from ten to twenty thousand bushels less each trip owing to the lessened depth of water in our harbours. That means a great loss to the steamship companies who are not making much at the present time. The lowest loss they are suffering is $675 a trip, but it means also, if it means anything, the very possible increase in transportation rates along the Great Lakes. I know that the government might take the stand, '"What can we do?
114i
We have an International Waterways Commission, now we are going to have two or three other commissions; and what can be done in the matter?" I quite admit that there is no action the government can take to change the physical condition. But we can retaliate, and this is the course that has been adopted all these years in regard to tariffs. How can we retaliate in this matter? We have, I think, two practical methods of retaliation. The first is the closing of our canals. If the Americans persist in the system which is lowering the water level, we can refuse them the use of our canals. Of course some of our steamship companies might suffer if we adopted that course. But there is another alternative. We are to-day the only possessors of several natural resources owned in Canada. One is asbestos, another is mica, another is feldspar, and last, pulpwood.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And nickel.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, and there are others I could name. Here we have in our possession means of retaliation and means of bringing this matter to a head in the United States. But above these methods, I think pulpwood is. the one article that we can hold for retaliation. We are shipping millions and millions of dollars in pulpwood to the United States, and we are not getting very much for it in return. In addition to sending out these natural resources from our own country, we are injuring some of our industries. And speaking of those industries, I would like to draw attention to the position of the newspapers. I have here a letter from a prominent Liberal newspaper, one of the strongest supporters the government have at the present time, the British Whig, published at Kingston. I think, carrying out my idea of some retaliation to prevent the lowering of our waters we might take some stand with regard to pulpwood. The editor of that paper writes to me as follows:
Dear Dr. Ross:
Re Sales Tax on newsprint
Owijig to the condition prevailing in the newspaper field in Canada to-day, publishers are compelled, is self-defence, to urge upon parliament a relief from the sales tax as it affects newsprint.
The mortality list among newspapers since 1914 i* appalling-	,
This is advice from a Liberal newspaper, and here is the list of papers which has been strangled to death, or had to co-operate with one another to make a living.


Mr. FORKE:: Is the hon. member aware
of the fact that the Canadian manufacturers are selling paper more cheaply to the Americans than they are selling it to their own Canadian users of paper?
2792	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)


Mr. HOCKEN:: Because of the six per
cent tariff.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the hon. mem-oer for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will wait and see the matter through, he will see exactly the position we are in.


Robert Forke: All right.


Arthur Edward Ross: The letter continues :
The mortality list among newspapers since 1914 is appalling, and I do not believe that the concentration of the control of the newspapers of this or any country in a few hands is a good thing for the public. The more freedom that exists in respect to the press the better for the public. I am enclosing herewith the mortality list above referred to, and I think you will agree with me that the newspaper publication business has been extremely hard hit by the rising costs of production. Unless some relief is afforded, many another paper will be added to the list of those which have ceased publication.
There is another aspect of the situation which is a very unfair one to Canadian newspapers. I refer to the fact that, whereas we have been obliged to pay 6 per cent sales tax, and from now on a 5 per cent, tax, American newspapers and periodicals are permitted to buy our forest product free of sales tax and return it to this country free of duty to compete with our papers.


Robert Forke: I may be wrong; I want information; but I have been informed that fine paper was being sold in Canada for, I think, seven cents per pound, and the same paper was being sold' to American users of that class of paper for five cents per pound, irrespective of the sales tax altogether. I may be wrong in that information. I have no hesitation in giving names, and the firm that I refer to was the Howard Smith Paper Company.


Arthur Edward Ross: Of course, there
are a great many kinds of paper.


Robert Forke: The same brand of paper.


Arthur Edward Ross: But there are many brands. That, however, does not offset this statement that our own newspapers are being put out of business by this unfair handling of the pulpwood. I quote further
Thus, they neutralise all our efforts at building up a Canadian national spirit. The peaceful, but no less persistent, infiltration of American ideals thus encouraged, does not make for the good of our nation.
For this and other reasons it might be stated that Kingston papers are requesting total relief from the sales tax on newsprint. May we ask that you give this request your support.
That is a letter which, perhaps, indirectly bears upon the statement that I wish to make, that we have in our hands certain natural resources with which we can retaliate against any steps taken by our neighbours to the south, and the use of our pulp and paper is one that I would very strongly draw

to the attention of the government, so that they may deal with this matter of lowering levels on our lakes which is destroying our Canadian harbours at the present time, interfering very much with navigation, and leading to the very possible increase in rates of transportation.
Before I finish I should like to make reference to a very interesting speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), In that speech he pleaded with this House that our tariff should be towards the line of free trade. He, curiously enough, and in the interest, not only of the members, but of all Canadians, referred to three countries in the old world which were giving prospects of free trade, and he said that they would be lights on the horizon for us as Canadians. Who do you think were the three countries mentioned by the hon. member. The first was Ireland, the second, Hungary, and the third, Russia. Those were the countries now leading towards free trade, and he would like to draw the eyes of Canada to those three countries. We are more interested in a nation that is very similar to our own in speech, in civilization and in all other ways that one would like to make the comparison, and that is the country to the south. He would like to have drawn our attention to the fact that the United States, as I would gather from his address, was very rapidly approaching a state of free trade. I have here a pamphlet which is called the Tariff Act of 1922 on imports into the United States:
To provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes.
So, I say that this is the country we would like to study as they as a people are more akin to us by blood, by language and in many other ways. What is the tariff that they have, this "looking to free trade" tariff which has been spoken of by one or more members. I have a number of points marked in this document, but I do not like to take up the time of the House in referring to them all. This tariff goes as high as fifty and . sixty per cent. In every schedule-and there are 1,400 of them-very particular provision is made that any of the articles brought in will not compete nor interfere in any way with American manufactures. For instance, take the tariff on coal tar products, which is a very extended list of articles and on which the tariff varies. This provision is inserted:
That for a period of two years beginning on the day following the passage of this act the ad valorem

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
rate of duty shall be 60 per centum instead of 45 per centum.
There is no possibility of introducing any of those articles into the United States. So, you can go on from article to article through these 1,400 schedules with the ad valorem duty rising as high as 75 per cent on some of them. It is also very interesting to turn to their free list which contains some 200 articles. I should like those hon. gentlemen who are talking about the free trade of the United States just to get this book into their hands, to study the text and the tariff on the different articles, and the special provision made whereby this tariff protects every manufacturing industry in that country. Articles allowed in free include:
Acids; agates, unmanufactured; agricultural implements, provided, that no article specified by name in Title I shall be free of duty under this paragraph.
Here is an interesting item of the free list:
Articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, when returned after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition. by any process of manufacture or other means if imported by or for the account of the person who exported them from the United States is admitted free.
There is nothing in the history of tariffs that shows the patience and care taken to protect, even on the free list, the manufacturer, such as that provision. Another article on the free list is:
Barks, cinchona other, from which quinine is manufactured.
None of that is found in the United States, but it is all imported from South America. This is another very interesting provision:
Bolting cloths composed of silk, imported expressly for milling purposes.
There is no possibility of any competition there. This is another very interesting one of the 200 articles of the free list:
Books and pamphlets printed wholly or chiefly in languages other than English.
Does that give any opportunity for competition? Linotypes, typesetting machines, typewriters, sand glass machines, all made in the United States, are free, if there were any possibility of bringing them in; but there is no possibility. This list also includes cobalt and cobalt ore; in fact, every mineral that is allowed in free is an ore, and its free entry is allowed in order to encourage manufacturing. Then we find cocoa, coffee, coins gold and silver, copper and other metal compositions of which copper is a component material, of cheap value not specially provided for. These are free. Also free are
copper ores; and coral, but, observe, uncut and unmanufactured. There is also included in the list one article which hon members would like to know, for the religious benefit of the Chinese in their constituencies. I refer to joss sticks. The House will note with what particular care the United States protect themselves. Minerals are free-but minerals crude, and not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by any other process of manufacture which is not specially provided for. Then we come to oils, spermaceti, whale or other fish oils of American fisheries, which are all in the list. And here is another very interesting free list: personal effects, not merchandise, of citizens of the United States who die in foreign countries. Quinine and sodium also are free. And last of all is the list in connection with agriculture. In short, there is nothing on that free list in the whole 200 items which would compete with any manufacturing business in the United States. This,
I say, is the country that we should study, and if it is necessary to imitate any country, the United States is the country we should follow. I am not particularly an advocate of imitation, but I certainly say that if there is one nation whose fiscal policy we should copy, and might copy with profit to ourselves, that nation is our neighbour to the south of us. And she is not a low tariff country but one that is well protected.
*One wonders what course one should take for the general good in regard to this matter of tariffs. Many have recommended the appointment of a board; but if such a body would take away from the government its responsibility for the trade policies of this country then I for one would not support it. I believe that the government should be composed of individuals, strong enough to take upon themselves individual responsibility for the management of their several departments and who would not seek to depute that responsibility to any board. If, however, by a tariff board is meant one that would gather information for the use of all classes and groups of people in this country, which information would be readily available at all times, then we can see nothing but good as a result of its appointment. It would be highly advantageous if that board were every day on the job collecting material, gleaning information from all sources for the benefit of the Canadian people. Such information would not be biased politically, would not be coloured by any partisan predilections, and we should be able to have some guidance in the treatment of the question of tariffs.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House who have borne so patiently with me this afternoon, and before I resume my seat I would ask the government to take these representations into consideration.
Hon. E J. McMURRAY (Solicitor General):	My apology for rising to address
the House on a subject which has been so widely canvassed already is the fact that I am one of the few Liberal representatives in parliament from western Canada. At the commencement of my observations I wish to associate myself in all sincerity with the feelings, which I am sure all members of this parliament share, of regret at the continued illness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) which prevents him from occupying his accustomed place in this House and which has made impossible the delivery by him of the budget on this occasion. At the same time I wish to congratulate my colleague the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the exceedingly able budget which he has presented to the House on this the first occasion on which he has undertaken that difficult task. The budget is an epitome of clearness and has proved the business capacity of its author and shown his comprehensive grasp of the situation with which it deals. Rightly, it did not enter into any question of theory but confined itself entirely to dealing with the conditions as they actually existed in Canada to-day. And assuredly it is the duty of a minister of finance, not to speculate on conditions in regard to either free trade or protection but to consider the facts as they actually are and in the light of those facts to submit to parliament such measures as will promote the prosperity and welfare of the people. Judged from that point of view, the budget, I think will find a ready reception at the hands of the Canadian people.
What are the prevailing conditions in Canada? I think it will be readily admitted that our people are suffering from a heavy burden of taxation; and this is true not only of our agricultural communities but of all sections of the country as well. This heavy burden is due in a large measure to the war. The war has disjointed industry in every direction, and that is particularly true so far as agriculture is concerned; for apparently the prices of farm products have been far slower in returning to normal than have , those in any other industry. Agricultural prices have not sc readily stabilized themselves; and apart altogether from any question of extravagance on the part of the farmers in

western Canada, as has been alleged, the outstanding fact is that there have been re-markabfy low prices for all agricultural products as compared with a continuing high level of prices for the things which the farmers are obliged to purchase. The result has been that the large farming population of the country, the people who are engaged in the major industry, find themselves in dire straits, hardly equalled within the last twenty-five years. Indeed, it is questionable whether we can find, in a much earlier period of the country's history, such conditions of hardship as exist in Canada to-day. In the light of these conditions the budget has been drafted. It has been drafted not with any desire to interfere with the protected interest but as a practical measure to relieve the burden of taxation and encourage industry.
The budget is entirely consistent with the Liberal platforms of the past. The platform of 1893 was opposed to protection as a prin ciple and declared:
That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not, as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements of the public service.
The platform of 1919 contained a clause declaring the desirability of reducing the duties upon the instruments of production; indeed, it apparently contemplated their entire removal. Another clause pledged the party to lower the cost of living. I submit that this budget is a partial carrying out of these principles. It has been charged by our Conservative friends that the government has struck a bargain with the Progressive party. But I have shown that the budget is entirely in keeping with the party's platforms of 1919 and 1893. I wish this declaration to go out to the country: The Liberal party has made no bargain whatever with the Progressive party. On the contrary, the budget is simply the carrying out, in part, of the Liberal platforms of 1919 and 1893 which I have quoted. In these respects we have been true to the policy and traditions of our party.
The budget is a clear-cut indication that the government is committed to the development of the great natural resources of the Dominion, and affords an opportunity to distinguish between those who adhere to the policy of protection and those who adhere to the policy of a tariff for revenue.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will recall that his 1919 platform promised, among other things, free cement. Will he tell us why cement has not been touched?

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
Mr. MeMURRAY:	I would remind the
right hon. gentleman that Rome was not built in a day. I said that the budget is a partial fulfilment of the policy laid down in the platforms of the Liberal party. I also said at the outset of my remarks that it was the duty of the Minister of Finance to take into consideration the conditions prevailing in the country and in the light of those conditions to bring in legislation that would be beneficial to the country as a whole. Does my right hon. friend think we should take the duty off cement?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not. I never said so, though; that is where I differ from the hon. gentleman. He tells us that this is to be only a partial fulfilment of the party's platform. Are we to expect free cement next year or the year after?


Mr. McMURRAY:: The policy of the
Liberal party will be to effect a gradual reduction of duties and a consequent lowering of the cost of living. It may be that the duty will be taken off cement, it may not be;
I am not here to announce the future budgets of the Liberal party. *	'


Arthur Meighen: How is it that the hon. gentleman was so positive in 1919?


Edward James McMurray: I was not announcing budgets in 1919, neither had I any idea at that time that I would be standing in this House and speaking on this budget.


Arthur Meighen: A great difference.


Edward James McMurray: Yes. I have already said that this budget would be received with great satisfaction by the people. The knowledge that there will be a reduction in taxation of $24,000,000 is good news in the homes of struggling people, to whom a reduction of three or four dollars in taxation is a considerable relief. This reduction in taxation is also very satisfactory to our farming population, who complain that they have been heavily taxed for the benefit of a comparatively small agricultural im-5 p.m. plement manufacturing class, an insignificant class numerically compared with those engaged in agriculture, and even compared with those engaged in manufacturing generally, for all told it numbers only about eight thousand people, with an invested capital of about $94,000,000; a mere fraction compared with the great number of our people employed in agriculture and their capital investment.
Now, what are the arguments of our Conservative friends against the budget? The
only objection that we hear in this House proceeds from those who are in close contact with manufacturing districts. Our Conservative friends never argue the economic justice of protection. We have listened this afternoon to an able speaker, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), but not once in the three-quarters of an hour during which he addressed the House did he attempt to justify protection as an economic principle. Protection lays a burden upon one section of the country for the benefit of another section. But our Conservative friends attempt to discount this economic injustice by bringing forward a series of so-called arguments in support of protection. In a word, they are strong in assertion, weak in argument, and lacking in proof. Their first argument is that of the lawyer in court:	They are thinking not of
themselves but of the poor workingman. Invariably the supporters of protection speak about the necessity of providing work for our working people and declare that they should not be obliged to go to the United States and other countries to seek employment. Let us examine the soundness of this argument.


Arthur Meighen: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I should like to get him to the point. If he believes that protection is an economic injustice, why does he tolerate it for so many months, why does he not see that it is got rid of at once?


Mr. JACOBS:: He is only one member of the government.


Arthur Meighen: The rest are fighting
him?
Mr. MeMURRAY: As I have already told my right hon. friend, Rome was not built in a day. One of the evils of protection is that once established in a country it is very difficult to remove it without causing undue hardship not pnly to the working people, whom the Conservatives pity so much in their arguments, but to the country as a whole through the disjointing of business. We are all drawn more or less together in every way, and reforms can only be made step by step.


Arthur Meighen: How, then, does the
hon. gentleman explain the new protection introduced last session for artificial silk?
Mr. MeMURRAY:	My right hon. friend
cannot get over that French treaty apparently.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no, it is not the French treaty at all, but the budget of last session.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray


Edward James McMurray: I will touch on that.
I wish my learned friend would try and keep to the subject of my argument, instead of wandering afield. *


Arthur Meighen: This is keeping to the subject. Do not forget my point.


Samuel William Jacobs: He was not a member
of the government when that was introduced.


Arthur Meighen: He supported it.


Edward James McMurray: I suppose the workingman is not worrying very much about artificial silk to-day at any rate. Now what is the position as to the workingman? The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Ross) argued that protection keeps up high prices, and that the workingman gets good wages, possibly the highest wages under protection. It is true that protection will keep up prices to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent, as the history of protection in this country shows. The workingman may get higher wages, but it is debatable whether he gets steady employment or not under protection. He has to pay more for what he consumes just the same, and the financial critic of the opposition was going to benefit the workingman by protecting the farmer and raising the price of the eggs and the cheese and the other things that the workingman eats. He and his friends would put the workingman's employer in a protected market, but is the workingman protected? No, because the doors of immigration stand open, and he must face the competition of those who are coming into this country. He always had had to face that competition in this country, and on more occasions than one employers have come to parliament and urged the bringing into this country of trained artisans, in order as they said, that industry might develop and operate better. So the argument of my Conservative friends that protection is beneficial to the workingman is obviously weak, because he has to buy at a higher price the necessities of life in a protected market and the door is always open to let in immigrants to compete with him. The employer is protected, but the workingman is not. So the argument of our protectionist friends is without foundation.
The second great argument that our protectionist friends make is that protection will build up a home market in Canada. I suppose what is meant by a home market is that there will grow up in this country large industrial centres, giving employment to a large population, which will consume the products that the farmer produces, and in that way supply him with a market for his 
goods, but one thing our Conservative friends have never been able to do is to show just exactly what protection has done for Canada, just exactly how much of a home market it has built up. Australia, for instance, is no great industrial country at all. I would judge from casual reading and the knowledge I have of the large cities of Melbourne and Sydney, that they have grown up without the aid of manufactures or high tariffs. Will my hqn. friends contend that Edmonton, Regina, Vancouver and Winnipeg, cities which have had a phenomenal growth, were built up by protection and by manufactures in those cities? They are distribution centres for a large section of the country, and they would distribute just the same under a low tariff. Goods coming from the United States would develop them just as much, because they are cities that have been built up on the export and import trade passing through. I would doubt very much whether the city of Montreal, which has had a remarkable growth, has not been built up in part by the passing of goods in and out through its doors.
The next great argument of the protectionists, indeed, the favourite one of my right hon. friend and those who follow him, is loyalty to country. We always have had that argument, that the goods consumed in Canada should be produced in Canada by our own people, for our own people. That must be done, no matter what the goods cost, and our protectionist friends charge their opponents with knuckling down to the Americans, with not standing up and fighting them and putting up a high tariff wall. I would ask, who is it that is knuckling down? Who is it that will not stand up and fight the Americans? It is the manufacturer. He asks the agricultural interests to put their shield and buckler out in front of him to shield him. He is the one who is constantly sounding the bugle of retreat; he is the one who will not fight and compete against the Americans. So the argument of knuckling down or backing up goes right home to my hon. friends opposite. They ask the agriculturist to protect and shield the man who is in a position to compete.
Now what has been the real policy of the Conservative party, and have they been sincere in their contentions and arguments? The policy of the Conservative party, as was well stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), was laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald on the 7th of March, 1878, in the old parliament buildings here.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
In concluding his speech Sir John Macdonald said that protection would-
-encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade, and moving as it ought to do, in the direction of a reciprocity of tariff with our neighbours, will greatly tend to procure for this country, eventually, a reciprocity of trade.
Later on, another eminent chieftain of the Conservative party, Sir George Foster, speaking in this House in 1893 said:
But, Sir, if there is anything like honourable reciprocity. anything like reciprocity with mutual advantages, and which can be bought by not paying too dearly from the life blood and industrial blood of this country, if there is any reciprocity of that kind this government stands committed to take it and to strive to get it.
That is the stated policy of the Conservative party. I have often thought, and I believe many others have entertained the same opinion, that the National Policy was a "pick-up" policy. Owing to the condition of hard times prevailing in Canada, a condition that was world-wide Sir John A. Macdonald, astute politician that he was, picked up for the time being a policy of high protection, but he took good care to state that it was to be a moderately low tariff and that its object was, as it ought to be, reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbour to the south. Sir George Foster, as I have said before, emphasized that attitude. When the time came the Liberal party, true to their platform of 1893 brought forth the policy of reciprocity with the United States. In 1911 an election took place on that issue, and where did our Conservative friends stand then? Where did the leader of the opposition stand on that occasion? What was the course of the party who were committed to a policy of reciprocity of tariffs? They opposed reciprocity absolutely in the belief that it would hurt their protegees, the manufacturers of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was the
trouble.


Edward James McMurray: Reciprocity was not going to hurt them but they were afraid it would. So the Conservative party lost courage and trembled at the approach of danger. Reciprocity was in the interests of the people of Canada, as I shall prove by figures before I close, but the Conservatives claimed it meant the insertion of the thin end of the wedge and that although it might be in the interests of the consumers it would injure the manufacturers with whom they are associated and who [DOT] are their political friends. The so-called National policy at its inception failed to visualize the Canada of to-day.' It was evolved when we were a small pioneering people in Ontario, Quebec and
the Maritime provinces and conceived of a market in the towns of the Canada of that day, for the poultry, eggs, vegetable products, and other commodities, which the farmers were able to produce in a small way. That policy never contemplated the great world-wide trade that we enjoy to-day. It never conceived of the great Canadian West with its production of 400,000,000 bushels of wheat a year. If the National Policy had foreseen such a prospect it would never have had the audacity to propose to build up in the manufacturing parts of Canada a home market sufficient to take care of the vast production of the Canada of the future. The National Policy was restricted, it was confined in its outlook, it was not constructive, nor was it really national in its character. It never took into account the development of the vast area of western Canada at all, that portion of our country which to all appearances in the years to come will contain an overwhelming proportion of our population. It took no account of the West, and what did it give to the Maritime provinces? If any section of Canada is entitled to praise for its great loyalty and steadfast adherence to confederation it is those little provinces down by the sea. They maintained this attitude in spite of the hardships they had to encounter, and notwithstanding the fact that they could hardly ever hope to get into the market of central Canada. The only thing I can conceive the National Policy has done for them has been to give them a little protection on coal, and some assistance in the shape of the Intercolonial railway. Why call the policy introduced in 1878 a national policy at all, when it was not national in its character and did not embrace any proportion of Canada? Why call it national when its benefits, such as they were, were confined entirely to a limited section of our people?
Now, let us see what happened in the way of developing Canada as a result of the inauguration of the National Policy? When the National Policy was introduced in 1878 our exports amounted to S67,989,000 and after eighteen years reached a total of $109,000,000, a gain of some forty millions in eighteen years, or 3i per cent per annum. Our imports under the National Policy in 1878 amounted to $90,000,000. In 1896 they had increased to $105,000,000, a gain of fifteen millions in eighteen years or less than one per cent per annum. The total trade of the country increased from $158,000,000 to $215,000,000 in eighteen years, or a growth of l4/s per cent per annum The population from 1878 to 1896 increased one million.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
Under the Liberal policy adopted in 1896 a different story has to be told.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Was the tariff higher or
lower than previously?


Edward James McMurray: I will go into that
whole matter. The tariff was consistently lower. The hon. gentleman may differ with me but I contend that it was lower. I will endeavour to show my hon. friend that it was another policy altogether than the National Policy that made Canada great and prosperous. Under the Laurier policy our exports increased from $109,000,000 in 1897 to 1274,317,000 in 1911, or a growth of 120 per cent in that period, at least three times the rate of growth under the National Policy. The imports were more marked than that. O.ur imports increased from $106,000,000 in 1897 to $452,725,000, or 327 per cent in 1911, or at the rate of over twenty-three times what they were under the old policy, and our total trade in those fifteen years increased from $230,000,000 to over $727,000,000, or at the rate of nearly fifteen times what it was under the old National Policy.


Edmund James Bristol: What was the tariff on
agricultural implements in 1897?


Edward James McMurray: I will give my hon.
friend all that later if he will allow me to develop my argument. The population of Canada in these fifteen years increased by two and a quarter million. I well remember in Ontario a portion of the time when the National Policy was in operation. Those were dark and dismal days in our country. Our people were leaving Canada by the thousands. The National Policy could not supply employment for them at home. The young Canadian, the manhood of Canada, went to the States, to build up Chicago and Detroit, to populate Minnesota, the Dakotas and Montana. Prices fell in the country. I well remember my father selling milch cows, good quality, at $18 and $20 apiece, and horses at $50 apiece. I boarded in Stratford with a man who worked for $1 a day shovelling coal. Wages fell. The market was not in Canada. It had reached its full development. They could employ no more. There was no more market. The Conservative party never had the capacity, or the National Policy never had the capacity, to settle the Canadian West.


Edmund James Bristol: Did the Conservative
party have anything to do with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Edward James McMurray: The Conservative
party probably had something to do with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the West, but if the Conservative party

were not favourable to settling the country, Canada would be better without the road if that party were to remain in power. While they may have started the construction of that road, my hon. friend would probably be frightened if I were to recite the circumstances of the connection of the good old Conservative party with the building of that road. We know what happened in Canada in the eighties. Our people went out of this country. The many statistics that I have before me will show that native-born Canadians were going out of Canada at the rate of 116,000 to 120,000 a year, and that was not at a time or under conditions such as exist in Canada to-day. During the war, while Canada was wasting its blood and treasure, the United States was accumulating tremendous amounts of money and was gathering together vast stores of wealth that had to find an outlet in the development of the resources of that country, calling to our artisans in Canada to go over there. It is not to be wondered at that there would be an emigration from this country to the United States under those circumstances. These are exceptional circumstances in the country. But when that great emigration went from this country to the United States during the fifteen years of the National Policy, there were no such differential circumstances between this country and the United States. The two countries had great natural resources to be developed, and they were populated by a race of people very much akin, but the National Policy could not keep the people on the farm, and could not give work to the people in the city. Wages were low and prices were poor. They could not develop the country and Canada was in a very serious predicament. Had there not been a complete change of policy by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government, had they continued merely the National" Policy, the great Canadian West would never have been settled, and we in all probability would have been in a serious condition financially.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: W'hat policy did
they give us?


Edward James McMurray: I will tell my hon.
friend the policy they gave us, and I will also answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). They gave us a great immigration policy, a policy that opened up the doors of the great Canadian West to the people of the country. The Conservative party had absolutely nothing to give to the West, never gave anything to it and never would. They cannot show in all the years they were in power in this country a single thing they gave to the West.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray


Edmund James Bristol: They gave the people the railway to get there.


Edward James McMurray: They gave them the railway? That railway was first started by the Liberal government under Alexander Mackenzie.


Edmund James Bristol: To what extent did the
Laurier tariff increase or decrease customs duties, particularly with reference to agricultural implements which you have been discussing?


Edward James McMurray: I have it all right here. The firsi thing that the Laurier government did when it came into office was to look over the resources of this country, and proceed with their development. One of the first things that government did was to establish a cold storage system to take care of the products which the farmer had to sell in his home market. The National Policy had failed to establish a home market. It could never have dreamt of establishing a home market as its advocates prophesied to the people of Canada. A home market might have been established for a small section of Canada where they were producing in a limited way; but taking this country with all its great resources, the National Policy was one of restriction, one of walking slowly, something that might have developed this country in thousands of years to come, but which never could have developed Canada in any reasonable time. Things had to be brought into the country in order to build it up. Outside markets had to be established. The goods-of the country had to go out of the country, and, as one hon. gentleman said the other evening, when you sell your goods you must be prepared to buy. The Liberal party established a great cold storage system, and they commenced to lower the rates on the railroad. The Crowsnest pact was established at that time to protect the farmers of western Canada in the rates they had to pay. They did reduce the duties my hon. friend speaks of. The duties were reduced all along the line in 1907 on agricultural implements.


Edmund James Bristol: I was asking about 1897.


Edward James McMurray: The condition of this
country at that time by reason of the National Policy was such that there was a positive danger if too active and drastic action were taken. We simply had to take things as we found them and carry them along; and true to our pledges, we turned to reciprocity and reduced the tariff all along the line in 1907. Four years later we proposed reciprocity with
the United States, and, true to our policy, we fought it out. There is a suspicion, and more than a suspicion, abroad in this country, that vast capital was gathered together of those interests who were not being injured at that time at all by the reciprocity pact, to fight for their own selfish advantage against the welfare of the vast consuming and producing population of this country.


Donald Sutherland: Under the reciprocity pact, was not the tariff on all agricultural implements, everything the farmer has to buy, and particularly cement, much higher than the tariff is to-day?


Edward James McMurray: Then 'I will ask the
hon. gentleman: Why did he vote against reciprocity? Why did the Conservative party oppose it if those tariffs were higher as he alleges? Is there any consistency in their attitude?


Donald Sutherland: I asked if that was not a fact. It is no answer to ask another question.


Edward James McMurray: It is a very fair answer.


Robert Forke: That is the usual Scotch
method.


Edward James McMurray: The method is well
recognized.


Donald Sutherland: Does my hon. friend want an answer to his question?


Edward James McMurray: No.


Donald Sutherland: I may say that I opposed reciprocity because it was placing on the free list everything the farmer had to produce and nothing he had to buy.


Edward James McMurray: My hon. friend's views, apparently, were at great variance with those of the farming population of this country in that regard.


Donald Sutherland: Not at all.


Edward James McMurray: We find, however, in 1907 a substantial reduction all along the line on articles from what they were in 1894 and very much from what they were in 1883. If my hon. friend will pardon me, I will come in due course to the question of reduction of those duties.
The immigration policy of the Laurier government, carried on in spite of the high tariff conditions in which we found ourselves, brought into Canada in fifteen years 2,250,000 people; it multiplied our trade by 500 per cent; it multiplied our imports by more than

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
that amount, and it found for the manufacturing interests of this country a market that their Conservative friends could not find for them at all. In those fifteen years the great cities of the West grew, the cities of Ontario grew, Montreal grew, Vancouver grew; they grew because of a great immigration policy, arvd they proceeded to develop the resources of this country and to open it up.


Donald Sutherland: Was this immigration not owing to the fact that railways had been built through the western country enabling the country to be settled? In the earlier days of the National Policy, those railways were not there and consequently the country could not be settled.


Edward James McMurray: Those railroads were
there for a long time. The Canadian Pacific was built through in 1882, 1884 and 1885. The country was there and just as rich as it is now, just as rich as Montana, just as rich as the Dakotas, to which the National Policy was sending 100,000 to 125,000 of our young Canadians every year to settle and populate that country. Why could the National Policy not have sent those young men to western Canada? It could not do that.


Edmund James Bristol: They were all scared that the Liberal party were going to bring in free trade.


Edward James McMurray: They are not very
much afraid of it now. In western Canada the people have never been afraid of free trade. It was that immigration policy that built up the very city which my hon. friend has the honour to represent. What the manufacturers of this country want is a home market for themselves. The producing people, the agriculturists of Canada, can never have a home market of any adequate size supplied to them here. They must go out to the world with their supplies. The great failure of the National Policy was that it destroyed the home market for the manufacturers. My hon. friends have asked me concerning the reductions in the duty on agricultural implements, and it is very interesting to consider the attitude of manufacturers of agricultural implements from the day of Sir John A. Macdonald's tariff, his so-called National Policy, to the present time. I say without fear of contradiction, that manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country have been opposed to or, at least, have never demanded a high protection policy. I have the examination of Mr. Aost, of the Frost and Wood Company, held before a committee of this House away back in 1876. He was asked whether his company wanted protection. He was asked this question:

How does the cost of material, rent, and labour in the United States compare with the cost in Canada?
He replied:
The machine we sell at Prescott at $75, twelve months credit, is sold by the American manufacturers at Ogdensburg, at $100.
Q. Still you sell cheaper than the manufacturers in the United States?
A. Yes, 25 per cent. By competition we succeeded in driving them all out of the country.
John Watson of Paris, Ontario, a well-known manufacturer there, giving evidence on the same occasion, said:
I have worked up my business, commencing with two men up to what it is to-day, increasing each year. Just as my capital increased I put it in the business.
Then he was asked this question:
If we adopted a policy which would require protection to iron manufacturers as well as other trades, the effect of that would be injurious to your trade?
A. Yes; I think our business is protected just as much as it is necessary to protect it. The Americans can do nothing in the way of sending their goods here. We can compete with them in any shape, and we produce an article which they cannot excel.
Mr. SUTHERLAND): What was the tariff at that time?


Edward James McMurray: It was 15 per cent. Then Mr. Watson was asked this question:
Do you believe the policy of the present government in not protecting home industries is a good policy, allowing the Americans to flood our market with goods?
A. I think it is better to do that than to increase the tariff-
And I would call the attention of my hon. friends opposite to this.
-because the foundation of this country is agriculture and if you increase the tariff for the benefit of manufacturers, of course it must be disadvantageous to the farmers. I have noticed that in a season when the farmers were prosperous the better position they were in, the better position I was in.
And, the better position that the agriculturists of western Canada, indeed of Canada as a whole, are in, the better for the manufacturers of this country. They should cultivate the home market, not destroy it. I have this letter, dated in 1876, from Mr.* Massey of the Massey-Harris Company. In conclusion, he says:
We may also add that the existing tariff is satisfactory to us-
It was 15 per cent at that time.
-and is sufficient protection, perhaps even a little less would also be. A still further advance in the tariff would certainly prove adverse to our interests.


Edmund James Bristol: I do not want to disturb my hon. friend, but I should really like to know what they got in 1897.


Edward James McMurray: Never mind disturbing me; I shall probably disturb you before I

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
am through. I will tell my hon. friend what they got in 1911.


Edmund James Bristol: No, 1897.


Edward James McMurray: This was the evidence of Mr. Metcalfe, of the International Harvester Company, given before the committee of Ways and Means in the United States. He was asked the following questions:
Mr. Cumpacker: Do ydu manufacture any cheaper in Canada than in the United States?
Mr. Metcalfe: They do not.
Mr. Cumpacker: As cheaply ?
Mr. Metcalfe: Comparatively.
Mr. Cumpacker :Can you manufacture cheaper than the English manufacturer or the German manufacturer ?
Mr Metcalfe: I think they can, otherwise they could not compete with them in Germany and England.
And last year, before the special committee of this House that wa9 appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions in Canada, Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, general manager of the Massey-Harris Company, testified as follows to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), in regard to the company's plant in New York state:
Q. Do you find that your costs of production in Toronto are lower than your costs of production in Batavia?-A. They run about the same.
Q. They run about the same? I should judge from your answer that there was just some slight advantage on one side or the other.-A. I would think that the Batavia plant on certain machines only has the advantage. I would not say that in all machines it has.
Q. Do I correctly gather from your evidence that it costs your company about the same amount to manufacture their machinery in the United States and in Canada?-A. I will not say all our machines, because that is not the case, but some machines are manufactured more cheaply in the States than they f.re in Toronto, and vice versa.
We have the testimony of these manufacturers of agricultural implements, and if my hon. friends of the Conservative party will do themselves the justice of reading this evening's Journal, published in the city of Ottawa, they will see in that newspaper the statement of the Massey-Harris people that they are very well satisfied with this tariff and are capable of making a reduction on machinery sold to the agricultural people of the country. The real fact of the matter is that, so far as the agricultural implement industry in Canada is concerned, there has never been any need of protection; and to show that this statement is true I will now oblige my hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) and the. hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) by citing some figures in regard to the tariff on certain lines of agricultural machinery. I think that this will show that while we have not by this budget hurt the manufacturing industry of Canada to the slightest extent, we have on the other hand done something that will prove beneficial and encouraging to the farming population of the country.
In 1867 the duty on mowing machines, and so forth, was 15 per cent; in 1879 it was 25 per cent; in 1883, in the halcyon days of the National Policy, it was 35 per cent; in 1894 it was down to 20, per cent, which was also the rate in 1897. In 1907 it was 12i per cent, 17J per cent, and 17i per cent.


Donald Sutherland: Under the Laurier
tariff?


Edward James McMurray: The Budget-Mr. McMurray
order that I may reinforce the argument I am making I propose to put the figures on Hansard. My right hon. friend made the statement that these industries were entrenched behind ramparts of gold, a statement which he had to meet during his last campaign in western Canada. He went further and said that we had built a Chinese wall around them, and while he did not propose to wipe the duties out altogether he was going to reduce them. I say therefore, in the light of the hon. gentleman's remarks at that time, that he cannot argue against any reduction on agricultural implements to-day. He took as his test the export trade of the agricultural manufacturers at that time, and that trade is greater to-day than it was in 1910. Not only was that his position; the Hon. Mr. Lake, the then member for Qu'Appelle, and Mr. Herron, a Conservative representing the constituency of Macleod, contended that the duties should be absolutely removed from agricultural implements. That is the history of the agricultural implement industry in Canada; that is the history of the attitude of the right hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition; that also is the view of some Conservative members representing constituencies in western Canada on that occasion. These being the facts, how can we be charged to-day with trying to do by this budget what is unfair, or putting a heavy burden upon our manufacturing industry? The history of the agricultural implement industry, the assertions of the implement manufacturers themselves, and the assertions of representative men in the ranks of the opposition, prove conclusively that this industry is quite capable of standing upon its own feet; and we have adopted our policy after taking these conditions fully into consideration.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS
THE NORTHERN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA	.


Mr. G. N. GORDON (West Peterborough) moved:: That the order of the House for consideration in committee of Bill No. 30, respecting the 'Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada, be discharged, and that the bill be referred back to the Banking and Commerce committee for further consideration,


Hewitt Bostock: This is due to a slight error in the report from the committee the other day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 8, to change the name of the Travellers' Life Assurance Company of Canada to "Montreal Life Insurance Company."-Mr. Jacobs.- Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
Arthur Meighen: May I ask what is the idea of this change? I would think it rather serious to change the name of an important company. What is the purpose of it?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am not sure that I can
tell my hon. friend. I was for years the president of that company, and negotiations had taken place between the Travellers' Life Assurance Company of Canada and the 1 ravellers' Life of Hartford to have the name of the former changed; in fact, suit was taken at one time when I was president, but I did not pay any attention to it because parliament was supreme and had given the company that name. It may be that they have come to some arrangement, although I am just speaking from what I have in my mind, whereby the name of the Travellers' Life should be changed and another name assumed so as to avoid confusion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.	[DOT]
On motion for the third reading of the Bill:
Mr. CALDWELL:: I feel that I was wrong in not registering a protest when this bill was in committee.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You are too late.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know whether this is one of the life insurance companies that issues a special rate for travellers or not.


George Perry Graham: It really has nothing to do with travellers although its name might indicate that it had. The company does a general life insurance business.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: At the same time I
think we should have full information before the name of the company is changed. We should know whether the outstanding policies are going to be affected by this legislation and whether the obligations of the old company are going to be assumed by the new concern. I think we should have full infor-

Private Bills
mation in a case of this kind because it is a matter that affects the public pretty widely.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The committee has
dealt with this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the motion carried or
lost?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye. [DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Hewitt Bostock: I am of opinion the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.



THE T. EATON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 9, respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Limitation.
George Perry Graham: I am not sure that
it might not be a good thing if it were intimated that bills should stand if the member in charge was not present. That would perhaps secure us more information concerning these bills. Bills come before us of which the right hon. leader of the opposition, not being a member of the committee, has, of course, no knowledge. I have no knowledge of this bill myself, and as it is we have to take it on faith.


George Newcombe Gordon: This has been reported from the committee.


George Perry Graham: I am not objecting to the bill, but I am not sure that it would not be a good thing if intimation were given that the member in charge ought to be here so that we could ask questions in committee with the hope of getting an answer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the preamble
carry?


Arthur Meighen: I think that is a good
place to stop. I thoroughly agree with the minister. I do not think there is very much common sense in going on with these bills if the only member who can explain them is not here.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for
South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) is here.


Arthur Meighen: That was doubly applicable to the last bill. I do not see any reason in the last bill yet and I would like to know a little about these bills before they go through.


George Newcombe Gordon: The bill has been reported by the Banking and Commerce committee, and, of course, it has to be read a third time.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but why is the bill before us? It is before us that we may give our consideration to it, and . we cannot give any consideration to it if we have not the slightest notion what it is here for.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I agree with the leader of the opposition. I think the bill that has just been reported is a very serious one, although I presume I am out of order in speaking about it now. I would ask that this bill be not reported until we can be given some information regarding it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Let this one pass. P
will be a warning to them next time.
Progress reported.



COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 23, respecting the Commercial Travellers' Mutual Insurance Society.-Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, other
commercial travellers' insurance associations carry a special kind of insurance. I have had that insurance myself for years past. You get a special rate on account of your occupation but it is only given by certain companies. If any change is contemplated in this bill we should have full information as to what is proposed before it is passed.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS

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


Edward James McMurray: During the course of my remarks this afternoon, possibly at the risk of being exceedingly wearisome to the House, I produced a considerable quantity of figures which I assert substantiate the proposition that high protection, as established under the National Policy by Sir John A. Macdonald, was not a national policy at all, as it was confined to a very small area of the Dominion of Canada, practically to the province of Ontario and a small portion of the province of Quebec, and had not considered the great Canadian West, and had nothing to offer to the Maritime provinces. I maintain that those figures prove that that policy failed lamentably to advance our trade, that it failed to hold our population, that our people went by the thousands and hundreds of thousands to the United States, that during that time prices had fallen, that the National Policy was incapable of supplying the labouring men with work, that it absolutely failed, as it must do, to provide a home market in a country of vast natural resources such as Canada possesses, and that it was not fair to the farmer, consumer or the working man. I endeavoured further to prove, in dealing with the facts and figures of the 15 years of the Liberal regime under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that Canada had advanced with wonderful rapidity, had become known to the world as a great exporting and trading nation by reason of the well-founded and active immigration policy introduced by Sir Clifford Sifton, that
the National Policy was incapable of setting or developing western Canada, that the prosperity that existed and the success achieved in manufacturing in eastern Canada during that time were due largely to the fact that an aggressive policy of immigration had developed a home market for the manufacturers, and that instead of, as my hon. friends the Conservatives argue, a market being required for the agriculturists and those producing natural resources, what is really required is a home market for those who must manufacture.
I further asserted, and still assert, that the Conservative party have never been sincere in their protestations of a desire to obtain reciprocity with the United States. It is true that their outstanding leaders have asserted in the past that reciprocity was their aim and that they should endeavour to procure it at the earliest possible moment; but in 1911, when the field was open, and the Americans had a reciprocity treaty on their statute book, our friends showed their true colours and rejected reciprocity. I claim, Sir, that reciprocity would be a good thing for Canada. Following the dark and dismal days immediately preceding the year 1854, the period from 1854 to 1865 was one of wonderful prosperity in the development of Canada's trade and production. I am fair enough in my argument to admit that there were certain exceptional circumstances to encourage the development of the great natural resources of Canada at that time. There were the Russian and American wars, but still in spite of that Canada had no such prosperity except such as she later enjoyed under the Laurier regime. It is interesting to have the figures before us, and I take the liberty of placing them upon Hansard. To show how great an extent Canada's export trade with the United States increased under free trade-1854 to 1866-I give the following figures:
Article
Lumber	
Live Stock	
Flour	
Barley	
Oats	
Fish and fish products	
Coal (chiefly from Pictou and Liverpool)
Butter	
Wool	
Hides and skins	
Furs and fur skins	
Potatoes	
Provisions	
1854	1865
$	*
753,000	4,887,000
73,000	5,503,000
1,792,000	2,970 000
55,000	4,093,000
37,000	2,216,000
1,004,000	2,213,384
254,000	1,223,000
126,000	668,000
69,000	1,527,000
34,000	228,000
13,900	214,000
88,000	147,380
4,400	851,000
Percentage of increase
550 per cent.
Over 75 times as much. 65 per cent.
Over 70 times as much. 60 times as much.
120 per cent.
500 per cent.
430 per cent.
Over 22 times as much. Over 6 times as much. Over 15 times as much. Over 67 per cent.
193 times as much.

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
In the face of that showing, because of the fear that artificially protected interests always have of any attack which might be made upon them, the manufacturers of Canada and the Conservative party turned down reciprocity. In the face of those facts every person conversant with Canadian affairs will realize that, with reciprocity in force, the result would have been tremendous in the development of trade and the progress of Canada.
I have always endeavoured to prove that our manufacturers, if they had the courage, are quite capable of going out and competing with the Americans across the border, or as a matter of fact, with all the other countries of the world. I may say that we shipped out of this country into the United States a considerable quantity of manufactured articles. In 1910 the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada were shipping $86,000 worth of goods to the United States. At the same time they were shipping to the other countries of the world nearly $5,000,000 worth. It was at that time my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition made his argument in this House that by reason of the big export trade with these other countries, the factories of Canada were quite capable of standing on their own feet with a small protection because they were able to go out into the world and compete. The farmers of Canada were paying for protection to the consumers of another country. If that be true in 1910, with $5,000,000 of an export trade, it is doubly true to-day when they export over $812,000 to the United States and $9,339,519 to other parts of the world. That clearly proves that they are quite capable of standing on their own feet, if the argument of the leader of the opposition was good in 1910, and we in the West are absolutely sure that it was a sound and reasonable argument at that time.
There are within our country many manufacturers who can stand on their feet without any protection at all; for instance, the great pulp and wood industry, the paper manufacturing industry, the flour industry, with our splendid electric power and in a country that produces a vast quantity of cheap food. There is no reason whatever why this country cannot compete successfully with the United States. I have before me a list of statistics dealing with the manufacturers of Canada. In 1922-23 we exported to the United States $248,988,128 worth of manufactured and semimanufactured goods from Canada. The particularly interesting thing about this from the point of view of my argument is that fully 11a
or chiefly manufactured goods to the amount of $135,521,437 were manufactured in Canada and shipped by Canada to the United States.
During last summer we had the interesting experience of having the leader of the opposition come to western Canada and we are particularly proud of him in that western country. We look upon him as one of our own there. He was with us for a long time and after 1910 when he made that speech on "The ramparts of gold and the Chinese wall," we were quite prepared to take him to the bosom of the West as one of our own. He came to the West this year. Conditions were bad and he told us that they were very bad in all parts of Canada. The picture that he painted to us was a gloomy one, and then he prescribed a remedy. The Conservative party is a real, genuine Conservative party in its remedies. It is like the old time doctor who had but one remedy which was to bleed; bleed the patient on all occasions. When our good friend the leader of the opposition came to western Canada this year, he prescribed for our ills his one and only remedy, the remedy of the Conservative party, the remedy of Macdonald, Foster and the leader of the opposition. He told our farmers and the people generally in western Canada that they wanted high protection.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
be good enough to quote where I said that? He has been talking at random for a long while, and it is about time I checked him.


Edward James McMurray: I had it currently from the newspapers. I did not have the honour of going to hear my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I will take the chance
of saying that my hon. friend never read that in a report in any paper of any speech I made.
Mr, McMURRAY:	The right hon. gentleman will have to give me credit; I may have misread him. I naturally thought that would be his argument. I knew it was not his argument in 1910. He was then a western man; but since then a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge and my right hon. friend has grown closer to those in the Conservative party. I have heard a great deal of high protection talk during this debate, and I presume it is in keeping with the right hon. gentleman's opinions on that question. At any rate, it seemed to produce a feeling like a cold breeze throughout the prairies. It seemed as if the wind had swung away north over the Hudson bay again. The farmers put their overcoats on and turned up their collars. He had with him on that occasion the great Sachem, Ferguson*, from the dominant province of Ontario, and he evidently talked high pro-
IiEVISED EDITION

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
tection. He was going to benefit the good old province of Ontario by having them consume the coal of Alberta. It did not matter if that coal was going to cost them three or four dollars more a ton, it was to be hauled over all the distance from Alberta to Ontario and laid down there at a high price. That was honesty; that was real, genuine protection; but I feel that the people of Ontario would not welcome the application of that form of protection which we have enjoyed in western Canada for so long.
The people of western Canada, as I alleged this afternoon, have received no benefit whatever from the National Policy. The home market has not been able to take a fraction of what they produce. This is the proof that the home market has not succeeded. In the days of the McKinley tariff, disaster fell upon Canada. There was no market for the farmers' products. The home market had not developed. When the Fordney tariff was imposed upon cattle, that industry perished in western Canada. There was no home market for it. Our capacity to produce from our great natural resources is so tremendous that a home market idea is something of a terrible joke. So it is that the people of the West in regard to many of these industries feel that they are like Sinbad the Sailor. The old man of the sea is on their backs; they have carried him a long while; he has booted them in the ribs, and they will be glad to be relieved of that burden.
What is to be the future development of our western country? Sometimes my hon. friends of the Conservative party, in a moment of forgetfulness, state their true thoughts upon this question. I have before me the smiling face of the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). In the Listening Post in April, he is dealing with conditions in western Canada and I read with marked interest his very able statement. I considered it able, because we always think anything is sound and solid that agrees with our own views. He was talking of that magnificent city of Vancouver and the fine province of British Columbia. The article is headed "The Outlook for the Pacific," and the hon. member modestly stated:
During the year 1923, there has been exported by deep-sea shipping from British Columbia 550,000,000 feet of lumber which is approximately double that of last year, and about ten times what it was eight years ago.
In addition to this, he says, it is evident that large quantities have been exported by rail to the United States and eastern Canada. He says that there has been exported through the port of Vancouver between September 1 and March 1 29,429,000 bushels of wheat. I
[Mr. McMurray.3
believe it has now gone up to something like
42.000.	000 bushels. Of that 29,000,000 bushels, he says that 20,000,000 went to the United Kingdom and about 9,000,000 to the Orient, while for the month of March there were charters for 47 deep sea ships to convey
7.000.	000 bushels to the United Kingdom and
2,900,000	bushels to the Orient. Then he speaks of the export of canned salmon, and refers to the growth of business by export through the port of Vancouver. The hon. gentleman then closes his statement with these remarks:
I am firmly of the opinion that the development of trade through the Pacific portals of this great Dominion will perhaps be the largest contributing factor in Canada's progress in this decade.
What did the hon. gentleman see there? Did he see anything resulting from the National Policy? No. He saw the development of the prairie provinces and of British Columbia by means of a great immigration policy; and I am glad to say that at the present time in western Canada immigrants of a very fine type are pouring into the country from all the nations of Europe whose people came to Canada years ago to open up that part of the country and develop it. To-day the streets of Winnipeg are assuming something of the appearance they had some ten or twelve years ago when these sturdy Canadians were coming in to develop our natural resources. Possibly it was this that the hon. member had in mind in the statements he made. He saw the grain pouring down from the prairies, the coal of Alberta and the lumber of British Columbia being shipped, without the aid of high protection, and all going to develop the Pacific port.
I believe, Sir, that the next fifty years will see a marvellous change in the development of this North American continent. It was natural that those who came from Europe should have settled along the Atlantic coast and in -the vicinity of the inland lakes and the rivers. But in view of the great change which is coming over Europe to-day, the countries of which are impoverished as a result of the war, I believe that the next fifty or, at any rate, hundred years will see a tremendous trans-Pacific trade built up with Japan, India, China and Australia, and then the west coast will see the building of great cities which will be the making of Canada, inasmuch as they will create in our own country a competition in trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic. In my opinion the most desirable thing for this Dominion to-day is to continue that immigration policy which is bringing to the country vast numbers of

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
European people. There are in western Canada 140,000,000 acres of arable land, and with some proper policy of colonization these lands could be put under cultivation so as to produce in Canada the home market which the manufacturers need.
As I said at the outset, I believe that the present budget is a step in the right direction; it is an endeavour to reduce the cost of living in the country and encourage the development of its great natural industries, namely, farming, mining, lumbering and fishing. The only stability which manufacturing possibly can have must consist in cheap manufacturing conditions; without those conditions no sort of artificial barrier will protect these concerns. But with a tariff similar to this that we are considering to-night we may hope to have the manufacturing industry established in this country upon a substantial and natural basis. Coupled with that there should be, in my opinion, a keen searching-out of all sorts of trade with the various countries of the world. I was greatly taken with the address of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) some time ago dealing with the possibilities of trade with the West Indies, and I do not think we can over-emphasize the importance of looking to other countries than those of Europe for an outlet for our vast natural resources. With that, despite the heavy burdens we have, I am satisfied that there is a bright future for this Dominion.
There are some figures which I desire to put on record in Hansard before I conclude. Our Conservative friends have gone about throughout the land telling of the deplorable conditions that exist in this country, but the figures I am now going to submit to the House have something of a ring in them which I think must be gratifying to all Canadians. First of all, in regard to immigration, let me point out that in 1921 there came to this country a total of 100,413 immigrants from Great Britain, the United States and other countries; in 1922 from the same sources we had 70,423, and in 1923, 134,096. This year the increase, I believe, will be considerable. As regards our field crops, Canada's harvest last year reached a total value of $899,166,200. And the mineral production of the Dominion for the year 1923 aggregated $214,019,832, which is 16-1 per cent over that of 1922 and 24.1 per cent over 1921. The figures in connection with our forestry show that for the last 12 months of the fiscal year 1923-24, ending February 1924, the exports of wood and paper amounted to $270,346,000 as cornua
pared with $221,592,000 in the previous 12 months, and $182,207,000 in the 12 months ending February 1922.
Coming now to our external trade, I may tell the House that there has been a rapid increase. For the 12 months ending February 1924 our exports amounted to $1,042,724,670 and our imports $898,338,916. Our exports for the 12 months ending February 1923 amounted to $928,356,656 and our imports $790,032,342; while for the 12 months ending February 1922 our exports amounted to $762,547,390 and our imports $761,026,261, showing a trade balance running strongly in our favour. The exports to Great Britain increased in the 2 years from $293,666,295 to $355,838,316; while the exports to Australia increased from $11,314,906 in 1922 to $20,401,275 in 1924. Our exports to New Zealand increased during the same time from $4,584,349 to $12,541,405. And as for the United States, both exports and imports show a rapid increase, although the former show the greater absolute as well as greater relative increase, the excess of exports in 1922 being $222,905,433. as against $177,580,418 in 1921, or an improvement of $45,000,000 in two years. This is directly reflected in the improved position of the Canadian dollar. In 1920 it required 112.27 cents to purchase an American dollar; in 1921, 111.61 cents; and in 1923 only 101.97 cents. Our railway passenger traffic in 1923 was 9 per cent greater than in 1922, and the freight traffic last year was the greatest on record. The revenue increased by $28,667,000. Our latest information is that for the first two months of 1924-usually the dullest of the year-the net earnings of the Canadian National Railways were $262,376, as compared with a net deficit of $3,270,052 in the same two months of 1923, or an improvement of $3,532,428. There has been a decrease also in the public debt of over $15,000,000. These figures show the present comparatively satisfactory condition of the country despite our heavy debt and the postwar conditions which we are passing through.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that Canada has a great future. And I share the. desires of the people of Alberta and British Columbia for the reduction of the mountain scale of freight rates. I believe such a reduction is in their interest and that they are entitled to it, and that it would set up a healthy competition which would be beneficial to all the western provinces.
During the course of my remarks this afternoon the. right hon. leader of the opposition asked me to explain my attitude in re

The Budget-Mr. McMurray
gard to protecting artificial silk. I have looked up the item. I find that a certain measure of protection is granted to artificial silk. It has never been contrary to Liberal policy, either in theory or practice, to encourage by protection, for a brief period of time, the establishment of any manufacturing industry for which there is reasonable ground to believe that it may be successfully developed. Two years ago I supported the bill to encourage our hemp industry, my reason for doing so being that it was necessary to assist the establishment of an industry that promised to be successful. In Manitoba we produce the finest raw material for such an industry, we have any amount of electrical power and a very large home market. The only factor lacking to the successful establishment of the hemp industry was protection to overcome a large combine in the United States. And so it is with artificial silk. I understand it is made from wood fibre.


Arthur Meighen: Was the hon. gentleman in the House when his colleague the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) stated that protection was a mistake from the beginning?


Edward James McMurray: Let me tell my right
hon. friend that I cannot agree with the arguments of all the gentlemen on the other side, in fact their arguments are very weak. And at times there are differences of opinion within the Liberal party on the philosophic attitude to be adopted upon the question of protection.


Arthur Meighen: Philosophic!


Edward James McMurray: My hon. friend the
Minister of the Interior may have his own * private views upon the subject; but what I have asserted is, I think, correct, and I can find authority for it by referring to some of the most eminent political economists. For instance, John Stuart Mill, who has been quoted before in this debate, has declared that it is reasonable and proper to encourage an industry which has good prospects of success.
I believe that is the view of the right hon. gentleman himself; he stated it in 1910 in that famous western speech of his in much better form than I would be capable of expressing it. With our cheap power, our energetic people, our ample timber resources,
I see no reason why the artificial silk industry should not. be a success in this country, provided it is not handicapped by those protectionist elements that work so grievously against a legitimate industry being established. We have had before us from time to time deputations protesting against the reduction 
of the tariff upon certain manufactured goods, and always the burden of their arguments is that if they were not handicapped by the duty on their raw materials-which were in turn the manufactured product of other concerns enjoying protection

they could and would stand up against any reasonable competition. That is the curse of protection, that it results in the development of gigantic corporations well capable of looking after themselves, and along with them a crowd of helpless cripples economically.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in announcing my entire concurrence in the budget, which I look forward to as likely to be productive of substantial relief to our great basic industries and to be noninjurious to our manufacturing interests, whom I would not want to see adversely affected in any degree whatever. Not only do I think that our great basic industries will be benefited in large measure, but I am also confident that the great consuming public will be afforded substantial relief.


Mr. J. J. THURSTON (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, just to relieve the suspense that possibly prevails throughout the chamber, I beg to announce at the outset that I am not in the Marathon class. I rise to take part in this debate mainly for the purpose of correcting an impression that apparently exists in the minds of some hon. members, and also in the minds of some of our citizens, an impression that has been created during the course of this debate, mainly by members of the Conservative group, who would lead the country to- believe that the majority of the electors of Ontario and of their representatives in this House are protectionists. I would inform the House that Toronto, Hamilton and a few other of our
9.	p. m. industrial cities do not constitute the whole province. For divers reasons we iare changing our opinions in Ontario in connection with the tariff and are gradually seeing the light of day. We welcome the opportunity that our Conservative friends promise to give us in the next general election of fighting it on the straight tariff issue of protection versus free trade or tariff for revenue. We will be glad to meet them on that issue, as we were glad to meet them on it in the election of 1921, when I think the change in tariff sentiment in Ontario was demonstrated by the return of twenty-odd members to this House in favour of free trade. After the next general election we are going to double our numbers on the same issue. For different reasons possibly we look upon

The Budget-Mr. Thurston
the question of the tariff to-day differently from what we did in 1911. Since 1911 the people of Ontario have studied the economic question and the tariff question and they have been forced to the conclusion that a tariff for protection is morally, socially and economically unsound, and the old cry of losing or gaining the home market will have very little effect to-day in Ontario.
I wish to join now with hon. members who have preceded me in complimenting the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on his presentation of the budget this year. In reading over the debates for a number of years past it seems to have been customary for hon. members to always compliment the Minister of Finance of the day on his budget presentation, but I feel that in this case there is an element of sincerity in the congratulations that did not prevail to the same extent in days gone by, and mainly for the reason that the Acting Minister of Finance has brought down a budget that clearly defines the line between protection and a tariff for revenue. The budget was also welcomed throughout the Dominion as no previous budget has been for other reasons, and one was that a good many loyal Liberals throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific had reached the point of being discouraged and of almost wanting confidence in the Liberal party that had been elected for years on a tariff for revenue or a low tariff cry, and which after it had been returned did not touch the tariff at all except to juggle with it; it did not lower the tariff. And so unless the government brings in further resolutions, a second budget which is often brought down to the House, dealing with the anti-dumping law and the pricing of articles entering this country, which comes under the same law, and in that way offsets the good effect the budget is otherwise bound to have upon the basic industries of this Dominion, the staunch Liberals throughout this country will offer their congratulations to the Acting Minister of Finance with a degree of sincerity that they did not feel in the past.
In connection with the lowering of duties on different lines of manufacture, I should like to take this opportunity of issuing a note of warning to some manufacturing firms in this country. We have been told by a good many, mainly by hon. members in the Conservative group and by Conservative members in the Liberal group that many, many manufacturing firms would be forced out of business and be compelled to close up if there was any reduction in the tariff. Now, I purchase farm implements and machinery of different kinds,
as all agriculturists do throughout the Dominion and when I am considering a purchase and looking over different machinery I always consider that the day will come when I shall probably need repair parts for those machines, and I always ask myself whether the firm manufacturing those implements is on a good sound business footing and likely to stay in business so that I can get spare parts if I should need them; and if I were to see a statement from the Massey-Harris firm that they were going to be forced out of business by this reduction in the tariff I would immediately cease buying Massey Harris implements. So if these manufacturing firms do not want to deal a death blow to themselves they had better steer clear of this "blue ruin" cry over any monkeying with the tariff, because it will act as a club against themselves more than anything else that I can think of at the present moment.
I was a little surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) undertake to tell the farmers of the West just why it was they were in such hard economic circumstances at the present time. It was due, he said, to their careless methods of farming. I wondered as I listened to him, is it not possible that our manufacturing friends, who are putting up the same cry of hard times to-day that the farmers were a year ago, are careless in their manufacturing methods? I think the argument would work both ways. Now as I promised the House, I am not in the Marathon class, and I am not going to say anything more on the tariff except to promise our protectionist friends that when the opportunity does come to the people of Ontario to declare themselves upon the question of protection or a tariff for revenue, we shall be there with the goods.
I want to take up now two questions that are of a local nature, and I suppose if I had followed the custom of most hon. members in this House I would have mentioned these matters upon my first appearance in the House after the election of 1921. In the constituency of Victoria and Haliburton from which I come, we have contributed our allotment to the national menagerie of the Dominion of Canada in the form of white elephants. We have running all the way across my constituency the Trent canal. We can thank both the old parties for that animal. Some have criticized the expenditure on the Trent canal, and I think it deserves all the criticism that anybody can give. The canal should never have been constructed, but the fact remains that it is constructed. We have thrown money into it, and we cannot sell it.

The Budget-Mr. Thurston
We would get rid of it if we could; we would carry it down into lake Ontario if possible. But there it is, and it is up to the government to make the best use of the canal possible, in order to increase any revenue that can be derived from it. Now the only thing the Trent canal is useful for, to my mind, is tourist traffic. For some years back governments have neglected making the slight improvements on the canal that might encourage tourists to come to that section of the country. Now that we have spent millions of dollars on the Trent canal, the only way we can get anything out of it is to bring summer visitors there from other countries and so get the benefit of the money they will spend in our country, and I think it is only wise on the part of any government to remember the expenditure that has been made and to make the slight improvements necessary. An hon. member asks me if it is worth seeing. Yes, visitors will not only see the canal, but as picturesque a country as it is possible for summer visitors to see, through North Victoria and Haliburton and possibly Muskoka; the scenery will well repay a visit.
We also have another beast in the shape of the Dominion arsenal at Lindsay.
_ Miss MACPHAIL:	A real monster, that
is.


John Jabez Thurston: Parasite might be the
proper name. This is an expenditure for which there is absolutely no justification, it should never have been made. I do not know why the building was constructed. I suppose it is simply another example of the wild expenditures that were made during the years of the war. Some people may be under the impression that the construction of the arsenal in Lindsay was a boost to that town. That is not so. Previous to its construction the government of the day agreed with the municipal corporation of Lindsay that if they would carry out certain improvements the arsenal when built would run continuously and employ from 200 to 250 hands. As a result of that promise the town of Lindsay spent practically $77,000 in constructing pavements, laying water mains, and making other improvements. Immediately after the expenditure of that money the arsenal was closed down and has not been opened since, and now the town is out the money that it expended. Discussing the matter with the town council last year, they said that making the greatest allowance they could for the growth of the town from the time the arsenal was built until then the cost to the town through the arsenal being there was 845,000. In the meantime the people have been taxed for

the interest payable on the balance of the $77,000. I should like to recommend to the government that if any opportunity arises for disposing of the arsenal they should take advantage of it. Of course it is unfair for the present government to assume a burden that was left on their doorstep by the previous administration. Nevertheless, I would urge them, if the opportunity ever arises, to dispose of the arsenal to some manufacturing firm, because it is of no use whatever in its present form to the town of Lindsay. It has involved an expenditure of several millions of dollars and will cost a great d*al of money to keep it in repair, it has never yielded a single dollar af revenue to the Dominion treasury. Not a dollar's worth of ammunition, the product of that arsenal, has ever been shipped out of Canada. It has been of no use whatever to the Dominion, and is a white elephant to the town of Lindsay. In all fairness to the town if the slightest opportunity of disposing of the arsenal to some manufacturing firm presents itself I advise the government to seize it.


Mr. HALBERT:: Is there any expenditure at present for caretakers?


John Jabez Thurston: There are three or four caretakers, and I suppose these will continue to be employed while the building remains as it is.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied a seat in this chamber for two sessions and part of a third. During that time I have not spoken but have taken every opportunity of sizing up the respective parties represented here. I have one advantage, perhaps, over older members of having had no previous political ties. For this reason I have been able to view the actions of the respective parties in the House from an impartial standpoint, and should now like to give a short summary of my conclusions as to their characteristics. The government party naturally comes first. Until the presentation of the present budget I must say that I was greatly disappointed in the record of what we had been taught to believe was "the grand old Liberal party". They were supposed to represent a party from whom much might be expected; but during the'last two sessions I was convinced that if they were standing anywhere at all they were pretty nearly standing on their uppers. They were shuffling first in one way, and then in the other direction, and it seemed that they would accomplish little. Now I must say they show strong indications that they are going to do something. That is, unless they weaken by not rescinding the order in council with respect to the dumping regulations passed before the bud-

The Budget-Mr. Thurston
get was brought down. I repeat that the government show indications of proving to the Liberals throughout the Dominion that they have some slight intentions of fulfilling the expectations of those who have consistently voted for them year after year.
The Conservatives, the official opposition, must be considered next. I have been greatly disappointed in hon. gentlemen to my left who, I believe, are termed "His Majesty's loyal opposition." To live up to that title they should at some time or other be prepared with constructive suggestions for the better governing of the Dominion, but apparently they think differently. During the time I have sat in this chamber I have not heard any suggestion of a constructive nature from the Conservative party. At the present time I think they are fully entitled to the honour-I suppose they will look upon it as such-of being the opponents of the Canadian National Railways. Their attitude towards the programme of branch line railways brought down by the Minister of Railways has convinced me that for some reason or other they are no longer favourable to the Canadian National Railways as they appeared to be when I first entered parliament, but are now the opponents of Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors. It is a regrettable position for any political body to take, because if there is any one person in Canada who is making good to-day it is Sir Henry Thornton, and in the fight he is waging he deserves the moral support of every true Canadian citizen. I think too that I am justified in giving the Conservative party a monopoly in the matter of calamity howling and raising the blue ruin cry. We have heard more from them along these lines this session than we ever heard from the famous *"notorious Alberta representatives" a year ago.
I should like to speak for a minute or two [DOT]on the subject of the amendment. I am sorry that in the matter of amendments to the budget we are limited by the rules that have been handed down to us for generations back. For some reason or other the rule in the past has been that any amendment to the budget, whether it be similar to or contrary to the principles expressed in the budget, was a vote of want of confidence in the government. This session an amendment has been submitted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) which, in subject matter is quite similar to the budget itself; and I think the rule should be changed so that when an amendment similar in subject matter and in principle to the budget is moved, the government would be at liberty to adopt some of the clauses of the amendment. I do not see the sense of submitting an amendment at all, if a vote for the amendment is a vote of want of confidence in the government, no matter what we vote for. If that is the way the vote is to be taken, why all this discussion in introducing an amendment of any kind to the budget? Why not let it go without an amendment and vote yes or no on the budget? That is what the vote means anyway. I would like to see the rules changed so that the government could accept, as an addition to the budget, certain clauses contained in the amendment, or the whole amendment if necessary. If the rules were framed to permit that, I think we would be getting down to the true principles of democracy in allowing the will of parliament to be expressed and accepted by the government.
I propose to reserve my decision as to how I am going to vote on the budget and on the amendment.
Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the electors whom I have the honour to represent in this House, and the great majority of whom are worthy and hardy tillers of the soil, I extend to the government and its able Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) my sincerest thanks and congratulations for having found it possible to present this year, to the country such a praiseworthy budget. After having taken over, in 1921, the administration of the country, which was in such a deplorable financial situation, the government had to display a great deal of fortitude, energy and wisdom to attain such a result. Therefore, it is not astonishing that throughout the whole of Canada this splendid budget was received with praise and satisfaction by all classes of society. The farmers, especially, have reasons to be gratified for what the Liberal government have done for them, and the consumer has the same reasons to rejoice, owing to the fact that the present budget considerably decreases the cost of living. It is, therefore, the great mass of the people who will largely benefit from the benevolent policy of our government. The only element of our population who find fault with the wise policy of the government is the one that has always lived upon and enriched itself through the hardships and toil of our farmers and workmen. The big interests, the magnates of the financial world, the mergers and the trusts, these are the enemies of tariff reduction and

The Budget-Mr. d'Anjou
measures of relief on behalf of the farmers and workmen. They already see, with fear, their excessive and sometimes scandalous profits decreasing considerably, and they are conceited enough to think that they are the only ones 'in this country who are entitled to all privileges, thereby denying to others the very legitimate share of justice to which they are equally entitled.
The government will have well earned the thanks of the country, by championing the interests of the people against the privileged classes. The country has been imposed upon far too long a time by the capitalists. The farming industry, which is the basis of the prosperity of all nations, is granted to-day, by a Liberal government, not special favours, but simply justice. And all true friends of the farming class must rejoice with me and sincerely congratulate the government on such an act.
The lowering of duties on farm implements will turn to the great advantage of our farmers, since it will allow them to purchase at lower cost the necessary farm implements and thereby highly contribute to better, in general, the conditions of the agricultural class.
The first duty of all governments, conscious of their responsibilities is to energetically work in unburdening the tireless tillers who, after all, make up the great mass of consumers and producers. Thus, as the first result of tariff reductions on agricultural implements, the farmer, when purchasing these articles will pay five, ten or twenty dollars less for each and will, thereby, be that much in pocket. Certainly, this is something tangible and appreciable and, no doubt, our worthy farmers will return thanks to the government when the time comes. Whatever may be held to the contrary, the government by lowering the duties on farm implements was inspired by the old Liberal tradition. During the present debate, many hon. members who spoke before me, tried to establish that the tariff policy of the government was not that of the late lamented leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The few lines which I shall read, Sir, with your kind permission, will prove, beyond doubt, that the Liberal government by reducing the duties on farm implements, followed in all points, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy and that they put into practice one of the most cherished wishes of the great deceased. Thus, in his manifesto to the people of Canada, in 1917, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Should the people entrust me with the administration of the country, I would make it a point to immediately unburden the farmer of all vexatious custom duties. fMr. d'Anjou.]
I would immediately abolish the duties on farm implements and other necessities with reference to farming as requested by the western people. And I would consider as an essential duty of my administration a general and thorough revision of the tariff aiming at encouraging production in Canada and relieving the Canadian consumer.
The budget brought down by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is really a Liberal one and the government's policy is certainly in perfect harmony with the idea of the great Canadian who so much contributed to the welfare of his country and whose memory will always be cherished by all Canadians, whatever race or creed they may-belong to.
If we wish Canada to attain its manhood, we should adopt a policy purely Canadian and help by all possible means, the' great farming industry, the first of the national industries; for let us not forget it, our country is essentially agricultural, its future and welfare are entirely based on the progress and development of the farming industry. The crisis we are passing through is serious, very serious indeed, and no one will gainsay that the farmers are those who suffer the most. The United States tariff is so high that our farmers can no longer export their products to that country. This state of things obliges them to sell these products at ridiculously low prices and often at a loss. Nevertheless these worthy sons of the land have obtained these products from the soil, thanks to their unceasing labour and exertions; for, we must not forget, the farmer toils twelve to fifteen hours per day; the eight-hour day is an unknown thing. Consequently, he expects at least to sell his products at a remunerative price. The reduction of duties on farm implements will be of material help since it will allow him to purchase them at a lower price. It will enable him to produce cheaper than he could previously, and, therefore, realize a larger profit on his products. When agriculture is prosperous, the country is prosperous. Therefore, the government will never be too generous towards the worthy farming class, who deserve on more than one score the support and self-sacrifice of all those who love their country and wish its greatness and prosperity.
The balancing of our budget, the surplus of $30,409,000 in our revenue over expenditure shows conclusively the efficiency of the present Liberal administration. This happy state of affairs allows the government to reduce considerably the various taxes which weigh so heavily upon the Canadian people. The reduction and doing away with certain taxes, as well as some changes made to the

1S13
The Budget-Mr. d'Anjou
tariff, will contribute in a large measure, to the lowering of the cost of living, and consequently will be to the advantage of the consumer.
Since the outset of the debate on the budget, a great number of hon. members have spoken; very few, however, have seriously touched upon the so important problem of immigration and the exodus of our people to the United States. Yet, in my opinion, the subject is of the utmost importance to Canada, the future of our dear country depends on its immediate and right solution. In the speech which I delivered on March 10, last, on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I discussed this very important question of immigration and exodus of our people to the United States. Realizing more than ever the importance of the subject, I wish to broach it again to-day, and endeavour to discuss the problem more thoroughly than I did on March 10, last. I would, first, advise the government to entirely discontinue their immigration policy, at least for several years. We have no place in Canada for these immigrants gathered at great expense on the docks of London and Liverpool. Certainly, it is not with that kind of immigration that we shall make Canada a healthy, moral and strong nation. And, while these undesirable immigrants reach our shores by ship-loads, a very sad sight meets our eyes. It is an uninterrupted trek of our people-these sons of the soil-towards the neighbouring republic, in the hope of finding there, the comfort and easy circumstances that their country denies them.
I again state, the problem of the exodus of our people tQ the United States is saddening, painful, even discouraging. In my opinion, the best policy to adopt would be to use all the means and resources that Providence has been kind enough to endow our country with, so as to keep our people at home. The money spent each year for immigration could be given in grants of all kinds, to those of our people, farmers or settlers, who, in a moment of discouragement might feel inclined to abandon the land of their forefathers. Our country is immensely rich in farming land, which only awaits the labour of vigorous and worthy settlers to produce the golden wheat which feeds the world.
How many of those who emigrate each year, sick at heart, would gladly accept the grant of a parcel of land and settle there immediately, with the firm resolve to establish for themselves a homestead and contribute their share to the welfare of the country. Moreover, why should the government . not help them at the outset, which is always hard for these good settlers, by loans on as easy conditions as possible. The establishment of an agricultural loan institution would be a great blessing for our farmers and settlers.
I would suggest to the government to take the initiative regarding such a step. They would be carrying out a truly national and patriotic duty, and greatly helping to stop this exodus of our people to other lands.
To my mind, one of the main causes of this exodus is the Bankruptcy Act. This act should be unsparingly struck off our Dominion statutes. This law has been the ruin of js, great number of our farmers. It has completely destroyed the farmer's ability to get credit, owing to the fact that it prevents our farmer from obtaining the money which he needs to settle his affairs, even at a high rate of interest, because he cannot give the required guarantees demanded by those who are willing to make the loans.	That is
certainly, one of the main reasons of the desertion of our rural districts and the trekking of our people towards the United States.
Therefore, if we are sincere in our desire to stop the exodus of the sons of Canada to foreign lands, we must cut out immigration, help by all possible means our farmers and settlers, either by giving .them lands, or by granting them a bonus as a means of encouragement, or still, by loaning them money under the most favourable conditions possible. Finally we must establish an agricultural loan institution and abolish for ever the Bankruptcy Act which has been so disastrous to our farmers and which has ruined so many of them. The repatriation of our people would be an excellent thing if it was possible of accomplishment. For my part, I maintain that it will always be easier to keep our people at home, if we take the necessary means, than to repatriate those who have departed, and, to give weight to my statement, I shall read an extract from an editorial published recently in the Tribune, of Woonsocket, R.I., and reproduced lately by Le Droit of Ottawa:
There seems still to exist, in Canada, the hope of repatriating the French-Americans. This is a dream that our brothers over there should try to dispel. We do not wish to impose our views, but we are free to think that they would be doing much better by concentrating their efforts on keeping those among them who have made up their minds to depart, by making life at home easier for them.
It would cause much merriment, if the French endeavoured to draw, to their country, the French-
The Budget-Mr. d'Anjou


Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, since the delivery of the budget, very much has been said for and against the proposals of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). While there is the widest possible difference of opinion regarding the value or otherwise of the changes suggested, there is practical agreement that the government has, at last, decided to eliminate the element of protection from the tariff. The utterances of the ministers and their supporters during the last few days lead to no other conclusion. It was probably not the desire of the government that their action should be so interpreted, but the change is taking place probably because of circumstances over which they had no control. Today, once more, the tariff is definitely before the people, and it will be the issue in the election that must be fought in the next few months. On the one side of that contest will be those who believe in tariff for protection purposes, those who believe in pro-
The Budget-Mr. Charters

The Budget-Mr. Charters
That we realize from reports from all parts of the province that our farmers, especially those engaged in supplying vegetables during the winter and early summer seasons, are gradually being driven out of business by the importation of cheap, field-grown products of the semi-tropical parts of the United States. We therefore humbly beseech the hon. Minister of Finance to help us obtain some relief from these disastrous conditions. Knowing as all Canadians do, that money must be obtained through taxation to carry on our governmental activities and pay our portion of the great war debt, we think that those most able to bear the burden should do so, and therefore petition you to impose a 10 per cent luxury tax, in addition to our present taxes on our vegetable and fruit imports, which are undoubtedly a luxury in the seasons during which we find competition impossible.
The same idea is expressed in the Montreal Herald of March 10th last, in an editorial discussing the increased duty on wheat imposed by the American government. The article concludes as follows:
Even in agricultural and vegetable products we import far more from the United States than the United States imports from us. For instance, during the 12 months ending December last we imported from the United States agricultural and vegetable products to the amount of $78,814,028, while our exports of agricultural and vegetable products to that country amounted to $49,225,234. Therefore, Canada imported from the United States about $30,000,000 more of agricultural products than the United States imported from us. Obviously, the United States is not playing the game, and if there is not a prompt demand for tariff retaliation we shall be surprised. Now is the golden opportunity for the King government at last to give a taste to our Canadian farmers of the benefit of protection. Why should not that $78,000,000 of imports of agricultural products be raised as far as possible by Canadian labour and Canadian farmers on Canadian farms? Putting the question brings the obvious answer.
That is an article from the Montreal Herald, which is advertised as the organ of the Liberal party.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Can the hon. member tell us what proportion of that importation was comprised of tropical products, cotton for instance, and sugar?


Samuel Charters: 
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: I
congratulate the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) on the excellent address from his own point of view that he has given. With some of the hon. gentleman's remarks I can agree. In others I cannot by any means concur.
In commencing his speech my hon. friend said it could be easily seen that the present government intended to wipe out the tariff. How the hon. gentleman arrived at this conclusion I cannot tell. I think everyone will admit that notwithstanding the changes made by the budget there is a fairly substantial tariff left with sufficient protection to existing industries. My hon. friend also stated that the government has sacrificed the implement manufacturers. I think we can also show good reasons why these manufacturers should not object to the budget proposals and that in reality they are not hurt very much by the changes made.
The hon. gentleman spoke about economy and with much of what he said I agree. He made a statement which I think is deserving of the utmost consideration. It was that a large amount of the money that should be available for different enterprises in this country is locked up in automobiles. I think the general consensus of opinion will be that a large amount of the savings of our people has gone in this direction.
My hon. friend asserted that we on this side wished to sacrifice the home market and thereby seriously damage Toronto and other industrial centres. The hon. member is quite astray in that statement. I do not think any good Canadian wishes to do anything to injure the home market. If I may be allowed to describe the policy of the government, it is that they purpose giving to the dollar its proper purchasing value in order that our industries may flourish, and that those who cater to the home market may receive a fair return for their labours.
The hon. member for Peel stated that he thought it would be only fair to enforce a retaliatory tariff against the United States.
I think the hon. gentleman is arguing from false premises. Why does he not look at the matter in a different light. The United States admits free of duty agricultural implements, cement, coal, boots and shoes, leather manufactures, newsprint, tea, and a large number of other articles from Canada that I will not take time to enumerate. On the other hand we enforce against these articles a high rate of duty. Now, would it not be a more statesmanlike proceeding to say to the United States "We will allow you to send into Canada on the same terms the articles which you admit into your country free of duty;" if that course were pursued it would be only fair in view of what the United States is doing with regard to these Canadian products, or is he willing for the United States to put on a retaliatory tariff on those articles.
I wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance on the splendid showing made in the budget, and the fact that he has succeeded in converting a long list of deficits into a surplus. The Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet are also deserving of praise because they have made it possible for the budget to be brought down in its present form. I think I am safe in saying -apart altogether from what members of the Conservative party think-that the budget will be received with approval by all our people. It will bring a large measure of relief to those who have been looking for cheaper agricultural, mining and lumbering machinery, to those engaged in the fishing industry, and to the consumers of a large number of articles that may be characterized as household necessities. I think our Con-

1822	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
servative friends, when they are paying their money over the store counter, will be just as willing as the rest of us to welcome the reductions in the cost of articles they buy.
The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) argued in his speech on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne that the government's tariff proposals should have been submitted to the people for their approval. I maintain, Sir, that the people voted on this very question in the winter of 1921, and I would remind the hon. gentleman in question that 180 members were elected to this House to carry the policy into effect. I am glad to know that to-night we are able to congratulate the government in carrying into effect a policy which was advocated by the Liberal party at that time.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite have twitted us with applauding the statement of the Minister of Finance last year on "tariff stability." There is no gentleman in this chamber for whom I have a higher regard than the Minister of Finance, and I regret that he is not able to be with us at this time. However, on the occasion of the budget debate last year I made the assertion-as will be found on reference to page 2,973 of Hansard for 1923-that no matter what interpretation might be placed on the word "stability" as used by the Minister of Finance I for one, and the Liberal party as a whole, would not be satisfied until we saw further reductions of the tariff and relief granted from the burdens under that tariff. To-night I adhere to that statement. However it is only fair to say that if the Minister of Finance had been here he would have presented a budget of the same character as did the minister who acted for him. I make this statement notwithstanding many announcements to the contrary that have been heard.
Before proceeding to discuss the tariff reduction, I wish to refer briefly to the financial improvements as shown from year to year since the government came into power. I pointed out last year where economy should be practised and where large savings could be effected in all the departments, and I am pleased to see that a very effective showing has been made along many lines.
But the members of the opposition state that there is no reduction of debt, that it is visionary and delusive. What do we find? The total revenue receipts are $405,622,760, and the expenditure $375,215,651, showing a net decrease in the public debt of $30,409,109. In addition to that, if our hon. friends refuse to follow the bookkeeping that was established when they were in control of the finances of the country, and refuse to accept their own 
statements, as it were, made up along the same lines as was practised by the former administration, and if they think they cannot discover a surplus, I think there is one way that a financial improvement can be shown. If we turn to the interest tables on page six of the estimates we will see that there is a reduction in the interest of $4,133,592 for this year. This should be convincing evidence that the budget has been balanced, that the debt has been reduced, and that we are having a balance on the right side of the ledger, and should convince everyone of the marked improvements in the financial showing. Last year I pointed out that we had the war burden with us, and no man will deny that statement. With our total war indebtedness standing around $1,693,000,000 and an annual interest charge of $100,000,000 on that account alone we have brought home to us the fact that the war burdens are with us in a very real way. When we realize that our net debt before the war was ogly $335,996,850 and our annual interest charge $12,893,504, compared with a net debt on March 31st, 1923 of $2,453,776,868 with an annual interest charge of $136,000,000, I think everyone in Canada should welcome the good news that our deficits are stopped and the balance on the right side of the ledger. Before the war our pensions were only $311,900, and to-day our pensions are over $32,000,000.
It is'very easy to blame the present government for high taxation, but we must be fair, analyse the exact situation, see where the blame lies and see if the present situation is not largely due to reckless financing of the past government even in the period before the war when they were in office. And if you take into consideration the purchasing power of the dollar now as compared with the pre-war period, the individual taxpayer is paying less for administering the public service so far as the controllable expenditure is concerned than he did in the three years previous to the war; not only that but the late government not only left us the total war indebtedness but failed to meet the ordinary cost of administration for that period, by $13,773,733, and this at a time when money might have been easily raised by various means of taxation.
In three years this government has so reduced controllable expenditure that all our obligations are now met out of ordinary revenue, except the railway expenditure, and the legacy left us in the merchant marine, but I will deal with this later.

. The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
When the Laurier government went out of power in 1911 on the reciprocity issue, one of the cries that helped to defeat Sir Wilfrid was, "Let well enough alone." Revenues were abundant to meet all charges on consolidated fund and nearly all charges on capital account; trade figures were steadily soaring; the immigration tide was still running at the full; every index of national prosperity was buoyant and cheering. There was no Jeremiah in all the land to cast a doubt on the future, no troubles about the burden of taxation, no " Whisper of Death," no cry of " Retrench." What happened in the three short ensuing years? The official records in the light of the present day of reckoning are sadly illuminating. In 1911 Canada's controllable expenditure on consolidated fund account totalled $65,528,512 or $9.09 per capita. With the advent of the new government, however, in the autumn of 1911 there came an immediate change. In 1912, the controllable expenditure jumped to S74,920,944; in 1913, to $85,455,679'and in 1914 to $102,411,415. Worked out on a per capita' basis, this represents $10.17 for 1912, $11.35 for 1913 and $13.31 for 1914. The increase from $9.09 per capita in 1911 to $13.31 per capita in 1914 means an increase of no less than 46 per cent in the three years, of Conservative rule. To use a street phrase this is " going some " and this at a time when economy was imperative, when revenues were beginning to fall, trade to stagnate, unemployment to increase, and cost of living to rise. In 1913, the total revenue was $168,689,903; in 1914 it fell to $163,174,395; and the following year to $133,073,482. In the Public Works department, under Hon. Robert Rogers, who is even now pleading for a return to power of the true Conservative patriots of the pre-TJnion days, the increase in three years of expenditure on consolidated fund account alone was $25,592,413 or over 96 per cent as compared with the preceding three years of the Laurier-Fielding regime. In the Customs department, under the Hon. Dr. Reid, the cost of collecting $100 of revenue rose from an average of $2.78 in 1911 to $4.77 in 1914 or about 62 per cent. In the Post Office Department a surplus of $1,310,219 in 1911 was turned into a deficit of $2,914,541 in 1914. My hon. friend who resumed his seat a few moments ago had the audacity to take the government to task for not returning to the two-cent postage rate. I think I am safe in announcing that the Post Office Department is this year showing a surplus, notwithstanding the tremendous 116i
deficit that was rolled up when our friends opposite had charge of that department.
This was the beginning of our present financial troubles. Whereas in 1911 the per capita amount of our total disbursements on consolidated and capital accounts was $17.03 and the per capita revenue $16.34, in 1914 the per capita disbursement was $24.21 and the per capita revenue $21.21; in other words, the government then in power were piling up our national debt at the rate of $3 per capita three years before the war.
When the world plunged into the devastation of war, Canada, under the Conservative administration was already well started on the path of piling up financial obligations for the uncertain future to take care of. As has already been noted, the controllable expenditure had increased by 46 per cent in three years while capital expenditure had increased by nearly 70 per cent in the face of falling revenues and growing industrial depression. To the present government is left the task of paying the principal and interest on the total deficit of $1,860,113,241 accumulated during the eight years of the war and demobilization period. Now is the present government making its grade back to normal conditions in finance? I wish to submit figures to prove that it is. The struggle has been hard, and that fact is all the more reason why the people should appreciate what has been accomplished, and this is the reason the Robb budget of this year is hailed with delight. I wish to submit figures now for the past eleven months of the present fiscal year.
The controllable expenditure on consolidated fund account-that is for the costs of the ordinary government services-totalled, $132,319,846 for the last fiscal year, a decrease of $8,195,215 as compared with the previous year. Taking the Census Bureau's estimate of our present population as 9,146,457, this works out to $14.47 per capita. It marks the first decrease in per capita controllable expenditures since 1911 when it was $9.09 per capita of population, as I showed at the beginning. In 1921, it was $15.12 per capita, and in 1922, it was $15.68 per capita; but these fiscal years, as hon. members will remember, were both under the parliamentary control of our hon. friends opposite.
Let me turn now to the figures of expenditure on capital account, and the recent record is equally gratifying. Exclusive of the deficits on railways and merchant marine accounts, the capital expenditure in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923, was only
1824	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
89,807,373, or 81.07 per capita, as compared with 816,295,332 in 1922, or $1.82 per capita. I think the following table should be put on Hansard just to show since 1921 what has been accomplished:	[DOT]
Total	Total	Net debtYear	disbursements	receipts	increase1921.. ..	.. $528,618,199	$136,292,185	$92,317,6281922.. ..	.. 435.652.436	332,262,571	81,389.8651923.. ..	.. 437,056.736	405,415,064	31,641,067
Coming to the year 1924, we hnd the following budget estimate:
Total	Total	Net debtdisbursements	receipts	decrease$375,213,651	$405,622,760	$30,409,109
Or a betterment of $60,000,000, if you take the deficit of the last year and the surplus of this year. This brings us to this year with a balanced budget, the first since prewar days, with our exports exceeding our imports for the eleven months by $158,000,000, with our revenue increasing and with our expenditures going down. I think we may look to the future with bright hopes for our country and on the achievement of the present administration with pride and satisfaction.
It is often remarked that out of the large revenue, around some $400,000,000, possibly a saving of $60,000,000 in expenditure is not very much. I just wish to state that this saving of $60,000,000 in expenditure is made, not out of total expenditures, but out of what is known as controllable expenditure, which is very small indeed as compared with total expenditures. The principal uncontrollable items are: Interest on the public debt, $134,258,371; pensions, $34,122,078; superannuation, $1,252,500; subsidies to provinces, $12,375,153; or a total of $182008,113. There are other items due to the war such as Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Soldier Land Settlement, Imperial War Graves Commission, Battlefields' Memorials, League of Nations Secretariat, adjustment of war claims and so on, which amount to something over $17,000,000. In addition, there may be considered such fixed obligations as those authorized by statute in connection with the Department of Labour, of $150,000 for organization and co-ordination of employment in Canada-see page 51 of the Estimates. Loans to railways for 1921 amounted to $56,000,000 and loans to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, $900,000. This leaves a balance, as hon. members will see, of $117,971,524 of controllable expenditure out of a total estimated expenditure of $375,213,760.
[Mr. A. E. MacLean. 1
Some will take objection to the figures that have been submitted to the House in connection with railways. I do not know that it is worth while going into that, but I think we can easily show that the same manner of bookkeeping was followed by our friends who preceded us, and if you look up their accounts, you will find that they charge all loans and guarantees to railways to the loan account and not to the public debt. If you look at the loan account of July, 1921, you will find that $25,000,000 was raised for the Canadian Northern and a further amount of $25,000,000 for the Grand Trunk, making $50,000,000 in all charged against the loan flotation of 1921-22. There was also a further guarantee of $11,000,000


George Perry Graham: For equipment.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes, for equipment. When you are speaking of equipment, I do not think it is fair to charge up equipment to the public debt, because if I am correctly informed, when equipment is issued, it should be a charge against capital account, as I have said, 'because a lien is taken upon it; and it is an asset that could be turned over possibly for face value for a great number of years, so that the argument of charging up railway equipment to the public debt is not, in my estimation, a fair method of bookkeeping. If, however, they wish to charge up the actual cash advance to railways, it can be shown that the budget then is not too far from being balanced, even when charging up any guarantees or loans clear of equipment.
There is one thing to which I wish to refer, and I am sorry the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) is not in his seat. It seems to me that the unpardonable sin that we members on this side of the House commit in the eyes of our hon. friends of His Majesty's loyal opposition is, in the first place, that we will do anything that favours our Progressive friends of the West, and, in the second place, that this government will do anything which will help the ordinary labourer in this country and the farmers in general. The task of our hon. friends opposite seems to be to set the East against the West and the West against the East. I would not refer to this at this late hour to-night, but it is a question that has, I may say, nation-wide significance. Our friends have endeavoured to sow this distrust in the minds of the people against the present administration. They

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
have endeavoured to make the farmers of the West believe that the government has done and will do nothing for them; that the government did not live up to its pre-election promises; that there would be no tariff reductions or sales tax exemptions. This has been their song during the past two years; we have been accused of not living up to the 1919 platform. It seems to be the purpose of hon. gentlemen to sow distrust in the minds of the people of western Canada and to give the impression that this government is dominated by a voice behind the scenes. We are told that when the West asked for bread the government gave them a stone and that the government was legislating in the interests of the East to the disadvantage of the West. In the language of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter), the government deliberately sacrificed the rights of the Maritime provinces and threw them as a bribe to the grain growers of the West. Now, I think it is only fair at this stage that I should read what the. hon. gentleman said at the time, because as it happened I myself was a member of the Railway committee to which this despatch has reference. It is dated December 2, 1923, and was published in the Montreal Gazette. It is as follows:
(By Canadian Press)
Halifax, Dee. 2-That the government of Right Honourable Mackenzie King had deliberately sacrificed the rights of the Maritime provinces and had thrown those rights as a bribe to the grain growers of the West, was the charge of Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, of St. John, addressing a meeting in the interests of W. A. Black, Conservative candidate in Wednesday's byelection, at Dartmouth Saturday night.. The government had, he repeated, bought the votes of the Progressives with that which belonged to those provinces- and, most, humiliating of all, he said, the sixteen members from Nova Scotia had been a party to the "great betrayal". Not one of them had offered the slightest protest against a. piece of political treachery that had robbed New Brunswick and Nova Scotia of what was theirs by all dictates of justice and national fair dealing, said Mr. Baxter.
"We want men who will present our needs and rights", declared Mr. Baxter, "men-not voting machines".
I do not know that I need read the rest of the article, which is couched throughout in similarly strong language. It goes on to state that the hon. member said the government had the solid sixteen who were voting machines that would support the government in anything and everything, so that the Prime Minister was in a position to deal with the Progressives and sacrifice Maritime rights. That is the sort of propaganda which men who claim to be Statesmen in this country
are disseminating from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As one who was a member of that committee I want to declare right here that in my opinion the prairie provinces had a grievance, for it was shown to the committee that the people of those provinces were being imposed upon by every organization in the West, the banks included; and we believed as members of the committee that in the interests of fair play, between the people of one section of Canada and those of another, the Crowsnest arrangement should be put into effect again. I supported that proposition in the committee, i supported it in the House, and I am willing to stand by it on any platform in the country and defend it. I desire now to put on record a few facts to show just how far-reaching the effect may have been so far as the people of the Maritime provinces are concerned, and the prejudice it may create against the government and the IVest if not contradicted. The hon. gentleman at that time must have known that reductions were given over the Atlantic division which would largely offset any reductions that were made in connection with the Crowsnest pass. True, they may not be as large as we wish or run into as many millions of dollars, because there is not the traffic over the road; but I wish to make the statement that in my opinion the railway management and the government have been as fair to the East as to the West. Let me read the following questions and answers which I asked of and received from the management of the Canadian National Railways:
Question 1: What reductions in freight rates have been given on the eastern division of the Canadian National Railways since 1922 (or since the reduction of the Crowsnest pass came into force)?
Answer: Memorandum of important reductions in freight rates from and to also between points on the Atlantic region, Canadian National Railways, since July 1, 1922.
General Reduction
On August 1, 1922, rates on basic commodities, as listed below, were reduced to 171 per cent over the rates in effect prior to September 13, 1920, equal to a 6 per cent reduction. The basic commodities are as follows
Building material.
Brick
Cement
Lime
Plaster
Fertilizers
Lumber and forest
Ores
Iron and Steel Articles. Billets Blooms Scrap iron Wire rods Pig Iron Potatoes
products
General Adjustments
The rates between Prince Edward Island and all points on the mainland have been revised to the
1826	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
basis applicable on the mainland. This readjustment included class rates and the following principal commodities :-
Building materials
Coal
Lime
Limestone
Slag
Fertilizers
Grain and grain products
Hay and Straw
Lumber
Live stock
Potatoes
On export and import traffic-Halifax arbitrary of 1 cent per 100 lbs. over St. John, N.B. on export and import traffic, eliminated.
Class Rate Adjustments
Between Ontario and Quebec points and St. Peters
sub-division.
Between Maritime provinces and western Canada.
Remarks
Reduced to main line basis.
Arbitraries over Montreal reduced to approximately basis in effect prior to 1918. Reduction of 4 cents per 100 pounds on first class rate with equal reduction on other classes.
Specific Reductions
Commodity
Coal	
Coal	
Co^I	
Coal	
Coal	
Grain and Grain Products.
Grain and Grain Products.
Grain Products...
From
Coalburn, N.S.. Thorburn, N.S.. Westville, N.S..
Springhill Jet., N.S Springhill Jet., N.S
Springhill Jet., N.S. Between all stations inces, including Port Arthur, Ont also Ontario and Quebec.
Bay ports	
Oats.
Lumber and Forest Products.
Newsprint Paper__
Woodpulp.
Fertilizer	
Limestone	
Potatoes and turnips for export.
Potatoes and turnips for export.
Potatoes	
Prince Edward Island.
Caraquet branch . Bathurst, N.B_____
Ontario and Quebec. Pulp Mills, on Bridgewater division.
To
All points.
Points in vicinity of Trenton, Pictou and New Glasgow, N.S. Woodstock, N.B	
Bathurst, N.B.. Chatham, N.B.
Prince Edward Island.. in the Maritime prov-Prince Edward Island. Branch lines in Maritime provinces.
Atlantic ports for export, milled in transit.
Reduction
Arbitrary of 5 cents per ton over Stellar-ton eliminated.
20 cents per ton.
Charlottetown, P.E.I., for furtherance by water.
Main line stations...
St. John, N.B	
St. John, N.B	
All stations in Maritime provinces.
Prince Edward land stations. Tignish	
Is-
Consuming points in Canada and the United States.
Prince Edward Island...
Halifax, N.S	
Lunenburg, N.S	
Bridgewater, N.S	
Liverpool, N.S	
Shelburne, N.S	
for export.
Prince Edward Island.. Prince Edward Island..
St. John, N.B	
Halifax, N.S	
North
Sydney, N.S	
Sydney, N.S	
Charlottetown, P.E.I...
Charlottetown	
20 cents per ton on traffic destined to United States.
Reduced approximately 40 cents per ton, to maintain traffic against U.S. coal moving by water.
Reduced 60 cents per ton.
Mileage scale established. Reduction from 3$ to 4 cents all round per 100 lbs. Reduced to approximately main line basis.
Reduced 2\ cents per 100 lbs. Rates to Halifax were further reduced by elimination of arbitrary 1 cent over St. John.
Established on same basis as to mainland ports. Reductions 5 to 6 cents per 100 pounds.
Reduced to approximately main line basis.
New rates established on same basis as from other producing points.
Reduction 6 cents per 100 pounds.
Reduction approximately 10%, to assist mills in reaching export markets.
Reduction SI.65 per ton.
Reduction SI .40 per ton.
For movement of 1922 and 1923 crops, rates prior to 40% increase were restored.
Reduction from narrow gauge territory of 2 cents per 100 lbs.
Reduction from 24 to 13 cents per hundred pounds.
There has been a reduction of four cents per hundred pounds on ten classes of commodities from St. John, Halifax, and Prince Edward Island to Montreal. Now, I think this shows conclusively that whea that gentleman was making this statement down in Halifax he 
must have known that these rates had been put into effect, and was simply endeavouring to work on the feelings of the electorate in the by-election.
I could quote the Crowsnest pass agreement. I have no doubt that those hon. gentle-

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
men who have been spreading this propaganda in the East know full well that the rates in that agreement are more favourable to the East than to the West. A large number of commodities covered by the agreement can be shipped from Montreal and St. John to the West at much lower rates, I venture to say running from 20 to 50 per cent lower than the rates from Vancouver to Winnipeg. So the Crowsnest pass agreement was just as favourable to eastern as to western Canada, in fact nothing would help the manufacturers of the East more than to have those rates go into effect. I do not think it is necessary for me to stress this point, because those hon. gentlemen must be perfectly well aware of the facts, and I can see only one reason for their propaganda-an endeavour to divide the East from the West in an attempt to make political capital out of what the government has done in the interests of the whole Dominion. But our friends have, I think, wasted two years of valuable time. They have been, as the saying is, barking up the wrong tree. They had been endeavouring to persuade the farmers and workingmen of this country that the government was standing by the manufacturer to their detriment. But when the budget was brought down those propagandists woke up to the fact that they must immediately go into reverse gear, speaking in automobile terms, and endeavour to undo their work of the past two years. It is really a pity that so much splendid energy was wasted during that period, for certainly the budget has disabused the minds of the masses as to the direction in which the government is shaping the national policy. One of the best signs of the times is that the government is working mainly in the interests of the people in an endeavour to bring them relief.
In our province the fishing industry is of great importance. I have received a number of letters from my friends there regarding the industry and. asking what is being done for its encouragement. I have obtained a list from the Department of Customs, and after studying it carefully I feel sure that very little further can be done in the way of tariff relief, because nearly everything that is used by the fishermen of the eastern provinces is now upon the free list. Last January the sales tax was taken off all lobster cans, labels, wrappers and cases. In fact, everything that can possibly be done has, I think, been effected along that line. A number of people complain of the sales tax being imposed upon canned lobsters and claim that it should be removed. Under the present regulations the sales tax is imposed only* upon lobsters for domestic
consumption; when the lobsters are exported the tax is rebated. Now, my information is that fully 95 per cent of the lobster packed is exported. Therefore I think the Customs department are only wasting time and energy in retaining the sales tax on this commodity. We have endeavoured to bring this to the attention of the cabinet with a view to the complete removal of the sales tax, but I understand the cabinet regard lobsters as a luxury. But as the government is making nothing out of this tax, whereas its imposition created a great deal of difficulty to lobster packers and dealers, I think it might well be taken off altogether. In the province of Prince Edward Island the fishermen have formed a co-operative union to sell their live lobsters in the States. In the last few years a considerable trade has been developed in this commodity, and it will be largely augmented this year. There is no doubt that those engaged in the industry are proceeding on the right lines in acting co-operatively and sending a man into the American market to handle their output there.
At one time the oyster industry brought more money into the province of Prince Edward Island than any other industry. A few years ago something affected the extensive oyster beds and they were almost wiped out. We have been urging the federal government to clean up some of the beds and reseed them to see if with proper care and cultivation these wonderfully productive oyster areas could not be brought back to their former condition. We hope the government will look further into this matter and give us some assistance along these lines.
Our friends opposite have twitted us because we sometimes refer to railways and branch lines. Speaking for the county I represent, I acknowledge the splendid assistance which the government and the railway management have given us in standardizing the gauge, so that now all our shipments go through to destination without breaking bulk. This wTas accommodation which was long overdue, and on behalf of the people of my county I thank the government and the management of the Canadian National Railways for this great improvement. I hope the good work will be continued. There is a portion of the province where the work is not completed, but I have no doubt that it will be pushed forward with all possible speed.
There are a few matters that I wish to refer to which are of vital interest to the railway, and as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is good enough to remain in his seat and listen I will bring them to his attention
!S2S	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
To the wharf at Albert known as the railway wharf there was a short spur line from the station, and in the years gone by a large fishing industry was carried on there. Even as late as two or three years ago some five or ten thousand dollars' worth of fresh mackerel was shipped over that wharf, to say nothing of the large trade that may develop in fresh lobsters. A very small outlay would improve conditions at that wharf and give better shipping facilities for the people of that section. The same thing applies to the railway wharf at Summerside, P.E.I. Now that the car ferry is running, on the Borden-Tormentine route the boats have been taken off the Summerside-Pointe du Chene route and the railway wharf has not been used. It is a question as between the Public Works department and the Railway department which should take over this wharf and put it in repair. We have a splendid harbour there, and if the rails are laid again on the wharf and it is put in repair, there is no doubt that it will bring a large amount of traffic for the Canadian National Railways. It would facilitate also the shipment of potatoes and other products from that point. I hope that this matter will not be overlooked. These are really not branch lines we are asking for, but just a little accommodation for the improvement of shipping facilities.
At a place known as Cape Traverse on the branch line to Borden, when the new car-fcrry system was put into force the rails were taken up, on what was known as the Cape Traverse branch and that left the people in that vicinity in some cases eight or ten miles from a railway siding. The roadbed is there, splendid stone bridges are there; the sleepers are there, although perhaps not in as good condition as they were, and the people of that vicinity are asking for the rails to be laid on that roadbed for a distance of about one mile and a half to what is known as Campbell's Crossing. This would allow the people of that vicinity to ship possibly hundreds of carloads of potatoes that are grown by the farmers of that thriving section. [DOT] Another scheme that was under consideration was the building of a branch line to Richmond bay to tap the large mud deposits there. A survey was made of that line and estimates were submitted, and it is asked now by the people of Lot 18 that if the branch is extended to the bay, it be put on the Lot 18 side of the bay in order that it may give transportation facilities to the people in that section who are from eight to ten miles from a railway. I just mention these matters in passing, but I sincerely trust the government
[Mr A. E. MacLean.]
will not overlook them when the time comes for going into them more carefully.
Fur farming in Prince Edward Island and the whole of Canada is a very important industry at the present time, and I think it should secure a little more consideration than it has in the past from the government. The fur companies in the different parts of Canada were formed at a time when prices were exceedingly high, and there is no other business in the world that would have succeeded under similar conditions, but these companies have been able to pull through and are now in a fairly well established position. However, they are very heavily taxed on income and I think that under present conditions this industry which is bringing into the province of Prince Edward Island alone around
11,000,000, a year should receive some encouragement, and we are asking the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa to give us some assistance along the line of investigational work.
Our friends opposite have been telling us that we have ruined the implement industry by removing the protection from the manufacturers. I hold in my hand a little booklet published a short time ago by the Massey-Harris people in which they give some quotations on prices, and it shows that in 1913 a binder could be purchased for 266 bushels of wheat, or S170. Prices commenced to go up and in 1918, with the same 266 bushels of wheat at $1.99 cents per bushel a farmer could purchase a binder for $257 and have $272 left over. In 1919 prices rose even a little higher, but in 1921, 1922 and 1923 the situation changed, and we find that the farmers on account of the very, very low price of wheat had to give 266 bushels of wheat and in addition $138 in cash to purchase that same binder. This table shows how farm products have dropped to such a large extent, while at the same time the price of the farm implements has been soaring or at all events the price has not come down to the same extent as agricultural products. Our friends opposite say the Laurier-Fielding tariff was a proper tariff. Well, for the sake of argument let us say that we had the Laurier-Fielding tariff in 1913. At that time I think the tariff was 12i per cent on farm implements, possibly more, but for the sake of argument we will say 10 per cent. Now in 1913 a binder cost $170, and a duty of 10 per cent gives $17 duty. In 1923 a binder cost $280, and six per cent on that gives a duty of practically the same amount, namely $17, so I do not think our farm implement manufacturers can complain under those circumstances. You will see

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (Prince)
that the manufacturer has the same protection on a single binder as he had in 1913. At the same time, owing to the increased price of a binder the farmer is saved $18.20 duty and a further saving of $16.80 sales tax, making a total of $35.20, which would be the duty and sales tax that he would pay on a binder at $280 under the old tariff of 124 per cent. Now, the present saving on a binder at $280 and a tariff deduction of 4 per cent is $11.20 and sales tax removal of 6 per cent is $16.80, making a reduction of $28. While these reductions have brought great relief to the farming community the manufacturers are not hurt in any way, as the increase in price of their machinery, on which the rate of duty is fixed and collected, gives them the same protection on each binder as they had back in 1913, namely $17 on one machine, and the same thing applies throughout. The high price increases the protection. So I think the argument of our friends opposite with regard to these tariff reductions hurting the manufacturers does not hold water. I see by today's paper that the Massey-Harris Company are fairly well satisfied with the budget proposals that have been submitted.
Before concluding, I just want to say that last year I supported the budget, rather reluctantly. Although I never advocated free trade I did advocate a tariff for revenue purposes, a tariff that would allow the consuming public to import at a reasonable price, and at the same time contribute a certain amount of revenue to the treasury. I stand by that position still, and I claim that the budget this year has got nearer to that point than anything we have yet had in this country.
A train I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister of Finance, and the rest of the cabinet upon having brought down a budget which I feel will stabilize industry, will give confidence to the people as a whole, and will produce in Canada in 1925 a boom such as we have not seen for a number of years.
On motion of Mr. Motherwell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.
Wetlnestlay, May 7, 1924