1924-04-24

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a
Questions

petition from the officials and members of the Melville Presbyterian church, Montreal, in opposition to the Church Union bill.


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to present a petition of members and adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church of the town of Renfrew in opposition to the Church Union bill now before the House; also a petition signed by officers of the Arnprior branch of the Presbyterian Women's League, in opposition to the Church Union bill; also a petition of the members and adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Arnprior, in opposition to the Church Union bill.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I desire to present three petitions against the Church Union bill: first, of communicants of Knox Crescent Presbyterian church, Montreal; second, from the church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal, and third, from certain members of the First Presbyterian church of Montreal.
Mr. MATTHEW R. DUNCAN (North Grey): Mr. Speaker, in reference to the petition that I presented on April 9 against the proposed Church Union bill, I would like to correct the wording of Hansard of that date. What I intended to say was that I desired to present the petition of certain Presbyterians of the Owen Sound Presbytery opposing the United Church of Canada bill.



IRREGULARITY OF PETITIONS

Mr. SPEAKER:: The Clerk of the House calls my attention to the fact that many of these petitions are not in order in that they are not properly headed. There is a special heading for each petition sent to the House of Commons, and when an hon. member receives a petition without this formality he had better consult the Clerk of the House with a view to having it put in correct form.



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARD N. HOPKINS (Moose Jaw): Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition of residents of the province of Saskatchewan, depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, requesting that the government take whatever action is necessary to ensure the depositors of full payment of all their deposits.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, seconded by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Opposition):
That the addresses delivered to-day by Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, Robert Forke, Esquire, the Honourable E. 
M. Macdonald, and P. Lacombe Hatfield, Esquire, on the occasion of the unveiling of the tablet to the memory of the late Bowman Brown Law, M.P., be printed in Hansard as a supplement to the proceedings of this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
HOTEL SCRIBE Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	What was the total amount paid by or on account of the Canadian National Railways for and in connection with the Hotel Scribe, Paris?
2.	Was the said amount paid out of the cash receipts of the National Railways? If not, how was the purchase financed and at what rate of interest ?
3.	What is the name of the company now nominally owning the Hotel Scribe and who are the directors?
4.	What is the total amount of taxes paid or payable in respect of the said hotel for the year 1923?

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Respecting the report of the Malcolm Committee on the civil service, tabled last session, what action has been taken by the government?
2.	Was it referred to the Board of Audit?
3.	Has this board met?
4.	If so, does it still meet?
5.	Is the press report correct, to the effect that the newr Auditor General declined to act in conjunction with the other members of the board?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Announcement has been made as to the government's action with reference to the matter of civil service bonus, salary revision and superannuation measure.
2.	Not specifically. The report of the committee is a public document, available for the information of any body dealing with civil service matters.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes
5.	No.


FREIGHT RATES
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Do the reductions in freight rates that are to go into effect in the Maritime provinces on April 14, apply to both class and commodity rates, or to class rates only?
2.	How much freight was moved last year within the region to which these reductions apply?
3.	How much was moved on class, and how much on commodity rates?
4.	On the basis of the freight movement in 1923, what is the estimated saving in freight charges this year under the reductions ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Class rates only.
2.	It is not possible, without making a detailed check of every shipment handled, to give any definite figures as to the volume of freight which was moved during the year 1923 on which the reduced basis will apply.
3.	It is not possible, without making a detailed check of every shipment handled, to
' say how much was moved on class rates and how much on commodity rates.
4.	An estimate, based on general knowledge of the situation, is approximately 10 per cent.


VANCOUVER ISLAND FREIGHT RATES
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What rates are proposed to be charged on logs and lumber to be moved (a) on the proposed line of railway from a point at mile 58.3 near Deerholme on the Vancouver Island Main line to Cowichan bay;
(b)	on the proposed extension of the Vancouver Island main line, from mile 74 to mile 100?
2.	What is the estimated annual haul of lumber or logs in each case?
3.	What other traffic, if any, is anticipated, and to what extent, in each case?
4.	What return freight business, if any, will be carried in each instance?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Logs.-Movement will be largely to tidewater at Cowichan bay and, based on current rates applicable on other portions of Vancouver island, it is considered rates of from $2 to $3.50 per 1,000 feet, according to the distance, will be applied.
Lumber.-The rail movement of lumber will be largely to the prairies, eastern Canada and the United States and, based on current rates applicable from other points on Vancouver island, it is considered rates varying from 14 to 3i cents per 100 lbs. higher than from coast points will be applied.
2.	It is estimated there will be an annual movement of over 150 million feet of logs and 50 million feet of lumber.
3.	Practically nothing as the territory to be served by the line is essentially a timber country.
4.	Largely supplies and machinery for logging camps and sawmills along the line.


VANCOUVER TERMINAL GRAIN COMPANY
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has a lease of land been granted by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners to the Terminal Grain Company, R. H. Gale, president, otherwise known as Spillers ?
2.	For what period has the lease been granted?
3.	What rental is payable?
4.	When does payment of rental commence?
5.	Does the harbour commission hold title to said land, and, if so, what is the legal description?
6.	When did the harbour commission acquire said property, and what amount was paid for it?
7.	Was said property acquired by private purchase or by expropriation, and from whom was said property purchased ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	99 years.
3.	From August 1, 1923 to August 1, 1924, a sum of $2,566.67. From August 1, 1924 to August 1, 1964, $12,000 per year. From August 1, 1964 to balance of term at a rental to be agreed upon, but failing any agreement to be set by arbitration.
4.	August 1, 1923.
5.	Yes, it is a portion of property to which title is held by the commissioners under an agreement of sale. A description of the area included in the lease to the Terminal Grain Co., is in the appendix hereto attached.
6.	May 14th, 1923; $325,000. $50,000 cash; balance spread over two years.
Questions

7.	The property was acquired from Fred William Tiffin by private purchase. Expropriation was considered, but, owing to the fact that there was a going business in the shape of an operating lumber mill, with personal property of insurable value of $112,000 located thereon and that the loss entailed in the removal of this business would, undoubtedly, be considered in the arbitration fixing the value to be paid for the property by expropriation, and the purchase price being within the amount fixed by independent valuation and less than the amount estimated as the probable arbitration award, the commissioners adopted the first method as being the cheapest price at which to obtain the property. Valuation was made for the commissioners by the firm of A. M. Pound & Co., valuators, Vancouver, B.C.
Appendix


F. W. TIFFIN
[Stage Direction]
All and singular those certain parcels or tracts of lands and premises situate, lying and being in the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia and more particularly known and described as lot one (1) in block one (1) subdivision " E " of district lot one hundred and eighty-three (183), group one (1), New Westminster district according to a map or plan deposited in the Land Registry Office at the said city of Vancouver and numbered 5155; together with all the right title and interest of the vendor in the tidal lands and premises in front of that portion of said lot number one (1), formerly known and described as lots numbers one (1), two (2), and three (3) block (1), subdivision "E" of said district lot one hundred and eigthty-three (183) and more particularly described in the quit claim of the same from His Majesty the King in right of his ' Dominion of Canada	and	dated the	29th	day ofJune, 1906, to Forbes	George Vernon;	and	secondly,all and singular those certain parcels or tracts of land and premises situate,	lying and	being in thesaid city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, and more particularly known and described as follows, that is to say: Firstly, lot fourteen (14), m block number one (1), subdivision " D " of district lot one hundred and eighty-three (183), group one (1), New Westminister (now Vancouver) district, according to a map or plan deposited^ in the Land Registry Office, at the said city of Vancouver and numbered:	Secondly,	that	portion of	the	foreshore
abutting on the said lot fourteen (14) not expropriated or acquired by His Majesty the King in right of the Dominion of Canada, and which may be shortly described as follows, that is to say: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly boundary of said lot 14 with high water mark on Burrard Inlet thence northerly along the prolongation of the said easterly boundary a distance of 140 feet more or less to a point distance 450 feet from the southeast corner of said lot 14; thence westerly and parallel to the south boundary of said lot 14 a distance of 45 feet more or less to the intersection with the western boundary of said lot 14 produced northerly; thence southerly along the said production of said western boundary of said lot 14 a distance of 160 feet more or less to the intersection with high water mark on Burrard Inlet; thence easterly following along the said high water mark a distance of 44 feet more or less to point of commencement.
: Mr_ Cardin.]

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Has Mr. Wilfrid Laliberte, advocate of Arthabaska, county of Arthabaska, province of Quebec, been in the employ of the Dominion government from the year 1914 to 1921 inclusive?
2.	If so, what were his duties?
3.	What amounts was he paid for services from the year 1914 to 1921 inclusive?
4.	Where were his professional services rendered?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Legal agent in prosecution for Departments of Inland Revenue and Agriculture
3.	$478.90.
4.	In the counties of Arthabaska and Drummond, Quebec.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COLONEL J. CARLETON BROWN
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	Is Coloned J. Carleton Brown an officer or employee of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, in what capacity is he employed, what are his duties and what is his salary?
3.	Was the said J. Carleton Brown sent, as a special representative of the Canadian National Railways in the year 1923, to the Far East?
4.	If so, what was the purpose of his trip and what were the results?
5.	What was the cost to the railway of the said trip?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Engaged as special representative to inquire into matters of importance for Canadian Government Merchant Marine and Canadian National Railways in Australasia and the Orient, including personnel of staffs in those countries, possibilities of traffic developments, etc.
5.	May 21, 1923, to March 31, 1924, $19,659.-
06.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RADIO EQUIPMENT
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What proportion of the radio equipment of Canadian National Railways is Canadian made?
2.	What proportion of the equipment has been imported from United States?
3.	Is not radio equipment made in Canada?
4.	What is the personnel of the radio staff of the Canadian National Railways?
5.	Have any Americans been put in charge of any branch of this work?
6.	If so, why has this been done?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	86-90 per cent.
2.	13Yio per cent. American equipment was not imported by the Canadian National Railways, but purchased through Canadian dealers handling such equipment.

Questions
3.	Radio equipment is made in Canada, but not the particular type of set that Canadian National Railways are using, although it is anticipated that this equipment will shortly be made in Canada, when the railways: will be glad to make use of same. Meanwhile railway officials are daily engaged in experimenting with various equipment produced by Canadian manufacturers, and hope soon to be able to obtain complete requirements of such equipment in Canada.
4.	At Montreal headquarters:	radio engineer, assistant radio engineer, director of programmes, foreman of installation, one mechanic, three clerks, ten train operators.
At Ottawa: broadcasting manager, station operator, assistant station operator.
At Winnipeg: one representative.
5.	Yes.
6.	Due to the fact that the United States has been in advance of Canada, up to the present time, in radio development work, particularly in the application of radio to moving trains. The officers employed represent, in the judgment of the administration, the best qualified experts obtainable.
QUEBEC HARBOUR Mr. LAYIGUEUR:
1.	Has the government received a request from the Quebec Harbour Commission for a certain amount of money to be spent on the improvement and development of said harbour? If so, what is the amount?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to include in the supplementary estimates, an amount of money for the development of said harbour?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Quebec Harbour Commissioners have submitted a programme for further development of facilities but no conclusion has been reached respecting it.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
, QUEBEC RAILWAY STATION


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Is it the intention of the new board of management of the National Railways to build the proposed railway station at Quebec?
2.	If so, have plans been made and what will be the approximate cost ?
3.	When will the work commence?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The management
reply that the matter of improving passenger terminal facilities at Quebec is under active consideration but final decision not reached.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. SHAW:: The estimates of the Auditor General's department contain an item of $10,000 to cover appointments to positions, proposed to be exempted from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
1.	What are these positions?
2.	Why are they so exempted?
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: No positions have been created or appointments made. Explanation of the item will be made when the estimates are under discussion,


CAMP BORDEN
Mr. BOWEN:: 1.	Was there a fire of considerable magnitude at the flying corps camp at Camp Borden during the calendar year 1923?
2.	If so, what would be the actual replacement value of the equipment, engines and technical stores destroyed ?
3.	What was the value of the building or buildings destroyed ?
4.	Was a court of inquiry convened in connection with any such fire or fires and if so, what was the finding of any such board or court?
5.	Has the pay of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the flying corps been reduced during the last year?
6.	Have married men on account of reduced pay, had to leave the service?
7.	Is the pay of certain senior officers to be increased in the near future?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	There were two fires, one on August 29, 1923, which destroyed the aircraft repair section, No. 8 hangar, dope shop, paint shop and latrine.
The second fire occurred on October 16, 1923, and destroyed the technical stores buildings and contents.
2.	3230,000.
3.	330,000 (buildings destroyed in both fires).
4.	Yes. The finding of the court of inquiry into the first fire is as follows:
"The court is unable to determine the cause of the fire; that the responsibility for the outbreak of fire is not attributable to any person or persons."
The finding of the court of inquiry into the second fire is as follows:
"The court is of the opinion that the fire being due to causes unknown the possibility of an incendiary origin is' indicated, warranting an investigation by secret service operatives. This is especially so as the adjoining building containing essential machinery and stores was totally destroyed by fire some six weeks earlier, it not being possible to ascertain the cause thereof."
5.	Pay of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men has, in a good many cases been reduced on the formation of the permanent Royal Canadian Air Force.
6.	Forty-six married men, and twenty single men did not re-enlist in the permanent Royal Canadian Air Force. (This number includes men medically unfit, over age, and also those who did not wish to enlist in the permanent force).


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
7.	No. Pay of senior officers was decreased on the formation of the permanent Royal Canadian Air Force.

Mr. BROWN:: 1.	What was the age of the present Auditor General at the time of his appointment to present office?
2.	When	did	he receive	his	degree of chartered
accountant in the province of Quebec?
3.	Was he at the time when degree was received or
before or after a member or officer of any accounting society or accounting institute of any kind, and if bo, what office did he hold in such society or institute, and for what period	of time did he	hold such office?4.	When	and	where did	he	try his preliminary
examination as chartered accountant? (b) Who were the examiners at such examination? (c) Was he successful at such examination?
o.	When	and	where did	he	try his intermediate
examinations? (b) Who were the examiners at such examination? (c) Was he successful at such examination?
6.	Do his present qualifications in Quebec entitle him to full membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the province of Ontario? (b) Is he eligible for affiliation with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Great Britain as a full practising member?
7.	Was no one available in the civil service for promotion to Auditor General who possessed all necessary qualifications and who had also the benefit of long experience in handling government business?
8.	Did the present Auditor General when appointed, insist upon his offices being decorated and refurnished? (b) If so, who obtained the contract or contracts for supplying such furnishings? (c) What did the new furnishings cost in detail?


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member will recognize, I am sure, that many of these questions are of a personal character and do not relate to matters of departmental record. I submit that such questions as might arise in connection with the appointment 'of the officer referred to could be dealt with more appropriately and more fully when the estimates of the department are under review. Under these circumstances I ask my hon. friend if he would drop the question.


Hewitt Bostock: Answered.


DISEASE FROM IMPORTATION OF CHICKS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: Is the government aware as to whether or not there have been any epidemics such as chickenpox or other disease introduced into Canada by the importation of baby chicks from United States?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: No information.


BRIDGETOWN, N.S., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	When did the position of postmaster at Bridgetown, Annapolis County, Nova Scotia, formerly held by the late A. D. Brown, fall vacant by his decease?
2.	Has the position of postmaster since been filled?
3.	Were applications for the position of postmaster called for by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	If so, what applications were received in reply to the request?

5.	Were any of these applicants appointed to the position of postmaster?
6.	If not, why?
7.	Is it true that Dr. Armstrong, a brother of the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia, is acting postmaster?
8.	When will his tenure of office cease?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	October 3rd, 1923.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	W. W. Flett, O.A.S., disability; 0. A. Llo3'd, O.A.S., G. H. Dechman, O.A.S., C. E. Troop, O.A.S., H. V. Lantz, O.A.S., Dr. M. Armstrong, G. E. Nichols, H. A. Goldsmith, Miss M. A. L. Roberts, J. H. Hicks, N. Went-zell, E. N. Marshall, all of Bridgetown, and L. G. Young of Calgary.
5.	Doctor Armstrong placed in charge temporarily, pending a permanent appointment.
6.	Investigation into the qualifications of candidates not yet completed.
7.	No information regarding relationship.
8.	Temporary arrangements will cease as soon as a permanent appointment has been made.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LOAN
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	With reference to the $50,000,000 loan of the Canadian National Railways of last February, what unused and unallocated balance of this loan is still in the hands of the minister?
2.	What is the total of requisitions received from the Canadian National Railways for further payments under this loan, and not yet made?
3.	What further amount, if any, representing liabilities of the Canadian National Railways, does the management thereof desire to discharge out of such balance ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$15,184,040.20 held in trust by Minister of Finance.
2.	No unpaid certificates on hand.
3.	Balance will be applied to payment of capital obligations.


IMMIGRATION CANTEENS
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Is it the intention of the Department of Immigration and Colonization to manage the restaurant and canteen at Halifax and Montreal?


James Alexander Robb: Montreal, yes.
Question of Halifax to receive consideration of department.



BANKRUPTCY ACT

Mr. SIMPSON:: I.	Has the government been requested to amend the Bankruptcy Act as follows:-
(a)	By establishing in the province of Ontario a bankruptcy division for each of the judicial districts?
(b)	By conferring original bankruptcy jurisdiction (concurrent with the Supreme Court of Ontario), on each of the county and district Courts in Ontario in

Questions
cases of bankruptcy within their respective territorial limits, subject to appeal to a Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario ?
(c)	By eliminating the provision for the appointment of official receivers and by substituting therefor a provision for the appointment of fit' and proper persons as authorized trustees, one for each ,of the said bankruptcy divisions, to whom court order shall refer bankrupt estates, and to whom respectively assignments shall be made by bankrupts carrying on business in his division, and who, by virtue of his appointment, shall become an officer of the court, in respect of the bankrupt estate?
(d)	By making such other amendments of said Act rendered necessary by above suggested amendments?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to so amend the act during the present session?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under consideration.



MAINTENANCE OF IMMIGRANTS

Mr. LAYIGUEUR:: 1.	What is the amount paid for board, per day, to the Department of Immigration and Colonization, by each individual immigrant detained?
2.	What is the amount paid, per day, to the restaurant keeper for the board of immigrants detained ?
3.	Has the department the intention this year, of realizing a profit at' the expense of immigrants?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	In cases of all detained immigrants rates charged for maintenance are as follows: Medical cases, adults, $2,00, children, $1.00; civil cases, adults, $1.75, children, .90. Certain medical and civil detentions are chargeable to the transportation companies as provided for by sections 34 and 44 respectively of the Immigration Act.
2.	At Quebec last year 30 cents per meal. Prices for this year not yet determined.
3 No.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	What was the cost of construction of the National Transcontinental railway from Quebec to Moncton?
2.	Does the operation of that portion of the National Transcontinental railway between Quebec and Moncton show a profit, after paying interest on cost of construction, cost of maintenance, and operating costs?
3.	If so, what is the amount? If not, what is the amount of such deficit?
4.	What did the International railway from St. Leonards Junction to Campbellton cost the government?
5.	Does the said International railway show a profit, after paying maintenance, and operation cost, and paying interest on the capital investment in said road?
6.	If so, what is the amount? If not, what is the amount of such deficit?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$35,000,000, Levis to Moncton.
2.	No division of operating revenues and expenses covering the line between Quebec and Moncton made after April 1st, 1920.
3.	See j-eply to question No. 2.
4.	The purchase price of the International railway from St. Leonards Junction to Campbellton was $2,700,000.
5.	No division of operating revenues and expenses covering the International railway made after December 31st, 1920.
6.	See reply to question No. 5.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Why was the "Woodward elevator at Vancouver taken over by the Vancouver Harbour Commission?
2.	Has the said elevator been leased to other parties? If so, what are the names and addresses of the lessees and on what terms was the said elevator leased by the Vancouver Harbour Commission to the said parties, and to what uses do the said lessees propose to put the said elevator ?
3.	Has the government sanctioned the leasing of this elevator ?
4.	Has the government furnished moneys to the Harbour Commission for the acquisition of this elevator, or has the government consented that any moneys advanced to the Vancouver Harbour Commission should be used for this purpose, or for completion and equipment of said elevator?
5.	If it was advisable, either in the interest of the grain traffic or the port of Vancouver, to acquire this elevator, why is it not to be operated by the Vancouver Harbour Commission?



HOME BANK INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
understand that the evidence given from day to day before the royal commission inquiring into the affairs of the Home Bank will be printed, and I would ask the government if sufficient copies can be printed for the members of the House, or at least for the members of the Banking and Commerce committee.


James Alexander Robb: I do not think there is any objection to that.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Sufficient copies have been printed for members of the House and the Senate, and are available.



INCOMPLETE ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
wish to draw the attention of the government to an error in answering a question. On the 19th of March I asked the following question:
What tonnage of coal was supplied to the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine operating on the Pacific ocean during each of the calendar years of 1921, 1922 and 1923?
Lausanne Conference

The answer I got would convey.the impression that all the coal that was supplied was obtained from British Columbia, but. as a matter of fact I have it on the testimony of an eye witness that a very: considerable portion was obtained and supplied in Japan, mined by woman and child labour. I think it is proper if that is so, that it should have been so revealed in the answer, and I would ask the government if they would submit an amended answer.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	I will have the matter looked
into. I imagine the department thought my hon. friend wanted to know from whom the coal was purchased in British Columbia, knowing that he takes a deep interest in that matter.	.


Alan Webster Neill: "The Pacific ocean" is the
language used.



LAUSANNE CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (East Calgary):	I
would like to ask the Prime Minister if there has been any change in the position in regard to the Lausanne controversy since his last Statement to the House.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I quite understand the significance of my hon. friend's question.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I will put it in more detail.
Has the matter been the subject of consultation between the British government and the Canadian government, and if so, has the Prime Minister any statement to make at this stage with regard to the present standing of the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been
communicating with the Prime Minister of Great Britain with reference to a statement made by him in the House of 'Commons during the course of the debate, and which did not seem to me to represent accurately .the position he was referring to. I have had some communication from the Prime Minister in reference to it, and later on will be in a position, I think, to make a statement to the House, but I would like to have the permission of the Prime Minister of Great Britain to refer to his communication before so doing.



BEAUCHAMP'S SENTENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Paul Mercier: Can the government inform the
House whether or not the sentence of the
EMr. Neill.]
convict, Beauchamp, from Montreal has been remitted so- far as the lash is concerned?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The sentence referred to by my hon. friend has not been remitted. Under a statute passed last year any person convicted of an indictable offence has the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal of the province' that imposed his conviction, and this appeal must be lodged within a delay to be fixed by the rules of the Court of Appeal of such province. In most of the provinces of the Dominion such rules have been made, and the usual delay is thirty days within which an appeal may be instituted by the convict. In the province of Quebec no such rules have yet been enacted, but I am informed that steps are now being taken to enact such rules. Article 1018 of the Criminal Code as enacted last year provides:
In the case of a conviction involving sentence of death or whipping the sentence shall not in any case be executed until after the expiration of the time within which notice of appeal or of an application for leave to appeal may be given under this section.
Instructions have been issued to all the wardens of the penitentiaries by the Department of Justice that the lash shall not be inflicted until after the expiration of the delay during which the convict has the right to institute an appeal against his conviction. The message which has been sent in the case of Beauchamp was only a reiteration or confirmation of instructions which the wardens have already received from the Department of Justice. This man's sentence neither with regard to the part of it concerning the lash nor the other part, has not been remitted, and if any application has been made for clemency in this case it will be dealt with in the ordinary way.
I may perhaps add that many things have been stated either verbally or in writing which are not justified by the facts of the case.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Minister of Justice if he would lay on the table of the House the actual order issued from the Department of Justice in the Beauchamp case?


Ernest Lapointe: With pleasure.



CHINESE IMMIGRANT'S

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: According to the Halifax Herald of
April 14th, forty-nine orientals have arrived there to work on the Nova Scotia coal boats. Subsequent investigation seems to show that the Chinese landed from the S. S. Cedric,

Pier 2, Halifax, direct from Liverpool, England, having arrived there from Canton via the Suez canal, and that these Chinese are imported from the Orient as crews for the Wabana, Daghild, and other vessels of Canadian registration. These Chinese are acting in the capacity of sailors, quartermaster, oilers, stockers, stewards and cooks; they are to relieve the hardy Nova Scotians. The Citizen states that they are there in bond and that permission to land and place the Chinamen on the various allotted vessels was given under letter received from the Deputy Minister of Immigration at Ottawa.
I should like to ask the Minister of Immigration whether he can throw any light upon this very peculiar situation.


James Alexander Robb: This is the first I have heard of it.
I shall direct the attention of the deputy minister to the situation and give my hon. friend a reply tomorrow.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): I would like to ask the government if they have any information to give to the House as to the probable date when the Royal Grain Commission will make its report.
Thomas Andrew Low: I think an interim report of the commission will be presented before the close of the session. I do not expect, however, that the full report will be brought down until after parliament has prorogued.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April loth, 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.
Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
of the budget is the following: If it wants a large surplus, why not let the railway have a guarantee of $100,000,000, then carry $50,000.000 to the credit of the government. By the addition of 850,000,000 to the so-called surplus of $30,000,000 we might have a much larger surplus of $80,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: That would be just the same.


George Perry Graham: Not a bit of it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No statement of the
affairs of Canada will truthfully represent the actual conditions which ignores that 850,000,000 guarantee given by the government to the National Railways. Having this false premise the government predicates upon it that it has money to dispose of for the reduction of taxation or the reduction of debt. So entangled will the government become in this financial maze that before long it will be clearly evident to the country that not only is there not a surplus but that an immense addition will have to be made to the existing deficits of past years. The debt of the country is actually being pyramided the surplus does not really exist and yet the government tries to impress the country with the idea that it has a surplus for the reduction of taxation or of debt.
I have a further criticism of the budget to make, and it is a very serious one. The Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Finance were parties to the budget of last year. To be sure that budget was delivered by the Finance Minister himself (Mr. Fielding), but it expressed the will of the government and indicated what the people might expect from it in the way of a fiscal policy. That policy of a year ago is in sharp contrast to the policy as set forth in the budget of April 10. I am not anxious, Mr. Speaker, to use any harsh language, but I will state that if one will read the budget of May 11, 1923, and will place alongside of it and read the budget of April 10,	1924, he will
see that the budget that we are now considering constitutes a plain breach of good faith. I may be asked, did I expect anything else? I certainly did. I may be prejudiced, but I felt when the budget was given to the people last year, as it foreshadowed the fiscal policy of the government with relation to the tariff, that we could expect something abiding, after that address which was given so forcibly on May 11, 1923.
Honour in public life, Mr. Speaker, is an absolute necessity. It is the last thing we can part with. Honour in keeping engagements with the people has been the very breath and 
existence of public men in all British countries. A recent example of this is the action of the late Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, succeeding the Right Honourable Bonar Law, felt himself bound by a statement that the Right Honourable Bonar Law had made to the effect that there would be no material change in the fiscal policy of Great Britain without a submission to the people. A controversy was carried on at great length in the newspapers that the promise which Bonar Law had made did not constitute a binding obligation. In the next place it was stated that the Right Honourable Stanley Baldwin was not heir to that promise, or called upon in any way to implement it; but he took the position that he was not going to run any risk of imputation of bad faith whatever, and he went to the country, with the result which hon. gentlemen know; but with the result also that the good name and the good faith of public men were maintained.
How different the practice in this House! On May 11, 1923, the Finance Minister announced his fiscal policy and gave assurances as to what this policy would continue to be. Now I will say just a word with reference to the Finance Minister. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was seeking office in 1921, from the public platforms practised self abnegation to this extent: "Do not look at me; look at the man whom I propose shall be Finance Minister. He was successful in the years of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and gave to this country its fiscal policy in the years of its greatest prosperity. He is the man whom I intend to have as my Finance Minister, if I am returned'to power." Since he has been returned to power we have had the opinion of the right honourable Minister of Finance, expressed by the Prime Minister in words which could be summed up by saying that he was the very flower and sweet perfume of his ministers:	That the fiscal interests of this
country Were absolutely safe in the hands of the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. Now, I regret exceedingly-I think as much as anyone in this House 'that the right hon. Finance IMinister is not here to-day. If he were here, we never would have had, I submit, this budget, which was delivered by the Acting Finance Minister (Mr. Robb).
Let me quote what was said by the Finance Minister in his budget speech of May 11, 1923, to be found in Hansard at page 2648, and pardon me if I read at length. He said:
Tariff Stability
There is a thought which does not receive as much consideration as I think sometimes it should be given in public discussions, and that is the desirability of something like tariff stability. Business men do not

like to be always threatened with changes in the tariff. There is no finality in legislation either as respects that tariff or as respects anything else. That which parliament can do to-day it can undo to-morrow. Everybody knows that. Everybody must conduct his business in the light of that fact. Nevertheless it is desirable that something like an assurance of tariff stability should be given to business men'. Exceptions will occur. There will be cases where, in the interest of the consumer, reductions in the tariff ought to be made. There will be inequalities discovered in the tariff which should be corrected; there will be errors which should be remedied. Any minister, any government, any parliament must be free to deal with these cases as they arise. But the conditions to which I refer are exceptional. Speaking broadly, it is possible to give the country a reasonable assurance of stability of tariff. Such assurances are very desirable, for no business man would care to enter upon enterprises which may be brought into peril by frequent tariff changes. The tariff as it will be when the changes proposed to-day come into effect will be a moderate tariff and probably as low as the country can afford to have under present condition.
Then on the next page:
Subject to the exceptional conditions such as I have mentioned, I think the country should be content to accept the tariff as it will now stand as one as fair and reasonable as can be prepared under all the circumstances, and business men should be able to carry on the various enterprises without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes.
Stability of tariff cannot be expected while tariff rates are high. But where the rates are for the most part, as in our tariff, moderate, a reasonable measure of tariff stability should be assured.
Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Finance Minister is not here, but we have another gentleman in this House this afternoon who expressed himself on this question of tariff stability and I desire to quote from his statement. This statement, instead of covering three or four paragraphs such as I have read, is spread over seven or eight columns. I will read what I have selected, and if there is anything that I have left out, I want my attention drawn to it, because I want to show this House if I can what was the attitude of the Prime Minister not twelve months ago. On page 30o2 of Hansard, I find the following statement by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King:
May I say just a further word with respect to another feature of the budget-the emphasis which has been placed upon stability as regards the tariff in the government's tariff announcements. Why is it that the present government is seeking stability in the tariff? Eor the simple reason that what this country needs to-day, as what the world needs, is a little more in the way of stability.
That was his statement on May 23, 1923. Something has happened since. He continues:
What we need to-day is to restore a feeling of confidence in the minds of the business community, and in the minds of the industrial community. The world to-day is still trembling more or less from the convulsion of the titanic struggle of a few years ago, and the highest duty of statesmanship is to seek,
24, 1924
The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
so far as it lies within the power of every nation, to restore in the minds of all classes of the community a feeling of certainty, a feeling of confidence, a feeling which for want of a better word we describe as stability. Stability does not mean finality. I notice that some hon. gentlemen oposite have sought to combine the two words.
If there was one thing above another which the hon. Minister of Finance was most careful tp emphasize when he spoke of stability, it was that as regards all legislation, and in particular as regards the tariff, there was no such thing as finality. He spoke particularly and specifically of the probable need for a change as respects some items of the tariff affecting consumers and in relation to the necessities of production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Prime Minister
says: "hear, hear." Will he kindly say, "hear, hear" to the next two or three sentences?
He mentioned these things, and if there be need for greater emphasis as to what he said, may I direct the attention of the House to the fact that my hon friend the Minister of Finance had no sooner concluded his reference to stability than he began to speak of reciprocity and of trade agreements with the United States, which would mean changes in the tariff the minute they were brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Has there been any
reciprocity since May 23, 1923? Has there been any action of the United States in relation to the tariff benefiting us as regards this period? Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Just a moment. The United States, after this declaration of policy, raised the tariff as against this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
I wished to ask my hon. friend is whether, after what he has quoted from me in reference to stability not meaning finality when I drew attention to the fact that reciprocity would mean changes in the tariff, the significance of that paragraph is not wholly that the Minister of Finance, when he spoke of stability., did not wish to have it inferred that there would be no further changes; in other words, that stability and stagnation were not necessarily the same thing.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have not nearly
finished quoting from the statement of the Prime Minister. He continued:
No, what my hon. friend sought to convey to the House in his remarks was that the government, after having carefully studied the situation from all angles, had come to the conclusion that having regard to the situation of Canada to-day in relation to other countries, it should tell the Canadian people that as respects the tariff, unless there were obvious reasons why there should be changes occasioned by necessity, they might be reasonably assured that there would be a steadiness in the tariff for some little time to come.

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was a
year ago.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What is the measure
of some little time?" This government that had so declared itself in the speech of May 23, 1923, at the very first opportunity at the next session of parliament, changed it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For obvious
reasons.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Prime Minister
continued:
13 what my hon- {riend sought to make clear to this House, and he did so for the reason, that what we in Canada can do with justice in the matter of tariff revision is necessarily dependent in large part upon what is done by our neighbours to the south and upon what occurs in Europe.
As I have remarked-and please let this sink in there has been no change whatever except an adverse change against us since this speech was delivered by the Prime Minister of Canada in the House of Commons. He said further:
What is the position with regard to the United States? Since the Liberal convention was held, there has been enacted by the United States a much higher tariff than ever before existed between Canada and the United States. The Fordney-McCumber tariff, so-called to-day is operating to the disadvantage of Canada' Is there any member of this House who will stand up in his place and say: Notwithstanding that obvious fact we think we should throw down our bars against the United States and give them an opportunity to come in here and affect our industries in a manner even more seriously than they have already been affected.
Yes, there was a member, and that mem-bei sits opposite me to-day in the person of the Prime Minister of Canada. He said further:
We feel that the settlement of conditions in Europe and the favourable change in the American tariff are not likely to be effected for some little time yet, and for that reason we say that pending a change m this external situation we wish to give to the Canadian people the assurance that we do not purpose having an unstable tariff, because that is the significance of it. The one word has to be used in relation not only to its synonym but also its antonym. We do not propose to have an unstable tariff while this unstable condition exists in different parts of the world.
Why the change of opinion? When did the stability occur and become a fact in other parts of the world? Then on page 3053 the Prime Minister continued. I hope he is following me, and I will read any part that he suggests I should. I am anxious to have a plain, truthful account of the attitude as then expressed by the speech of May 23, 1923:
Before I leave that matter, may I add this with respect to our endeavour to bring about stability?
We are taking in this connection a stand which we believe to be not only in the interests of our own country but in the interests of the world. I have in (Mr. Ryckman.]
my hand a copy of the report which was presented to this parliament some little time ago of the Genoa Conference for the economic and financial reconstruction of Europe. Canada was represented at that conference by two able and distinguished gentlemen and there were assembled there, as hon members will recall, representatives from most of the commercial nations ot the world. True, in some respects the conference did not achieve all that was hoped and expected of it. but there were certain matters on which there was general agreement, and in the report of this conference, I find the following. It appears on page 37 of the report printed by order of this House.
Then there is given article 44 of the Genoa conference that was in favour of stability. The Prime Minister cited not only the Genoa conference but the League of Nations, and he showed how the Economic committee of the league was in favour of stability. He quoted a resolution which, in part, is as follows:
The Economic committee is deeply impressed with the inconvenience and injury caused to international commerce which result from the uncertainty arising from frequent changes of customs tariff and associates itself cordially with the resolution of the Genoa Conference on this subject.
The committee strongly recommends that all states should endeavour to ensure that their customs tariffs should remain applicable over substantial periods of time, and that changes in rates and classification should be effected as seldom as possible and only when they are required by the essential economic needs of the country.
After quoting that resolution, the Prime Minister continued:
That resolution, according to the report of the assembly, was unanimously adopted by the assembly of the League of Nations at its last session. Now I read these resolutions not for the purpose of helping to foster the impression that in speaking of stability in matters of tariff the action of the government contemplates finality in any particular or in any direction. I rather wish to bring home to the members of this House, as far as may be possible, what has become so apparent to the statesmen of other parts of the world, that if we are to get away from the unsettled conditions of the present, if we are to restore confidence among the nations of the world, if once more this world is to be brought back to the order which prevailed prior to the Great War. we must all seek, in whatever directions we can, particularly in our international ' relations, to establish something in the nature of a reasonable stability. That is all we are aiming at. We do not intend to sacrifice in any particular the needs of any class of our citizens or the needs of industry, the needs in any direction of consumers or of producers, but what we do wish to make clear is that, so long as conditions continue to exist as they are at present, so long ns on the part of the United States, the tariff wall remains what it is against us, and in Europe the unsettled condition continues to be what it is, and so long, may I add, as Canada remains the only country that has reduced its tariff since the Great War, while other countries continue to put up their tariffs, for that period of time at least we shall give to those who are interested in investing their capital and establishing industry in this country, and who are seeking to restore business to a higher level of development, assurance that there will not be unstability where stability ought to prevail.

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: instruct his secretary to put me on his mailing list and send me the statements of any manufacturers, of any captains of industry, of any labouring men in industry who are prepared to write in approval of the budget which has just been delivered.
The refunding loan has been referred to, and in this connection I have a criticism to offer: The government did not do as well as they could have done. As I make it out, the government sold its twenty-year bonds
4 p.m. on the basis of 5.32, while they sold the five year bonds on a basis within a very small fraction of 5.75. The bond dealers, as will have been observed, received $4,500,000 for placing $200,000,000 of the obligations of this country. The Acting Minister of Finance says that he asked for tenders. I may be wrong, but I do not think that tenders were advertised for. However, let me tell the House what happened in this country at the same time. The province of Ontario, whose credit I am sorry to say does not stand as high in the money market as that of another province in the Dominion, had $40,000,000 of bonds to sell. It advertised in the newspapers. The same bond dealers, who as we all know are anxious to drive a good bargain, as the testimony recently adduced in Toronto will show abundantly, submitted to my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance a certain figure which apparently was accepted. The province of Ontario, on the other hand, advertised in connection with the sale of its $40,000,000 and the bond dealers put in their tenders; and the treasurer of the province, under a Conservative government, told them to take their tenders out of his office because he would not accept any of them. With what result? That when my hon. friend's loan was on, Ontario sold its bonds at 5.30. The whole is greater than the part; the credit of the whole ought to be greater than the part, but Ontario, I say, sold its bonds at a price higher than that which the Dominion obtained, simply because they went about it in a businesslike way. I believe that the Acting Minister of Finance could have got a great deal more for those $200,000,000 of the securities of this fair country which he had to sell. But he accepted what was the highest tender, he says, of those whom he asked to bid.
I desire to say a word about the French treaty and it will be only a word. From the statement of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) it is very clear that this French treaty has been a bad bargain. When there is some real business to be done by this government, it seems to me that a real business man should be sent to do it. The only reply that 
comes to that suggestion is from the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), who says that there has been a remission of taxes to the extent of a million and a half. Well, that is a very fine thing for those who get the benefit of it- But that remission is upon brandies, cosmetics and embroideries, and as we have1 to raise a revenue in this country to pay the national debt, it is obvious that it is upon such articles as these-luxuries-that the money should be raised.
With regard to this French treaty I want to take one article which comes under the treaty and another which does not, so that we may see how the low rate of exchange adversely affects this country. I understand that when the friends of the Acting Minister of Finance who are in the boot and shoe business were here they pointed this out to the Prime Minister and to the Acting Minister of Finance. The story is not an encouraging one so far as Canadian trade is concerned. Take page 71 of the trade returns for January and contrast the period of ten months ending .January, 1924 with the same period ending January, 1923. The consumption of non-sparkling wines, which come under the treaty, for the ten months' period ending January, 1923, was 56,000 gallons, and the value was $160,000, while for the corresponding period ending January, 1924, the consumption was 105,000 gallons, nearly twice as much, and the value was $140,000, or $20,000 less. Then, take the item of raw wool, page 135. The exchange has meant this to raw wool: In 1923 the consumption for the ten months' period was 118,000 pounds, with a value of $119,000, while for the 1924 period it was 262,000 pounds, more than twice as much, with a value of only $147,000. Now, I would ask the fanners of this country-


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend allow me right there? Was it a disadvantage to the manufacturer of raw woollens who sells tweeds to the Canadian people to be able to buy so much more wool for less money?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is a distinct advantage to the manufacturer, but it is distinctly to the disadvantage of the Canadian farmer who raises wool.


James Alexander Robb: May I point out to my hon.
friend that the Canadian farmer does not grow this quality of wool?


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, he does.


Ernest Lapointe: Let the farmers complain.


Arthur Meighen: They will if you give
them the chance.

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman


Ernest Lapointe: They will have the chance some day.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think this French treaty should be denounced. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should be kept at home unless he goes over merely to sign a treaty, or unless he leaves forthwith to have this treaty denounced. No bit of business that has been transacted, by this government dealing with expofts from and imports into this country is more worthy of condemnation from a business point of view than this treaty with France.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two with regard to the nuisance and pest taxes. There is a sales tax: I hope an opportunity will be given to discuss it later. But I know the members of this House feel that this tax is most unfair and discriminatory in its application to different businesses. It increases the cost of living ten per cent; there is general agreement on that point. If the government had seen fit to give the farmer the benefit in the matter of dry goods, drugs, boots and shoes-well, boots and shoes are covered-and groceries through the remission of this tax, the benefit to the farmers would have been tremendously in excess of anything they could get from the cut on agricultural implements.
I must say a word about the note tax. This tax is simply grotesque:	I wonder if members of the House have really considered what it means? I defy the Prime Minister to find such a tax anywhere else on earth, and that is a large order. How does it work? Suppose two men wish to go into business, or, if they are already in business, suppose their business needs more money. Suppose they want to put into it $200,000, one of them $100,000 and the other a similar amount. One of the men who puts in $100,000 and has the money in the bank can put on the cheque a dollar stamp. The other man has good credit; he goes to the bank and says, "I want $100,000 and I will pay you back $10,000 monthly; here is my security." He gets the loan; it goes through the bank in the ordinary way, and he pays a note tax of $220, or 220 times what the other man pays. Look at the discrimination. The man who is able to sit down and write out a cheque for that large amount might be regarded as being in a fortunate position, and if there is any saddling of tax on one of the two it should be on the man who has the money. But under this splendid taxation scheme of the Minister of Finance the situation is as I have stated it, and that condition enters into the everyday business life of this country. Anyone who borrows money
from the bank and reduces the loan by payments every month or every two or three months, as the case may be, is met with this tax, while the man who has the money to pay outright enjoys relatively no taxation.
I desire to say a word about the income tax. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) suggested that the income tax be increased, and I heard a member sitting behind him say, "Yes, they cannot pass on the income tax." Indeed they can. The income tax increases immensely the cost of living, and just to show you that practically everybody can pass on the income tax, how does the manufacturer do it? The manufacturer says: Well, I give myself a drawing allowance of $10,000, or whatever it may be, and now that I have to pay income tax I will increase my drawing allowance so much to cover that tax, because I have to have the same amount to live on. The increase goes into the cost of the goods, and the people who buy the goods pay that increase; that is the way it is done.
We come to the merchant, and he does it in just about the same way; it is passed on in that case. Then we come to the professional classes. The professional man says:	I
have so much income tax to pay, and I will increase my charges so much to cover it; he pass.es it on, and that adds to the cost of living. Oh, but you stick the salaried man, you say. You do not, because everybody recognizes that the man who lives on a stated salary is entitled to more salary now that he has to pay income tax, and so you find our colleges and schools, our manufacturing establishments and every other concern that employs the salaried man, recognizing the fact that he needs more, giving him more, and that all adds to the cost of living.
Oh, you say, at any rate we get the man who by thrift has saved his money and invested it in stocks, bonds and mortgages. You do not get him at all. He can get out from under if he wants to do it. How does he do it? He has a mortgage say for $10,000. He will go to a lawyer and say: Draw up an assignment of half that mortgage to my wife. It is a very easy thing to do, requiring no registration. What does a man with bonds do? His wife gets some of them, and the other members of his family get some until he has reduced his liability to pay income tax to the smallest possible amount. And so through the whole list.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the income tax in the form in which we have it means that industry is paralysed, that initiative is stifled, and that business suffers tremendously. How does it work in business? Suppose there are
The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

some men who are carrying on a prosperous business, but who need more capital. They say: We have lots of security but we want to raise $250,000, we will say, and they put out a. preferred stock issue at 7 per cent. Money is hard to get; it will be a gilt-edged 7 per cent investment, and we will ask the public or our friends to subscribe. But what do they find? They know some of their friends who have money and to whom 7 per cent should be a good investment, and always predicating that there is an abundance of assets behind this proposed issue of securities, they go to their friends and say:	This is a
good 7 per cent investment; you know what it is; we ask you to take an interest in it. Oh, says the prospect, I require 7.59 per cent to pay my taxes, and I have to have an investment that will yield me 7.59 per cent, or I am far better off by buying tax-free bonds. And the industry that wants the money cannot get it. Practically every broker's office and every bond dealer's office throughout the country has printed lists showing how it would pay you, if your income is a stated amount, to invest in tax-free bonds, and the result is that there is not the money for industry. Are there any flotations to-day? Is there anybody outside of say the pulp and paper industry who knows that sinfie this government came into power there have been many investments in industry? There have not been, and everybody knows it. I would go further and say that just so long as this government is in power, just so long as they are rocking the industrial boat, just so long will there not be money for industry in Canada, and just so long will there be a crowd of men in the bond business such as we have never had before. The bond business has grown tremendously. Take the cities of Montreal and Toronto; the bond dealers there have become a distinct class in the com-munit}'-. Offices are crowded with those engaged in the bond business, and they are not selling the securities of industrial companies.
Now what is the effect of all these taxes? The net effect so far as immigration is concerned, is that we have not got it, and the reason that we have not got it is that those who are coming to a foreign country know well what that foreign country is going to do for them. They know the taxation in that foreign country; there is no question about that, and immigration to this country is stayed simply because this is one of the highest taxed countries in the world and has some of the most inequitable taxation methods anywhere in the world.

The member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) told us, and I will accept his statement because I believe it is true, that people are leaving this country because they can do better elsewhere, the taxation here being so high. The Minister of 'Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his remarks tried to tell us that the income tax we had to pay in Canada compared favourably wTith the income taxation in Great Britain and the British colonies. True, although the Canadian scale is higher in some regions of the tax, but federal income taxation is not the only income taxation we have to pay. We have municipal income taxation, and one or two provinces impose income taxation, and there is no telling when other provinces will not have it. There are even amusement taxes, and all these other taxes that we know of, and which I shall not take up the time of the House to mention. But that is the reason why immigration to this country is stagnant. We want desirable immigrants, and we are not getting them because the fact is known to the world at large that taxation in this country, under this government, is higher than in other countries to wThich these immigrants can go.


Mr. CARROLL:: Would my hon. friend
inform the House where taxation has been increased under this government?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am labouring as earnestly as I can to conclude my remarks in as short a time as possible, and I do not wish to take up the balance of the session.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the farming community is not going to be influenced by this dole, which has been reckoned at $2.50. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) said that within his experience, and as he calculated it, it did not amount to more than $2.50. For myself I do not know how even that much is arrived at. But all industry, not only the farming industry but all industry, including, of course, and emphasizing agriculture, needs steadiness and stability, and this can only be got by getting together and by planning for the success of the whole country. The difficulty with this government is that when they go into executive session they plan how they can stay in power instead of how they can benefit the country. I would be very sorry if I thought the measure of the benefit agriculture was going to get was contained in this budget and in the tariff reductions for the benefit of the farmer. I think that agriculture has higher claims which should be recognized, and which would be recognized by any body of business men who sat down together to decide on the interests of the country and

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
how best to ensure them, just as if they were the directors of a business organization. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that the west and the east and the centre of this great Dominion will not be satisfied with any policy which is a distinct menace to any important section' of the country. I wish to say that there is in the minds of certain people-I won't say the most important, but I do say a very important section of this country; I am referring to the manufacturing industry-the greatest unrest, disturbance, uncertainty, and perplexity, and so long as these conditions prevail the country cannot prosper.
The situation with regard to the United States troubles me very much. I am not offering what I am about to say as a solution of the whole matter, not by any means. But I frankly believe it would benefit the farmers of Canada, I am very sure it would benefit the farmers of the province from which I come, if we took a self-respecting, independent stand with regard to the United States. By that I mean this:	I never knew anyone to
get along very far in this life who had not a good measure of self-respect, who did not adhere to a straightforward policy in his own interest, and did not determine to do the best he could for himself with due regard to the rights of others. If there is a nation on earth that recognizes an upstanding man, a man of self-respect who will look after himself, it is the United States. For many years I have been interested in business in that country. Without any conceit I think I can say I know pretty well all about it, and I want to state now that nothing would condemn Canada in the minds of the people of the United States like a policy of truckling to the latter country, such as, when we have a duty of 4 cents on a particular commodity, allowing them to impose a duty of 8 cents against us. Just so soon as we make up our minds that we are going to look after our own interests, so soon will the United States respect us. But in the past we have truckled to the United States, we have lowered our duties against them, and every time we have done that they have retaliated by raising the duties against us. I am tempted to relate an incident which occurred but a short time ago. I was in the company of American gentlemen, and we were discussing the tariff. I said something like this: Canada is a new country, the United States is a big nation. We have got to have a tariff for revenue and for the protection of our industry. Why could not your country adopt a tariff with respect to us on the s&me basis as we adopt with respect to the United States? I said, "We are a young
country, you ought to do that." What reply do you think I got to that suggestion? I venture to say not one man in this House could tell me the nature of that reply. The reply was, "Canada is not a new country, Canada is just as old as the United States." Read the last number of Current History. It contains an article written by an American. He said With respect to the United States that it stayed out of the war for its own economic purposes, and that when it entered the war it did so for the same reason. Just so long as it suits the United States to place a higher tariff against Canada she will continue to carry out that policy. She will lower the tariff when it suits her and not before. I have not a word of complaint to make against the United States. She is acting in what she conceives to be her own interest, with a desire to develop business for herself, and that is a thing she has a perfect right to do. In behalf of this Dominion I ask that we also should have some national self-respect and, in the light of past experience, attend to our own business.


Mr. HUGHES:: When the United States made a reciprocal tariff offer to Canada who were the people in this country who refused it?


Mr. McMASTER:: What an unkind question!


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was not the person.


Mr. MARTELL:: Did you vote for reciprocity?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But that is now past history. I am not now concerned with the mistake someone is supposed to have made in the past. What I am concerned with now is the present and the future with the policy enunciated a year ago and the policy now outlined in this budget.
Before 5 sit down I have a suggestion to make. I have not consulted anyone with regard to it. In this respect I happen to be my own counsellor. I have made a statement in. which I firmly believe but if I have formed a wrong opinion I am prepared to pay the penalty. I have said that there is no real surplus for the financial year 1923-24 and I reiterate the statement. Now if any reputable chartered accountant will certify that, having regard to the present worth of any guarantees given by Canada to the government railways in the year 1923-24, there is any real surplus of revenue over total expenditures for the same year, I will resign my seat. The chartered accountant may be
The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

named by the Speaker of the House. 'I am quite willing, however, to take Mr. George Edwards, the consulting accountant to the Minister of Finance w-ho last year represented the department in the committee on Banking and Commerce and who, I feel satisfied, would dehl with the question as an accountant should. I have this further statement to make: If the right hon. the Minister of Finance is of sound mind and memory or so becomes and will now or then certify that he fully endorses the budget brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance on April 10th I will resign my seat. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to act in a manner which may be considered as bizarre, or with any desire to attract notice, but I feel in view of the budget speech of last year, and the action of the government this year, that no man who admires good faith in public men, in the leaders of government, can tolerate such a change as we have witnessed in the recent budget following the preceding one. I make no conditions whatever as to the second proposition. With legard to the first proposition I make this condition. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) have maintained that this government has a surplus of $30.-000,000-the former was not frank enough to state that $10,000,000 had come from the previous government-but if any other hon. gentleman opposite is going to claim that such a surplus exists and that it will justify a reduction in taxation, I shall expect him to abide by the decision of the accountant referred to, and I think that is only fair.


Mr. ERNEST WILLIAM ROBINSON (King's, N.S.):: As a representative from the province of Nova Scotia, at the outset I desire to express my regret at the absence of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and also the hope that he will soon come back to us restored in health and vigour of mind. As a new member of this House I am more or less amused at what takes place here occasionally. For two sessions I have listened to speeches in which the Liberal government was held up as breakers of faith because they did not in anyway reduce the duty on agricultural implements, and to-day we are told that they are breakers of faith because they did reduce them. It becomes very difficult for a new member to understand just where he stands.


Arthur Meighen: Let me explain that the pledges that were broken were different. The one pledge was to take all the duty off, and that was broken; the next pledge was to maintain stability, and that was broken.


Ernest William Robinson: I think it is very difficult to satisfy the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), no matter what is done. I find it almost impossible for any hon. member to discuss any question in the House unless he adopts, yOu might say, the viewpoint or the standpoint of the province from which he comes. Furthermore, he is liable to discuss it from the viewpoint of the constituency he represents. There may be some weakness in this or there may not. There may be an advantage. We in Nova Scotia realize that the interests of the Dominion of Canada are far greater than our interests. We realize that Nova Scotia is a small part of the Dominion, and yet we believe that the prosperity of the part will make the prosperity of the whole, and it is only as the different parts are prosperous that the whole will become prosperous. It is difficult also to legislate for the whole Dominion, our interests are so varied, and the country so great in extent. The gold mining industry is confined to the four provinces of Canada. The fishing industry is confined mostly to the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. Some of our provinces have not any lumbering industries. Manufacturing seems to be centered in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There is, however, one industry that is common to the whole Dominion, and is found in every province in some form or other. That is the industry of agriculture. Therefore, it would seem to me that when the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) attempts in any way to lighten the burden of agriculture, he is legislating for the whole of the Dominion of Canada.
I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that ever since confederation there has been more or less discontent in the province of Nova Scotia. There is no use going back to ancient history to show the cause of our discontent; but I wish to point out that there has been discontent in Nova Scotia, owing principally to the fact that we have not progressed as fast possibly as other parts of the Dominion, and I might say that our not progressing is due to a great extent to our geographic position. After confederation we attempted to develop our industries as well as we could up to the year 1878. In that year the National Policy was introduced, and we were told that in a very short time Nova Scotia would be a great country. They pointed out to us our marvellous resources, and they are marvellous. They pointed out to us that we had great shipping facilities, and we have those facilities. They pointed out that we had the winter wharves of the Dominion of Canada, and we were told that factories would spring up on all sides. We waited for some time. The people were

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
told time after time that these things would happen, but what did happen? Well, factories did spring up. We had a certain number of woollen mills, a certain number of cotton mills, boot and shoe factories and so on. After a while these were absorbed by larger companies in Quebec and Ontario and finally, when the time came for the curtailing of production, our factories were closed down and we have very few there to-day as a result of the introduction of the so-called National Policy.
I do not want to give the House the idea that we are not making any progress in Nova Scotia. WTe are making progress along certain lines. I desire to call attention to the coal production of Nova Scotia. In 1891 we produced S3,543,000 worth of coal and in 1921 the production had increased to over $27,000,000. To-day it stands at about $40,000,000. I call attention also to our fishing production. Perhaps, in order to hurry along, I might give the carefully estimated figures for the year 1923. Our figures for that year amounted to something over $11,500,000 in spite of the fact that we have the Fordney tariff against us. The farm products of Nova Scotia for 1923 amounted to $26,000,000 and the products of the forest amounted to some $12,000,000. I call the attention of the House to the fact that these are the products of the basic industries of Nova Scotia. They are the produces of mining, farming, fishing and lumbering. One other item I should call attention to is the production of iron and steel. This was virtually nothing in 1891 and has increased in 1923 to something over $12,000,000. Now if we are producing all of these goods-and we are-the question might arise, why is there discontent in Nova Scotia? I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that, it is due primarily as I have said to our geographical position.


Mr. MANION:: In regard to the production of iron and steel, which the hon. member mentioned, was that not due to a great extent to the bounty which was given for that production?


Ernest William Robinson: Yes, I think so, and I
would ask the hon. member, does he believe in the bounty system?


Robert James Manion: I do.


Ernest William Robinson: I suppose that is one
of the mildest forms of protection.


Robert James Manion: One of the best forms.


Ernest William Robinson: The Budget-Mr. Robinson
tempt to get them reduced and we have been successful. During the war there was an embargo on the shipment of apples, which embargo was removed in 1919. During the year 1919 the rate for carrying apples from Halifax to Liverpool was $5 a barrel, but even at that rate we found that we could make a little because the price in England was good. Later on the bottom dropped out of the market, and the steamship companies found that if they did not reduce the rate we would not send any apples over, so that the result was that of their own accord tjiey reduced the rate to $3.25 a barrel. The price however, of apples continued to fall with the result that there was formed in Nova Scotia what was called a shippers' association, formed by representatives of farmers, buyers and shippers of apples, and they approached the steamship companies to find out if it would be possible to reduce the freight rate below $3.25 a barrel. The strange part of the matter is that they had to go to the city of New York in order to find out about freight rates on apples from one British port to another in a British bottom. These representatives, however, went to New York, and they met this North Atlantic Shipping Board, or whatever it is called.


Andrew Ross McMaster: North Atlantic Conference, Eastern Board.


Ernest William Robinson: They met these men, and they got a reduction in the freight rate from $3.25 to $1.10 by simply threatening that if the freight rate was not reduced, they would hire Norwegian tramp steamers, fit them up as fruit boats and use them for carrying the fruit.
I am mentioning these facts simply in order to show that we have made every attempt we possibly could to get shipping rates reduced.
The next reduction that we might possibly make would be a reduction in the cost of production. The production of apples would include tilling the soil, fertilizing the soil, spraying the apples and so on, those operations that might be called agricultural operations. Of course, we cannot expect to make any reduction in wages. If we do not pay the men for doing this work as much as they can get elsewhere, they will go elsewhere to work and, therefore, we have not been able to make, prior to this time, any reduction in the cost of production. I have heard it said, over and over again, that farmers have no business sense; that if they would put as much brain power into the marketing of their goods as they do into the production of their goods, they would be able to make a profit. In Nova Scotia, we do apply brain power to taking care of the fruit and everything

in relation to it. For instance, we buy co-operatively; we buy barrels, fertilizers and spraying materials in large quantities. We have built warehouses co-operatively. We handle the fruit usually through farming companies, so that we have cut out as far as possible any overhead expenses, and yet we have so far been unable to reduce the cost of production.
I should like to mention one fact about cooperation, because I do not believe it has been sufficiently stressed in this House. I believe it is possible-in fact I know it is possible, because we have proved it in Nova Scotia as regards the fruits industry-for the farmers to do a great deal by co-operation. Last session I was a member of a special committee on agricultural conditions, and I noticed one thing, namely, that in connection with handling fruit and various other crops throughout Ontario and some of the other provinces, there was no attempt at co-operative buying or selling on the part of the farmers. One of the most interesting witnesses that we had before that committee was Professor Jackman, professor of political economy in the University of Toronto, and if I might be allowed, I should like to read a few words from his evidence along this very line. He said:
There is no question in my mind but that the present system of the individual farmer dealing with the organized groups with whom he has relations, is an out-ofdate system. The day when the farmer as,an individual can match up with the commercial structure from whom he makes his purchases, and to whom he makes his sales, is an outworn system. The farmer looking at his own particular interest has been too strongly individualistic; he is inclined to think that his individually is at stake if he merges his interests with those of others in the same line in order to form a group to handle his products. The system under which he has worked in the past proved satisfactory; the system under which he is working to-day, the system under which the individual is grouped, the organization that handles and deals in his products is out of date, and the sooner the farmer can learn that, the better it will be; the sooner the farmer can learn that his interests demand that he shall work in concert with others in the same group as himself, so that they can operate together, so that they can present a united front in buying or selling, so that they can use a collective influence, the sooner will the farmer's conditions be rectified with some degree of permanency. But so long as the conditions prevail under which the farmer works as an individual, and buys and sells as an individual, so long shall we have this present difficulty, and the more the other groups become organized the worse will be the farmer's position, unless he follows suit. Now, in the present state we are accustomed to think that supply, the inter-relation of supply and demand determines the price of the product; there is no question in regard to the operation of that principle. There is the thing which is operating against the farmer's interests. When the farmer is putting his supply on the market in the fall or during any other season, and is putting that product on as an individual, and others are doing the same, they are competing against one another, whereas these organizations with which they have to deal are acting more or less in

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
-concert. The buyers of wheat for example are acting more or less in concert, the buyers of live stock know what one another's prices are, and with these conditions prevailing and the individual farmer dealing with organizations of that kind, it simply means that the organized efforts of the group are going to bid one farmer against another, and that the man who is most anxious to sell will be the one who will take the lowest price.
I do not think there is any need to follow this further. In the province of Nova Scotia we have decided that co-operative effort on the part of the farmers is the only thing that will bring results.


James Joseph Hughes: If I may interrupt the
hon, member for a moment, I do not think there are any better apples grown on the North American continent than those that are produced in Nova Scotia. Now we find in Prince Edward Island that we are unable to buy Nova Scotia apples because of the price. We can buy American apples, and in fact can get them from British Columbia, a little cheaper.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Good apples too.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, but not so well
flavoured as Nova Scotia apples. Co-operation is a splendid thing so long as it does not result in abnormal prices to your own people. The question I want to ask the hon. member is whether apples are sold at a cheaper rate for export than they are sold for home consumption in the province of Nova Scotia.


Ernest William Robinson: That is not the point.
I should not care to say how few apples it would take to flood the Prince Edward Island market. The member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Mclsaac) says three barrels. When we export apples we must ship them in large quantities and we can export them at a cheaper rate that way. Some of our apples are exported from Nova Scotia to Prince Edward Island and some to the island of Cape Breton, but in such small quantities that the price is enhanced. Furthermore, the railway rate is high. In fact, I would venture to make the statement that it costs as much to send a barrel of apples from Kentville to Charlottetown as from Kentville to Liverpool.


James Joseph Hughes: We buy apples from the
United States and British Columbia.


Ernest William Robinson: I wish to add just a few more words to what I have already said. I have tried to show that we do make, and have made, an attempt to reduce transportation charges on apples, and we have also attempted to reduce the cost of production; and having reached the lowest possible minimum that we can get we still have to do business, so 93
that the margin is very small. The reason why the people in my constituency are more or less pleased with the budget proposals brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance lies in the fact that these proposals will result in lessening the cost of tillage, and so on, through reducing the prices of the necessary implements. Fertilizer is another important item in regard to which the budget proposals promise an improvement in agricultural conditions. The cost of fertilizer and also of spraying material being reduced, surely it can readily be understood why the constituency that I represent is satisfied with the present budget.
One word in conclusion. I have heard astonishment expressed at various times by different people that the farmers should organize politically. I have heard people almost resent the fact that there is in this present parliament a party comprised of farmers who are organized for political purposes. Personally this is nothing surprising to me. We have had preached in this country for over forty years the doctrine that it is possible for one class or industry to derive some advantage from political organization. Having had that doctrine emphasized during all that time is it to be wondered at that the agricultural interests of this country should have come to believe it after all? It is not surprising to me; and if the manufacturers can organize for political ends I do not see why the agricultural people should not. It seems to me the natural outcome and growth of the seed that has been sown during the last forty years. There may be those in this House who will say that any advantage that is gained by any class through the manipulation of the tariff up or down can be gained only at the expense of some other class. I for one believe that is right. I cannot see myself how it is possible for us to legislate a dollar into any man's pocket unless we legislate it out of somebody else's pocket. So that the best we can do is to tiy to have the least possible injury to the few and the greatest benefit to the many. I therefore favour the budget proposals because I believe that they tend to give the greatest possible benefit to the largest number while doing the least possible injury to a small fraction of the people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would seem to me that, from the standpoint of the West, the budget undoubtedly is looking in the right direction;
and yet, as I think of the pro-5 p.m.	posals advanced, I cannot see
that they go very far towards relieving the ordinary citizen of the burdens

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

which are now imposed upon him. It is stated that the budget has been balanced, but I think that anything like a study of the budget itself must reveal the fact that this balancing is more apparent than real. Without discussing that point, however, I would suggest that in so far as it is balanced, it is at a very heavy cost. There has been a cutting-down of certain important services: we have seen the elimination of the agricultural grant and a reduction in the estimates for public health, services which surely ought to be maintained and extended at this time. On the other hand, however, there has been a continuance of the taxation levied on the poorer people involving very considerable privation in a great many homes throughout the country. The necessities of life are still taxed notwithstanding a large measure of unemployment; and what is perhaps the most serious phase of the whole situation, from the national point of view, we face the continued migration of large numbers of our people to the United States. It was stated the other day that over 100,000 of our returned men are now living in the United States. Surely nothing more significant than that could be said to indicate the unfortunate position in which this country finds itself to-day. A few years ago these men went overseas to fight for their country and they returned only to find that that country had no room for them. In my speech on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne I outlined some of the positions which we as a labour group took in regard to the general conditions of the country to-day. I should like to run over these very briefly to-day to illustrate some of the points upon which I have not so far had time to enter.
We have an enormous national debt, with its heavy interest charges; that has recently been very graphically set forth in a leaflet issued by the council of the Montreal Board of Trade. Last year I think I gave the figures for Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba; as a variation let me give these for the province of Quebec and for the city of Montreal. The public debt-Dominion of Canada debt and guarantees-has risen since 1913 from $98 per capita to $387 per capita. Adding the debts of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, the total of the different items per capita has risen from $241 in 1913 to $612 in 1923. It means that a family of five now owe $3,060, and a family of ten, $6,120; and, as this leaflet points out, "whether they know it or not, they are being taxed for it in high prices." That is what makes it necessary for

some of us to urge a more radical change than the government has seen fit to make in the tariff at this time.
Let me refer to the income tax returns. We had a net total from individuals in 1922 of almost $40,000,000 and in 1923 of only some $32,000,000; from corporations in 1922 of over $39,000,000 and in 1923 of less than $29,000,000. This past year we raised all told only $60,000,000 from the income tax, a very considerable reduction on that which was raised the year before. The income tax at present seems to bear heavily upon the very large number of people of comparatively small resources, yet we find that the banks are able to declare large dividends fairly constant from year to year, and that notwithstanding the 'considerable bungling which certain failures have revealed. We further find that the railways, under the regulations of the Railway Commission, are practically guaranteed high dividends. The questions naturally arise why the railway and the banks should continue, whether the country is in a poor condition or not, to draw and to be practically guaranteed their returns when considerable numbers of people engaged in industry of various kinds have no such guarantee and in fact are losing steadily, and when large numbers of working people are having their wages forced down.
In connection with this income tax, I should like to point out the amounts that people outside of Canada have invested in our country. It has been estimated' recently by several very competent authorities that Americans own something like $2,750,000,000 of assets in Canada. Britishers own something like $2,250,000,000 worth and other outside investors around $250,000,000. Putting the returns at 5 per cent, thrft would mean that this country must pay a tribute to outsiders of something like $262,500,000. The question arises as to why some of these incomes which are spent outside of Canada should not be taxed. In fact I should like to go further and say, why should there not be a supertax on incomes spent outside of Canada? I notice that some of those who are most urgent in their demand that everyone should pay the tax here in this country frequently travel across for the holiday seasons or for all the winter months to the United States and thus escape the indirect taxation which must be paid by those who must remain here twelve months of the year. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of injustice in the present arrangement. With hundreds of thousands of Canadians going to the United States, and with what has been called the economic conquest of Canada-that is,

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
the increasing foreign investments in Canada-I have wondered just what advantage there is in continually harping upon the old policies and uttering the old war cries. Take for example, the following paragraph from Sir John Willison's pamphlet some years ago on the programme of the Canadian Reconstruction Association-he represents the Tory position:
We must either manufacture the raw materials of Canada, within the country-thus employing labor, rearing new communities, providing local markets for merchants and producers, strengthening the national structure, making the back of Canada strong to bear its accumulating burdens-or the sons of Canada will follow these raw materials out of the country, establish themselves in foreign industrial centres, and, more and more, from year to year, the national burden will become heavier and the issue of the great political experiment in which we are engaged become more difficult and uncertain. Every sound economic and natural reason, therefore, demands that the raw material of Canada shall be manufactured in Canada, and the Canadian people protected in the possession and control of their natural inheritance.	[DOT]
Might I suggest that all which was in that article prophesied as likely to happen if protection were abolished has actually happened within the last few years. A good deal of it would have happened even under free trade. The fact is we must get down below either protection or free trade to some more fundamental policy if we would meet the needs of the present hour. As it is, the natural inheritance of the people has been forfeited; we find a very large part of our natural resources in the hands of outsiders. Ar 1 here I should like to refer to what I might term the bogus patriotism which is frequently brought forward in an effort to influence people's minds with regard to certain fiscal policies. During the war the hoardings of my own city of Winnipeg were placarded with big posters reading something like this: " Be patriotic"; "Keep the home fires burning"; " Buy Canadian coal." I remember at that particular time making some investigations as to the nationalities of those who were engaged in mining coal in the western area, and I found that, if I remember, some 70 per cent of them were Austrians, technically our alien enemies, and that a very considerable part of the coal measures was held by American syndicates. " Be patriotic; buy Canadian coal "; and all the time what we were actually doing was paying wages to the Austrian miners and dividend's to the American mine owners. I have nothing against either Americans or Austrians, but why should we be deluded by these bogus patriotic cries. I was rather interested in an article which appeared just the other day 93i
in the New York Nation-an article which has been commented upon by some of our Canadian papers but, which I think, has not been answered. This is entitled " Economic Conquest of Canada" by Scott Nearing, in the number of April 16:
The present economic policy of Great Britain is compelling American capitalists to take a larger and larger share of their production business into Canada. The General Motors, for example, from its plant in Ontario exported 18,000 cars in 1922. For at least one month within the past year British imports of motor cars from Canada exceeded in number and value imports from the United States. The reason is apparent. The British government collects a duty 1/6 less on Empire manufactures than on foreign manufactures. This extends in the case of automobiles to those which are 60 per cent built in Canada. The American manufacturer by locating a plant in Canada can thus supply the Canadian market free of duty and undersell his United States competitor in the markets of Great Britain.
Should the British Empire raise a higher tariff barrier with the aid of imperial preferences, United States capital will be compelled to locate a still larger proportion of its plants in Canada. Thus British imperialism is laying the foundations for American control of the strategic economic advantages of Canada.
As the American Economist sums up that part of the situation:
American capital is year by year obtaining a more complete grip of Canadian manufacturing and commercial business. Branches of large United States corporations are being established in Canada, or Canadian corhpanies are being taken over, at a rate that indicates economic conquest.
What advantage is it to us if these factories are located here, if the profits are enjoyed by people who live outside the country, and the regulations which we make in this country force wages down below the rates that prevail south of the line? I refer to the high taxation, all of which results in the transference of wealth from the many to the few. I am quite well aware that a statement of mine on this subject will not be of any very considerable value, hence I would like to quote a statement of an economist of recognized standing, Mr. J. A. Hobson, whoe in speaking of this point says:
This world war, destructive as it was, did not leave the world, as a whole, seriously diminished in its economic resources. It did not, even in Europe taken as a whole, so seriously reduce our productive resources as to make a long spell of poverty and recoupment inevitable. Almost all the economic cost of the war was defrayed out of the current real income of the world.
And again:
The connection between the inflation which the governments and banks conspired to produce and the magnitude and ownership of the war debt is not obscure. The "money" which the governments got by printing notes, by borrowing from banks, or by inciting banks to give credit to customers in order to increase subscriptions to war loans (all pure inflation), they spent in buying goods and services. Thus prices and profits mounted up the faster, because this easy way of getting

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
money made governments more careless in the rates they paid for what they bought. The immense and rapid profits-due to the expanding prices, with a lag of wages and a virtual elimination of competition- the recipients invested in war loans, the only authorized and available investment.
Again:
At the end of the depression, virtually the whole of the debt will be held by the well-to-do classes, forming a considerable reduction in the proportion of the current income of the nation available as purchasing power for the working classes.
In discussing this question of the ownership of our war debt, the Toronto Globe recently quoted Mr. A. E. Ames as stating that:	[DOT]
On January 1, 1924, out of a total national debt of $2,516,000,000 not less than $1,969,000,000 was held in Canada, and only $546,000,000 in other countries.
Now the question I should like to ask is why should large numbers of Canadians be forced year by year to pay tribute to a comparatively small group of Canadians who profiteered during the war or made profits since the war and as a result of the war. Viscount Milner speaking of the war debts has this to say:
As regards that portion of the national debt which we owe to ourselves I do contend that it does not represent a diminution of our total national wealth, but a redistribution of it between individuals. It (the national debt) is an almost intolerable embarrassment to the government, which has perpetually to extract money from a great number of people in order to put it into the pockets of a much smaller number.
Sooner or later we shall have to face the handling of our great war debt in an altogether different way from what we have done in the past. People do not like to hear talk of repudiation. People are very fond of saying that we must keep all our agreements in regard to tax-free bonds, and so on, but why should the great majority of the people of this country have to suffer year after year in order to pay tribute to the very small group of those who hold the major part of the wealth of the country to-day? May I venture to say that three kings rule in Canada to-day: Privilege, Property and Precedent, and until these are dethroned the people can expect very little relief indeed.
I speak of the burden of the overhead charges which is crippling industry and commerce. I remember this being brought to my attention some years ago, when in the West we were in the full tide of our real estate speculation. As I went into a small town in western Canada I was met at the station by a friend of mine who had a very fine automobile. It was just when automobiles were becoming common. I said, "How did you manage to make enough out of your business to buy this?" He was running a comparatively small business. He said, "I

did not make this out of my business. In fact, this ear did not cost me anything." "Well," I said, "You had better let me in on that kind of a deal." He replied, "I had a few thousand dollars to spend, and I managed to make the first payment on a lot down-town. A few weeks later the lot had increased greatly .a value, and a man offered me $2,000 on my bargain, and I took it. I had $2,000 to the good, easy money, and I suppose easy money was easily spent. I invested in the car. So you see it cost me nothing." It occurred to me at that time, if it cost him nothing, whc paid the bill? There was a good car, good materials, good workmanship and all that kind of thing. Who paid the bill? He confessed that he did not. I venture to suggest that every man who built a house on that lot, or who rented the house after it was built on that lot, helped to pay that bill, that every customer who bought his groceries from the store built on that lot helped to pay the bill. It was a perpetual charge on the productive activities of the community. What is true of real estate is true of these many mergers we have had, from the Canada Cement up or down; it is true of Besco Steel, and similar corporations with what we commonly know as watered stock.
We find that constantly, whether in government affairs or in private business, we are told that fixed charges must have the right of way. I would like some day to see that statement successfully challenged. Why should those who have managed to secure a very heavy mortgage on the country always have a prior claim when other people are suffering? We need to have some revision of our ideals on this matter. I know of no reason other than that advanced by our legal fraternity, who are working largely on precedent, why the poorer people should always have to turn over the greater part of what they make to people who have thus legally or illegally secured mortgages on all their property and the results of their labour.
I think I need not mention here-I adverted to it on a former occasion-that agriculture to-day is in a deplorable condition largely owing to the tariff, high freight rates and inadequate credit facilities. My farming friends have been portraying that condition last year and again this year to the House. As a city man I do not come into quite such direct contact with this question as those in the rural districts, but those of us who live in the cities of the West, which are so directly dependent upon the farming operations cannot but be thoroughly cognizant of the bad conditions which exist at the present time.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
I had a letter a day or two ago from which I should like to read an excerpt with regard to a new farmers' organization which is working along very radical lines. This is the extract :
We were 700 strong last July. Now we are climbing to the 20,000 mark.
I am travelling around in this province, and I know the conditions here pretty well.
The whole province is in a state of bankruptcy.
By the way, he is speaking of Saskatchewan, not of Alberta.
Then he goes on to say:
Farmers can no longer be fooled. They know that the bankers have a monopoly over the medium of exchange which governs all commodities. They know that an army of customs officers up the coast lines and across this vast continent and in the interior are millstones on their necks. The government is legislating into the hands of a few the honest earnings of the masses. We know of the watered stocks, and of the railways which are robbing the honest farm workers- women, children and all. We know that the interlocked bankers and like industries-steel trusts, milling companies, packing houses and transportation corporations are the Shylocks.
Now, I am not saying whether that is extravagant language or not, but I do say that very large numbers of people across this country are coming to feel that way, and this is a matter which the government cannot afford to ignore. I spoke of the unemployment resulting from a lack of producing power sufficient to absorb production. I wish I could induce the members of this House to read a recent book by the authority I quoted a few moments ago, Mr. J. A. Hobson. Mr. Hobson is not a Socialist; he may be perhaps termed a radical-Liberal. He is one of the men who has been appointed by the present government in London to investigate, together with a number of financial authorities and experts, the incidence of taxation in England. In his book on the Economics of Unemployment he says that the fundamental trouble to-day is that we have had altogether too much saving of a kind. Owing to the unequal distribution of the world's wealth, a comparatively small number of people have been able to retain as their own the greater part of what has been produced. In this respect Mr. Hobson is simply carrying out the thesis which was proposed by Mr. Maynard Keynes several years ago. This accumulated wealth, which could not be consumed by the people who owned it, had to be invested; it had to be put into fixed capital, and so there came to be an undue proportion /of the annual production invested in fixed capital. That was all very well as long as the earning was confined to Great Britain, or confined to a few of the European countries, but as the development of the machine went forward and the organization of capital became more
complete we had production on a large scale in almost every country of the world, including the great oriental countries. And so we have the anomaly to-day of goods being produced in enormous quantities, quantities that are too great for the purchasing power of the people, and in some way or another, he points out, we shall have to have a more equitable distribution, or if not that at least in some way, we must ensure that a large proportion of the annual output finds its way to the great mass of the people either in the form of services or wages. Now, this is an economic theory that, perhaps, is novel to a great many who have not studied the question, and yet one that is being endorsed by a growing number of economists who are regarded, at least in the Old Country, as safe and sane. We may ask ourselves whether we ought not to take action in this House more along the newer lines of thinking and less along the lines of economists who lived in the early days of the capitalist era.
Can Canada successfully compete with the mass production of the United States? I venture to say that she can only by lowering her wages, and that in return would result in less purchasing power in this country. Can the Canadian farmer compete with the lower standards existing to-day in southern Europe? I doubt it very much. They can do so only by lowering their standards to those of Europe. This is the world situation which we must face.
I have already referred to the continued emigration of our people from this country. In connection with it, what we ought to recognize is, that in this turnover of immigrants which is being helped by the railroads, and which is, of course, an advantage to them, we are witnessing a substitution of one class of people for another class-a substitution to no small extent of the city-bred people of Great Britain and the peasant people of southeastern Europe for the native born, sturdy Canadians whom we had in this country a generation ago. For whose advantage? Not for the advantage of the majority of the people in Canada. Not for the advantage of the people who are coming over here-at least they will not get the results, although their children may. Primarily it is for the advantage of the railway and other transportation companies. We labour men have sometimes been charged with blocking the immigration policy. We have done all that we could in this part of the House to discredit certain immigration policies which were proposed by the government last year. And we will be glad to do that again if these policies are brought for-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
ward once more. But I do not think we can be said to be taking an altogether negative attitude; I would be quite willing to advocate an immigration policy if I might be allowed to outline some of the elements which must enter into such a policy. I would say, first of all, that there should be an expropriation of vacant lands across the country, so that the settlers of to-morrow would have in principle the same position as the settlers of yesterday, that is that they would not have the burden of payments on lands that have been largely held by speculators. We should relieve the immigrants of the burden of taxation just as we advocate should be done in the case of our own people. We would advocate the use of the railroads for the people. If the railroads could not pay and do the work we would say, "Do the work anyway." That is what is urged now in regard to the farmers-that they ought to produce whether they can produce at a profit or not. I would say further that we ought to insist that in some way cheap credits should be supplied. If our present banking system is primarily for commercial needs and not for industry, then we ought to either revise it or institute another system that will be fitted primarily for the producers of this country. We ought to develop our markets, to increase the purchasing power both at home and abroad; and above all we should provide for the social welfare of the settlers. In many parts of the West one whole generation has been sacrificed in order that certain people might profit by the inflation of land values. I remember a few years ago, when I had something to do with investigating conditions in the three prairie provinces, I made a proposal to the then premier of one of those provinces for the institution of a closer community plan by which education, and medical service, and expert advice along agricultural lines would be brought within reach of the settlers. The Premier said to me "That is all very well and very laudable, but how would you finance such a scheme"? I suggested to him that a very few cents additional tax per acre on wild lands would very easily finance the whole proposition. He threw up his hands.
" Why " he said, " already the American investors are squealing because of our wild lands tax." This simiply means that the premier of that province was carrying on the affairs of that province in the interests of the American investors who came here to put money in the land at, say 810 an acre, hold it till it rose to 825 an acre, and get away with the proceeds. The premier was not carrying on the affairs 
of the province in the interests of the bona fide settlers who were putting their very life blood into the building up of our Canadian citizenship.
I referred to the instability of our banks, and I do not wish to more than mention that at this juncture. We were told the other day by the Montreal papers that we ought to carry out in the most rigid form a sentence of 25 years and lashes in the case of a bank robber. I ask in all seriousness, what about the penalty for the officials who have wrecked a great many homes in this country? I think I may say that a great many people across the country are asking such questions, and the government ^s not going to be let go scot free unless it takes very drastic action with regard to those who are looting the people's funds on a larger scale than the bank robbers so-called ever had the opportunity of doing.
I spoke of still another matter, the concentration of economic power in the hands of small groups who are able to direct the policy of industry for their own financial gain rather than towards supplying human needs. Now this is not the place to enter upon a discussion of our present money system, but I would urge that, since money is the measure of all things, the quantity of money in circulation determines the value of the money unit. I use the word money in the sense used by the Hon. Reginald McKenna. Money for him is all currency in circulation among the public and all bank deposits drawable by cheque. At the present time the control of all our moneys-we have not a great deal of gold to-day, but all our paper money and our cheque money, because the cheques perform the function of money-is vested in the hands of banks, with very small supervision indeed by the government. That means that the bankers by inflation and deflation can cause a rise and fall in the price of all commodities, and thus really levy a tax on the people, without the people having any idea how severely they are being taxed. I believe that some of the Progressive members of parliament recently visited the reversible falls at St. John. The water at these famous falls flows one way during a part of the day, and during another part of the day flows the other way; and it has been long thought that perhaps some time the tide of the bay of Fundy might be used on a very large scale for providing power. I would say that the banks have anticipated any such action as that with regard to financial affairs, and with them it is a case of " Heads I win and tails you lose." They are able, whether it is inflation or deflation, to manage to get their part of what is vulgarly known as the rake-off. Through the

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
interlocking directors undoubtedly, as we pointed out last year, this control is centred in the hands of a very small group. I do not propose to go into any details in regard to the solution. Our natural resources fundamentally belong to the people and they should be taxed until they are forced out of private hands.
I think of our great water powers across the country which are capable of electrifying our railroads and of supplying power for our homes if they could be brought into effective use. Our great coal lands have been leased to private corporations, and these corporations have been carrying forward their business with almost entire disregard either of the welfare of their workmen or of the public at large.
We spoke of the necessity of in some way bringing plant equipment under co-operative and democratic management, thus providing more abundantly for the needs of the people. There has been a very great outcry echoed in this House two years ago against the policy of "Go slow," "ca'canny," or "strike on the job," but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when a railroad fails to carry goods unless it can do so at a certain profit, or when the manufacturer closes down his plant unless he can keep it going at a certain profit, he is doing precisely the same kind of thing as the labour man when he says, "If I cannot work at a certain wage, then I am not going to give my service," He is sabotaging. He is reducing production. I think I have heard some of my farmer friends say in private- I hope they will not think I am giving them away-that the only possible thing for the farmers to do is to go slow on the job, produce less, and thus bring the people generally to time. It is the same policy precisely. Looked at in the large, the policy is anti-social. In the case of the railroads and the banks the anti-social effects are undoubtedly much greater in magnitude. To-day we must remember that there is no such thing as private ownership of property. Since we produce collectively in all our larger industries, we must recognize more and more that no one can absolutely say with regard to a huge plant or a large railroad, "This is distinctively my business and I will brook no interference." Rather we must remember that we are advancing to a condition in which the public will claim a very real part in the carrying on of the process of production.
My last point in the analysis of the situation which I made was the necessity of basing our foreign trade policy and international relations on a clear recognition that the world has become an economic unit in which the welfare of each nation is dependent upon the welfare of all others. I venture to say that
the movements which are going on in southeastern Europe to-day, the proposals which are being put forth by the Dawes commission, the possible change of government in France after the next election, are far more vital to the people of western Canada than are the proposed changes in our tariff. We cannot imagine that we are going to solve our problems simply by looking at the situation immediately round about us. World affairs have become so inextricably intertwined, that we must do our share in helping to solve the world's problems, if we would solve those problems close at hand. I was very much interested a few weeks ago in noting that the farmers of the western States were beginning to realize the necessity for action along this line.
The Emergency Foreign Policy Conference of American producers urged the adoption by the American government of a vigorous foreign policy designed to fulfil America's obligations as embodied in her war aims. The main points in the programme are, we are informed, the following:
1.	Establishment' of reparations within the capacity
of Germany to pay, with or without the participation of France.	_
2.	Two-year moratorium to enable Germany to stabilize her government and industry.
3.	Opposition to continued military occupation by foreign troops of the Ruhr and other invaded territory.
4.	Sympathetic encouragement and support of the democratic German republic and of the trade union and co-operative organizations which are opposed to the restoration of militarism in Europe.
5.	Opposition to international armament rivalry in construction of airplanes, submarines and poison gas, with the consequent increase in tax burdens upon the people.
0. Congressional appropriation for immediate relief for starving populations in Central Europe.
I would venture to suggest that something along this line might very well be adopted by our Canadian government. .The lack of purchasing power in Europe cuts off our market there. The low standards in England or the low standards in Europe render it impossible for us to compete except by adopting similarly low standards. We were urged the other day to exclude the Chinese from the west coast; but so long as we continue to receive goods from China or Japan or other oriental countries, undoubtedly we are faced with the fact that we must compete with the Chinese who are resident over there. If ships cannot be repaired well enough or cheaply enough in Vancouver, they are taken over to China to be repaired by orientals. We must recognize the fact that to-day we face a new situation. I should like to	suggest that we	are
children of the pioneers. Our forefathers
i460

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
came into a new world several generations ago and were able to overcome all sorts of difficulties to them entirely novel. We, their children, face another new world. In the closing chapter of his book on the History of Mankind, Mr. Van Loon suggests a very apt comparison. He says that the ship of state might be likened to an old sixteenth-century sailing vessel. Gradually through the years the old sailing vessel has been made over until she has to-day been converted into a thorough-going, first class liner. The sails are gone; the motive power is now in the hold; the sailors have been taken off the rigging and put into the stokehold. They do not altogether like the new position even though it may be less dangerous than that up in the rigging. But he suggests that the fundamental trouble with the ship of state to-day is that the old captain and the old crew are still in charge, and the old charts and the old regulations still hang in the cabin. There is the trouble to-day. We need men with a new vision. We need to work out new theories of government and new regulations if we are to be able to sail the high seas of to-day with any measure of safety.
This numerically small Labour group has difficulty often in expressing its viewpoints. Very often the older groups or parties put forward a resolution, and we are forced to vote for or against it even although such resolution may not express what we believe or its negation accomplish what we want.
I venture to suggest an amendment to the budget. I do so because I believe that, in many respects, although some of us advocate theories that seem to be very radical in their character, a very considerable number of the members of this House, especially members on the Progressive side, are quite willing to travel a long way in our direction if they are quite sure that we are not advocating anything that is immediately impracticable. So I have tried to draft a resolution in such a form that it will be found to be quite within the range of practical politics. I beg leave to move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
Whereas the budget proposals would seem to indicate the recognition by the government of the necessity for a fiscal policy designed to encourage industries based upon the development of the natural resources of the country, and to afford some alleviation of the financial burden, bearing upon the people;
And whereas the condition of such industries and the position of consumers in general is such as to demand relief;
Therefore, be it resolved that the best interests of Canada will be served by an immediate and substantial reduction in the tariff on the necessaries of life, including foodstuffs, clothing and building materials; 
And further, that the loss of revenue, if any, which might result from such reduction in customs duties should be made good by:
(a)	The readjustment and extension of the income tax to bear more heavily on unearned incomes.
(b)	A direct tax on unimproved land values, including all natural resources;
(c)	The institution of a graduated inheritance tax on large estates.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With respect
to the amendment moved by the hon. member, that wifi be left to the Speaker for his ruling.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Woodsworth moves in amendment to the main motion, seconded by Mr. Shaw:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
Whereas the budget proposals would seem to indicate the recognition by the government of the necessity for a fiscal policy designed to encourage industries based upon the development of the natural resources of the country, and to afford some alleviation of the financial burdens bearing upon the people;
And whereas the condition of such industries and the position of consumers in general is such as to demand relief
Therefore, be it resolved:-
That the best interests of Canada will be served by an immediate and substantial reduction of the tariff on the necessaries of life including foodstuffs, clothing and building materials;
And further that it is desirable,
(a)	That the income tax should be so readjusted as to bear more heavily on unearned incomes;
(b)	That unimproved land values including all natural resources should not be exempt from taxation; and
(c)	That a graduated inheritance tax on large estates should be considered.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I desire at the begining of the few remarks I have to make on the budget to extend my sympathy to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in that he has been prevented by illness from occupying his seat in the House during this session and delivering the budget speech as we have been accustomed to hear it delivered for so many years past. But though we all regret his absence we have been fortunate in the choice of an Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who has delivered a clear, short, substantial and unassailable budget speech. That budget speech has pleased the public at large; it has brought joy and happiness to the rank and file of the Liberal party, but I am afraid, Sir, that it has been looked upon as a thunderbolt from the blue sky of the Tory party in this House and outside of it.

The Buget-Mr. Gauvreau
Sir, * since this government came into power, the Conservative party, and the reptile press that supports them, have assailed the ministry with vituperous denunciations, because, as they used to shout, they deceived the people of this country by not living up to the promises of the platform of 1919.
You are my witness, Mr. Speaker, that in this House, since 1922, our friends to your left, the loyal opposition, one after the other, have waxed indignant over the fact that the Liberal government had not the courage to apply, while on the government benches, the principles they put forward while in opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The right hon. gentleman says, "hear, hear." Perhaps he wants to occupy a conspicuous position on the Chinese wall of protection. Well, I leave that to him; he is welcome to it. I would rather be with those who want a reduction of taxes in this country.
But, strange to say, Sir, the moment a Liberal budget is brought down, in which Liberal doctrines and Liberal principles are put into effect, you hear from the same corner the other song, that we are going to ruin the country by killing our best industries. No surprise in that, as far as the Liberals-the true and unselfish Liberals- are concerned; it is the role and duty of an opposition to criticise the government, even at the risk of being accused of inconsistency, and in the face of what we have already heard, I am satisfied that in spite of the cries of the Conservative birds of the capital, this country will continue to prosper, its industries will find their activities not interfered with, and the consumer will enjoy better life, while the industries of agriculture, fishing, mining and lumbering will expand to the great benefit of the mass of the population.
It is very pleasant, Sir, to see the Liberal party going forward and leaving behind it the Tory forces, whose politics are negative of all that a nation desires in order to prosper and be happy and contented.
The hon. gentleman who was Minister of Finance in the Tory government (Sir Henry Drayton) tried to place this government in opposition to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said last session about the stability of the tariff. He read to this House just that part of the budget speech of 1923 which suited his purposes, but he carefully avoided reading what I consider to be essential to prove that the Minister of Finance was not a man to be caught by any
claptrap coming from any quarter whatever. It is because he knew that in a country like ours basic industries would need at some further date to be dealt with, that he said in his speech then:
There will be cases, where, in the interest of the consumer, reductions in the tariff ought to be made. There will be inequalities discovered in the tariff which should be corrected; there will be errors which should be remedied. Any minister, any parliament must be free to deal with these cases as they arise.
He had foreseen that, based on our Liberal platform, a policy of reduction would follow after some time, and it is through this open door on the tariff question that our present government has thought fit and proper to act and to act wisely.
And, Sir, throughout this country, apart from the big interests concerned, a wave of enthusiasm has prevailed since the budget has come down. From the sea east, to the sea west, the people at large are willing to admit that it is a sound policy, a national one which has at heart the welfare of the great mass of the workingmen as well as people in every walk of life. How could it be otherwise when the budget lightens the burden of taxation by reducing the net debt of Canada by $30,000,000, while taxation is reduced by $24,000,000 this year? The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was right in saying:
It is confidently expected that this reduction will give such impetus to trade that it will result in greater development and prosperity to all the provinces of Canada.
And with this approval, in spite of the attacks from behind and from the opposition benches, the government must go forward, joining hands with the majority of the people who were crying for a change, and who have got it at last.
Now, Sir, if on the one hand, I am prepared to congratulate the government upon its Liberal policy, on the other hand, I must warn it not to forget that while we need economy in the public service and a close supervision of every department, as far as expenses and personnel are concerned, public works must not go by the board for the sake of curtailing expenditures. .
It is all very well to build branch lines especially when we see the Canadian Pacific Railway placing bonds on the market for twelve millions of dollars in order to start on a policy of extension and development; and I am not averse to helping our National Railways which are showing such good and efficient results under the management of a reliable and competent man like Sir Henry Thornton, but on the other hand, Sir, I want to see our wharves, our ports, our rivers, and
The Buget-Mr. Gauvreau

our public buildings, kept in good order and repair. I am sorry to say, that we are refused some necessary works which will cost more in repairs later on than if we do them just now. I will go so far as to say that we should sanction a certain amount of necessary expenditure on public buildings.
Take the case of Trois Pistoles in my own riding. The post office and the customs and excise offices are located in the city hall of the town of Trois Pistoles, paying rent to the city.
Now that the department is advised that the town needs the whole building for its own purposes, and the Department of Public Works has to go somewhere else for shelter, I think, Sir, it is the opportune time, for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) to place in the estimates an amount sufficient to erect a suitable building for the above-mentioned offices-post office and customs, at Trois Pistoles.
Another point to which I desire to call the attention of the government, and especially the careful consideration of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) is the communication that should be established between the north shore and the mainland, below Quebec. Since the crossing between Murray Bay and Riviere-Ouelle has been dispensed with, there is no communication between the two shores, from Quebec to Trois Pistoles, a distance of more than 130 miles.
All that part of the north shore, from Malbaie to Bersimis, with a population of more than twenty thousand people, is left without communication with the south shore or mainland, except during the season of navigation by sailing vessels.
It is a problem the government should have at heart to solve, and the sooner it is solved the better. These people pay taxes like the rest of us, but are deprived of all facilities for their commerce and industries.
It would cost very little to grant money to a company which will put a boat under commission to give these people communication with the south shore, especially in those hard months after the closing of navigation.
We have had in years past, a ferry boat for winter navigation between Riviere-du-Loup and Tadoussac and Escoumains on the north shore. It was a success and a benefit to the people on both coasts, but unfortunately the Conservative party while in power, for petty partisanship, caused the service to fall to the ground. I hope the government will see that this service is restored so that the population on the north -shore, isolated from the rest of the world for so many
	.
months during the winter season, may be relieved of a great hardship not understood by those in more favoux-ed places who enjoy efficient transportation.
Now there are complaints in regard to the National Railways which should be aired in the presence of the Minister of Railways so that he may help us in securing justice. First of all, I find that the management is not dealing fairly with the employees, in not bringing down at once a new pension fund. There is to-day in operation the relief and pension fund of the old Intercolonial railway employees but it is inadequate to meet conditions under the present cost of living. The minimum of pension is $30 a month, a paltry sum which is not sufficient for a man with a family to live on. Working men on the government railway should be better treated, and the sooner a new pension fund is created the better it will be for the whole system. I can assure the minister that all the men interested are willing to contribute a higher sum annually to the new fund, provided they receive a better pension when they retire from the service.


William F. Carroll: What pension are the
men receiving now?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The Intercolonial Pension Fund is the only one which exists at present. I was told by the minister that a new scheme for the whole system is in course of preparation but really think they are taking too much time in formulating a plan which will be satisfactory to all concerned.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend
know that men who worked on the Intercolonial for seventeen years were discharged in 1911 without any pension?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Yes, the story is so
bad that it would take two years to outline it in detail, and I do not want tonight to occupy an undue amount of the time of the House.
I must also complain about the service in the county of Temiscouata, which I have the honour to represent in the House. For example, stations like St. Eloi and St. Arsene, where a business amounting to $100,000 a year is transacted, are left to the care of one man alone. The station agent, after working eight hours a day, from 8 a.m to 4 p.m., closes the doors, and the public arriving or going out on the evening train are left in the dark to themselves; there is no one to help with their baggage, and there is no shelter from inclement weather. Over a

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
month ago I sent complaints to the proper officers, but up to now nothing has been done to remedy the evils complained of, and I beg to call the serious attention of the Minister of Railways to these facts so that he may cause some steps to be taken for the better treatment of our population, especially in the two parishes above mentioned.
I should like also to deal with the methods employed on the Canadian National Railways in connection with investigation. I will give an example of what I mean. Some time ago accusations were brought against a certain station agent in Temiscouata. The accuser was prepared to submit his case, supported by proofs, to the commissioner appointed by the government. But, Sir, the accused was examined, although not put under oath, and in the absence of the accuser denied everything alleged against him. As a consequence he went scot-free. Another case, and a recent one, had reference to the conduct of a Levis man named Levesque. This man was accused of having used liquor while on duty and was dismissed. The investigation took place but in the absence of the accused who had asked, but with no success, to be allowed to attend with his witnesses. This man sued the National Railway board and Chief Justice Le-mieux has given judgment in which he declares the dismissal was unjust and unwarranted. The result was that the railway board were condemned to pay $2,000 to the man who had been dismissed without his case being heard at all. I can cite many instances of the same character.
May I be permitted to say that that is not the way to administer justice on the Canadian National Railways. Are we going to allow the interests of the employees to remain in the hands of those who have shown they are animated neither by justice nor fair play?
In conclusion allow me to read a few lines which may be interesting to the two old-time parties, the Liberals and the Tories:
The Conservative opposition will, of course, fight the government's proposal to reduce the taxation on Canadian industry, where such reduction means the lowering of the protectionist tariff. There may be some sniping of leaders, too, from behind the Liberal front line. But the government has nothing to fear from a straight contest on the tariff issue.
Against the Conservative policy of negation, the Liberals show, at least', some intention of going forward. It is an uphill fight, handicapped as the government is with the burdens of debt which have been fastened upon the country in years of frenzied finance. But the prospects of a real battle for progress should stir Liberal enthusiasm, and enlist the support of like-minded people, by whatever party name they call themselves.
The Conservative opposition has been magnified out of all proportion in the present parliament, very largely owing to the policy of the government in marking time instead of going forward with the mandate which the country gave to the Freer Traders in 1921. When the time for the next general election comes, even though all the resolutions of the national Liberal convention have not been enacted into legislation, a session of genuine effort to deliver the goods would place the Liberals in a more favourable light. The people of Canada are in the mood for trying something, anything rather than to stagnate, or to keep going round in the vicious circle of timid futility.
Even though the Conservative party were able to line up all the reactionary interests in the country to elect another Conservative government, it would avail them nothing. Canada must go forward, along liberal lines.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: It is
pleasant indeed to hear from members on the other side of the House of the prosperity of Canada under Liberal rule. Several of them have referred to that. I have not noticed though that there is any congestion of passenger traffic at our international boundary line of people coming from the United States back to Canada again. However, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) has not spoken yet and possibly we may hear from him of the return of some of our people from the south. Were I a bigoted political partisan, I would say that I am pleased with this budget speech, because I am quite sure that a wave of resentment will sweep across Canada in consequence of the action of the government at this time. However, being a Canadian I can only confess to a feeling of sorrow that the great Liberal party should at last capitulate to the free trade element of the country, because that is what it means.


An hon. MEMBER:: I hope the hon.
gentleman is right.


Charles Herbert Dickie: An hon. gentleman says he hopes I am right. I am giving him credit for that. The government for at best a year or two of power will capitulate to the free trade element of the country, for let it be understood, and it will be understood, that the present proposed reduction in the tariff is only a beginning. The western farmer will experience but slight relief because of this reduction. Our manufacturers are appalled. The Progressive party is not going to stop at this reduction; other manufactured articles, including shoes, clothing and furniture will be next in line.
What person or company will embark in enterprise in this country with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. It is impossible to get capital to engage in enterprise unless they have some guarantee that there will not be a continual tinkering with our tariff. A short time ago hon. gentlemen will remember a bond issue of fifty million dollars was subscribed readily in this country
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

out of capital which should under other conditions have been embarked in industrial undertakings or in developing the potentialities of our wonderful country, as has been ably pointed out by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman). People are afraid to trust their money in industrial .enterprises and prefer bonds. How can it end? It can only end in disaster for Canada. We must have stability, and if we do not have that stability, I should shudder to think what may become of our country. We have going out yearly to the United States $250,000,000 in excess of what we receive from them. Of that amount $188,000,000 represents our adverse balance of trade with that great country. The balance represents interest on bonds, municipal, provincial and federal, and also interest on American investments in this country. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, one billion dollars every four years! Is it possible for any nation? Can any nation of nine million people stand an expenditure of one billion dollars going across the line every four years?
That is what is happening to-day, and still in the face of that we are lowering the tariff barriers to that country in order to bring in more importations, and to have a larger amount of our capital go across the line. It is inevitable that we cannot go on indefinitely along these lines. Surely the Progressives have not a monopoly of the economic sanity of the world, the principal nations of which have decided against free trade. I say the principal nations; well nearly all nations have, with the exception of England. And what of poor old England, with a million and a half of unemployed men, her factories idle, her shops filled with cheap articles from continental Europe? Premier Baldwin pointed out the only remedy for a part of England's trouble, but England listened to the voices of the theorists and of demagogues and rejected the advice, and so you have what you see in England to-day.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in a recent speech said that the coal mines of Alberta required no artificial stimulation, and that the normal growth would take care of the business for those coal 'mines. I think it would be illuminating to the hon. gentleman if he would only study the history of the iron and steel industry of the United States. That country struggled along for some years. It was impossible for it to compete with England with its great supplies of iron and coal, lying side by side, and with its highly organized industries. Then a heavy duty was imposed on iron and steel coming into the United States. That was found to be inadequate. After a heavier duty was im-

posed, and only when a prohibitive duty was placed on iron and steel was it possible to build up the industry in the United States. Nobody could overrate the importance of that industry, which is recognized as the barometer of trade in the United States to-day. Had the industry not been protected, had the artificial stimulation of which the hon. member for Bow River spoke, not been applied, England would still, or at least until 1914, be sending this iron and steel into the United States.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) the other day informed the House that he would like to go over to Wisconsin and buy some heifers. It seems too bad that a man should not be allowed such a small privilege; but if he has heifers or if he has wheat, or cows, or chickens to sell, does he suppose that the people from Wisconsin are coming over to buy from him? They have said plainly and distinctly, through their McCumber tariff that they will not do so. You could not sell one of your cattle over there if you tried. They do not want them there. They say "Keep your tarnation critters off our land. Them is our sentiments, by heck." That is what we hear from his farmer friend across the line.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. member under
the impression that the member for Lisgar wanted to buy cattle to please the Americans or to please himself?


Charles Herbert Dickie: To please himself. He
wanted to take his money over there, buy cattle, leave his money there and bring the cattle back. I do not think that a man who would deal with a country that absolutely refuses to buy from us displays any great Canadian spirit. A man who, in a Uriah Heep kind of way, goes to the States to buy from them when they will not buy from us is not showing the right spirit. We obviously benefit to a degree from the amount of American capital that is invested in our country. The Americans come in here, and we welcome them They have invested their money and made profits. Those profits go to build up their cities and enhance colossal fortunes across the line. But we do not get as much out of our resources as we should get. On the wild north coast of Scotland there is a humble monument erected over the graves of twenty or more drowned seamen. On the monument is inscribed-


Mr. FORKE:: That is as old as the hills.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Well, so are you. On this
monument is inscribed "Erected by Scotchmen to the memory of unknown sailors out

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
of a part of the money found on their bodies." With respect to this money going across the line from the West, I have seen the up-to-date cities of Spokane, Seattle and other cities fostered and become prosperous because of the mineral wealth and money which they have got from our Yukon region and our Kootenay region, money which should have stayed in Canada. Across the line they have an era of prosperity which we do not have in Canada. In days gone by I have seen Los Angeles, when it was smaller, practically thronged with people from the prairie provinces. Those were in the days when they were making money either by speculation or by wheat mining; but many of them were going down there taking with them money which they had accumulated in Canada and making their homes in Los Angeles as they had a perfect right to do. People called them "wheat miners," and the term "wheat miners" is right, because raising wheat year after year means simply mining out of the soil the nitrogenous element which has been years in accumulating. The people in the West must turn to mixed farming. While it would be presumptuous on my part to tell them how to farm or anything relating to agriculture, it is inevitable that they must turn to mixed farming. In San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys in California in the summer you would once see waving fields of wheat, and in the fall, as far as the horizon, you could see blazing stacks of straw. They were taking everything from the land and giving nothing back. The yield fell from 20 to between 5 and 7 bushels an acre, and then the growing of wheat was discontinued. We all remember when the Dakotas were noted for their magnificent wheat, but we hear very little about that now. History will repeat itself in western Canada, and surely the time is at hand when we should conserve our resources. We are raising too much wheat at the present time. Let us take the copper market, in the big mines in the West when the price of copper drops below ten cents a pound, it is impossible to produce copper at a profit. The smelters close down and the mines close down to a certain extent. When consumption overtakes production again and copper goes up to 13 cents a pound, the mines are started again. If the good farmer's of the West could act in a similar way with regard to wheat, they could get $1.50 a bushel for their wheat which is as low as wheat should be sold at. That is the way the thing works out in regard to copper, and I know of no other way in which copper could be worked. Why is that not applicable to the wheat industry? People will say: The
farmers cannot do those things and I believe that may be true. The problem is one that cannot be cured by tariff legislation. In 1921 we imported $24,000,000 worth of agricultural implements into Canada. The duty on those implements does not amount to more than one-third of a cent per bushel on wheat, an absolutely insignificant fraction as regards bringing prosperity to the people of the West. Against that one-third of a cent which they might get, but which I do not consider they would get in the long run, we have the appalling case of manufacturers throughout Canada not knowing which way to turn. These manufacturers are honourable men. We must take their word with respect to the business they engage in. We have their balance sheets which show that they are losing money. Some hon. members feel a little annoyed when the word "manufacturer" is mentioned, and I have even heard the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) emit moans as if in pain when the word "manufacturer" is used. I believe he is an absolutely sincere, lovable gentleman; but it seems to me, living in those great lone prairies with too much time on their hands, these hon. gentlemen to my left have imbibed too many theoretical principles and have not adapted themselves to things that are practical.
As regards free trade, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) the other day in a few words expressed sentiments regarding free trade that cannot be denied. The hon. member said that were conditions of living equal throughout this world free trade would be	right	and practicable,	but until such
conditions exist, it is not practicable. That is a fact. For	instance, in our
9. p.m. case on the Pacific coast, supposing America were	guaranteed one
hundred years of free trade with the Orient, where do you think your manufactures would go?	Manufacturing establishments would
spring up like mushroons in those countries of the Orient where labour was worth ten or fifteen cents a day. What would happen to our manufacturing centres in this country? The farmers may say: We are farmers; we can live off the land; but we must look at things in a broader light, and I am sure my hon. friends in their quiet moments do so. Up to date, we have used the farmers very decently, I consider, with their agricultural colleges and experimental stations scattered throughout the country and railroad faoilities. Now they want us to build the Hudson Bay railway. Who would build it? Would the cost come out of these gentlemen? It must come out of the industrial parts of Canada, the forests
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

and mines and fisheries of British Columbia, the forests, mines and fisheries of the Maritime provinces, the industries of Quebec and Ontario. How much would the farmers of the three prairie provinces subscribe to the Hudson Bay railway? Nevertheless, they do not seem to have any gratitude in their hearts; they have no consideration for the manufacturer who shows that he has been losing money for years, with his back against the wall, trying to keep his employees together, trying to do something for Canada. Those -.re things that make us at times just a little annoyed with the theories which we hear from hon. members to our left.
Undoubtedly, consideration will be given to them in regard to railway rates. I believe the railway rate from Edmonton to Fort William on wheat is about 24^ cents a bushel. For just one-half the distance over an equally good grade to the city of Vancouver, the rate is 22J cents. Nobody can call that an equitable rate and it must be lowered. The people of the whole of Alberta must have a low wheat rate across the mountains into British Columbia. I do not say that because I am a British Columbian. I am trying to look at all these matters from the standpoint of a Canadian who wants to see our country go ahead, who realises that we are not making the progress that we should make. We are side by side with a magnificent nation to the south of us, a nation that came through the war with half the money in the world and with flying colours. On the other hand, we came through the war, mortgaged up to the hilt, with our young men coming back, battered, and we are fighting up the hill. Let us, like Canadians, turn our backs to the wall to the south and fight in order to make Canada a nation to be proud of.
In order to preserve Canada, let us adopt the only course that is commensurate with dignity and that will make Canada what we wish it to be. That course is to copy other nations, to adopt a protective policy, to nail our colours to the mast. Let the manufacturing interests, let everybody know that these will be our duties twenty years from to-day, and in that way you will see an immediate recovery. Let us make our duties exactly the same against the Americans as those which they have against us. There is not one argument in favour of letting their eggs come into Canada at four cents a dozen while ours go in there at eight cents and our cattle are hardly able to get into the United States at all. They are charging 42 cents a bushel duty on our wheat. I would prohibit every bushel of Canadian wheat from going into the United States. Establish flour fnills in the

West and make the best grade of flour in the world. Advertise that fact. Ship flour, not wheat. Do not allow our No. 1 Northern to go into the United States to raise their grade of wheat in order to make flour that .will compete with ours. Those are bigger things than any tariff tinkerings that have been going on in this House this session. We must stop this exodus of money to the United States. As I have said, we are sending a billion dollars across the line every four years. We cannot stand the strain with a population of 9,000,000. Let us produce and consume our own bacon and coal and let our Progressive friends to our left throw away their can openers and produce more of the commodities that they are buying. It may be presumptuous on my part, and if I am wrong I desire to be corrected; but it struck me in my peregrinations through the prairie provinces that there is a lot of money lost through depreciation in agricultural machinery which is left outdoors exposed to the elements for twelve months of the year. I think that there is lost in this way almost as much as is collected in the way of duty on agricultural implements. I may be wrong in that regard, but I certainly do know that machinery left out in the open in the climate of British Columbia would deteriorate to a very marked degree. Any man who has an elementary' knowledge of oxidation of metals and of the effects of alternate dampness and heat on the wooden parts of machinery will, I think, realize that there is at least some justification for the suggestion I have just made.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to avoid all racial feeling and creed distinctions, and discard as far as we possibly can any differences of this kind that divide us. What care we what a man is provided he is neither yellow nor red, nor turns his face towards Mecca? If a man is honest and honourable, a white man and a good Canadian citizen, there is no reason whatever why he should not make good in this country. Let us give people credit for sincerity in their beliefs. There is no reason for intolerance in this country, whose people are a splendid race. The people of Quebec, with their charming folk lore and their admirable traditions, and the people of old Ontario, who also have traditions of which they may be proud, are all equally good Canadians, and we do not want any line of demarcation between them. I am sure, too, that the people of the prairie provinces are among our finest citizens. It is therefore humiliating, Mr. Speaker, to hear people raising cries of racial

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
and other differences. This to me seems cowardly and I think we ought to put our backs to the wall and endeavour to make Canada a country to be proud of.
If I have said anything in the course of my remarks that might be construed as a criticism of the business methods of our American friends I take this opportunity to disabuse the minds of hon. members of any such impression, for I have every respect for the American people and am heartily in accord with their tariff policy. I believe that policy a wise one which should be followed by the Canadian people. The Americans have prospered under it, and other countries have adopted it; and here we are tinkering with the tariff, reducing the duty a little here and there, in the endeavour to placate an element that could be pleased in a larger way without such concessions, which have the effect of disturbing the whole industrial activity of the country. So far as the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is concerned, I really do not think that it calls for any discussion.
Mr. HENRI E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec
County):	It is customary to congratulate
the Minister of Finance who has delivered the budget upon the excellence of his performance, and on the present occasion I take great pleasure in associating myself with my hon. friend (Mr. Dickie) in tendering to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) my sincere congratulations on the very able manner in which he has discharged the duties of the office this year. In the budget speech there are a few announcements which I think will reassure the people of this country, and the present government Reserve every commendation on the way in which they have adjusted the finances so as to make possible the promise of a surplus in the administration of the affairs of Canada. It is also a great comfort to learn that the burden which has been bearing so heavily upon the shoulders of the taxpayers is diminishing to some extent. One practical instance of this is the reduction which has been made in the sales tax. It has been wiped out in some instance and on 'the whole has been reduced from 6 to 5 per cent. True, it is not a great reduction, but I think it may be regarded as a step in the right direction. The present government assumed a very serious obligation in 1921 and they have succeeded in greatly improving the condition of the country. The policy which has been followed by them is one that appeals to the Canadian people, the policy of retrenchment and economy.
If I say that the budget in some of its aspects is a great satisfaction to the people of Canada, I must confess on the other hand that there is undoubtedly an unsettled feeling in regard to tariff reductions, and the manufacturing element is somewhat alarmed as to what will be the future policy of the government. I understand that the reduction on agricultural implements is well received by the agricultural classes of the country, who are the great mass of our citizens and who are a deserving body. A compensation has been offered the manufacturers of agricultural implements by putting upon the free list the raw material that goes into the making of this machinery; and the sales tax has also been removed from this line of manufactured goods. In Quebec city we have a lot of important shoe factories, and as I have already stated, those interested in them are somewhat alarmed, not so much by what is contained in the budget as by certain remarks made by some influential members of the government. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), in the speech he made on the budget, said, as reported on page 1337 of Hansard:
One could not help but be struck this afternoon, in listening to the address of the ex-Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) by the fact that he saw very little wrong with the budget as presented on this occasion, but it was interesting to note the desperate way in which the hon. member declared that it was the death knell of protection. One would have thought that we were listening to a funeral oration this afternoon, and I trust that it will be the death knell of protection. I do not mean to suggest for a single moment that we should vote at this time to abolish the tariff in its entirety, but rather that we should do as we have been doing,-as to w'hich my hon. friend complained so bitterly-continually amend the tariff where it bears too heavily upon the production of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that declaration of the hon. Minister of the Interior we have the pronouncement of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) who stated that he would be quite willing to abolish the tariff on boots and shoes. I wish to put myself on record, as a Liberal member supporting the government and a representative of the province of Quebec and the district of Quebec, that we do not share the views of the hon. Minister of the Interior and of the hon. member for Pontiac. We have nothing to complain about in the tariff as it is now, but if I might be permitted to make a suggestion to the government I would ask them to have more protection as regards the British preference in the matter of shoes which are brought in here and which compete with the product of our shoe factories in the province of Quebec. I would suggest also that the sales tax, which has been diminished

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
from 6 per cent to 2\ per cent on shoes, should be entirely eliminated from that product and imposed to the extent of 5 per cent on imported shoes, so as to show our industries that we are willing to protect them, and also to do away with the feeling of uncertainty which prevails among those engaged in this class of manufacture. As I said a moment ago, I am not partial in my views; I think it is our duty to protect the agricultural interests and it is our duty also to protect the industries of our country. I think the budget as a whole should be well regarded by the citizens of Canada, because it contains many announcements which should be well received.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be
unfair to the hon. member and I will not ask him a question if he would prefer not. But if he does not object I would like to ask him this: I understood him to object to the present British preferential tariff on boots and shoes, which at its lowest is 184 per cent, as too low. If such is his objection, does he think 10 per cent on binders, mowers and reapers is too high? ,


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I do not think that the comparison can be made between boots and shoes and binders. I understand that the object in reducing the tariff on agricultural implements is to protect the farmers and agricultural classes, but in the other case it would be to protect the shoe industry which has to meet competition from other countries. I do not think the comparison should be made between the two; that is my answer to the question.
I wish to tender my congratulations to the government upon their policy of economy and retrenchment. I am in favour of that policy, but I am in favour of real economy. We in the province of Quebec and especially in the district of Quebec and Quebec city are quite willing to put up with the situation; if there is no money to be spent, no work to be done through tout the country, we are quite willing to make our sacrifice as we have made it for a number of years. But there are very important works that are urgently required and should be proceeded with in my city and in my district. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House we have made, several demands and we hope that they will yet be carefully considered and that justice will be done in respect to them.
I am in favour of economy and retrenchment, and I must confess that I am some-fMr. Lavigueur.]
what astonished at the great amount of money which we are being asked to vote for branch lines. I know that a good many of these new branch lines are probably essential to the good administration of the Canadian National Railways, but we are told that many of them could be delayed for some time without the railways suffering. If we had retrenchment in this matter of branch lines, probably the district and province of Quebec would not have been refused for years its just demands for most essential works. With the money that is being spent on some of these branch lines, which could be delayed for some time without the railways suffering, a good many very necessary works in the district and province of Quebec could be proceeded with. Lately I have been asking the government to repair or rebuild the sustaining wharf f>r St. Gregoire, which was built by the government, at government expense, and has been maintained by the government since 1905, but as yet we have not been able to succeed in getting a grant of money to repair this wharf. At Loretteville, which is a very important centre, we have been asking for the erection of a post office. We have also been asking for the erection of a post office at Beauportville, which is also very necessary, but the answer to our demands has always been that the government has no money. 1 hope that these demands will be seriously considered by the government and that the necessary provision for these works will be made in the supplementary estimates.
Another very essential work is the building of a bridge from the island of Orleans to the north shore, where the people in six very important parishes are without any means of communication whatever. I understand, of course, that the government itself cannot build a bridge, but a subsidy could be granted to help in the building of a bridge at this point, just as was done in the case of the bridge from Isle Perrot to Montreal. All these demands have been pressed upon the government, and a good many other demands by members from that district, but they have not been satisfied yet. We do not wish to blame the government, but I think the time has come when the government should seriously consider these demands and do something for the province of Quebec which has. sent here sixty-five members out of a possible sixty-five. The citizens of the province of Quebec are counting for something upon this government, which we have maintained in power since 1921. I do not want to be too severe on the government and no one will contend that I have been. I am a supporter of the government; I have always been faithful to the government; and

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
I intend supporting it, but I would urge upon them that something should be done for our district, and our demands should receive more serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I have expressed myself as best I could in a language which is not my own, and one in which I have a certain difficulty in expression, but I use it because it is always more satisfactory for a member to speak in a language in which he will be at least understood. I would suggest, and I think this is the proper occasion, that in this House of Commons, where both English and French are the official languages, every member should be able at least to understand both languages, and in this connection I would like to cite as a splendid example the magnificent speech that has recently been delivered in Toronto by one of our most distinguished and most respected citizens, the premier of our province, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, who has been giving some good advice to the people of the province of Ontario. I think it is very desirable that many more men from Ontario with the spirit of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau should come to our province of Quebec and speak in the same sense in which he spoke in Toronto.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: The budget
speech of this year is of particular interest on account of the reference in the Speech from the Throne to "tariff re-adjustments" and the statement that "reduction of taxation should aim primarily at reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion."
That statement was construed in the public mind to mean a reduction of some kind in the case of agricultural implements. We are told in press reports that when a deputation from the makers of agricultural implements waited on the Prime Minister protesting any reduction in duties, he told them he could not understand why they should! surmise that a reduction of duty was intended'; as a change in, or abolition of the sales tax would have the effect referred to in the address.
Manufacturers, factory workmen and the inhabitants of the cities generally had the word of the Prime Minister, given during the 1921 election campaign, that despite the tariff platform of 1919, he could give them the assurance that, to use his own words "Our tariff is a tariff for revenue. No legitimate industry in this country, making a legitimate profit, need have any concern one way or the other as to what will happen to its future under Liberal policy in the administration of the tariff." He mnde that statement 94
November 5, 1921, in my city where he spoke in favour of the Liberal candidate who professed adherence to what he called the "Laurier-Fielding tariff." The Prime Minister also made the same statement in the city of Brantford, which is, according to the hon. member for that city, the home of the agricultural implement industry. Other members have referred to that statement being made elsewhere.
Now, for two sessions of this parliament, although many minor changes were made, no changes of a sweeping character took place. It is true that the customs duties on many lines of agricultural implements were reduced 2i per cent in 1922, but those changes were almost completely nullified by the changes made in the sales tax at that time. The sales tax was placed at 41 per cent on Canadian manufactured goods, and 6 per cent on all goods imported, the difference of 11 per cent just about making up the loss of protection by the reduction made in the tariff. That legislation remained in force until January 1st of this year when by the legislation of 1923 the sales tax was made operative at 6 per cent on all sales. So that within a few months the makers of agricultural implements face a varying reduction in customs duties of 21 plus 4 per cent, and in some cases 121 per cent, actually a reduction of from 61 to 121 Per cent.
For the first two sessions there was some uncertainty as to the course the government proposed to follow. Then came the statement made in the budget speech last year by the finance minister guaranteeing, as everyone who heard or read it supposed, reasonable tariff stability. Surely that statement was made in all sincerity, and with the object of promoting confidence in the minds of business men as to the intention of the government? Time works changes, and the "personnel of the famous compass" has undergone some variation. The finance minister who guaranteed tariff stability, and the former Minister of Justice who was never uncertain in his utterances on the tariff question have given place to others. Adverse by-elections have deprived the government of its majority. The Prime Minister has appealed to the Progressive party for support, and one form of the appeal, is shown in the reduction of customs tariff on agricultural implements. How will the Prime Minister explain the utter repudiation of last year's tariff stability announcement by the right hon. gentleman who still retains the title of Minister of Finance? How will he explain the pronouncement of his own in 1921 in relation to legitimate industries making



The Budget-Mr. White
legitimate profits? He will surely not say that the agricultural implement industry, the iron and steel industry, the paint industry, or the boot and shoe industry, are not legitimate forms of activity for Canadian business men. The business men and the workmen of Canada are entitled to an explanation concerning these things. It would appear that the only explanation is that in order to remain in power the Prime Minister has submitted to dictation by the Progressive party, and the Progressive group is now the dominant one in this House. Perhaps the members of the government will tell the House and the country whether or not they have surrendered to the Progressives, or are they starting to give effect to the 1919 declaration of policy. In either case, it seems, the result will be the same. We have the example of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) rising in his place and saving that, he "hoped the present tariff changes will mean the death knell of protection." We had the member for Dufferin (Mr. Wood) congratulating the government on the changes they had made, saying that the ship of state was proceeding in the right direction but they were looking for greater changes in the protective tariff. All the changes are to be downward according to the Whip of the Progressive party and none up. Then we have the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) who gloried in the fact that a real accomplishment had been recorded and that there was now a line of demarcation between the two old parties.
Business in Canada has been halting for some time. Last fall when the Dominion government loan of 8200,000,000 and the Ontario government loan of 840,000,000 were floated, they were both over-subscribed. Newspapers commented on this as an indication that Canada had plenty of money to invest, and that business was sound and industries prosperous. In my judgment, that rush to secure government bonds was proof that business and industry were not in a healthy condition. It was proof that business and industry were not attractive enough to capital to compare with a government offer of a return of about 5i per cent on the investment. Instead of investing our capital in developing our natural resources we are lending to ourselves at the expense of our industrial activities, a practice which, if persisted in and enlarged is not likely to make us more prosperous than taking in each other's washing. Only a short time ago it was announced in the press that the Ontario Minister of Mines will visit England shortly to try to induce investments from that quarter.

Further proof of the decline in business is furnished by a perusal of the revenue resulting from income tax, which, for the eleven months preceding March 1 last, compared with a similar period in 1922, shows a loss of 85,296,000 odd, and business tax compared with the same period shows a loss of 87,438,000 odd, a loss of twelve and three-quarter millions on the two items of direct taxation which must accurately reflect the general condition of business. Of failures in manufacturing in Canada we had in 1920, 255; in 1921, 599; in 1922, 857; and in 1923, 792, I think it was.
In the city of London, which I have the honour to represent, we have many factories. The last government enumeration of Canadian industries credited us with nearly four hundred factories, with over 11,000 people employed therein. Our factories are nearly all working below capacity or on short hours. For example, one factory making farm machinery which a few years ago employed three hundred1 men now has but thirty on its pay roll; another, in the iron and steel industry employing over one thousand, is running short time and not averaging five days per week; another employing 150 men is working four days per week-and so it goes. The matter is considered of so serious a nature that our city council, on the 17th March last, passed a resolution which I should like to have recorded. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas at the present time there are unsettled business and industrial conditions in Canada and an exodus of skilled mechanics and workmen to the United States, which is alarming in proportions;
And whereas the United States has to-day an ultrahigh protective tariff, while Canadian industry has in addition to face competition from countries with depreciated currency and lower standards of living;
Be it resolved that this council regrets the intimation in the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to reduce further the duties on certain manufactured articles, and urges the government rather to take such steps as will protect and stabilize the industries of the Dominion so as to give permanent and assured employment to Canadians in Canada; and that the City Clerk be instructed to write to the Right Honourable Mackenzie King, Premier, to the Hon. Jas. A. Robb, Acting Minister of Finance, and the member for London, calling their attention to this resolution.
S. Baker,
City Clerk.
I think there are many indications that capital has been timorous, afraid to venture, fearful of the risks incident to investment in industry, and that fear is accentuated to-day by the abandonment of the principle of tariff stability and the substitution of a policy of attrition, which the government is asking the House to sanction. While the provisions of the budget create a serious situation for many

The Budget-Mr. White
workmen and many manufacturing companies, the most serious effect of these tariff changes will be, in my opinion, the effect on business generally.
Canadian people will remember that the Liberal platform, which is almost identical with that of the Progressive group, contains many provisions regarding the reduction of duties, the increase in British preference and a long list of articles to be placed on the free list. What incentive is there for new capital to go into business, or what incentive is there for a manufacturing concern already established to plan for an enlargement of buildings or plant or to make efforts to employ additional workmen when the prospect is that the axe will fall again next year, when the budget is delivered, in all probability with greater severity? The country knows that the Progressive group, encouraged by the comparatively small success of this year will likely be more insistent next year and demand a much larger and more comprehensive reduction of protective duties, and the country also knows that the government which gave way this year will likely acquiesce next year.
On Tuesday, April 14, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) made the statement that he hoped the tariff on boots and ehoes would be lowered, and in twelve hours a deputation of sixty or seventy men from his own province and Ontario representing the boot and shoe manufacturers and the workmen in that industry, appeared, asking for protection from the competition of English and German goods particularly. They asserted that Canada has factory capacity for 25,000,000 pairs of shoes per annum, while the Canadian market consumes about 15,000,000 pairs; also that English firms on account of lower wage costs and the depreciation of currency, more favourable freight rates and the increase in the British preference last year, had secured a large portion of Canadian business. Will the Prime Minister say that the boot and shoe industry is not a legitimate industry as far as Canada is concerned?
When that deputation presented its case it also called on two of its members who represented labour, to state the case for labour. These men represented both the Catholic Workers Union, and the International Shoe Workers Union. They appealed Jto the government for protection from foreign competition, so that the factories in which they are employed would be able to work at greater capacity and at full time. They had been assured by the minister from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Sinclair) in his 94i
speech in the House a day or two before that this is a wonderfully successful government. They had been assured that a great accomplishment had been recorded in the direction of economy. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) undertook to convince this deputation, which if they know anything at least know their own business, that the Canadian workers were not suffering more than ordinarily, and if I can judge by the expression on the faces of these men they were comparing the short time of the shoe factories with the statement of the minister without portfolio, who asserted that their taxes were to be reduced this year by the sum of $2.70 per man. Perhaps they were wondering what they would do with this $2.70, whether they would spend it all at once, or extend it over several celebrations during the year.
The Liberal party in the 1921 campaign expressed great concern for the welfare of the labouring man. They were quite in sympathy with the conventions of the League of Nations including the shorter working day; they were going to grant all these concessions to the working man, and they have been giving to them the shorter week with a vengeance!
The government is making no effort to check the exodus of Canadian workmen to the United States. We are told that 181,000 of these workmen left Canada last year. The Prime Minister made the assertion that he believed sixty per cent of these had returned. I have had a great deal to do with workmen, I know something of them in my own city, and if six per cent of them returned I think that would be about the extent of it. In fact I am very dubious about the six per cent. I have encountered very few men who have gone over to the States within the last, two years and have returned. Those men are^ leaving the country because the work is-being done in the United States and the manufactured goods are being imported into ada. They left Canada because Canada did not provide them with the living they thought they were entitled to. They believed they could provide themselves with a better living by going to the United States. Some day they may come back when the conditions of industry are improved by wise legislation, but in the meantime our loss is the gain of the United States.
As to the effect of the changes in the customs duties on the manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada, I believe that only the manufacturers of implements can make a forecast. Taking into consideration the change in the sales tax which I referred
The Budget-Mr. White


Mr. FONTAINE:: Mr. Speaker, I move
the adjournment, of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. BOYS:: What is the business for tomorrow-continuing the budget debate, I suppose?


George Perry Graham: The budget debate seems to lag a little, I do not mean in quality, I mean in numbers. We will proceed with the budget debate to-morrow, and should anything intervene by which it comes to an end or to a suspension, we shall go on with the resolutions on the branch lines.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10 p.m.



SUPPLEMENT

[Stage Direction]
(See Resolution of the House, ji. 1434}
THE LAW MEMORIAL [Amongst those who perished in the destruction of the parliament buildings by fire on the night of Thursday, February 3, 1916, was Bowman Brown Law, representative of the county of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The tragic death of Mr. Law called forth expressions of sympathy and high esteem, and as time went on and the new parliament buildings neared
The Law Memorial
[Stage Direction]
completion the feeling developed that his memory and the occasion of his death should be perpetuated by the erection of a monument on the ground which gives sepulture to his mortal remains. This sentiment took definite form when parliament, during the session of 1920, made provision for setting up a memorial tablet in the lobby of the House of Commons.
The ceremony of unveiling the tablet took place to-day, under impressive circumstances, on the occasion of the reassembling of the House of Commons after the Easter vacation, and was attended by a large company representative not only of the two Houses of Parliament but of the public in general. The chair was occupied by the Honourable Ro-dolphe Lemieux, Speaker of the House of Commons, and the tablet was formally unveiled by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister.]
George Newcombe Gordon: Gentlemen, the session which opened on the 12th January 1916, will ever be a memorable one for the parliamentarians of that year. The great world war was raging. The hopes entertained after the battle *of the Marne for an early collapse of the enemy forces had been shattered. Though the Allies had won notable victories-in which the sons of Canada had by sacrifice of blood and of life performed deeds of which the glory shall never fade away-yet the march towards the Rhine was checked in that they had failed to pierce the German lines. On the eastern front, our disappointments had been still greater. The only bright spot at the horizon was the effective watch and patrol of the British Navy which left the German fleet impotent and imprisoned in its own waters. Sad as the immediate prospects were, the spirit of the Canadian people remained undaunted. And their representatives in parliament, undismayed by the ghastly welter of blood and fire, resolved to stand by the gallant soldiers who at Ypres, Festubert and 'Givenchy, had fought and died for a noble cause and to carry on until final victory.
Whilst under the shadow of those stirring events, when the House of Commons was engaged in the all absorbing task of securing more men and assessing more resources to prosecute the war, a sudden and appalling disaster happened here on the hill. On the 3rd of February at nine o'clock in the evening, during the course of one of those week end debates with which we are so familiar, the parliament buildings were destroyed by fire.

It was a noble edifice; indeed, it was a landmark. There, half a century before, as a result of the Quebec Conference had gathered the leaders who after merging their interests in common had launched the newly bom union. There, had been sealed the pact of confederation. As we gazed at the next sunrise at the mass of black ruins, projecting its distress upon the wide fields of snow, as we looked in vain for the stately tower which crowned the beautiful structure, the quaint gables, the gothic arches and the stained glass windows around which clung so many memories, there was a deep feeling of sorrow. But these, after all, were only material things.
Far more deplorable was the loss of life- and we are assembled here to-day, eight years after that calamitous event, at the gates of a new parliament to officially record the profound affection in which one of the victims, Bowman Brown Law, member for the constituency of Yarmouth, was held by us all, his fellow members.
For many years, it was my privilege to sit in the House of Commons with him. Quiet and unassuming	in his	bearing,	gentle	inhis manners, he was none the less a very industrious member, attentive to his duties and well informed. Scarcely an hour had elasped on that	fateful	evening,	when	hisvoice had been	raised	on behalf of	hiselectors. As usual, he had spoken in all earnestness, on	a question of primary
importance to Nova Scotia, a province renowned for the inborn ability and common sense of its people.
A God-fearing gentleman, a true Canadian, a devoted and loving husband and father, a faithful and trusted servant of the people, such was Bowman Brown Law.-
This tablet will recall to his family and his constituency that, at this very spot, where he so tragically entered in the valley of the shadow, his memory survives;-the sweet memory of one whom we know through his life training, faced bravely the awful ordeal, which he accepted in a Christian spirit, as only a preface to that reward in the realm beyond, where the soul is greeted by a merciful Maker in the white radiance of eternity.
I will now ask the right hon. Prime Minister to say a few words and proceed to the unveiling of the memorial tablet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Upon the re-assembling of parliament, at the commencement of the present session, there was unveiled the first, monument to be placed in our reconstructed buildings. It was appropriate that it should

The Law Memorial
be to the memory of an honourable member of the House of Commons who lost his life on the field of battle in the service of his king and country overseas. To-day as we re-assemble, after a brief Easter vacation, we are about to unveil a memorial tablet to the memory of another honourable member of the Commons who lost his life under circumstances which also were alike tragic and historic.
The late Bowman Brown Law was first returned to the House of Commons as the member for Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, at a by-election in December 1902, which byelection was occasioned by a vacancy caused by the appointment of the late Mr. T. B. Flint as Clerk of the House. Mr. Law was re-elected at the General Elections of 1904, 1908 and 1911. In the great fire which on February 3, 1916, destroyed the old parliament buildings, he was burned to death. Seven lives in all were lost in that fire, and it is something of a sad coincidence that among the number should have been that of the Clerk Assistant of the House, the late Mr. J. K. Laplante.
Members who enjoyed the privilege of serving in parliament during the years I have mentioned, will recall Mr. Law as a man possessed of singularly fine qualities, alike o heart and mind. He was of a quiet and retiring disposition, affable and companionable. and most punctilious and conscientious in the discharge of his public duties. He was in his seat in the Commons chamber when the alarm of the fire was given, and it is believed that it was in the effort to save from destruction papers in his possession that he took a risk which proved to be fatal.
The memorial tablet which I have now the honour to unveil records the essential facts in the fewest possible words:



ERECTED TO THE MEMORY OF BOWMAN BROWN LAW, M.P.   REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY OF YARMOUTH, N.S. WHO MET HIS DEATH IN THE GREAT FIRE WHICH DESTROYED THE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS,

[Stage Direction]
3rd FEBRUARY, 1916.

[Stage Direction]
The sculptor has succeeded in executing in bronze relief a remarkably good likeness of the late Mr. Law. To the left, near the top, he has reproduced the coat of arms of the United States, commemorative of the circumstance that Mr. Law was born in the state of Massachusetts; to the right the 
coat of arms of the province of Nova Scotia, the province with which his public career was so closely identified; and over all, the arms of Canada, the country he served so
well-	, .
It is fitting that we should thus preserve and seek to honour the memory of one of our number whose life and whose death were so closely identified with our parliament. The circumstances of Mr. Law's death permitted no place of burial to his mortal remains. They knew no sepulchre save the ruins of the demolished walls within which he met his fate. His ashes mingle with the ashes of the edifice in which for over thirteen years he represented faithfully and well the interests of his constituency and the people of this land. Of him, too, it may truly be said that he died in the service of king and country- In association with his name and memory this, our Westminster, will be not less the Abbey, than the Houses of Parliament.
By fire and the sword, such was the manner of death of those of our number whose memories we have sought to preserve. These mute memorials are imperfect symbols at best. Surrounded as we are by the material evidences of the spirit of resurrection which these reconstructed buildings afford, it may be not without consolation to those who have been bereaved to recall the association which this tablet, placed as it is, will ever bear to the Easter season. To them and to us let it speak of the unfinished tasks of those who are gone, not as of a work that is ended, but as of a greater work begun.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen: The inclusion of my name in the ceremony of this afternoon testifies chiefly to the fact that this event has no significance narrower than the whole bounds of parliament and of Canada. No words of mine could possibly add to the expressions of profound regard which fell in such beautiful diction from the lips of Mr. Speaker this afternoon, nor to the fine eulogy uttered by the Prime Minister.
My personal association with Mr. Law was of limited kind. He had entered parliament many years before myself, and had not come in that close contact with me which I would have desired. But looking back to the sad hour that we commemorate now I well recall the tragic night-how, after only one hour of deliberation in the evening, the flames were discovered spreading with almost uncanny rapidity, how the mellow hue of the sky was reddened to angry flame, and this splendid edifice destroyed.
The Law Memorial

You spoke, Mr. Speaker, of the times, heavy and poignant, through which we were passing then. These need' sometimes to be recalled. Nevertheless there was something of a lull at the front, at the very time of this fire. During the winter months, a silencing in some degree of the uproar of conflict had fallen, only, of course, to be resumed in all its horror and slaughter when summer weather came. Likewise on the 3rd February, 1916 a peaceful frosty nightfall, as tranquil an evening as we had ever known, was converted into a night of disaster and death.
We had hoped that the former magnificent parliament buildings, would have remained with us as a tribute to the courage and the vision of our forefathers, a courage and a vision greater than we can very well now encompass. The Canada of that day was weak and scattered compared with the nation as we know it now. We had all hoped that those wonderful buildings would have remained as a legacy to our children, an historic legacy joining the old colonial days with the later days which have witnessed the fruition of this Dominion. This we were denied. The awful disaster of February 3rd lost to us the greatest single material possession of which Canada could boast. But appalling as our loss of that nature was, we lament infinitely more bitterly and lastingly the loss of life. Seven persons, as the Prime Minister has said, were imprisoned in the burning building and died. Three of them were servants of the House. Two were lady visitors of the then Speaker. Another victim was one of our most trusted, one of our most competent officers, Mr. Laplante, the then Clerk Assistant. It is in honour of the seventh that we unveil this tablet to-day and in my judgment properly so. Mr. Law was one of our number and naturally, we feel toward his memory an affection nearer and deeper than that which attaches to others. Fitting it is that with respect to him, as to any hon. member who may die in similar tragic manner in the service of his country, the present noble building should contain a memorial-a memorial that will carry down his memory to the latest generations. He and those others have taken their places in the Golden Chamber but they have left to us the memory of creditable lives, the inspiration of splendid examples. Nothing better can be said of Mr. Law, or indeed of any man than that he died as he had lived, a British gentleman at his post of duty.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman. In common with those who are associated with me on this platform, I am not in a position to say anything that would adequately portray the feelings of those whom 
I represent in reference to the purpose for which we have met here this afternoon.
However, as has been pointed out, in 1916 an incident occurred which might be described as a national calamity, the destruction of the parliament buildings. I can very well remember the occasion when, a few years previous to that time, I had the privilege of visiting the chamber and looking over the seats of the various members of the House, ihe parliament buildings seemed to me then to symbolize the spirit of nationhood, and the burning of that great structure could only be termed a national calamity. But we had an opportunity to repair our loss; the material loss could be overcome, and now a new building has been erected, which is magnificent in every aspect. While we regret the fact that the buildings were destroyed we can now look ack to the event with equanimity, as the building could be replaced and its destruction perhaps in time almost forgotten. But the loss of life is an entirely different matter. V\ e have lost something that can never be restored to us, and we are met this afternoon to unveil a tablet to the memory of one of the members of the House of Commons, who lost his life in that tragic disaster.
I had not the privilege of being acquainted with Mr. Law but we know he was a man in the full vigour of manhood, who could have looked forward to many years of usefulness and service to his country had it not been that m one tragic moment his life was cut short and he was taken away to be amongst us no more.
We look upon death perhaps as one of the greatest calamities that can come to human beings; but there are some things which are sadder than death. When we lose one whom we can respect and admire, whom we can truly love, we have something left, a memory that we can cherish, which may become one of the most sacred things in our lives. This gentleman was lost to the country and to this House, but through all time we can cherish the memory of one who served his country well, who lived a noble life, and who was in every respect a gentleman whom we could respect and admire.
I am very happy to have the privilege of taking part in this ceremony and paying my respects to the memory of one who died in the service of his country.
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) (Minister of National) Defence):	Mr. Chairman,
I had the great pleasure and distinction of having served in this House of Commons for a period of eleven years in conjunction with our friend, Mr. Law, whose memory we are

The Law Memorial
commemorating to-day, and of having served for a period of seven years with his father who represented the same constituency in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia. Mr. Law was my personal friend, and we were associated very closely, coming to this House almost at the same period. Those of us who come from our province, who had the opportunity of knowing Mr. Bowman Law perhaps in a closer way than our confreres from other parts of Canada, know what a typical Nova Scotian he was in many ways. He was a most successful business man, and having inherited from his father a prosperous business organization, he dealt with that in a way which indicated his great ability along those lines. He received the confidence of the people amongst whom he lived as a young man, and in every election when he came to them and asked for a renewal of their confidence, he received it in a greater degree than previously.
I always recall, with horror, the events of that night, February 3. I happened to be in the House at the time, and I well remember the circumstances. Almost in the twinkling of an eye the chamber was surrounded by flames. I personally succeeded in getting to my room and securing some papers, and as I was going to my room, I met Bowman Law coming from his. He apparently had endeavoured, when he reached the ground floor, to go to his locker where his coat, hat and other things were, and nobody ever saw him again. We did not know even that he was dead for two days. It was not until Saturday afternoon that somebody began to inquire where Mr. Law was, and then we realized that this quiet gentleman, who went about his affairs so unostentatiously, was a victim of the fire.
I had an opportunity in conjunction with my colleagues from the province of Nova Scotia of saying a few words about him at a meeting of the House of Commons which took place in the Victoria Museum on the following Monday. A singular circumstance which I recall in Connection with that fact was that on that day the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier both in most eloquent speeches spoke to a resolution of appreciation of the services of Sir Charles Tupper who was a typical Nova Scotian and one of the great men of the Dominion of Canada. Bowman Law's name was referred to by his colleagues at that time.
Those of us who knew him have wonderful memories of him. He was a sincere and straightforward advocate of the rights of his province and of the Dominion. He was a
devoted party man; he was sincerely devoted to the party with which he had so long been associated. He was successful in business to a degree greater than is the lot of most men. During his parliamentary career he gave of his best on behalf of his constituents and province. He was a man of charming disposition, a splendid friend, and those of us who were associated with him will ever have kindly memories of him.
I am sure this tablet which the Prime Minister has to-day unveiled will be a mark for all time to come of him who passed away in that holocaust of February 3, a man who did his duty to his country, who was loyal to his friends, who was a devoted parent and whose memory will ever be cherished, not only by those of us who come from the same province, but those who come from other parts of Canada as well.


Mr. P. L. HATFIELD (Yarmouth and Clare):: Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen,
having the honour to represent in the House of Commons the constituency which the late Mr. Bowman B. Law represented at the time of his death, I think perhaps it is fitting that I should offer a few remarks at this ceremony. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having afforded me the opportunity of doing so. I am sure the occasion which brings us together this afternoon must be one unique in the memory of the oldest parliamentarian here. I believe the records of the Canadian parliament will reveal no other instance in which a member of the House of Commons met death under circumstances so tragic and sad as those that surrounded the death of the late Mr. Law. As has been so well explained by you, Mr. Speaker, the late Mr. Law represented in the House of Commons the constituency which at the time of his death was known as Yarmouth; and I am sure that no member of parliament ever enjoyed the confidence and respect and-may I not add-the affection of the electorate throughout the entire length and breadth of his constituency, to a greater degree than did Mr. Law. Judging from the many eulogies I have heard of him since coming here, from his old colleagues and those who were attached to the government service, who knew him, I am sure that the same happy, genial, unselfish disposition which characterised his private life among his constituents must also have been characteristic of his official life here in Ottawa.
As I turn now more directly to the ceremony which is being conducted this afternoon, I must confess that I find it diffi-
The Law Memorial

cult to command language adequately and properly to express my feelings. Assembled as we are on the very spot where that terrible tragedy was enacted, and under the influence of the solemn act of unveiling this memorial tablet which has been erected to Mr. Law's memory, what has been said, and the manner of the saying of it, make it difficult indeed for one to control one's emotions. Mr. Law and I were very close personal friends; and what I have witnessed here and heard this afternoon makes me feel, at least in a large measure, the same sense of loss and shock which we all experienced when we first heard the news of the terrible accident that caused the loss of our friend. My thought turns to the late widow of Mr. Law, who survived her husband for so comparatively short a time. She mourned her loss intensely, and without doubt it was the primary cause of her decease so soon after that of him whom she loved so dearly. She bore her trouble with great patience and fortitude; but to those who were nearest her it soon became evident that the blow had proven too heavy and that she would soon be released from her sufferings here to join him who for so long had been her partner and companion in life. I also think of the daughter who is unavoidably deprived of the opportunity of being present, and for whom I am commissioned to speak. It shall be my duty to portray to her, as faithfully as I can, the esteem and affection in which her departed father was held here by all who knew him; and how his memory is honoured. I am sure that the kindly, gracious words which have been spoken to-day, so tenderly and sincerely, by you, Mr. Speaker, and by the other gentlemen who have followed you, will prove a comfort indeed to her, and if possible will render the memory of him whom she loved so dearly even more sacred and sweet than the memory she has cherished of him in the past. On her behalf I desire to thank you, Sir, and through you the senators and the members of the House of Commons, for this very worthy act which marks so well the passing of one who was loved by all, who represented so faithfully the constituency of Yarmouth and who endeared himself so peculiarly to all who knew him. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read one or two telegrams which I have received on the subject of this afternoon's ceremony, and which it seems appropriate I should read:

Yarmouth, N.S.
P. L. Hatfield, Esq.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
The members of the Liberal Association of the constituency of Yarmouth and Clare desire to express to the senators and members of the House of Commons their grateful appreciation for the splendid tribute to their late representative, Bowman Brown Law, in erecting a tablet to his memory in the lobby of the House of Commons. Mr. Law at the time he met his death in the great fire which destroyed the parliament building had long represented our constituency in the House of Commons and was our trusted friend and colleague. Meeting his death while in the performance of his public duties with many years of service ahead of him the memorial service which you are holding to-day strikes a very responsive chord in all our hearts and we look upon it as a splendid tribute to his family as well as to the memory of a true man and faithful public servant.
A. P. Stoneman,
President.
Donald Cann,
Secretary.
Yarmouth and Clare Liberal Association.
Yarmouth, N.S.
P. L. Hatfield, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
The Conservative Association of the county of Yarmouth joins with great pleasure the senators and members of the House of Commons in the ceremony which takes place to-day when a memorial tablet is to be unveiled to the memory of the late Bowman Brown Law who at the time he met his death in the great fire which destroyed the parliament building was the representative in the House of Commons for the constituency of Yarmouth. Mr. Law was respected and loved by the citizens of our county and this tribute to his memory touches all our hearts and is a generous action on the part of the state to a faithful public servant.
W. L. Rogers,
President.
Edgar Clements,
Secretary.
Halifax, N.S., April 24, 1924.
P. L. Hatfield, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Very pleased with tribute of respect you are paying to the memory of the late B. B. Law. As a warm personal friend and admirer let me in spirit join you in paying tribute to his memory and to his many personal and manly qualities. It will b|& warmly appreciated by his numerous friends in Yarmouth county who will never forget a true friend and his sacrifice in their interests.
E. H. Armstrong.


Hewitt Bostock: This, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the proceedings, and on behalf of the House of Commons and of senators and members of the Bowman Brown Law Memorial I wish to thank you all for your presence here this afternoon.

United Church of Canada
Friday, April 25, 1924