1924-05-15

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the sixth report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, as follows:
Your committee have considered Bill No. 38, an act respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, and have agreed to report the same without amendment.	.
Your committee have considered the following bills and have agreed to report them with amendments, viz.,
Bill No. 30, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Rousseau and Laurent, in the province of Quebec.
Bill No. 46, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Lloydminster, in the province of Saskatchewan, northwesterly 45 miles.
In compliance with the order of May 12, your committee have further considered Bill No. 40, an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Mile 41 of the Melfort branch near Nipawin in the province of Saskatchewan, and have agreed to report the same with further amendments.
With regard to the last mentioned bill, your committee beg to recommend that the title be changed to read as follows: "An act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line either to Mile 41 near Nipawin or in a northeasterly direction to a point in Township 48, Range 13, west of the second meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan."
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
COMMITTEE	,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) presented the fifth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce, as follows:
Your committee recommend that leave be granted them to sit while the House is in session.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. VIEN moved that the report be received and concurred in.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if these
motfons are to pass as they have been passing, granting large committees one after the other power to sit while the House is in session, the House itself will become a mere formality. It would seem to me it would have been better had the committees commenced work sooner, and not now be usurping the time of parliament. I do not like consenting to so many committees sitting while the House is in session.


Mr. VIEN:: I may say that this motion
met with the same objections in the Banking and Commerce committee. It is not t]je intention, so far as I can judge, to sit while the House is in session, except in exceptional cases. The committee, under the powers that were granted to it, have summoned witnesses from Washington and New York, the presidents of banks and experts on financial matters, and they have felt that it would be quite unfair for these gentlemen, who are very busy, to sit only from eleven to one o'clock and then keep them waiting over until the committee sits the next day. Therefore, we have asked the privilege to sit while the House is in session, but I think it is the general consensus of opinion in the committee not to abuse that privilege but to exercise it only out of regard for these gentlemen who are being summoned to appear as witnesses, and who are coming here, not compulsorily, but quite voluntarily.


Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to call your at-
2074	COMMONS
United Church of Canada-Petitions
tention to this fact, which I think is very pertinent, that often many committees are called to meet at the same hour and hon. members in many cases are members of several committee. I think that is most unfair, and the matter should be looked into with a view to finding a time for the committees to meet so that hon. members can attend the various committees of which they are members, instead of having three or four committees meeting at the same time, which makes it impossible for the members to attend some of the committees.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I was going on
to state when I was interrupted by my hon. friend, that some of the witnesses have expressed in their telegrams a desire to be able to return home the very same day. I might mention, for instance, Mr. Skelton Williams, who was formerly Comptroller of the Currency in the United States, and now of Richmond, Virginia. He was very willing to come voluntarily to give evidence before the committee, but at the same time he expressed a desire to be able to return home on the same day if possible.


Arthur Meighen: I am not a member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, but I must be permitted to doubt the wisdom of the initial step of the committee in having witnesses come from the ends of the earth to advise us on banking matters. Still, it has been done, and as apparently it is only the intention to utilize the time of the House to hear these witnesses I withdraw my objection


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations, severally praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada be not enacted:-
Almerite Presbyterian Church,-Mr. Duff. Presbyterian Church, Little Narrows; Presbyterian Church of Middle River and other places; Kennetcook Cor.; Presbyterian Church of Shubenacadie; Presbyterian Church of Gore and Kennetcook; Presbyterian Church of Elmsdale and Nine Mile River, all of Nova Scotia,-Mr. Martell.
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House to incorporate the United Church

of Canada be passed during the present session:-
Methodist Church, Allison, Ont.; Grace Methodist Church, Brampton, Ont.; Union Church, Foam Lake, Sask.; St. James Methodist Church, Peterboro, Ont.; Westminster Presbyterian Church, Saskatoon, Sask.; Methodist Church, Parry Sound, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Cape John and Caribou, N.S.; Salem Church, Tupperville; Yonge Street Methodist Church, Toronto,-Mr. Hubbs.
Presbyterian Church, Rockwood, Ont.; Union Churches, Dinton and Gladys; Methodist Church, Mount Pleasant, Fairmont and Cavan, Ontario; Rivers Union Church, Pettapiece, Man.; Methodist Church, Kingston Mills, Ont.; Methodist Church, Selby; Union Church, Rossland, B.C.; Methodist Church, Renfrew, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Grand Bend; Gray Church, Ricetown, Sask.; Methodist Church, Leamington; Methodist Churches, Clandeboye and Lucan, Ont.; Burns Presbyterian Church, Ashbum, Ont.; Union Church, Russell, Man.; First Congregational Church, Ottawa; Methodist Church, Bluevale, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Belgrave and Sunshine; Union Church, Macklim, Sask.; Methodist Churches, Bensfort, Baifeboro and Fraserville, Ont.-Mr. Halbert.
Quebec Association of Ministers and Churches of the Congregational Churches, Cowansville, Que.; St. John's Methodist Church, Winnipeg; College Avenue Methodist Church, Woodstock, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Granum; Union Church, Lethbridge, Alta.; Methodist Church, Waterford, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Kagawong, Ont.; Methodist Church, Caledon East, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Fergus, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Coniston, Ont.; Methodist Church, Beachburg, Ont.; Gordon Methodist Church, Winnipeg, Man.; M. Hackney and 65 others, Zephyr, Ont.; Methodist Church, East Angus, Que.; Presbyterian and Union Church, Ellis-boro and Weldon, Sask.; Wesley Methodist Church, Selkirk, Man.; Methodist Church, Roblin, Ont.-Mr. Brown.
Presbyterian Churches at Cyde, Pibroch and Westlock, Alta.; United Church, Edson, Alta.; Highland Park Presbyterian Church, Edmonton South, Alta.; Methodist Church, Salmon Arm, B. C.; Union Church, Minitonas, Man.; Methodist Church, Oak Bay, N.B.; United Church, Gallivan and Rockhaven, Sask.; United Church, Topley and Foresdale, B.C.; Union Church, Smithers, B.C.; Union Church, Peachland, B.C.; Presbyterian Church, Pelly and Norquay, Sask.; Presbyterian Church, Bellmuir; Methodist Church, Dauphin, Man.; Union Church, Lillooet, B.C.; Presbyterian Church, Success, Sask.;

Questions
United Churoh, Estevan, Sask.; Methodist Church , Cloverdale, BjC. ; Hartney Hall Union Church-Mr. Charters.
Dunleath Congregation, Sask.; Presbyterian Church, Norland and Dongola; Congregational Church, Kingsport, N.S.,; Methodist Church, Macleod, Alta.; Hale Street Methodist Church, London, Ont.; Wesley Methodist Church, Galt, Ont.; Bell Street Methodist Church, Ottawa; Presbyterian Church, Murray Harbour, P.E.I.; Methodist Churches, Little Briton and Valentia, Ont.; of Wm. P. Wright and 14 others of the city of Toronto; Cameron, Trinity Methodist Church; Methodist Church, Stoney Creek, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Windsor Junction; Presbyterian Church, Flesherton, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Ebenezer and Bradford; Union Church, Foxwarren, Man.; Methodist Church, Pleasant Forks; Methodist Churches Portreeve and Lancer, Sask.; (Presbyterian) Union Churches, Magrath and Spring Coulee, Alta.; Methodist Church, 'Maple Creek; Sask.; Union Church, Elstow, Sask.; United Church, Kelowna, B.C.; Union Church, Days-land, Leith and Rosalind, Alta.; Union Church, Elk Point, Alta.; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Churcsh, Langley Fort, B.C.; Union Church, Monitor, Alta.; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Boissevain, Man.; United Church, Okotoks, Alta.; Congregational Church, Eatonia, Sask.; United Church, Grandview; Methodist Church Mono Mills, Ont.; Methodist Church, Moulinette, Ont.; United Church, Orrville, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Hawthorne, Bowesville and Leitrim; Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Joliette, Que.; and of W. A. Hanna and 25 others of the Methodist Church at Port Carling, Ont. -Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
On the petitions being presented:
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: Mr
Speaker, I rise to a point of order, whether it would not be possible to have these numerous petitions for and against Church Union placed on the Table of the House, to have them appear in Hansard the next day, and thus save some very valuable time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: The members are at
liberty to do exactly what the hon. gentleman has just suggested, but they also have the privilege, if they so desire, of reading the petitions from their seats. Of course, it would save much valuable time if the petitions were simply handed into the Clerk of the House. They appear in the Votes and Proceedings the next day.
Mr. THOMAS SALES (Saltcoats) thereupon laid a petition upon the Table.



QUESTIONS

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What were the total car-loadings in Canada (a) in April, 1923 and>
(b) in April, 1924?
2.	What were the total car-loadings in Canada on the Canadian National Railway system (a) in April, 1923, and (b) in April, 1924?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Total car-loadings of revenue freight on the principal railways in Canada for the weeks ended April 5, 12, 19, and 26, 1924, were 210,969; for the corresponding period of 1923 they were 205,820.
2.	Total car-loadings on the Canadian National Railways for weeks ended April 5, 12, 19, and 26, 1924, were 99,264; for corresponding period, 1923, they were 99,533.
N.B. Data regarding car-loadings are collected and compiled on a weekly basis only.


MR. ARONOVICI-HOTEL SCRIBE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: ,
1.	What special services were performed by Mr. Aronovici between December 1, 1922, and April 15, 1923, for which he was paid $5,625?
2.	Does this sum cover the whole amount received by Mr. Aronovici in respect of the Scribe hotel?
3.	Who was the owner of the Scribe hotel two years ago?
4.	With whom did Mr. Aronovici negotiate the purchase of the Scribe hotel?
5.	What commisions were arranged for?
6.	What net sum of money did those owning the hotel two years ago receive for the property?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Mr. Aronovici investigated the entire emigration position in those countries on the continent of Europe from which emigrants might be expected. He reported on the probable number of emigrants from each country, the conditions under which emigration could be induced and, generally speaking, examined the whole emigration problem from the company's point of view. In addition to this he reported on the opportunities for improving the company's position and securing additional
' freight, passenger and express business.
2.	The sum in question had nothing to do with Hotel Scribe and, as indicated in the answer to question No. 1, was compensation paid to Mr. Aronovici for the services described during the period mentioned.
3.	No information.
4.	With the owners.
Questions

5.	Question not understood. Mr. Aronovici was on salary from April 15, 1923, to December 31, 1923.
6.	No information.


SCRIBE HOTEL PURCHASE
Henry Lumley Drayton: During the last session of parliament, it was stated that two million dollars had been used in the purchase of the Scribe hotel, but on April 24, of this year, the House was informed the cost was $2,733,693. What are the names and address^ of the persons, firms or corporations receiving any portion of this extra $733,693, and for what purposes or reasons did they receive such payments?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: There was paid for the hotel property 28,000,000 francs, or approximately $2,000,000. The sum of $2,733,693 included the cost of the property, taxes, imposts, removal of tenants, etc.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TRAINMEN LAID OFF
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Have any trainmen at Stellarton or Pictou, Nova Scotia, employed by the Canadian National Railways been laid off on account of slack work?
2.	If so, how many?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	25.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CAR CHECKER, WESTVILLE, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Who fills the position of car checker on the Canadian National Railway at Westville, in the county of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	When did the appointment take effect and what was the reason for it?
3.	Who was previously employed in this position and w'hen and why was he retired?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	T. J. Gray.
2.	April 24th, 1923; to check cars supplied to and used by the mines at Stellarton and Westville.
3.	No one previously employed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CROSSING WATCHMAN, STELLARTON, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Who is employed as crossing watchman at Asphalt crossing in the town of Stellarton, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Why was he appointed?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What is his age?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Norman Ferguson.
2.	For the protection of vehicular and pedestrian traffic over the crossing.
3.	April 20, 1923.
4.	Sixty years.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-WATCHMAN AT PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Is there a watchman employed by the Canadian National Railways at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, how long has he been in the employ of the railway and what is his name?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Two watchmen are employed at Pictou.
2.	George Welsh, since Sept. 27, 1898; P.
0.	Carroll, since April 20, 1923.


J. J. WING
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was there a request made by Mr. F. Higgins, barrister, of Victoria, British Columbia, to the Department of Justice, to interview one J. J. Wing, in the British Columbia penitentiary?
2.	If so, when was such request made?
3.	What steps did the Department of Justice take upon receipt of such communication?
4.	Did the Department of Justice reply to Mr. Higgins, and if so, when and how?
5.	Did the Department of Justice cause J. J. Wing to be interviewed in the penitentiary in regard to the said request of Mr. Higgins?
6.	If so, by whom, and what report was made to the Department of Justice?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 10, 1924.
3.	Communication was had with the warden of the penitentiary.
4.	Upon receipt of reply from the warden of the penitentiary, Mr. Higgins was communicated with on April'12, 1924 by letter.
5.	Yes.
6.	By the warden who reported to the department: "J. J. Wing knows nothing of Higgins or civil action."


MOWAT HOSPITAL, KINGSTON
Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	What was the total expenditure in connection with the Mowat Hospital Kingston, during the year 1923?
2.	What was the average cost per patient in the said Hospital during the year 1923, exclusive of pay or allowances to patients?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Public Works-
1.	Calendar year 1923, $932.63.
2.	No information.
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-
1.	Calendar year 1923, $111,815.22.
2.	$3.20.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM REPORTS
Mr. PRITCHARD:: 1. How many reports of officers of the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa were published for the year 1922?

Questions
2.	What was the number of copies of each report published in French and English, respectively?
3.	What was the cost of pointing each report in English and French, respectively?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. 13.
2 and 3.
Number	Cost
Report	English French English French
Director	
Diminion Animal Husbandman	
Dominion Field Husbandman	
Dominion Horticulturist. Dominion Cerealist.. .. Dominion Agrostologist. Dominion Chemist.. .. Dominion Botanist..	..
Dominion Poultry Husbandman	
Dominion Apiarist.. .. Chief of Fibre Division. Chief of Illustration. ..
Stations Division Chief of Tobacco Division	
In some cases, the French edition has by the department.


SUBSIDIES F
[Stage Direction]
15,000	5,000	$ 879 24	§14,000	5,000	723 23	20,000	6,000	429 35	198 1015,000	7,000	626 34	10,000	2,500	155 97	85 079.000	2,500	668 75	275 339,000	3,000	1,361 38	828 1210,000	2,500	836 21	15,000	6,000	453 50	10,000	3,000	155 71	109 945,000	1,000	97 78	30,000	7,000	1,221 97	576 4310,000	6,000	616 83	469 81
account for printing the not yet been received

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Were subsidies ever granted by the government, for the holding of Dominion exhibitions, in the various provinces?
2.	If so, what provinces have benefited thereby, in what years, and what was the amount granted to each province?
3.	Has the Quebec Provincial Exhibition ever requested or received grants?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to grant a subsidy to the Quebec Provincial Exhibition similar to
grants to other provinces?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.
Year	Where held	Grant1903-	Toronto, Ontario	$49,776.661904-	Winnipeg, Manitoba	
50,000.001905-	New Westminister, B.C	
50,000.001906-	Halifax, Nova Scotia	
50,000.001907-	Sherbrooke, Quebec	
50,000.001908-	Calgary, Alberta	
50,000.001909-	No Grant.1910-	St. John, New Brunswick.. 50,000.001911-	Regina, Saskatchewan	
50,000.001912-	Ottawa, Ontario	
50,000.001913-	-Brandon, Manitoba	
50,000.001914-	Victoria, British Columbia.. 24,166.66
3. In September, 1922, the secretary bf the Quebec Provincial Exhibition requested that the grant for Dominion exhibitions be revived and that it be given to the Quebec Provincial Exhibition. This was not done.
Grants have been given to the Quebec Provincial Exhibition under, the department's present policy in connection with exhibition grants.
4.	It is not the intention of the Department of Agriculture to revive the special grant for Dominion exhibitions.


RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS
Mr. WHITE:: What is the number of railway mail clerks in Canada who have been (1) killed while on duty during each of the following years, 1918-19-20-21-22-23;	(2) injured in each of the above years and (a) able to resume duty as railway mail clerks, (b) unable to resume duty as railway mail clerks? _


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: (1)	1918, nil; 1919, 2; 1920, nil; 1921, nil; 1922, nil; 1923, nil.
(2)	(a) 1918, 18; 1919, 15; 1920, 11; 1921,
9; 1922, 20; 1923, 15.	(b) 1918, nil; 1919,
nil; 1920, nil; 1921, nil; 1922, nil; 1923, 1.


W. J. MOFFATT
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has W. J. Moffatt been in the employ of the Public Works District Engineer's office at Winnipeg?
2.	If so, when was he employed and for what reason ?
3.	Is Mr. Moffatt a returned soldier, and if so, was he wounded in action?
4.	Has he been dismissed, and if so, when and for what reason?


Hon. Mr. KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	He was employed temporarily from October 1st, 1923, to May 1st, 1924, inclusively, on account of pressure of work.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) No information.
4.	His services were dispensed with on May 1st, 1924, as the regular staff is now sufficient to cope with the work of the Winnipeg District office.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing particulars of all moieties paid through the office of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Vancouver and Victoria, in connection with the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, setting forth to whom paid and date of payment.


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) :: This resolution and the two following ones, were on the order paper the other day, together with a number of other resolutions. My hon. friend was absent and the other resolutions were carried by the House. I have to object to the passing of this resolu-

Unopposed Motions

tion as well as to the two others which follow. It is not in the public interest to give the names for which my hon. friend is asking. As I said the other day, the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act is a very difficult task, and it would make the work of the police more arduous to publish the information asked for. I repeat that I have to object to the passing of these resolutions.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Is the resolution dropped?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no desire to drop
these resolutions. If the government refuses to allow them to pass they must take the responsibility.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the resolution dropped or does it stand?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I
speak to the point of order? The point I raise is this:	A motion of this kind is nondebatable but if the government object to it they must take the responsibility of rejecting the motion. I am not asking the privilege of debating the motion, I am merely presenting it for the consideration of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Hewitt Bostock: Lost on division.


OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-REPORT OF COMMANDANT OF R.C.M.P.
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of the report of the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated about Jainuary 4tli, 1922, to the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice, alleging that certain individuals, including customs officers, were implicated in the smuggling of drugs, together with copy of all correspondence in connection therewith.


Ernest Lapointe: I have to offer the same objection to this resolution. The information contained in this report by an officer of the mounted police to the Minister of Justice is of a very confidential nature, and it would be against the public interest to make it public.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Lost on division.


OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of ail reports received from the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, regarding the violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, during the years 1920 to 1924, inclusive.


Ernest Lapointe: My reason for
objecting to this resolution is that in many cases such reports contain the names of persons who are only suspects and, perhaps it is found out afterwards that they may not be guilty. It would not be fair to make such reports public. On the other hand, when a person is subsequently found guilty of infraction of the act, the making public of the information which led to the apprenhension of the guilty person would render the subsequent work of the police officers more difficult. It is against the public interest to disclose such reports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not ask for that class of information. That could easily be deleted from the report. It is the general report which is asked for in this particular motion.


Ernest Lapointe: It is "a copy of all reports received from the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, regarding the violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act."


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister could delete from the report what he regards as against the public interest to disclose.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps my hon. friend
will allow his resolution to stand and we may find a solution possible.


Hewitt Bostock: The resolution stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has yet received the annual report for 1923 of the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
Mr* GRAHAM:	The report of the
merchant marine is not yet to hand. An advance copy of the railway report is at hand.
I hope in a few days to lay on the Table a copy for each member of the House.

The Budget-Mr. Hoey


REMUNERATION TO INFORMANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Lewis Herbert Martell: In reference to resolution No. 25 which stands in my name, can the.Prime Minister tell me when I will have an opportunity of discussing before the House the question of paying to informants a moiety of the fines imposed in the cases referred to in the resolution.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think the
resolution has been called a number of times when the hon. member was not here.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 13, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: Before
undertaking a discussion of the proposals submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his annual budget, and the subject matter relevant thereto, there are one or two matters, perhaps of minor importance, with which I would like to deal. The first, Mr. Speaker, is a letter by Mr. John Stuart Mill quoted in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) with the object of showing that that eminent authority, at a certain stage in his career at least, was in favour of a protective policy provided the conditions were not normal and the circumstances somewhat unusual. I have in my hand The Letters of John Stuart Mill, edited by Hugh Elliot. In the second volume at page 27 appears a letter written by John Stuart Mill to a friend in Australia, in which he seeks to explain just what he had in mind in his former communication and places his own interpretation thereon. The letter is brief, and I should like to quote it in full:
I have just received your letter dated 25th February. It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia. But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring, but not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing in a new colony more than
132i
elsewhere a general protective policy or a system of duties on imported commodities, such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What* I had in view was this: If there is some particular branch of industry not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations possessed of the necessary capital are ready and desirous to naturalize; and if these persons can satisfy the legislature that after their workpeople are fully trained, and the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted they shall probably be able to produce the article as cheap or cheaper than the price at which it can be imported, but that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the government or of a protecting duty; then it maj' sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale* and at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of protectionist' doctrine in behalf of which its aid has been invoked.
There is just another quotation which is very brief. This letter was written to the New York Liberal Club. In response to a hint from the secretary, Mr. Mill responded by a letter on protection as follows:
I hold every form of what is called protection to be an employment of the powers of government to tax the many with the intention of promoting the pecuniary gains of a few. I see the intention, because even that desired object is very often not attained, and never to the extent that is expected, but whatever gain there is is made by the few and them alone, for the labouring people employed in the protective branches of industry are not benefited. Wages do not range higher in the protected than in other employments; they depend on the general rate of the remuneration of labour in the country, and if the demand for particular kinds of labour is artificially increased the consequence is merely that labour is attracted from other occupations, so that employment is given in the protected trades to a greater number but not at higher remuneration. The gain by protection, when there is gain is for the employers alone. Such legislation was worthy of Great Britain under her uniformed constitution when the powers of legislation were in the hands of a limited class of great landowners and wealthy manufacturers. But in a democratic nation like the United States it is a signal instance of dupery, and I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the American many than to believe that a handful of manufacturers will be able to retain by fallacy and sophistry that power of levying a toll on every other, person's earnings, which the powerful aristocracy of England, with all their political ascendancy and social prestige, have not been able to keep possession of.
The next quotation was one referred to a few days ago. It was ascribed to the venerable American statesman, Abraham Lincoln, which ascription I contend has absolutely no basis in historic fact. This quotation played a very important part in the campaign of 1921. There was scarcely a Conservative committee room, Mr. Speaker, in the city of Winnipeg in which this quotation was not displayed in large and conspicuous letters. I challenged its authenticity then, but I little thought that I would
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

ever be called upon to challenge such a pseudo-quotation on the floor of the Canadian parliament. I have in my hand the Journal of Economics published by Harvard University, volume 28, 1913. On page 18 in that volume there is an article by Professor Taussig entitled; "Abraham Lincoln on the tariff 

A Myth." Those who have followed the campaign literature on the tariff during recent years will have become familiar with a phrase attributed to Abraham Lincoln. The following version is taken from Curtiss's Industrial Development of Nations, 1912, a pretentious three-volume publication, in which are collected indiscriminately all sorts of protectionist arguments. Under a portrait of Lincoln this is printed:
I do not know much about the tariff, but I know this much, when we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get' the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money.
No reference is given by Curtiss to Lincoln's writings : nor is such a reference given in any place where I have found the phrase quoted. A careful examination of the various editions of Lincoln's published works brings to light nothing that remotely resembles it. There is nothing in either of-the two editions of his writings put together by Nicolay and Hay, nor is there anything in the so-called Federal edition. Nicolay and Hay's Life yields nothing of the sort, nor does any of the biographies. So with Lincoln's Speeches in Congress and his Messages to Congress.
Now, what is the history of the phrase? The very first mention which we have found is 1894, in the American Economist, a weekly protectionist sheet published in New York. In that periodical for June 29, 1894, the quotation is given as having been copiel from the Independent of Howard, Illinois, of June 9, 1894:
Then Professor Taussig concludes his article with this statement:
It seems certain that the phrase is apocryphal. There is no evidence that Lincoln ever used it. Further search may show just how it originated. Possibly the claptrap about the goods and the money, was invented before it was foisted on Lincoln; possibly it was ascribed to him at an earlier date than the first here noted (1894). By dint of repetition it has come to be associated with Lincoln almost as much as the cherry tree is associated with Washington. So crude is the reasoning (if such it can be called), so vulgarly fallacious is the antithesis, that we must hope that it will cease to be invested with [DOT] the sanction of a venerated name.
Then there is an interesting foot note:
Since this note was prepared, my attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Horace White's in the New York Evening Post of April 10, 1914. Mr. White points out that nothing like the oft-cited passage is to be found in Lincoln's writings, and pungently concludes: 'My reason for 'thinking that Lincoln never said this is that he was not a fool.'
Following Professor F. W. Taussig's article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a writer in the Boston Transcript, Mr. Calvin W. Lewis, followed up the clues. He found that although there was no Howard Independ-
	.
ent, there was a Harvard Independent published at Harvard, 111., and in the issue of that paper for June 9, 1894, he found the passage that had been quoted by the American Economist.
The next question was:	Where did the
Harvard Independent get it from? In the works of Colonel Ingersoll, there is an oration on Lincoln which bears the date 1894. The orator in that speech says:
It is better for Americans to purchase from Americans even if the things purchased cost more. If we purchase a ton of steel rails from England for $20, then we have the rails and England has the money, but if we buy a ton of steel rails from an American at $25, the American has the rails, and the money both.
This, it will be noticed, differs from the Lincoln saying, in that the English price is given at S20, and the American at $25. Ingersoll does not quote this statement. It is his own argument. There is now no doubt whatever that the Harvard Independent mixed up Ingersoll and Lincoln. There is not a shadow of excuse for those who are now misusing a great and venerable name for mere selfish ends. It has been abundantly proved that Lincoln never used the words attributed to him by protectionists, both in the United States and Canada, and it is worthy of note that the Republican party has now absolutely ceased to use or recognize this pseudo-quotation.
These arguments, coming as they do from time to time and irritating one beyond measure, indicate the straits to which hon. gentlemen are driven in an attempt to defend a policy that is as archaic as the old ox cart The older the ox cart, the louder the squeak. I have been interested, indeed, I might say astounded, at times by the amount of time_ taken up by hon. members in an attempt to show that the tariff is one of the chief factors, if not the chief factor that is likely to make for industrial stability and, consequently, for industrial progress. In these expostulations they choose invariably as their text a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech of last year.
I have no desire to quote the statement; it has been quoted again and again and again, and some hon. members seem to derive a great deal of comfort from even the repetition of it. First of all, let me say that when the Minister of Finance made that statement, in my humble judgment, he meant exactly what he said. That is to say, he meant that the tariff schedules as then revised were, in his judgment, moderate; that in the interests of Canadian industry they should be allowed to remain, with one or two minor changes, just

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
as they then were. I -sat opposite or almost opposite to the Minister of Finance when that statement fell from his lips, and I thought of another statement to which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) referred, the statement made by Mr. Bonar Law when he took over the reins of office in Great Britain and promised the people a period of tranquility. He failed to bring about that condition, though he gave his life in a heroic attempt. I thought of the last presidential election in the United States when the great issue was won between idealism and normalcy; the forces that stood for the re-establishment of normal conditions proved victorious, and a great leader gave his life in an attempt to bring about normal conditions, but he failed. The truth of the matter is that mere pronouncements, even though they fall from the lips of eminent men, are meaningless if such pronouncements cannot be reconciled or brought into harmony with fundamental economic laws. But the statement at its best was the statement of a Minister of Finance attached to a government in a minority. To be carried out, that statement would involve, on the part of the government of which he was a member, the violation of the sacred pledges upon which they were elected. I should like to ask in all sincerity:	Do the manufacturers
of this country or hon. members to my right, want that pledge fulfilled by the violation of sacred pledges, by the refusal on the part of the government to carry out a programme upon which they were elected? So it seems to me that the supreme and paramount question is:	Is the government going to be responsible to the will of the people in this country, a majority will, or obedient to a minority in this House? Let us ask for a moment: Is industrial stability desirable? I do not think there can be any division of opinion on that subject; industrial stability is desirable. That being so, what, are the factors that contribute thereto, and what part does the tariff play therein? Well, it seems to me that we can determine with a fair degree of accuracy just what these contributory factors are in the matter of industrial stability. First of all, industries must have immediate access to a normal and uniform supply of raw material, and they must have up to date machinery, which in my judgment should enter the country at this stage free of duty. They should have also a normal supply of labour, the cost of which will always depend on the purchasing power of the employee's dollar. They should have, further, executive skill, coupled with the most efficient management. And then
there is a factor most important of all: Before you can have industrial stability in this country you must have a measure of stabilization so far as the purchasing power of the people is concerned. And that factor is one almost wholly beyond our control. Let me take this illustration, which I draw from western Canada, inasmuch as I am more familiar with conditions there. A certain acreage is sown to wheat in the province of Manitoba in a given year. Harvest time is approaching, and the crop experts estimate that the harvest will yield 35 bushels No. 1 Northern to the acre. Just about eight days before the time of reaping, evidences of rust appear, bringing dismay with them. Climatic conditions rapidly promote the development of this defect, and that crop, valued at approximately one hundred million dollars, is cut down to forty million dollars; the estimate of 35 bushels to the acre, No 1, dwindles to 12 bushels of feed wheat, which does not come within the commercial classifications at all. Now, I -want you to think for a moment of the effect of such a failure-and such failures are periodical. I want you to think of its effect first of all, on the primary producer fron the standpoint of his stability. His municipa. taxes remain the same; his overhead charges remain approximately the same; his labour costs remain the same. I want you to think, in the second place, of the effect upon certain grain companies, with whom we do not sympathize very frequently in this House. A company has, say, three or four hundred country elevators designed and built to handle a maximum crop and in which they have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. It has also terminal elevators in which millions of dollars are tied up. And these elevators, I say, are designed to handle, and handle efficiently and with the greatest despatch, a maximum crop. Yet they are forced to be content with a minimum production. Then I want you to think of the effect on our transportation companies, its reflection in higher or lower freight rates. And last of all, but not least, I want you to think of the effect of such failures on our eastern manufacturers in that the purchasing power of the agriculturist is, at least temporarily, demoralized. But, say my hon. friends, the fact that we cannot stabilize all industry in this country is no reason why we should not attempt to stabilize such industries as are capable of stabilization. And that sounds plausible. But my contention is this, that any attempt to stabilize such industries in an absolute sense will not mean stabilization but will mean utter stagnation. Is thpro
The Budget-Mr. Hoey

any manufacturer with any grey matter in his skull who can be discovered anywhere in Canada, and who is not talking mere political piffle, who will sit down beside me and contend that the tariff is the chief factor today? Will such a man contend that the tariff, in this stage of our development, and in view of the fact that we have no power over the tariff schedules of other countries- tariff schedules that may at any time react disastrously against them!-is there, I ask, any manufacturer who will sit down here and contend that the tariff is the chief factor that is likely to contribute to his progress or militate against his success?- I do not think that, apart from politics, such a manufacturer can be discovered. But I go further. Is there any agriculturist to-day who is honest and who is not playing politics who, at this stage in the development of his industry, and having surveyed all the conditions, will sit down and argue that the tariff is, in his case also, the chief factor that is likely to contribute to his success or otherwise? That it is a factor we all agree; that it enters into the conditions no one will dispute; it is the one factor perhaps for which there is the least justification. But it is not the only factor. Why, then, is the tariff emphasized and re-emphasized? Why does it occupy such a position in these discussions from time to time? Well, politicians always have had and always will have a rallying cry, something around which to wage battles, sham and real. Personally I emphasize the tariff because I believe that Canadian civilization is peculiarly and distinctly British; and because it is peculiarly and distinctly British the Canadian people will never remain reticent, will never labour without protest, so long as there is in this country a system of taxation that extends benefits to the few at the expense of the many. I say, being peculiarly and distinctly British, we concede the right to any government to impose taxes from time to time; but we contend also, while making that concession, that it is the prerogative and the duty of the government to prevent the governed from taxing one another.


Mr. LADNER:: Would the hon. memoer therefore entirely eliminate the tariff?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am coming to that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would he do it immediately?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Nothing irritates me so much as the impression I get, perhaps from inference, that the Canadian people have not
FMr. Hoey.]
the right at any time to sweep away tariff privileges. Since when did 4 p.m. Britishers claim property rights in privileges? And so, it seems to me that the issue that is becoming more clearly defined in this country is not an issue between protection on the one hand and free trade on the other; the very exigencies of the moment, the financial demands of our treasury, are forcing us to adopt a revenue rather than a protective tariff. The question may be asked, what is the difference? The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) usually interrogates at this stage in an honest attempt to get a clearly outlined definition of just what a revenue tariff is. Let me say that adequate protection, as I see it, means all the protection that manufacturers in your constituency may demand from time to time. A revenue tariff is all that should be extended to them in the interests of national justice and national progress. Let me put upon the pages of Hansard this definition of revenue tariff:
Protective tariffs differ from revenue tariffs in their object, which is not so much that of obtaining revenue as that of protecting home producers from tlie competition .of imported commodities. The two objects, revenue and protection, are not merely distinct, but antagonistic. The same duty may raise some revenue and give some protection, but, past a certain point at least, in proportion as one object is secured the other is sacrificed, since revenue depends on the bringing in of commodities:	protection on
keeping them out. So the same tariff may embrace both protective and revenue duties, but while the protective duties lessen its power of collecting revenue, the revenue duties by adding to the cost of home production lessen its power of encouraging home producers.. The duties of a purely revenue tariff should fall only on commodities not produced in the country; or, if levied on commodities partly produced at home should be balanced by equivalent internal taxes to prevent incidental protection. In a purely protective tariff, on the other hand, commodities not produced in the country should be free and duties should be levied on commodities that are or may be produced in the country.
Do. hon. gentlemen to my right advocate the abolition of all duties on commodities that are not manufactured in this country?
And, just in proportion as it accomplishes its object, the less revenue will it yield.
That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is the issue that we are attempting to define at this day in this Chamber and throughout the country.
I said a moment or two ago that industrial stability had a vital and direct relationship to the prosperity of the western agriculturist. I want to read from a document prepared by a man whom you cannot describe as a Progressive no matter how you attempt to stretch your imagination. He says:

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
Never overlook what the fact is, that the source of all wealth is original Mother Earth. That is why the railroad owner, the railroad worker, the manufacturers and their employees, banks and their staffs can only be assured of conserving their own property and their own positions when the grain grower and the cattle breeder are assured of a fair living wage for their labour. In a word, the future success of our country depends upon the prosperity of our farm life. The grain grower is the foundation for a broad and high pyramid of population; he is the ultimate consumer of what the most of the rest of our people produce.
And listen to this:
If we fill our country with happy and contented grain growers and cattle breeders, who are assured of a fair living wage, every man in a factory, every man in a shop, every man in a railway, every man in an office will be in a vastly better and safer position.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the author?


Robert Alexander Hoey: That was a statement of hon. Robert Rogers. It is so strikingly similar to a certain passage in the budget speech of the Finance Minister that I felt I would like to quote it. Mr. Rogers is the celebrated western politician who became reconciled with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) at Saskatoon last fall and who sang with him:
Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love.
And they sang it, so I am informed, to the tune of "No Truck or Trade with the Yankees.'"
Hon. members may ask, and the question is a reasonable one: If the tariff is not the chief factoy in making for industrial stability why is it that a revision of the tariff schedules is immediately reflected in industry? That is to say, a revision downward, even though it might be small-even	microscopic-is
always followed by disastrous consequences. Take for example the woollen industry. What are the actual facts? First, there is a claim that our woollen manufacturers to-day cannot meet foreign competition because of the wages they have to pay-overlooking the fact that high wages are not always expensive wages. I want to read an extract from a pamphlet published by the Fair Tariff League, of which Mr. H. E. Miles is chairman. It says:
The effectiveness of American highly-paid labour, when earnestly applied, well directed and supported, on the farm or in the factory, is illustrated in the following statement on rice by Mr. Gray Silver, of the American Farm Bureau Federation, at its annual convention at Chicago, December 13, 1922:
" I asked a great manufacturer what his pay-roll meant, using his mechanical facilities in comparison with unaided man-power. I wanted to estimate the productivity of the American farmer and his machinery in comparison with the hoe in Europe and the coolie in Asia, with whom the American farmer competes in the export markets of the world. After nearly a
year's time, the manufacturer replied: 'Our 10,200 men with their applied mechanics and power machinery do the work of almost 500,000 men working without machinery. Our wage-earners are 200 times cheaper than unaided man-power.'
" The competitive value of applied mechanics on the American farm was shown last year. Our production of rice has increased until last year we had a large exportable surplus. Our friend, Secretary Hoover, said to the representatives of his department in different parts of the world, ' Find buyers for this surplus rice; we have 180,000 tons.'
" And where do you suppose the market was found * -in riceland, in Japan and China-at our domestic price plus the cost of taking it there, proving that the 10-cent w'orker with the breech-clout is more expensive than our labour-capitalist at $3 per day."
I have in my hand a reprint from the Central Canadian, Carleton Place, Ontario, of the issue of March 13th, 1924, of which the heading reads:
Hawthorn Mills is in Liquidation; Plant will Close. Woollen Industry . Hard Hit. Over 200 Employees Affected.
The truth about this reprint is this: It was broadcasted from ocean to ocean in an attempt to create unrest and to shatter the morale of the Canadian worker. There is scarcely a day that we do not receive in one or two envelopes posters such as this: "Don't Blot out These Basic Industries." I have been wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we could not pass a law preventing organizations or industries that are supposed to be non-political from taking part in what is purely and ostensibly political propaganda. Now, what about the Hawthorn mills? The information I have with regard to the Hawthorn mills is the following:
Woollen manufacturers, Carleton Place, Ontario, Lanark county.
This is the mill referred to by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Preston) when he read that speech so vigorously yesterday.
Richard Thomson Sr., President.
Richard Thomson Jr., Vice-President and Manager.
Erma D. Hunsberger, Secretary-Treasurer.
The above also constitutes the Directorate
March 11, 1924, this company assigned to Horace Pratt, Official Receiver, Ottawa, Ont. Robert Barr, of Barr and McBride, of Hamilton, Ont., appointed Custodian. Meeting of Creditors to be held in Toronto, Ont., at a future date to be mentioned.
A statement of the Company's affairs shows approximately as follows:
Assets
Merchandise	 $165,560
Trade fixtures	 4,500
Book	Debts	(good)	
75,200Book	Debts	(doubtful).. ..	2,200Book	Debts	(bad)	
1,700Cash in bank and on hand.	860Total Quick Assets	
$250,000Machinery equipment and plant.. ..	324,000Surplus from securities in hands of creditors	
216,000
Total Assets,

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

Liabilities
Unsecured	 $ 93,000
Secured	 237,000
Preferred	 31,000

 361,000
Nominal Surplus	 $429,010
Hawthorn Mills Limited, Carleton Place, Ontario
Goodwill 1918 was	$ 51,900
Goodwill 1922 was	 122,000
The capital stock up to 1919 was $129,500, so that * the difference between $129,500 and $51,900, making $67,600, was the actual cash in the business.
The capital stock was increased in 1919 by $100,000, and the goodwill was increased to $122,000. Undivided profits in 1918 were indicated by this
company to be	$348,165 71
and a surplus of	 82,515 78
making a gross surplus of	$430,681 49
Now I come to a very interesting part of the statement. During the election campaign of 1921, apart from the Lincoln quotation to which I have already referred, the great issue in western Canada was the salary paid the president of the United Grain Growers, Limited, a salary of S15,000 a year, although the annual turnover of the company at that time, if I remember rightly, was considerably over 1100,000,000. That gentleman was denounced as an exploiter, a man who was unworthy of the confidence of the western electors. Let
us see what this	little two by four company		
in Carleton county paid		in the	way of
salaries:			
1918	Salary	[DOT] Dividend	TotalR. Thompson Sr. .. .	. $11,000 00	$11,000 00C. W. Bates (partner) 10,000 00	10,000 00Agnes Bates	
,	$700 00	700 00Agnes Bates is	evidently	a member of the	family.	1919	R. Thomson Sr	.. $11,000 00	4,208 00	$15,208 00C. W. Bates	.. 8 335 00	3,508 00	11,843 00Agnes Bates	700 00	700 001920	Salaries	Dividend	TotalR. Thomson Sr. .. .	. $15,000 00	$13,000 00	$28,000 00R. Thomson Jr. .. .	. 4,998 00	4,998 00Little & Little Toron-	to (Commission). .	. 10,793 55	10,793 55Luke F. Moore (").	. 10,762 27	10,762 27
They must have been selling woollens because they were paying commissions.
R.	Thomson,	Sr	$12,000	00	$11,099 00	$23,099	00R.	Thomson,	Jr	4,998	00	4,998	00R,	Thomson,	Sr	$12,000	00	Dividends	$12,000	00R.	Thomson,	Jr	5,365	00	passed in 1922 5,365	00
The company created a depreciation reserve of $49,000.00-in cash, up to 1922, in addition to having increased the plant very considerably. If the depreciation reserve is deducted, as well as the goodwill, a fair valuation of the assets would show that the company was very far from being insolvent.

In 1920, and 1921, these mills started making specialties and velours. The demand fell off, and this experiment proved a very costly mistake. It was not the tariff, but embarking upon a class of manufacture which did not prove profitable.
Let us take the case of Canadian Woollens.
The Auburn Woollen Company Limited' of Peterboro, had a capital stock of $176,200, and became merged into the Canadian Woollens Limited, a new corporation, which embraced the Auburn Woollen Company, Limited, the Bonner-Worth Company, Limited, and the Standard Knitting Company, Limited, in June 1919. The appraisal of assets indicated the Bonner-Worth Company had $151,440.79; the Auburn Woollen Mills, $271,835.33; and' the Standard Knitting Company, $341,100.06. This was the war time valuation, made as of July 1, 1919.
Extension took place to both plants during the war, and both were engaged in war production. Unquestionably, the goodwill amounted to very little, because the business that the companies obtained was in competition with other Canadian concerns, and the lowest priced goods obtained the preference.
The Canadian Woollens Limited was incorporated with $1,750,000 of preferred stock, $1,750,000 of common stock, or a total of $3,500,000; and the assets of the Canadian Woollens Limited, processes, patent rights and goodwill were valued at $1,440,937.81. The sum of $423,276.12 was apparently the patents and processes, and $1,000,000 was for the goodwill. At this stage I might read the following letter from the Patent and Copyright Office which speaks for itself:
Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 15th instant I may inform you that the Canadian 'Woollens, Limited do not appear either as patentees or assignees on any patent granted here.
And yet we have an amount here for patents. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) described me the other day as "an unsophisticated rainbow chaser." He said: "You are chasing rainbows, but I am afraid you will never reach them." Well, I was reminded of the purpose that some one had in mind when the rainbow first appeared; it was evidently to save the world from destruction by water. If I am chasing rainbows at all I am chasing those rainbows that indicate that some day the people of Canada, including the industrial interests of the country, will be saved from the ravages and the disasters that result from watered stock. Canadian Woollens paid:

The Budget-Mr. Hoey
June 30,	1920.... $122,500	dividendsJune 30,	1921.... 166,250	dividendsJune 30,	1922.... 122,500	dividendsIt also	in 1922 paid into the sinking fund for
the redemption of preferred stock, $35,000. The Canadian Woollens Limited showed a loss in 1921 of $351,526.57, and yet paid dividends that same year of $166,250. This apparent loss was caused in 1921, by bookkeeping adjustments, allowing excessive amounts of depreciation, decline in value of wool, and so forth. The Auburn Woollen Company paid, before the merger, dividends for the first six months of 1919, 16 per cent or at that rate of 32 per cent per annum.
Now, I come to the salaries paid by the Canadian Woollens Limited, these people who are appealing for sympathy and asking us not to blot out these peculiarly impoverished industries. I can well understand why they should not want to blot out industries which pay such salaries. Take for example these figures:
Canadian Woollens Limited
1919- E. Worth. Manager	 J. W. Worth, Superintendent.. N. Rosin		Salary 	 $14,583 33 	 6,206 05 	 17,691 45
1920-	
E. Worth	 J. W. Worth				 30,490 96 	 10,618 40
1921-	
E. Worth		 J. W. Worth	 J. Charlesworth	 P. G. Blake	 R. S. Keyes			 4,672 66 	 4,999 92 	 5,116 60 . ,. . .. 5,200 00
1922-	
E. W'orth	 J. W. Worth	 P. G. Blake	 W. Tinker			 15,000 00 	 5,000 00 	 5,000 00 	 4,000 00
At the end of 1923 the	company had:
Cash in hand	 Accounts receivable	 Bills receivable			 $ 928.06 	 277,648.50 	 21,598.05
And so on making total assets $4,824,583-50. Among the liabilities are:
Reserve for redemption of preferred stock. $19,733.28 Reserve for bad debts	 18,397.92
Total	$38,131.20
Mr. Speaker, after listening to a few of the speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen to my right I was particularly anxious to know just what the condition in certain industrial centres was, and so a few days ago I wrote to a prominent business man in the town of Renfrew to attempt to discover just how the industries of Renfrew were making progress. In reply to that letter the gentleman in question says:
Dear Mr. Hoey,-I am very pleased to have your favour of the 1st, inst., and it will afford me much pleasure in supplying as far as possible, the information desired.
In order to have my information authoritative and up-to-date, I called up the manager -of one of the banks who is conversant with the situation and well qualified to speak on the subject. He informed me that the woollen mills in Renfrew were all busy at the present time, just as busy as they were two or three years ago. He said the Renfrew Textile Company and the Renfrew Woollen Mills Company were both working night and day to capacity, and the Logan Woollen Mills full day time. He informed me also that the Renfrew Machinery Company which manufactures cream separators, showed an increase oi 15 per cent in their output in 1923 over that of 1922, and their increase for 1924 so far was fully 15 pei cent over that of 1923. which increase they expect to be fully maintained during the year. This latter industry, by the way, operates, as you no doubt know, under free trade conditions so far as its own product goes, and is in competition with the world, sells its output to a very large extent in the United States, and ships to South America, Africa, Australia, Europe and the British Isles.
The manager of the Renfrew Textile Company told me over the 'phone this morning that the mill was working to capacity night and day, and had orders on hand to keep them going till the end of September, and their usual repeats would undoubtedly keep them going till the end of the year.
This mill confines itself to the manufacture of mackinaw cloths, and they have no fear of foreign competition in this line, under the new tariff schedule, because the best of	wool	stock must be	used	in themanufacture of this	line	of goods, and	the	foreignmanufacturers, who use a very large percentage of cheap shoddy, are outclassed altogether in competition with the Canadian	manufacturers,	who	use abetter class of material for this business. The textile mill have increased their output this year by 45.000 yards, or about 8 per cent over last year. Their output at the present	*i*ne	is 1,700 yards	per	day of
finished goods.
The Renfrew Woollen Mills Co., are working on a finer grade of cloths, such as are made in. and imported from, to a large extent, France, Belgium and England. But they too, are holding their own in competition with the foreign manufacturers, because, according to my information, they are at the present time working night and day to capacity on goods for the Canadian market.
You will no doubt hear a great deal during the budget debate about the failure of the Woollen mill at Carleton Place. Well, my own opinion is that a tariff as high as the Rocky mountains all around Canada would not have saved this concern from collapse. There were many reasons for this unfortunate condition, and believe me the tariff had absolutely nothing to do with the case. The overhead expenses were, I am told on what I believe to be good authority, altogether out of proportion to the amount of business done. Too many relatives were attached to the staff at high salaries. Add to this their attempt to sell direct to the retailer, which they found very expensive, and not satisfied with selling to the retailer, they even went to the consumer. Add to these, machinery that should to a very large extent be on the scrap heap, and you have a condition under which no mill could operate successfully no matter where situated or under the very highest tariff protection.
Renfrew industries are all working to capacity at the present time, and we have quite a wide range of such. In addition, there is not a vacant house in Renfrew for rent to-day.
The Budget-Mr. Hoey


Mr. MARLER:: What the hon. member is reading from sounds like a speech of the hon. member for Brome.


Mr. LOGAN:: It is not a "whisper of death" anyway. '


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have before me the imports of raw wool into the Dominion and the figures are very interesting.


Mr. BOYS:: Will the hon. gentleman inform the House who wrote the letter from which he has just quoted?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have no particular desire to inform the House just who the business man was. I will, however, go so far as to say that he is a very prominent business man in the town of Renfrew, and if I mistake not at one time was a member of this House.


William Alves Boys: Brother Pedlow.


Arthur Meighen: Left at home for a good protectionist and a minister in the government.


Robert Alexander Hoey: He does not pass any comments in Iris letter on those somewhat vexed questions.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He has his opinion on
certain subjects has he not?


Robert Alexander Hoey: All Britishers have. Now, the raw wool imported into Canada in 1921 amounted to 9,277,237 pounds; in 1922, 12,586,695 pounds; in 1923, 18,255,595 pounds. Not only is this the case so far as importations are concerned, but our exports have actually increased during the last two or three years.
Now, I pass on to consider the tariff as a factor in driving people from Canada into the United States. A few weeks ago I wrote to Washington and obtained from the Inspector . General of Immigration the actual figures as to what the exodus really was. I desire to read these figures to the House because there seems to be so much misunderstanding on this point. The figures are as follows:
Immigrants Entering United States from Canada Years, 1911-1923
Year	Number
1911	 56 830
1912		   55.990
1913		 73.802
1914		 86,139
1915		 82,215
1916		 101.551
1917		 105.399
1918	 32 452
1919		 57,782
1920		 90,025
1921		 72,317
1922		  46.810
1923		 117,011

I want to give also the number of United States citizens who have been entering Canada. They are as follows:
Immigrants Entering Canada from United States
1922		 29,412
1923		 22,039
Immigrants Entering England from Canada
1921	 21,047
I want to point out something else that is very significant. In the year 1921 under the government of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) we. lost to the United States 72,317.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the right hon.
gentleman to your right.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Yes. In the same year we
lost to Great Britain 21,047. If this government is driving the people to the United States the government that preceded it drove the people not only to the United States but back to Europe as well. What are the actual facts in connection with this list of figures? I cannot understand men, even though they be hon. members who, in an attempt to attack the government, disparage the country. In the year 1922 there were 46,810, or the lowest exodus to the States in thirteen years, with the single .exception of 1918. Now I am waiting for hon. members to my right to applaud.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman
say that 1922 was the lowest in thirteen years?


Robert Alexander Hoey: The lowest but one in thirteen years.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
said the lowest. I did not think it was the lowest but one. It was certainly double that of 1921 as he read it. Where did the hon. gentleman get his figures?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I got them from Mr. Sibray..


Arthur Meighen: I have it from the Embassy at. Washington, and the figure given for last year was 181,000, the number trebling in the month of June.


Robert Alexander Hoey: ' I have the figures direct from the Department of Labour, from Mr. Sibray, who describes himself as the Commissioner General of Immigration to the United States.	In 1922 there were 46,810
residents of Canada who went into the United States, but in the same year there were 29,412 residents of the United States, or American citizens wrho came into Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Hoey


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the hon. gentleman
give the figures for 1923 from the same source?


Robert Alexander Hoey: In 1923 there were 117,011,
and you must deduct from that 22,039 who came into Canada from the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
want it any worse than that?


Robert Alexander Hoey: No. I want to explain just
why this exodus took place. Hon. gentlemen will notice that in the year 1922 emigration slumped. Why? In my judgment it was because a Liberal government was returned to power in this country and the people became more hopeful and stayed at home; then unfortunately the Liberal government showed evidence of following in the Tory footsteps and the people in disgust and dismay began to leave the country. Now that the government is showing signs at least of carrying out its 1919 platform I have no doubt at all that the influx of United States citizens into this country during the next ten years will be one of the outstanding features of our immigration policy.	,
Referring to the amendment, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) on 'having become a convert to tariff reform. He was not ever thus. In the Hansard of 1923, volume 1, page 41, the hon. member said:
I think perhaps I am rather glad in many ways that the tariff was left out of the Speech from the Throne. It is possible that we are getting down to a rather more serious consideration of the actual situation-the recognition that, after all, the tariff is not fundamental in our economic solutions.
Then in 1923, Hansard volume 3, page 2718, May 14, the member for Centre Winnipeg said:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) and also to concur in the general lines of the amendment which has been presented. I would, however, like to point out that in the opinion of the group which I represent, the mere bringing about of a larger measure of free trade does not really touch the root of the trouble to-day.
I can only attribute his conversion, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that for almost two sessions he 'has been sitting in close proximity to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and I believe in the contagion of character. Whether this amendment is defeated or not, I do not think the government should look upon its rejection as a repudiation of the principles contained therein with which we are almost all in agreement. Personally I would like to have more information on the amendment, which calls for an unimproved land tax.
Conscientiously I do not know what the hon. member has in mind. Does he intend by an unimproved land tax something similar to the tax levied by the municipalities to-day, or does he want an unearned increment tax; that is, when the sale of land takes place. That in my judgment is a very important distinction. Then there is the question of the revision of the income tax. In some of the provinces we have an inoome tax. Personally I pay a federal income tax and also a provincial income tax, and I should like to know just what the definite proposals are before committing myself to them, although I am iu favour of the amendment in principle. Reference is also made to the graduated inheritance tax. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the government should seriously consider again the advisability of what has been suggested by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) from time to time. That is the calling of a conference between the federal and provincial authorities and taking this as a basis for their discussion, a basis out of which they might evolve some theory really practical and something really helpful as regards taxation. It seems to me that at such a conference the whole question of taxation might be very profitably discussed, as well as the whole problem of economy. If you figure out to-day, you will find that the municipal, provincial and federal taxes amount to $100 per capita for every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada. If you place the annual revenue of the average family of five at $2,000-that may be too high or too low-that means that $500 or one-quarter is extracted in an attempt to meet our governmental obligations. It seems to me that no nation can recover quickly, if indeed it can recover at all, while its people are groaning and labouring under such a tremendous burden of taxation.
With regard to the budget itself, in my judgment it is more in harmony with Liberal principles, more in accord with the demands of the Canadian people at this time than any budget introduced sinjce the defeat of reciprocity in the year 1911. Because I believe that, actuated by a sense of fair play, believing also that, perhaps, after all the government did all that could be done, finding itself in somewhat difficult circumstances, I am prepared to support the main motion, looking forward to a time when the platform upon which the government itself was elected, will be carried out in detail and in full.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I can compliment the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hoey) on his rapid
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

advance in parliamentary life and standing, and as respects his speech to-day, at least on its style, its splendidly constructed sentences and, as well, the temperament which characterized its delivery. Needless to say, I could not agree with very much of his argument. In many cases I could not discern the argument; but none the less, I have not given up hope that, with a more extended experience in public affairs, and a more practical knowledge of Canadian conditions and business, he may yet become a valuable acquisition to public life.
I want to make some comment at once on that feature of the budget presentation this year which has to do with our finance, with our debt and with the effect of the year's business upon both. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) came to parliament and assured us that we were in the glorious position this year of having a surplus over all outlay, a surplus applicable to the national debt; that the Canadian people now are in debt some $30,000,000 less than they were a year ago. Some of us were prepared for this. We heard a sound go forth earlier in the year that we were going to have a balanced budget. We were not advised how this was to be accomplished, but it was to be done by some means or another. I was not able myself to divine what could be the scheme. I had followed the monthly presentations of expenditure and revenue, and I could not see that we were gaining in either direction. I remembered that in 1923 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) closed the year with an addition to the debt of $31,641,067.01. I have a little arithmetic in my composition, and I was able to reason that if this year there was even a balancing, it would mean that we must have improved our finances, the advantage of revenue over expenditure, by just that amount. Having looked into the actual returns and obtained them up to date, I want to lay before the House just what improvement we did make. All agree there should have been some improvement;	we all
know that as we recede from the war, war expenditure	naturally diminishes. Civil
re-establishment was reduced a year ago by about $3,000,000, and it was expected that it would show reduction this year by about the same amount. But an analysis shows that the aggregate improvement is so small relatively as to be almost negligible. The revenue for the year was better than the revenue of the year before by $1,782,642.34. Imagine an increase of only one apd three-quarter million dollars after an elevation of 
the sales tax, after the addition of all the other taxes that hon. gentlemen opposite imposed. We actually gathered in $1,782,642,34 more than the year before. These figures are from the returns of the Department of Finance issued the 30th April, inclusive of all revenue received prior to that date and applicable to the previous fiscal year, inclusive of all expenditure of which account had been received, applicable also to the previous fiscal year which ended the 31st March. In addition, the Acting Minister of Finance reported that he had made an adjustment with the British government and a transfer of some accounts which this year netted him $9,622,760.37. This is simply found money. This really was our morey five or seven years ago just as it is to-day. Seven years ago it could not be taken into consolidated revenue because most of it was not adjusted, the rest in trust account. This they found as it were by the roadside, but the year before they found $8,199,000 in exactly the same way. So the improvement in this regard was $1,423,000. This improvement added to the improvement in ordinary revenue aggregated $3,206,000.
Now coming to the other side: Taking total expenditures, they are of four classes: Ordinary expenditure, capital expenditure, special expenditure, and fourthly sucn as is required for our National Railways, including merchant marine. In capital expenditure the year's business showed $3,489,000 more spent than the year before; in ordinary expenditure an improvement of $1,046,000; in special expenditure, an improvement of $107,000; total improvement $1,154,000. This taken from the unfavourable showing on capital left a net increase in expenditure in those three classes of $2,335,000. Taking, therefore, all revenue of every kind, found money and all the rest, the improvement over the year before was $3,206,000, and all expenditures save railways make a showing worse than the year before by $2,335,000. So the net improvement is $870,000. This is the net of the year's business outside of railways; $870,000 better than the year before. The year before we had an increase of debt of $31,641,000, and this year the Acting Minister of Finance says that we have paid off $30,409,000 of our debt or an improvement for the year of $62,050,000. The only way to account for it therefore would be to find that our railways took less money to the extent of $61,179,000. Now, can the members of the government look me in the face and say that the railway position improved by $61,000,000? Do they suggest such a thing? How then do they tell the countrj

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
that we are $62,000,000 better off than we were the year before on the year's showing? The fact is they have misled and deceived the country, and the government knows it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take direct
issue with that statement of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will establish it. I come now to the money required for railways. The most we ever heard claimed, even in the press, as the improvement of this year over last, I mean 1923 over 1922, was in some issues $18,000,000 odd, in others, up to $20,000,000-a long way from $61,000,000. But I have had opportunity to examine the returns of the National Railways, and those I propose to give to the House to show just what the railway improvement was, to show how near il approached $61,000,000, which sum it must have reached if the presentation of this year is right and honest comparable with last year and previous years. There was no improvement even of $20,000,000 as the figures taken directly from the railways' own returns will show.
In getting at the real comparison the following three classes, making up among them the total operating results, appear in the returns: (1) Operating income ; (2) Non-operating income; (3) Deductions from income, The following is a comparative statement of the results in each case:
1.	Operating income-1922, loss of SI ,227,508.34; 1923, profit of $16,273,238.81; showing improvement for 1923, of $17,500,747.15.
2.	Non-operating income-including rentals
received for cars from other roads, rentals of joint terminals, premises, and so forth, 1922, $10,055,367.83; 1923, $7,885,081.48; showing decrease for 1923, of $2,170,286.35.	'
3.	Deductions from income-including rentals paid for cars, rebates for joint terminals, premises and other items, 1922, $7,387,481.13; 1923, $10,656,671.28; showing greater payments out for 1923, of $3,269,190.15.
These three results taken together, therefore, show operating improvement for 1923, to 'have been only, $12,061,270.68.
I have left out all reference to fixed charges. I am simply taking the operation, and the net improvement on operation is $12,061,270.68 for 1923, by the railway directorates own showing, by their official returns.
There is, however, still a fourth factor to be taken into account, viz.: the fixed charges for ' 1923 as against the fixed charges for 1922. The figures for these items are as follows:	Fixed charges, 1923, $65,199,323.95;
fixed charges, 1922, $59,400,476.11; showing fixed charges for 1923 greater by $5,798,847.84.
Deducting, therefore fixed charges'-which I admit a government does not have to advance all in cash, because it is mostly owing the government itself-from improvement in total operating revenues, we find a net improvement of only $6,262,422.84. I am ready to leave out fixed charges, ready to leave out the increase of $5,798,847.84 the year before, and the most they can possibly show is $12,061,270.68. How then does the minister come and say that on account of the railways, and only $870,000 on all other accounts, we are $62,000,000 better off on the past year's showing than we were the year before?
The matter can be presented in another way. For the fiscal years 1922-23, Mr. Fielding, as Finance Minister, advanced out of the national treasury to the National Railways and marine, $98,250,720. For the fiscal year 1923-24, there has been advanced out of the treasury for the same purpose only, $25,231.664. The difference is, $72,969,056. Mr. Fielding advanced moneys from the treasury for the purposes of covering deficits on operation, fixed charges, and new capital investments, including equipment. For 1923-24 the device was adopted of guaranteeing the railway bonds both for equipment and those other purposes to the extent of, in the case of equipment, $22,500,00, for other purposes, $50,000,000, or a total of, $72,500,000, practically the difference between the cash advances of the past year and that of the year before.
It will be seen at a glance that to compare this year with last, or indeed with any previous year, the whole $72,500,000 must be added to the capital debt of Canada.
The result is this. That the national debt of Canada for 1923, has been increased by the sum of, $72,500,000-the guarantees-less the suim of, $30,409,109.37-alleged surplus- The net result, therefore, is an increase for 1923-24 of, $42,090,890.63.
Now, how was this done? The railway is our corporation; it is another name, a chartered name for the Dominion of Canada. The minister endorses the notes of our corporation for $72,500,000; then he says that those $72,500,000 are bonds which we have endorsed inasmuch as we just put our name on the back instead of on the front and therefore we have not affected the debt of Canada. And the Prime Minister says:	We are not deceiving the
country when we tell them we have reduced the debt. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) arises and says: "Oh, you endorsed the notes of the railway too, and did not add the amount to the national debt."
The Budget-Mr, Meighen

Yes, there are bonds you can endorse and even moneys you can advance without any need of adding to the debt. For example, if you endorse bonds to pay off other bonds, that does not add to the debt of our company and need not be added to our debt, or if	in	a given period you endorse
bonds to no greater amount than you actually reduce the funded debt of our company by, then certainly you do not need to add to our debt. But the moment you endorse bonds and make this country liable for an amount greater than you reduce the funded debt of the company by, then it is no less than misrepresentation not to add the amount to the public debt of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend say that with respect to the bonds which his government endorsed, part of the money was not used to pay off deficits, to pay interest or sinking fund?
i


Arthur Meighen: I will give the answer immediately, and I hope the Prime Minister will follow me. The facts are here in a return which I have from the department, and they go back to the origin of the National Railways-because no argument applies before that time. The National Railways are ours; their debts, their obligations if we make ourselves responsible, are ours. We endorsed bonds to the extent of $100,000,000, $25,000,000, in each of the years 1920 and 1921 for each of the systems, the Canadian Northern, or the National as it was then called, and the Grand Trunk. Of all the bonds advanced to the Canadian Northern the whole amount was for refun ding, while of the advances to the Grand Trunk some 12+ million out of one and about 2+ millions out of the other-I have the exact figures-were used for general purposes. But we actually advanced in cash, which was represented in the debt, more than twice that sum, which was applied to the refunding of the debt of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. In a word, the aggregate of the amount we endorsed which does not appear in the national debt of Canada was less by about $15,000,000 than the amount that was actually applied for refunding. This is the record of the late government. Is this money, may I ask, the $50,000,000, to be used for refunding, this $50,000,000 which was endorsed in February? Will the hon. minister say so? He told the House in his budget speech it was for capital. Certainly the endorsement of last year, 22+ million for equipment, was not for refunding. The whole $50,000,000, on the minister's statement, and the whole 22+ million
[Mr. Meighen.l
as well, should in justice be added to the debt
of Canada to-day.
It was suggested by the Minister of Railways:	"Oh we should not add it to the
debt because it is going into capital." Some of it doubtless is; all of it is not. I do not know whether a large proportion is, but I do not care if every dollar of it is; it should on a fair presentation go into the national debt of Canada. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not necessarily objecting to the endorsement of the bonds. I think generally it is better to advance the cash, but this is not the point I am pressing. The point I am pressing is as to what ought to be the statement of the national debt of this country. Endorse the bonds if you will, but do not keep the people in the opinion that our debt is going down when the debt which we are obligated for on our own system is going up, and is ignored. Why is it that money advanced to be used for capital should be added to our debt, or that money obtained on our endorsement and used for capital should be added to our debt? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell why: Because it is not represented by anything which, according to the system in vogue in Canada, can be called an active asset and deductible from the gross debt to get the net debt. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1919-20 the Minister of Finance of that day took $282,000,000 of assets-mortgages we held from railways, others of a like character, assets represented by those mortgages, which, because we held the mortgages, had always before been taken off the gross debt-and he said: "These are not carrying any interest; these are virtually, for the moment at least, dead; it is not right, it is not straight to have them appear as deductible from the gross debt to get the net debt." And he wrote them down and put them into the debt of Canada, refusing any longer to deduct them from the gross debt.
I may remark just in passing: Hon. gentlemen often hear about the large increase in the debt in 1920; $282,000,000 of that was just as much our debt years and years before as it was then; but only in 1920 was it put into the debt in order that the people of Canada might know the facts. These mortgages we take now from our own Railways Company, whether we take them to secure our endorsement or take them to secure our advance- these are mortgages that the railways cannot pay interest upon and do not claim that they can. Therefore the late government always had the matter so financed that these were treated as non-active and therefore

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
not deductible from the gross debt but included in the net debt of Canada. This is why I say that in arriving at any fair statement of our position we are bound to treat all of these as non-active assets-until the day comes, as I hope it will, when the returns of the Railways will be such as to turn those non-active assets into active assets and pay us our interest, or part of it, upon those amounts. Then it will be just to deduct them from our gross debt and therefore not include them in our net debt. But until such a day comes, it is neither the practice of governments which have gone before nor should it be a practice to-day to treat them as real assets in the sense of active assets deductible from the gross debt of Canada.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)-and I was really surprised to hear him say so, though he put it in a pretty cautious form, said:	"I think there is a surplus. I do not claim that it means a deduction from the debt, but it is a surplus on the year's operations, because when money goes into capital out of which later on our earning power will be better, it should not be charged against the year's operations." But the surplus the minister was endeavouring to prove was a surplus over capital and everything else. And besides, in the handling of the books of the country, as the minister well knows and every one of us well knows, moneys put into capital are, by the millions every year, taken from ordinary expenditure and charged against the year's operations, and in this country as in others it is right that it should be so. How, after this, are we ever going to compare any year fairly and intelligently with any previous year? "Debt reduced" appears on the records-$30,400,000. Well, add $72,500,000 and you have the debt increased by $42,000,000 the year just passed. Does the minister say we should not add the 22i millions which went into equipment? If he wall look at the year before he will find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) advanced in cash out of the treasury for equipment and added it to the debt. If he will look at the year previous he will find that the minister advanced in cash again for equipment, and if he will look at the year previous to that again, our year, he will find that we advanced $14,000,000 odd for equipment-all certainly going into realizable assets, but going into a concern which could not pay its way, could not pay interest; therefore our obligation in respect of it should have been and was added to our net debt.
Hon. members one after another rise in their places, pat themselves and say: "Thank heaven we are past the day of deficits. Thirty
millions of a surplus, and we are going to reduce our taxation because of that surplus." Well, may I ask why the minister did not endorse the bonds of the company for the 25J millions also instead of advancing the money. Then we would have had a surplus of $55,-000,000-and imagine the glee of hon. members. No sooner had the Acting Minister of Finance delivered his speech than the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) rose and declared that it was a great encouragement to the taxpayers of Canada that at last we had a surplus. With what wonderful acclaim would he have given utterance to his feelings had the surplus been $55,000,000! There is something else the minister could do which would be just as logical as what he has done. Why could he not incorporate a company and call it "Liberal Government Incorporated?" The country could own all the stock, and then every year instead of borrowing money or using our revenue to pay our debts, just endorse the bonds of that company; he could take care of our annual expenditure in that way and we would thus "reduce" our national debt by the entire revenue, $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 every year. This is the process which the Acting Minister has started. Where is he going to stop? The debt of this country to-day should be marked up in the books as increased by $42,000,000.
The minister says, and he says with more show of right than in respect of his other contentions: We have some $15,000,000 of the last $50,000,000, the proceeds of our last endorsement, in the treasury, and this should be set off. Well, in one way it should, but to compare with other years, it should not, and for the simple reason that in other years when the money was advanced for this purpose there was also an unexpended sum. Following the practices of other years, which should be done to make our book-keeping clear and in sequence, this cash should not be deducted either, and I venture to say that next year the minister will not take this $15,000,000 and say: This was advanced or guaranteed in the year 1924^25, and not in the year 1923-24. No, by the method previously adopted-the right method-our debt now has been increased by $42,000,000, a little more than the increase of the year before. Mr. Fielding advanced $98,250,000 and this government in reality advanced or guaranteed to the National Railways $97,000,000 and a fraction, practically the same as was advanced the year before.
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

I have given our financial position, but before I close this phase of the subject I want to make reference to a contention which the Prime Minister has pressed once at least in this House, a contention by way of complaint of the conduct of the late administration in respect of the taking care of war obligations during the currency of the war. I have heard his words re-echoed from various quarters of the Commons, words to the effect that the late government by dereliction, the insinuation always being because it was protecting its friends, "the interests," did not take care of any capital war obligations during the progress of the war, and consequently that the burden of this government is so terrific that only an extraordinary government could bear it. Well, a lot depends on what you would call the "capital" cost of the war. I do not know what the Prime Minister means by it, but I know that in other enterprises capital cost is all costs during their continuance. I know in the statutes, under this government, or former governments of the same party as this, np matter what the enterprise, provision was made even for interest on the cost during construction, during its continuance, being taken as part of the cost. But I do not intend to include interest. I am ready to treat interest on war debt during the war as the carrying cost of the war. Nevertheless we had to get the money and to pay it, and it was directly due to the war. But I wonder if pensions paid during the contest
Year	Receipts	Total Expenditure	Deficit	War Expenditure$	$	$	$ cts.1914-15	133,073,482 172,149,394 232,701,294 260,778,952 312,946,747 349,746,335	248,098,526 339,702,502 498,203,118 576,660,210 697,042,212 743,763,186	115,025,045 167,553,109 265,501,824 315,881,257 384,095,465 394,016,851	60,750,476 01 166,197,755 47 306,488,814 63 343,836,801 98 446,519,439 48 346,612,954 541915-16	1916-17	1917-18	1918-19	1919-20	
1,461,396,204 1,645,812 1,773,021 1.471,698 3,183,493 1,448,495 3,674,265	3,103,469,754	1,642,073,551	1,670,406,242 13
Sinking Fund:- 1914-15					
1915-16					
1916-17					
1917-18					
1918-19					
1919-20				1?, 196,784	
				
Deducted from total deficits this leaves net			1,628,876,767	
				
Taking total net deficit for 6 years from total				1,628,876,767 00
				
Amount paid on war costs is shown to be					41,529,475 00

were not part of the capital cost. I wonder if the hospitals of the Department of Civil Re-establishment were not part of the capital cost .of the war. Is it only part of the capital cost when the money you get is to buy ammunition for the soldier to shoot, and not the money you have to get to help your own men after they are shot?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend contend that the pensions we are now paying are part of the capital cost of . the war?


Arthur Meighen: After the war is over
the capital cost of civil re-establishment continues for a while on a reducing scale, until finally it goes out. There are also pensions for a long time, gradually reducing until they go out, but during the continuance of anything, the capital cost is all it costs, and pensions are as much a capital cost as anything else. It does not matter whether you call it capital cost or not; but I am prepared to call it that, because it is. The carrying cost is the interest on the cost; the other is wholly a part of the cost of the war. But does it matter what we call these things as long as we know what we have to pay? The fact is we had to pay it, and get the money to do so: I have the figures here from the year 1914-1915 on to 1919-1920 inclusive, the receipts, the total expenditure for everything, the deficits and the war expenditure, and I would ask that the details might go on Hansard:

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
Year	Receipts	Total Expenditure	Deficit	War Expenditure$	s	$	$ cts.41,529,475 00Taking pensions into account which are a war cost:- ]Q14. is 	307,572 2,447,375 7,262,810 16,598,601 23,308,696	
1919-20					49,925,054 00
				91,454,529 00
Including soldier settlement and soldiers' civil re-establishment:- Soldier Settlement-	207,559 2,886,156 45,869,004			
				
Soldiers' C.R.-				49,062,779 00
				
				140,527,308 00
Then there were as well special expenditures such as management and expenses of placing loans which should be charged against and were solely caused by the war:-	4,911,360 3,160,557 14,758,901 10,505,751 -7,283,582			
				
				
				
				
1919-20		17,945,120			43,998,107 00
This would show the amount paid on war cost from revenue raised by taxation during the				184,525,415 00


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend contend that the money we are voting this jrear for soldier settlement and soldier's civil re-establishment is part of the capital cost of the war?


Arthur Meighen: I contend this: When incurred during the war it is perfectly right to include it as such. It is after the war now, but is this even now "carrying" cost? It all depends on what name you prefer. We had to get the money to pay it, no matter what j'ou call it; and it certainly was fairer to call it capital cost, than to call it "carrying" cost then. I would like to know what the difference is between the cost of curing a wound and the cost of making one. Is one to be called capital, and the other not?
Let me add, in the first year of the war necessarily, there could be no war taxes imposed. The war broke out shortly after the end of a fiscal year, and the first taxes which could be imposed would be collectable in the second year after the struggle began. So, we had say five years of war, with only four years' possibility of taxation. And I wonder was the
taxation too light? Could the taxes have been made greater?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister says yes but the member sitting at his right thought no at the time we were imposing them. The right hon. gentleman himself was not in the House at that time. The facts are these: During the early part of the war, as revealed, indeed, by the figure given to the House to-day by the hon. member for Springfield, when the United States were not in the conflict, they held a tremendous advantage over us as a magnet for population. If hon. members will look at the official returns they will find that for all these early years after the war right up to the time the United States came in, the balance of migration against this country was in large figures. In those days we had to 'look carefully in making our financial provisions because there was the prospect that contrasted with conditions across the border, instead of getting more money by a too high scale we would get

The Budget-Mr. Meighen

has not often proved to be far astray, especially in regard to commercial matters. What has the hon. member for Brome in his mind just now?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I had in mind that for years and centuries the common judgment of mankind said that the earth was flat.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the common judgment is sometimes wrong about astronomical facts; but the man who places a question [DOT]of commercial practicability in the same category as astronomical facts is not very likely to reason properly about either. The purpose of a protective tariff is to secure a distribution of industries in, the country which adopts i t, to secure a better distribution and diversity of occupation. I do not doubt that if the world were all one and it did not matter at all what particular part advanced more rapidly than the other, if conditions in every country were alike, if, in a word, the whole idea of nationality were abandoned, then there would be much to be said for free trade. But even then it would in my judgment result in a concentration of industries and occupations to a tremendous degree. It would lessen the distribution of the activities and occupations of people throughout the length and breadth of the globe, and therefore I am not sure that it would add to the happiness of humanity. But in the world we live in to-day, where the unit is the nation and where the purpose of national policy is to serve the whole, I am utterly unable to understand how any country especially a young country, ever expects to secure diversity and distribution of occupation without a protective system. But of all countries which could so expect, surely this would be the last.
It may be that a nation far ahead, a nation which has the advantage of vast and long experience in production, a nation which has great facilities in world banking, which has tremendous plants, and a large population to cater to, would be as well under free trade. Certainly it would be far better if all the rest of the world would be good enough to follow suit. But here we are situated alongside of the furthest advanced industrial nation of the world-we have to direct our affairs with constant relation to this truth-a nation which holds a tariff in front of us year after year, decade after decade-I almost said century after century-a nation which almost absolutely denies us access to its markets save for such raw products as it has to have in order to make money in their manufacture.


Mr. MORRISON:: What about our farm
implements? They have access to that market.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What about boots and
shoes?


Arthur Meighen: I had better answer the hon. member now. He says: Oh, they do not put up a tariff against farm implements. .They put it up against farm products and manufactured goods, but implements and boots and shoes they let in free. So the hon. gentleman says that we ought to let our tariff down because now we can get into their markets. I venture to say that if he will speak to any hon. member who represents a constituency where boots and shoes are manufactured, he will find no boot and shoe manufacturer, "with gray matter in his skull," to use the ornate language of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), who, having control of the capital of an organization will invest that capital in a factory in Canada whose product is to be sold in the United States-adapt his plant to produce goods to meet the various tastes there-for he knows that, even with the United States tariff down, harassing restrictions and every possible obstacle will be put in his way, and as well that in the course of two years, the tariff may go up and all his investment be lost. This has been the experience in so many instances that the business men of Canada have learned.
I want to know what hon. member with a dollar to invest, thinking of establishing an enterprise, if he knew that in the United States he would have 110,000,000 people to cater to, and that here he would have only 8,000,000 or 8,500,000 and only such portion of those as his competitors over there had not taken for themselves, would establish himself here instead of there. I should like hon. members to think these things out. It is a hard cold fact that business men, as farmers and everybody else, usually go-subject to certain patriotic restraints-where they can do the best. And, with a plain case before them of every advantage there which could be got here-save, of course, certain local conditions and circumstances which, in the aggregate and speaking generally do not amount to a great deal-and with only a fraction of the advantage here that they would have there, which of them would choose to establish on this side of the international line rather than on that? But the manufacturer who starts in Canada depends, of course, upon having an advantage in his home market corresponding to that which his American competitor has in his own country. This is the

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
experience of Canada, and we have learned from our experience.
I will not labour the point further.
I have no hope on earth of ever convincing some hon. gentlemen to my left who say our course now is to drop our tariff	inch	by inch and	foot	by	foot,because they believe the United States is going to have a lower tariff soon, and they think, forsooth, that this course on our part would likely accelerate that condition of affairs. I	have listened	to	so	manyprophecies about what the United States are going to do in the way of low tariff	that	I have almost	lost	my	faith.The	hon.	member for Marquette	(Mr. Crerar) will recall that, year after year, he thought they were getting pretty close to a low tariff in the United States. If he does not recall it, he will remember the eloquence of his friend from Red Deer of that date, who professed, in season and out, right up to the emergency tariff of 1921, a belief that the United States were getting pretty near to free trade. He used to employ the language used in this debate by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). "Why," he would say, " over there they are paying just a few cents per capita in customs taxes and here we are paying a great deal more per capita; so we are far more protectionist than they." This really was the language echoed by the hon. member for West Calgary. As if the amount they are paying per capita was not governed by the height of their tariff. Why, on the reasoning of the hon. member for West Calgary, Great Britain is to-day the most highly protected country in the world. They have a far higher per capita customs duty than we have, far higher, I think ten times as high as that of the United States. No, the hon. member who was leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) shed his prophecies when the emergency tariff came down, but he seems to have passed the mantle of Elijah to his successor from Brandon (Mr. Forke), for that hon. gentleman rose even in this debate and foretold that they would very soon have a low tariff in the United States. I would advise him to wait. He will possibly see a reduction-but he will likely live to see that reduction done away with. If he lives long enough, he will come to the conclusion that we had better make our tariff to suit ourselves.


Mr. FORKE:: I think I stated specifically,
when I spoke on the budget, that we ought to frame our tariff independently of anything the United States might do. Our fiscal policy should be one to suit ourselves.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad that, to
this extent, I have made a convert of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I ask him carefully to remember his words, to remember, when the question of reciprocity comes up again, the virtuous conviction of this hour. He is right to-day, and I hope he will give us a better example of the perseverance of the saints than this government has ever done. Yes, we should make and maintain our tariff according to a principle which is suited to Canada.


Robert Forke: I agree with that. I do not see what I have to take back.


Arthur Meighen: I wonder if hon. gentlemen to my left believe that in attacks upon this principle-for many of them make them sincerely-they are really making any gains. They heard the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) say: "This budget is the death knell of protection; protection is not all gone, but it is going little by little; its death knell has rung." They heard that all right, and they heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) proclaim that the blessed day of the execution of the 1919 platform was about to dawn. They have listened to those things, but I wonder if they have listened to other things as well. Have they heard from hon. gentlemen over there any falling away from the protective principle? Those men who are going to vote for the budget, scores of them-does anyone think they believe in the principle of the hon. member from Marquette? Does anyone think they believe in it even as applied in this budget? Not one out of ten of them does, and all I need appeal to is their words in this House. For example, the hon. member for Quebec county (Mr. Lavi-gueur) is ready to vote for the budget. Yes, but he says: In our country we are making boots and shoes; you keep your profane hands off boots and shoes; I will support you as long as you stick to something we do not make; I am ready to vote for low farm implements, because, as he answered me, that is protection for the farmers; but boots and shoes, never! He complained that the duty to-day was far too low on boots and shoes-he who is supposed to stand up in this House and vote for a duty one-third the size in respect of a very vital industry in this Dominion. Let no one mistake my words:	I support
the hon. gentleman from Quebec in respect of boots and shoes; but I apply his principle all round. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen to my left think that those across the way really believe in one single
209S
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

argument they have advanced. Hon. gentlemen have been advancing the argument all along that when you impose a duty you make the farmer or the consumer pay the whole amount of it not only on imported goods but over the whole line of similar Canadian-made goods which they buy. Well, if such is the case in boots and shoes I am sorry for the consumer. Of boots and shoes we are importing about 5 per cent of our supply, so that for every dollar of the duty paid in taxes, according to hon. gentlemen to my left, there is paid the sum of S19 to the manufacturer in Canada. And this, mark you, is a " revenue " tariff government. Let hon. gentlemen listen to the Prime Minister when he speaks and they will find him extolling the virtues of a " revenue " tariff- Yet this government of " revenue " tariff is taking, in the boot and shoe industry, about $300,000 a year in duties, getting it only from 5 per cent of an importation. The government know right well that if they cut the duty in two on boots and shoes they would get far more revenue for the country. Will the Prime Minister dispute that? Do not let him or any other hon. member say that I am suggesting the cutting of the duty on boots and shoes. I would not have made the reduction of last year, for I believe in fair protection for boots and shoes the same as for everything else. But imagine a government .pretending to advocate a " revenue " tariff, and collecting a duty which it does on the importation of a commodity in respect of which, according to their friends and allies, there is involved an imposition on the consumer of $19 for every one dollar collected in taxes. No; the hon. member for Quebec county (Mr. Lavigueur) says: " Keep your sacrilegious hands off boots and shoes." But he is just the same as the others. What about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)? I warned hon. gentlemen to my left two months ago that if they wanted to test the government's real opinion of the principle which they the government-are always denouncing, all that they had to do was to turn their barrage against boots and shoes. Why, when a delegation came down two weeks or so ago the Minister of Justice appeared before them and, as reported to me, tried to have them think that we were attacking the duty on boots and shoes on this side. The minister nods; he says no. Well, I am glad to have him confess openly in this House that we have not attacked it. But I do know that he painted himself as Horatius on the bridge standing gallantly against the Tarquin hosts.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from
Lanark (Mr. Preston) yesterday said that the Minister of Justice was looking after his own constituents and was not touching boots and shoes.


Arthur Meighen: So he is; but why not look after others too? The Minister, says, "Don't put your hands into my county". And what about the Minister of Customs, the hon. member for Three Rivers, (Mr. Bureau)? He is ready to vote dismay to the city of Hamilton; he is quite prepared to sacrifice the city of Toronto, the city of Brantford, and indeed to sacrifice all his divorced wife's relations so long as Three Rivers is left untouched. But if any one attempts seriously to invade the industries there, he will know something of what it means to prod the tiger in his fair. Again, what about the Minister of Railways himself? He stands in the citadel of Brockville-there at least is his home-and, while he has not done much to the constituency of South Essex, he is ready nevertheless to strike a blow' at Hamilton, at Toronto, at Brantford, at Smith's Falls, in short, at all those counties which suffer particularly from the virtual abolition of duties on their manufactured products, but glancing jealously at the Canada Forgings planed in Brockville he holds up his warning hand and says: "Keep your fingers out of my lawn moweis". He extracts lawn mowers-[DOT]


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend, if he will read the tariff carefully, will gather a great deal of information in regard to other items which are affected very materially and which I might say something about.


Arthur Meighen: I have read the tariff, and I have the information, but I am on lawn mowers just now. I know that these articles are extracted from a schedule of spades, shovels and the like which the minister reduces and lawn mowers are left with a duty of 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 32i per cent. The whole thing is a calculation of how few constituencies, and consequently how few votes, need be sacrificed in order that the government may purchase the support of hon. gentlemen to my left.
On motion of Mr. Meighen the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.

United Church of Canada-Petitions
Thursday, May 15, 1924


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, as follows:
Your committee have agreed to recommend that the following be inserted in every Canadian National Railway Branch Line bill now before the House as a new section, viz:
Should it appear to the company upon making final survey of the said line of railway that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure specified in this act, the company shall not commence nor proceed with the work upon the said line of railway without first obtaining the approval of parliament.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received this day the following letter:
Montreal, May 14, 1924.
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, K.C.,
Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Mr. Speaker:
I beg to enclose herewith official declaration, resigning as member-elect for St. Antoine division, Montreal, duly signed and witnessed as required by law.
With highest personal regards,
Believe me, dear Mr. Speaker,
Yours sincerely,
W. G. Mitchell.
The declaration is as follows:
Dominion of Canada
House of Commons
To wit:
To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Commons:
I,	Walter George Mitchell, member of the House of Commons of Canada, for the Electoral District of St. Antoine, do hereby resign my seat in the said House of Commons for the constituency aforesaid.
Given under my hand and seal at the city of Montreal, this 14th day of May, 1924.
W. G. Mitchell.
Witnesses:
John D. Kearney.
A. M. Andrews.
I have accordingly addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ.


BANKING-RESOLUTION, MR. LADNER, DROPPED
Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I move that we now proceed to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of dropping the resolution standing in my name. This is merely a formal motion suggested by the chairman of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders.
Leon Johnson Ladner: I beg to move that Order No. 44 standing in my name, be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations severally praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada be not enacted:
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Sarnia, Ont.-Mr. LeSueur.
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House be passed during the present session: Methodist churches at Homing's Mills, and Whitfield, Ont.; Congregational Church, Economy; Uunion Church, Kentville, N.S.; Welland Avenue Church, St. Catharines, Ont.; Greenwood Church, Winnipeg, Man.; Methodist Churches, Myrtle, Raglan and Columbus, Ont.; Methodist Church, Britannia, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Regina, Sask.-Mr. Coote.
Hope Methodist church, Toronto.-Mr. Harris.
Methodist Church, Preston, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Belfast, Calgary, Sask.; Methodist Church, Acton, Ont.; Union Church, Abernethy, Sask.; Knox Presbyterian Church, Saskatoon, Sask.; Morrison Street Methodist Church, Niagara Falls, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Balcarres, Sask.; North Street Methodist Church, Goderich, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Aikens, Wallbridge, Scotts and Stone, Sidney Circuit, Hastings County, Ont.; Methodist Church, Hespeler, Ont.; Methodist Church, Sawyerville, Que.-Mr. Baldwin.
First Presbyterian Church, Victoria, B.C.; George and Erskine Presbyterian Church, Victoria, B.C.; Methodist Church, Millview, P.E.I.; St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Victoria, B.C.; Methodist Church, Woodnorth, Man.; St. Aidan's Presbyterian Church, Victoria, B.C.; Methodist Church, Cheapside, Ont.; St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Victoria, B.C.;. Methodist Church, New Westminster, B.C.; United Church, Kindersley, Sask.,-Mr. LeSueur.
United Church, Tulston and Broomhill, Man.; Dublin Street Methodist Church, Guelph, Ont.; B. L. Peck and 86 others of the Congregations, Sidney, Man.; Methodist Churches, Brookline and Kendron, Ont.; United Church, Biggar, Sask.; United Church, Woodville, Ont.; Methodist Church,
2100	COMMONS
United Church oj Canada-Petitions
Thomasburg, Ont.; Ontario Street Methodist Church, Clinton, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Howick and Riverfield, Que.-Mr. Hammell.
Presbyterian Church, Florence, N.S.; Methodist Churches, Bethel, Benmiller and Zion Congregation in Colborne township, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Georgetown, P.E.I.; Methodist Church, Warkworth, Ont.; Methodist Church, Rosemont, Ont. Methodist Church, Wardsville, Ont.-Mr. Leader.
Cameron Union Church, Minnedosa, Man.; Congregational Church, Ayer's Cliff, Que.; Methodist Church, Port Dover, Ont.; Welcome Zion Congregational Church, Ottawa; Methodist Church, Govan, Sask.; Congregational Church, Watford, Ont., Connaught Station, Ont.; Methodist Church, Merritton, Ont.; First Methodist Church, Owen Sound, Ont.,-Mr. Bird.
' Olivet Congregational Church, Toronto; Presbyterian Church, Tuxford, Sask.; Methodist Church, Pembroke, Ont.; St. Pauls Presbyterian Church, Prince Albert, Sask.; Brant Avenue Methodist Church, Brantford, Ont.; Union Church, Wawanesa, Man.; Union Church, Eyebrow, Sask.; United1 Church, Haileybury, Ont.; Methodist Church, Listowel, Ont.; United Church, Tyvan, Sask.; Presbyterian Church, Stoney Beach, Sask.; Methodist Church, Tilbury, Ont.; Zion Presbyterian Church, Armstrong, B.C.,-Mr. Morrison.
Colborne Street Methodist Church, Brantford, Ont.; Knox Presbyterian Church, Brookfield, N.S.; Presbyterian Churches, Peterboro; Grace Methodist Church, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Presbyterian Church, Danville, Que.; St. Andrew's Church, Rousseau, Ontario; Methodist Church, Tamarisk, near Grand View, Man.; Knox Presbyterian Church, Goderich, Ont.; Central Methodist Church, Port Col-borne, Ont.; United Church, Inglis, Man.; Methodist Church, Islington, Ont.; Congregational Churches, Elcho, Diltz and Bethed, Ont.; Methodist Church, Moorefield, Ont.; Presbyterian Church, Alliston, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Sweaborg and Embro, Ont.; Union Church, Brora, Sask.; Methodist Church, Hickson, Ont.,-Mr. Spencer.
Presbyterian Church, Pine Creek, Alta.; Presbyterian and United Churches, Lemsford, Sceptre and Fairbank, Sask.; United Church, Sceptre, Sask.; East End Methodist Church, Montreal, Que.; Mountain Street Methodist Church, Montreal, Que.; Methodist Church, Salisbury, NB.; W. F. Campbell and 80 others, of Toronto; Union Church, Birtle, Man.; Methodist^ Church, Nanton, Alta.; United Congregations, Ardath, Bounty and Conquest; Methodist Church, Chatham, N.B.; United Church, Rapid City, Man.; Union Churches,

Edgar, Dalston, Rugby and Crown. Hill, all in the County of Simcoe, Ont.; Carman Methodist Church, Toronto; Methodist Church, Wingham, Ont.; Presbyterian Union Church, Cache Bay and Sturgeon Falls, Ont.; Gilbert Todd and 81 others, Lachute, Que.; Presbyterian Church, Macroyie, Sask.; George Street Methodist Church, Peterboro, Ont.; St. Claire Avenue Methodist Church, Toronto,- Mr. Bowen.

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

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	How many returned soldiers have been appointed by the Canadian National Railways, in Pictou county, since January 1, 1922?
2.	What are their names and to what positions were they appointed ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. 8.
2.	G. H. Cummings, crossing watchman; J. H. Dunn, brakeman; Wm. Landry, T. S. Penny, G. W. Sinnis, W. B. Wilson, Noble McKay, locomotive wipers; George Sinnis, stores issuer.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-POLICE OFFICER, PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Who is the Canadian National Railway Police Officer in the town of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	When was he appointed, on whose recommendation and why ?
3.	Who was the previous incumbent of this position?
4.	When was he appointed and when did he retire?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	P. O. Carroll, C.N.R. uniformed watchman in Pictou.
2.	Appointed July 10, 1923, by the late general manager to protect coal pile and other railway property.
3.	There was no former incumbent.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
COAL MINING RIGHTS Mr. BROWN:
1.	Have any coal mining rights by way of lease or otherwise been granted since the 6th of October, 1919, in townships 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, ranges 7, 8 and 9 west of the 6th initial meridian?
2.	If so, to whom?
3.	What total area was included?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Yes. Three applications for leases of coal mining rights within the said townships were accepted by the department on the

Questions
5th day of June, 1919, and payment of the rental of the areas applied for, amounting to $3,840, was accepted by the department on the 2nd day of July, 1919. Owing to unavoidable delays leases in favour of the applicants of the rights so applied for were not finally issued until the 20th of February, 1920. As the applications had been made in strict conformity with the provisions of the regulations for available coal mining rights, and as the department had accepted the rental for the first year, there was no other course but to issue leases under the regulations.
2.	Edwin Jochin, John Moyes, L. R. Wol-aver.
3 . 3,740 acres.


Mr. BROWN:: 1.	Are there any subsisting leases or licenses to take coal from the following lands in townships 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, ranges 7, 8 and 9 west of the 6th Initial meridian?
2.	If so, when were they made?
3.	To whom?
4.	Who are the present holders?
5.	If a company, who are the directors, officers and shareholders ?
6.	Have any of the holders of leases been in arrears in payment due to the government ?
7.	If so, what are the dates and duration of default?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 19, 1912; June 10, 1913; May 22, 1914; February 20, 1920.
3.	J. G. A. Campbell, Adam Joachim, Charles M. Abbott, Roderick J. Mackenzie, Edwin Jochin, John Moyes, Lee R. Wolaver.
4.	Canadian Coal Fields, Limited, and Blue Diamond Coal Company, Limited.
5.	Directors: J. P. Bickell, W. J. Sheppard, J. B. Tudhope, D. H. McDougall, Strachan Johnston. Officers: J. P. Bickell, President; H. G. Laux, Secretary-Treasurer.
Shareholders: No information.
6.	Yes.
7.	Lease No. 917.-Canadian Coal Fields
Limited-	.
In default from-	In the sum of
October 19, 1913 to January 14,
1914	 $1,280	00
January 14, 1914 to November 18,
1914	 25
October	19,	1914	to	May	17,	1915.	1,280	00
October 19, 1915 to September 29,
1916	
1,280	00October	19,	1916 to	June 16,	1917.	1,280	00
October 19, 1917 to December 26
1918	 1,271	26
October 19, 1918 to December 26,
1918	 1,280	00
December 26, 1918 to January 16,
1919	 87	32
January 16, 1919 to April 15,
1919!	 8	38
October 19, 1919 to November 21,
1919		 1,280	0(
November 21, 1919 to April 9,
1920	
672	72April 9, 1920 to July 28, 1920..	276	32
October 19, 1920 to November 20,
1920		1,280 00
November 20, 1920 to December
10, 1920	 7	85
Lease No. 1,048.-Canadian Coal Fields Limited-
In default from-	In the sum of
June 10, 1915 to July 4, 1916.. $ 640 00 July 4, 1916 to September 29,
1916	 34	10
June 10, 1916 to September 29,
1916	 640	00
June 10, 1917 to November 21,
1919		 640	00
November 21, 1919 to April 9,
1920	
413	55June 10,	1918	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00June 10,	1919	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00June 10,	1920	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00
Lease No. 1,208.-Canadian Coal Fields Limited-[DOT]
In default from-	In the sum of
May 22, 1915 to November 8,
1915		 S 640 00
May 22, 1916 to September 29,
1916		 640	00
May 22, 1917 to November 21,
1919		 640	00
November 21, 1919 to April 9,
1920	
415	21May 22,	1918	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00May 22,	1919	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00May 22,	1920	to	July	28,	1920..	640	00
Lease No. 1,283.-Canadian Coal Fields Limited-
In default from-	In the sum of
May 22, 1915' to April 18, 1916.. $1,280 00
April 18,	1916	to	May	20,	1916..	58	22May 22,	1916	to	March 2,	1917..	1,280	00
March 2, 1917 to November 21,
1919	 52
May 22, 1917 to November 21,
1919	 1,280 00
November 21, 1919 to April 9,
1920	 830 96
May 22,	1918	to	July	28,	1920..	1,280	00May 22,	1919	to	July	28,	1920..	1,280	00
May 22, 1920 to July 28, 1920.. 1,280 00
Questions

Lease	No.	1,610.-Blue	Diamond	Coal
Company Limited-
In default from-	In the sum of
February 20, 1921 to May 4,
1921	 $1,280	00
May 4, 1921 to December 10,
1921	
964	05Lease	No.;	1,674.-Blue	Diamond	Coal
Company Limited-
In default from-	In the sum of
February 20, 1921 to May 4,
1921	 $1,280	00
May 4, 1921 to December 10,
1921	
964	05Lease	No.	1,675.-Blue	Diamond	Coal
Company Limited-
In default from-	In the sum of
February 20, 1921 to May 4,
1921	  $1,180	00
May 4, 1921 to December 10,
1921	   864	26


SLADE LEASE-PURCHASE BY SOLDIER SETTLERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton);
1.	What was the acreage comprising the lease known as the Slade lease?
2.	What sum of money was paid to D. Slade by the Soldier Settlement Board for the relinquishing of this lease?
3.	How many farm units was the lease divided into?
4.	At what price were each of these units sold to the soldier settlers?
5.	What sum of money has been received from the soldier settlers to date thereon?
6.	How many of these farm units have been aban [DOT] doned by the original soldier settler, if any?
7.	What is the present valuation of this land?
Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	3.200 acres.
2.	S5.000.
3.	Ten.
4.	Seven sold at the following prices:	$4,-
095; $3,758; $4,115; $4,095; $4,210; $3,335; $3,730.
5.	$4,196.85.
6.	None.
7.	No appraisal subsequent to original inspection.
EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN-MR. BRYAN'S CLAIM Hon. Mr. STEVENS:
1.	What was the anlount of the claim made by A. E. Bryan, Canadian Commissioner of Japan, for loss incurred during the earthquake in Japan?
2.	What amount has been included in the estimates to cover this instance?
3.	Is the said amount final payment and does it fully cover the loss incurred?
4.	Has any compensation been paid to date?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	$6,787.75.
2.	$4,000.
3.	Yes, $4,000 has been allowed as final payment on claim of $6,787,75.
4.	Yes, $666.66, being one-sixth of the total vote of $4,000.


GRADING OF CHEESE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent representations made and the difficulties that have arisen between the purchasers and producers of cheese, if it is the intention of the government to suspend the regulations regarding the grading of cheese.


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It is not our intention to suspend the regulations.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May
14, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee' of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have made some references to the stand of hon. gentlemen opposite who are known to favour the protective system but who support the budget because they feel that there is no serious immediate blow aimed at their constituencies, and that they can. afford to sacrifice something of the fundamental interest of the country for the sake of votes on division in this House. I had not completed the number, but I am sure hon. gentlemen everywhere know that the vast majority of those who on the other side support the sacrifices of industrial interests as embraced in this budget would never support them if they affected the immediate constituencies from which they come. I do not think anything could make clearer how utterly without principle, as described by the membei for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) this budget is
I desire to refer, but very briefly, to some remarks the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) made yesterday. He is fond of historic lore, and called to his assistance various authorities and raised some objection to quotations which had been made supposedly from the great Abraham Lincoln.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
The whole point he was discussing, as I got it, was as to whether some particular way of stating the case for protection had been adopted by Lincoln. Well perhaps the quotation used was the way Lincoln stated it, perhaps it was not, I am not going to climb the archaeological tree to find out; it is sufficient for me to know that Lincoln supported protection, I am not particularly interested in just how he put the case.
Robert Alexander Hoey: The quotation was often used in the campaign of the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: No doubt there were
many who attributed it to Lincoln, and I notice that all those who did not were opposed to protection themselves. But it is much more important to have the authority of a man like Lincoln, a man of intense patriotism, of deep human sympathies and of great practical wisdom-better far to have his authority from the practice of his life than to have the exact phraseology in which he defended his belief. We used to hear for many years-usually from the former hon. member for Red Deer, Mr. Clark, the opinions also of John Stuart Mill. The ease is now taken up by the member for Springfield, and he protests against any inference that John Stuart Mill would support a protective policy in America for any period longer than twenty years after the time he lived. Well, I join with the hon. member in respect for the names of great thinkers and philosophers, of the past. As for Mill I certainly would have regard for his opinion as respects an economic question, as to what rinciple should be applied to conditions as he saw them and was able to study them. But when it comes to asking me to accept the opinion of Mill as to what would Ire right as applied to conditions a quarter of a century, ot a century afterwards, the draft on my veneration is too heavy.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the hon. member know
that I was simply replying to an argument of one of his own members.


Arthur Meighen: He was referring to what an hon. member had said, that Mill, observing conditions in America as he did would favour, or at least would not object to, a protective system there. I say I respect Mills' opinion as applied to conditions within his knowledge, but when he speaks of what would suit conditions away in the future, I must be permitted to appeal from the predictions of the last century to the facts cf to-day.
The hon. member quoted a letter from a former member of this House, a most respected man, actually proving that we have some industries running in Canada yet. I do not know that any one disputes the fact. We have, as respects most'industries in this Dominion, a protective system yet. We have a more or less serious invasion now, a tendency and a constant threatening and warning which does infinite harm;-but we have industries yet. I made inquiries as to those woollen factories to which the hon. gentleman referred, and, my information is that the product of one or both, is a particular line of material as respects which there is no serious, if any, competition from the Old World. These also have some protection.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That would not apply to
cream separators which I quoted.


Arthur Meighen: No, not to a cream
separator. The hon. gentleman turns the cream separator handle year after year. But .there i3 something worthy of remark in this connection as well. Do not rely too much on the cream separator when you are managing a Dominion. It happens to be a specially intricate mechanism the manufacture of which depends on special patents, and .thereby enjoys protection of another kind which renders it not so necessary to have the regular rule apply. But I want to tell the hon. member that, from the mouth of the manufacturer himself, I have been frequently told that the difference between the cost of manufacture of a free trade cream separator and the price the farmer pays is bigger than it is in respect of any implements protected by the tariff to-day. He mentioned also one or two factories which had closed, and criticised their management. He did not like the salaries that had been paid. I did not gather very fully just what he was trying to show, but I did gather this; that the man who drew the salary also had a very considerable stock interest, and I would imagine if it were possible for him to continue the business and save his stock he would likely do so. He evidently found it was an impossibility. I never before heard his capacity as a business man impugned. Indeed in other industries he has been successful. According to the hon. member, the business failed, not because of lack of business, but because of lack of money. This is usually the cause of most businesses failing.
Reviewing some other remarks of the hon. member, I was rather astonished to find that he followed a very bad precedent in respect of immigration figures. He has placed on Hansard now the figures of the migration from Canada to the United States, as reported by the Immigration Department of Washing-
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

ton, reading the figures for " 1911 " and each year down to " 1923 ", but on inquiry I find his years all end with June.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The fiscal year.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and in that way
he escapes the disastrous months between July and December of 1923. I do not know why these figures should be concealed from the House.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I tried to obtain them, but
was unable to do so. I was very moderate. I did not state that these figures included the British possessions of North America, including Newfoundland.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know where
Newfoundland gets into this.


Robert Alexander Hoey: But the figures for Newfoundland are included. The figures are given for British North America.


Arthur Meighen: For Newfoundland?


Robert Alexander Hoey: For British North America.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
takes very much comfort out of that he is welcome to it. How many would go from Newfoundland? But why did he not give the figures up-to-date? I got them up to the present time. I got them two months ago as nearly up-to-date as the figures of two months ago would permit, and my figures now date to the end of March. The figure I gave the House from memory yesterday was correct, which was 181,973 for the full 1923 .year. For the 12 months ending 31st March last, the total was 200,816, and these only .embrace those who go across and pay the $8 head tax, who report themselves as intending to stay, or from whom the money is collected in case they do stay. Everyone knows, unfortunately, that they do not include a very large number indeed who flit across the line. We do not rejoice in these figures, but it is better to have the actual facts.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the right hon. member give the House the number of American citizens who have come to Canada in the same period?


Arthur Meighen: 
Mr. CRERAR:: When was the company
started?


Arthur Meighen: The building was completed, I understand, in 1920. I ask that these facts be impugned if in any degree they are wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the industry to which my right hon. friend has referred not close its doors before this government came into office?


Arthur Meighen: The submission made to the government stated that they closed their doors [DOT] in May, 1923, after they had appealed in vain to this government to assist them with a duty. All the duty they asked was one-half cent per square foot up to 24 cents, according to the standard, a duty which, ad valorem, would be-on the basis of only fifteen cents for the Belgian franc-184 per cent, or about the duty which protects the industry in the United States. I wonder if hon. gentlemen feel that the refusal was wise. I wonder if they can read from this lesson just what would take place in respect of other industries if the same policy were followed. Even if the whole duty were added, to the price, it would amount to three dollars on a five thousand dollar house. This, sum of three dollars, or say the half of it, or, perhaps, a quarter, or, perhaps, later on, none at all, which would be the addition to the price to the consumer in tihe case of glass- because we are at present paying the duty, only we are paying it to Belgium-decides in each single case whether a sum amounting to $100 or $200 stays in Canada or goes to swell the occupations and the population of another land.
The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) came to the conclusion that we could not become a self contained country-he said no country could; In the absolute he is
The Budget-Mr. Meighen


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a word.


Arthur Meighen: Now I am going to make a few remarks on the present changes. They embrace reductions on agricultural implements; reductions, however, far more serious in the case of those other manufactured products which enter into the construction of such implements; reductions as well in mining and logging machinery. There is a reduction in implements of some 4 per cent on the main items, 5 per cent on some others, and as high as even 10 per cent. Reductions are given however on w-hat are called raw materials but what are real!}7 manufactured materials produced by other supplying plants. The importation of these materials is allowed virtually free, wholly free in so far as pig iron and steel are concerned, and almost free as respects all other commodities. Just what the effect is to be on the agricultural implement industry I do not undertake to say; time will tell. I do not presume that very great change is made as respects that single industry; but the penalty is heaped on others in order that hon. gentlemen to my left may be enticed.
Great comfort is taken by the Prime Minister out of a statement which has been issued by the Massey-Harris Company. The effect of that statement is that the company intend to carry on and try to adjust themselves to new conditions; immediately following its issue was a proclamation of the Prime Minister that Massey-Harris supported the contention of the government. Have hon. gentlemen carefully examined the Massey-Harris statement? I do not see anything very extraordinary in it.
The provisions of the budget which exempt farm implements from the sales tax are most welcome, and these combined with the lowering of customs duties on raw materials announced in the government's amendments, now enable the manufacturer to make an immediate reduction in his prices. So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned-and no doubt this applies to other implement companies-there will be passed on to the farmer in the way of reduced prices the complete saving effected in the remission of the sales tax-
Wonderful! They are not going to pay a sales tax to the government so they are good enough not to collect it from the farmer.
-and the lessened duties on raw material.
Whatever they save in that regard, they will not charge to the farmer. A previous paragraph asserts their intention of endeavouring to adjust themselves to new conditions. Well, this is the attitude of British people generally; this is the right attitude. Note that they promise no reduction in price because of the reduction of duties on their own product. But the men who are hit by this

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
tariff are the men who are supplying the other manufactured goods which the agricultural implement makers use. I wonder how hon. gentlemen to my left justify that. I wonder how they justify a reduction, for their own benefit especially, in any case. Were we not asked a year ago to vote for a resolution moved by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) which not only declared a lack of confidence in the government, but declared also that the budget of that time was a protective budget? Were we not urged to support a resolution, which declared particularly against the stability which had been promised? This was supported by speeches the general purport of which was that the farmers did not want something specially for themselves, but wanted the necessaries of life reduced? They were not specially interested in implements the hon. member for Brandon said:	No, it was a great principle they
were contending for, the reduction of duties for everybody on the necessaries of life. And hon. gentlemen to my left had no confidence in the government at all because the government at that time would not concede these claims. Now, a year afterwards, when they have been given, as they believe, something for themselves, their enthusiasm is exuberant, their confidence in the government is restored. Now that they believe they have something which is to their own advantage, their confidence in the government is so great that they will not even vote for their own platform for fear the government will be displeased. This is about as illuminating an example of unselfishness as the House has ever witnessed.
I have been impugned because I will not now support a reduction in farm implements, and the honour has been done me by hon. gentlemen of quoting from a speech I made in 1911, in which I favoured a reduction on farm implements. The resolution which I moved at that time read:
That this House is of opinion that a substantial reduction in the duties on farm implements is now due to argiculturists of Canada and is in strict accord with the true purpose of a protective tariff.
By the terms and principles of. that resolution, and of the speech I made in support of it, I abide. But I wonder if there is any difference between the support of a reduction from a duty of 20 per cent and 25 per cent at a time when the industry was flourishing, when its profits were good, and a reduction now from a duty of 10 per cent and 15 per cent after several years of successive losses. If one favours a reduction from a level of 20 or 25 per cent, then to be
consistent according to the logic of hon. gentlemen opposite, one has to keep right on reducing until he leaves no duty at all. Or, in a word, a physician called in to treat a patient for obesity, who prescribes until he brings him down to normal proportions, must be arraigned as inconsistent and indicted as an apostate unless he presses right on until he reduces his poor patient to a bloodless corpse. As respects the duty on implements, I do not depart from the principles I enunciated eleven years ago. Would that some other hon. members of this House could say the same! But I want to add in justice to myself that while the principles as there enunciated were right, and while the facts I there adduced were true to the very best of my power collection, nevertheless, to adapt language which I know will fall pleasantly on the ears of hon. gentlemen to my left, the language of Sir Robert Peel: I cannot withhold the homage that is due to the province of reason and of truth by denying that my opinions- on the question have been matured by experience and by a close observation of Canadian affairs. At that time I did not give the weight I would give to-day to the importance of a large export trade in the keeping down of prices at home, to the importance of a large scale of production based on the security of home market and of large export trade- to maintain prices low in the country of origin.
I do not think any hon. member will say that we ought to give a special advantage to a foreign industry. But is that not done by this budget? You can reduce slightly-and hoc. gentlemen themselves did in 1907-the amount of protection on specific things produced by an industry, but when you wipe it out altogether on a whole long line, robbing our industries of millions of dollars of business in this country, industries which pay a duty of 53 cents a ton on their coal, as high as 27J per cent on the raw material which they have to import, and as well pay our corporation tax and submit to our general level of taxation-necessarily high-industries which on their plant had to pay duties-in one case alone amounting to $4,009,000-which their competitors across the line did not have to pay,-and which now have to pay interest on that money, when you place them in a position in their home market Where their competitors get in without a single charge and take the home market from them, I want to know what you think of the fairness of the proposal. Yet this is what the budget has done. This is the price hon. gentlemen of the government have paid, this is the sacrifice to the Progressive gods in order to secure the party's vote. This applies right down the line. This is done not on the
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

basis of any principle; none is even suggested. Would anybody suggest a principle which justifies putting the steel industry, say, in such a position, or many other industries which are affected, and maintaining the duty on furniture at 30 per cent, or the duty on stoves at 25 per cent or on lawn mowers at 32J per cent -can anybody suggest any principle for such a thing? I could go down the list of hundreds of articles and show that nothing else is the result of this wonderful budget.
Now, hon. gentlemen contend-I refer particularly to those to my left-that they are justified in supporting the budget. Why? Because last year stability was promised, and this year stability is destroyed. I should like these members to listen during the
4. p.m. speech of the Prime Minister while he proves to you that stability is still maintained. Don't they expect it? Don't they know that every man on the other side of the House who supports the budget will contend in his defence that stability is maintained? Of course hon. gentlemen to my left are right, there never was a more violent assault on stability, not in the last thirty years, than there is in this budget; nor has the effect of that assault ever been more immediate and more apparent. Imagine the government suggesting not a reduction of duty of per cent on certain lines of goods as made last year-that is tariff revision-but a tariff reduction of 10 per cent and 5 per cent and 4 per cent and the wiping out of the tariff on whole lines of goods, that is not tariff revision; that is tariff stability! You can have stability and still, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said last year, make necessary minor adjustments from time to time. But no rightly constituted mind would suggest that these are merely minor adjustments. These are substantial variations of the tariff, striking at certain vital and important industries of this Dominion. No, the promises of 1919 went by the board; but the promise of 1923 has gone by the board as well. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) who spoke yesterday said: Surely, surely though you believe in a protective tariff, you do not want it maintained at the price of perfidy, you do not want the government to break its solemn engagement of 1919?


Robert Alexander Hoey: That is repudiating the mandate of the electors.


Arthur Meighen: I am not so sure. Is the hon. gentleman quite sure that such was the mandate of the electors?
!Mr. Meighen.]


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have not any doubt whatever.


Arthur Meighen: I wish I could so easily be sure one way or the other. When you have three groups in a general election it is pretty hard to tell what the verdict of the electors is; and when besides you have the whole contest smeared with a cloudburst of misrepresentation it is still harder. Anyway, does the hon. member think that sixty-five members ol this House who appealed to their constituents on the Laurier-Fielding tariff were elected to destroy that tariff? Does he think that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), who was elected on a platform which denounced us for reducing the duty on agricultural implements, was elected to reduce those duties still more? Does he think the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell), who went before his constituents as a protectionist and who thus followed the example of his party leaders in the province of Quebec, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), who also followed the example of his party leaders, and who declares in this House that he had the solemn word of those leaders as his authority for that step'-does the hon. gentleman mean to say that those members were elected to destroy the protective tariff?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Hon. gentlemen always clap
before they hear the full truth. If you deduct twelve members from the Liberal party, there is still an overwhelming majority in favour of the 1919 platform.


Arthur Meighen: I would like the sixtyfive, the whole membership from the province of Quebec, yes, and the Ontario membership to stand up and say-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does that include the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I think I had better exclude the hon. member for Brome. I congratulate the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) on this one of the ninety and nine. Those who listened to the following masterpiece of tergiversation and evasion, I wonder what it was they voted for? These are the words of the present Prime Minister in describing his fidelity to the platform of 1919:
What mariner putting out into unknown seas would start out without a compass to show him in what direction to go, would plunge straight ahead into a rock if he saw it there, simply because there was some other chart that pointed that way at the moment.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
I will now give hon. gentlemen time to think out what that means. I have tried for weeks myself, and I do not know yet.
Who can tell what will be the condition we will have to deal with to-morrow? This platform was laid down two years ago. We had not then acquired these railway systems.
No, that is quite correct, and the Poincare government had not fallen. Each has an equal bearing on the point. He goes on:
They ought to be applauding me for saying I am not going to follow any letter that leads to destruction.
Did the voters who answered that appeal vote for the 1919 platform? Or again, an auditor puts the question:
You stated in the House in 1920, that you would stand all fours by the Liberal Convention's trade platform. Now you say it is only a chart.
A very pertinent question because in 1920 we had acquired the railway systems, when the present Prime Minister affirmed his fidelity to the platform of 1919. Here- is the answer:
I stated my position-
I read you how he stated it.
If it is not intellibigle to you I am sorry. That is not my fault. Do you know the meaning of this passage in scripture, " It is the letter that killeth, but the spirit that maketh alive." It is in accordance with that teaching I propose to carry out the Liberal platform. No legitimate industry need fear anything that the Liberal party might do in power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is mj
hon. friend reading from?


Arthur Meighen: I am reading a quotation from the Brantford Expositor, I think. It is quoted in another paper. There is another portion really worth reading too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is as good as the last it will be very good.


Arthur Meighen: That was very good,
the Prime Minister says. It was. It was simply typical of the whole nature of his campaign. Here is another extract from his speech at Sherbrooke:
There is not a man in the Liberal party to-day who would think of doing injury by way of tariff to any industry carrying on a legitimate business and earning legitimate profits. We have no desire to hurt any industry. Why should we do so, especially at this time? Where men are trying to create monopolies against the interests of the country we will let in the light and make a change, but have no thought of making a change where business is being carried on honestly and decently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What paper
is that from?


Arthur Meighen: It is a quotation from
his speech as taken from the report of the 134
Montreal Gazette. Does the hon. member dispute its accuracy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but my
hon. friend has not read the whole speech.


Arthur Meighen: I hope I would not. I
do not know whether in this case, but in others, I have no doubt that if I went on I would read exactly the opposite. That is why the Prime Minister finds himself in the position he is in, in this House now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend would read to the House one quotation that is the opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I could read what the Prime Minister said in June 1920 in this parliament, when he read the platform of 1919 and declared as a matter of honour he was bound to abide by it. -


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read it.


Arthur Meighen: I read it here a year ago. Are we to infer that these industries as respects which changes are made, as respects which the whole protection in some cases is taken away, were not carried on legitimately? Were they earning more than a legitimate profit? I appeal to the Prime Minister to say, especially with respect to those who were not earning anything at all. I appeal now to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock): Are the industries attacked by this budget, whose duties are reduced or taken away, industries which were not carried on decently or honestly, or are they industries which were earning an illegitimate profit? The Prime Minister to-day finds himself confronted by hon. gentlemen to my left, telling him that he went to the country on the 1919 platform, reading to him the terms of that platform, and declaring that he bound himself in parliament and on the stump to abide by it, declaring that he got his support upon it, and at the same time hon. gentlemen opposite rise one after the other and say:	The Prime Minister assured me
in my own town that no legitimate industry would be affected, assured me that no industry earning only a moderate profit would be touched, and on that assurance I became his candidate, and on that assurance I was elected." Is it any wonder I question what the verdict really was?
Let me read now a statement from a paper which supports hon. gentlemen to my left, the Farmers' Sun. I have here an extract from that paper, an editorial from its issue of March 15.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen

The elector who has no partisan bias will find it difficult to give admiration or sympathy to either the deserters or their deserted leader. What is now taking place is a natural result of the peculiarly dishonest campaign the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and his lieutenants waged in the last general election. In the low tariff Maritime provinces and in the West the Liberal tariff platform held the centre of the stage. In industrial Ontario the 1919 platform was dismissed as merely a chart, and promises given that no legitimate industry would be injured by a Liberal accession to power. Thus it was that while the party as a whole stood pledged to all-round tariff reduction, Liberal candidates, with Mr. King on the platform endorsing them, were bidding strongly for protectionist support. The present Premier was a party to this deception, and now that circumstances compel him to make important concessions to gain Progressive support, he is in no position to criticize his insurgent followers.
I wonder was that not a pretty fair statement of the position. It is very hard to tell what a verdict is under conditions of that kind. We hear now loud and long proclamations of the death knell of protection, while the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) stands and says: The issue now is clear; we are against, you are for protection.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: "Hear, hear," he says,
but do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that when the test comes his colleagues will abide by that position? Do you believe they won't welsh just as they did	in 1921?
Don't you know that hon. gentlemen over there, not by the half dozen, but by the score-


Robert Forke: You forget that we can do
it ourselves.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says he can do it himself. Let me finish my sentence and I will reply to him-they will go to the country with the words of the hon. member for the county of Quebec (Mr. Lavigueur), with the words of the hon. member from Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) who declared that the Minister of the Interior a single member of the government had no right to speak for the government- they will go to the country with these words on their lips, and consequently if they come back as Liberals at all they will come back by the protectionist vote. Now, the leader of the Progressive party says, "We will do it ourselves." Let me say frankly now in the face of hon. gentlemen to my left that while those across the way will welsh on the issue they-the Progressives-will welsh themselves. Yes, in the last election they did not stand true. In the last election down in the county of Cumberland their candidate ran on a platform of protection for the coal industry; outside of coal he did not care. ' In the last

election the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Elliott)-who sits among them, who votes with them, but who now has flinched at this budget-went to his constituents on a protectionist platform. He declared that we had to have a tariff commission in this country before whom manufacturers could go and if they needed protection they would get it.
I do not know that hon. gentlemen to my left are very much entitled to boast of their superior position. All we want, all we ask is that tie word of the Minister of Agriculture, the word of the Minister of the Interior, be accepted, and that we go squarely to the people of Canada on the protection issue.
It is contended in respect chiefly of our grain producers whose crop of wheat is largely-about half, I think-an export crop, that they have to sell their wheat in an export market and take the export price; that consequently in respect of that particular product, they cannot be protected-their price cannot be raised by a tariff and they argue accordingly that those wheat growers have no particular interest in the home market, that however large it gets it would not affect the price of their export products.
I have some agreement with the statement of fact, and I have always contended that in respect of a product such as grain where there is a large export the price is naturally on the export level.
Yes I have some agreement with the statement of fact, but is it to be argued that because by its means you cannot raise the price of wheat, the home market is not of value to Canada, and is. not of value even to the raiser of wheat in this country? The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) argues in this House that the home market is a myth. He has a very poor opinion of the home market and describes it in language of contempt. I venture to say that when he was in public life in Ohio he did not describe the horns -market of the United States as a myth or if he did it would not be muck wonder he is now in Canada. In the first place	the home market is ol
tremendous value to the rest of the country. .As respects wheat, something that we export in very large quantities, I do not believe the home market could directly or very substantially affect its price. But have we no interest besides wheat? Have not the farmers of Canada, as respects a vast proportion of their products a vital interest in the home market? Besides the bringing to them purchasers for the great body of their products-the best market they possibly

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
can have, a market which consumes nearly all the production in a large class of cases-besides that I ask hon. gentlemen to my left has the farmer of this Dominion no interest in providing in Canada those industries which wilT enable his son, if he wants to leave the farm, to get work in his own country and not have to become an exile in another land? Even if we assume we cannot raise the price of his wheat that is no reason at all why we should bring about conditions as a result of which his son will necessarily have to travel away instead of establishing himself in our own country. By arguing to the contrary my hon. friends are creating a wrong impression entirely.


Robert Forke: The right hon. gentleman
never starts anything right.


Arthur Meighen: Where am I wrong in
starting?


Robert Forke: You started by declaring
that we do not want a home market and that we are against creating industries.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
wants a home market why does he discourage it in the way he is doing?


Robert Forke: I never discouraged it.


Arthur Meighen: J'he hon. gentleman
says he did not? His friend from Battleford called it a myth.


Robert Forke: No.


Arthur Meighen: I leave it to the hon.
member for Battleford, yes and many more of them to settle the matter with my hon friend; I was referring to the language used by the hon. member for Battleford. The home market is a benefit to all classes in Canada. The home market is Canada.
I bring another point to the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left: How are we to discharge the debt of this Dominion, how are we to carry the burdqp of government in this country? Is it not of some importance that we should keep in this country the tens of thousands who are going to the United States? Every family here would be helping them to pay our taxation, and if they were here would be working for employers who would be contributing to the revenue of Canada. Hon. gentlemen say "Oh, just take these two, three, four, five dollars off our implements and then watch us pay taxes." Now, assume that the amount that is going to be saved, or rather reduced, by 134J
this tariff on implements is all going into their pockets.


Robert Forke: We never said that, you
say it.


Arthur Meighen: How are the taxes to
be paid?


Robert Forke: By the people of this
country.


Arthur Meighen: But if the people go
how are they to be in the country? The hon. gentleman is convinced?


Robert Forke: No, I am not.


Arthur Meighen: To keep the people in
the country is of just as much interest, and will be of as much immediate benefit to the farmers of the West as to any other class of the population. Imagine the effect of this slight reduction of duty! I venture to say not $300,000 in its entirety will be taken off farm implements. Add to that if you like the home consumption, if you still stick to it that your theory is right, and you have something like $700,000. Hon. gentlemen know that even if they had a law which brought the whole of this money into the treasury of Canada, if they gave it all to the Minister of Finance, it would not fill the hollow of his hand; it would not buy the kitchen of the Scribe hotel.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I wish to ask the right hon. member a question in order to be clear on his argument, which I have not been able to follow very closely, perhaps-my own judgment is that it is rather sinuous. Is he arguing that the exodus to the United States would be stopped if our tariffs in Canada were raised higher?


Arthur Meighen: I think I made it very clear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, you did not.


Arthur Meighen: I made it very clear that it was largely caused by the reductions already made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is evading the question and I want an answer.


Arthur Meighen: I will answer it, yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very good.


Arthur Meighen: I would not be opposing the reductions if I did not think they should not be made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But you would raise it?


Arthur Meighen: You have to raise it to get back to where it was.
The Budget-Mr. Meighen


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I dislike very much interrupting my right hon. friend, but the exodus to the United States was started long before; in fact the figures he quoted in the debate on the Address showed that. Now he states he would raise the duties that have been lowered. Does he think the tariff as a whole is too low and would he raise it in order to stop the exodus?


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman refers to every schedule and every article, I can answer him. It is safe to say that in my judgment many of the duties are plenty high enough, but the influence of this government upon others has been injurious.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: What is the matter with hon. gentlemen? Every time they put their hands to the statute book they write sentences of idleness and expulsion against many people of this country. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says there was emigration before. Certainly there was, and there will always be emigration; but when you find it increased nearly three times over from one month to another, and hold the high level throughout a whole year, it is a pretty serious matter to seriously minded men. And I fancy when you are able to trace the men thrown out of employment in factories as respects the products of wjiich the duties were lowered, trace them into the States by the hundreds, you can find the reason they fell out of work and the reason they left the country.
I do not advocate a high protective tariff, but I advocate a tariff that is protective. I advocate a tariff that, being protective, is fairly and equitably protective, and not a gerrymandered system such as the government now presents.
Mr, GOULD: Is it not a fact that after 1920, when the right hon. gentleman was leading the government, we had the longest bread line ever known in the history of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is not a fact by any means. In 1921 there was considerable unemployment. When you get 400,000 or 500,000 men coming back all at once from Europe where they had' been fighting for their country^ you will likely find considerable unemployment until these men are absorbed. I wonder what would be the condition if we had 400,000 or 500,000 of our sons journeying back to the Dominion at the present time! The reason we have not more unemployment

to-day is the unfortunate reason that while the United States was enjoying a wave of prosperity denied to us, our men became absorbed in the republic.


Mr. GARDINER:: Was there any unemployment in this country in the winter of 1913 and 1914?


Arthur Meighen: There was some. I
never hope to abolish unemployment absolutely, but I do not consider that a reason why we should not try. I do not hope that we can ever become a wholly self-contained country, but I believe in approximating to it with all the might we possess. I do not think we can ever have absolute stability, but that is no reason why we should be continually hacking at our tariff and placing our industries in peril.
As respects agriculture in Canada to-day, it suffers just as agriculture suffers the world over. Does any hon. member really believe that, with agriculture the world over producing grain crops by the hundreds of millions of bushels above the average production, and with the largest consuming continent twenty per cent below its average consumption, we can produce at once a healthy, wholesome agricultural condition by any fiscal system in the world? These conditions are worid^wide. They obtain it is true in the United States in respect of the grain %rea. They obtain the world over, and they are suffering in some other countries even worse than we are here. But in Canada surely something can be done. In Canada our policy should be to endeavour to get, not only for manufacturers but for farmers, a preference within those markets which are the best for the whole Dominion. I have been in favour of a British preference all my life, but I want a British preference for which something is obtained. This was the purpose of the British preference as originally instituted. I can see no reason for a British preference or any other preference unless it is of benefit to the country which gives the preference. I believe in Canada standing up for lier own interests in trade matters, and adopting a policy which will improve the business of this Dominion. I know of no other way to hold our own. We have hope, and there is reason to have hope, that we can accomplish something in this direction. If we make concerted effort throughout the whole Empire we can, I should think, get results. But if our representatives at the Imperial Conferences where these matters should be pressed, adopt an attitude of indifference and merely

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
support in cold formality, almost in silence, a preference resolution; if by their attitude they give British statesmen reason to believe, that the people of Canada have no interest in the British preference, I do not think we will get far. Let our statutes as well reflect the preference we look for, and let us ask for it and work for it in the interest of Canada and of the Empire as a whole. Let us look to Britain rather than to the south of us where we have always looked in vain, or where when there has been action it has not ultimately resulted well.
Encouragement should be given of every possible kind1-and in every possible way to western agriculturalists toward perfecting a system of co-operative marketing. I would like to see such connection established between our western selling organizations and the great co-operative institutions of- the Motherland as will help a preference to be established and trade beaween them developed. Then there would be an immense future for agriculture in Canada. I have always welcomed the efforts of western agriculture towards co-operative marketing. Indeed, I think the Wheat Board example given by the late administration had very much to do with the voluntary efforts of western agriculturists to-day. That example was set in the days when policies Were carried through to success. Speaking to a concrete matter, I know of no reason why the Minister of Finance should dtenv to those efforts the meagre help of the money now in his hands, money which belongs to the farmers of the West-money contributed by them, which is not the money of the minister, money which is the property, strictly speaking, of those who sold the grain to the old Wheat Board. This money should be returned to them as their own property, as carefully and as accurately as may be possible. I know the minister's difficulties; I know it is impossible to give the money exactly to the men to whom it belongs; but because this is impossible is no reason why the closest approximation should not be made. The duty of the minister is so to divide the sum that it will reach the men to whom it belongs and give them every possible encouragement in the work upon which they are now engaged. These, along with the suggestions of a very practical character made by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur), are the efforts which should be made on behalf of agriculture at this time.
I do not think we are doing enough in the way of outside representation to advance the
sale of the farmer's products and I am sure we are not doing enough to secure to the farmer the advantage of the market of the Dominion which he has helped to build. Why, for example, should we, an agricultural country, be in the position of buying from the United States-that great industrial nation- $81,000,000 worth of farm products, and selling them only $51,000,000 worth?-These are imported in this quantity because our tariff is one-half to one-third of theirs, and the smaller figure is the extent of our export because they maintain a high duty against the products of our farms. Canadian farmers are absolutely entitled to a higher tariff against farm products from the south. Do not think I am arguing that this particularly is going to affect wheat; it will have an effect, as regards many and very important products of the farm. To secure better the home market of Canada would be of very great value to farmers, particularly in the central provinces of this Dominion.
We are asked: What has protection done? For four decades this .country maintained resolutely a protective system-a tariff fashioned to the needs of Canada. Throughout those four decades we made solid and increasing progress, and we made it against great odds-against the handicap of a farther developed nation right along our side-a nation of our own tongue abounding in all those attractions that a spirited and diversified industry can supply, rich in every allurement that draws to itself the seeker of a home or the soldier of fortune.
Against this formidable rival with the like of which no other country ever had to contend we grew in stature and wealth. We multiplied our manufacturing production ten fold, me multiplied our mineral production seventeen fold, we multiplied our agricultural production ten times. We opened up a Western Empire and spread a net work of transport from ocean to ocean; We laid the foundations and erected the girders of a big well balanced country where millions of virile people could live and multiply and make their home. At the end of that period such was our strength that we stood unbowed beneath the economic weight of a war participation undreamed of as within our power. True we experienced through this time, in ''ommos with every country and concurrently with our neighbours on this continent those variations of industrial expansion incident to every land, cycles of exhilaration and relapse round which the peoples of the world press forward their uneven march. But at no time in those forty years did we fail to improve our position ani at no time could we be contrasted unfavoic
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

ably with those other countries with whom we compare and with whom chiefly we compete. In 1921 we suffered with them reaction from the inflation of war. But we suffered no more than they. The numbers of our unemployed were indeed less by half proportioned to our population; the industrial disturbance was less severe.
Then came the period of tariff bombardment, tariff threatenings, trumpetings and the blowing of horns. Two parties contrived to control this House-or rather one party with two divisions and two names. The great body of the one and a small portion of the other believed in tariff destruction. The other portion who believed in a protective tariff was lulled into acquiescence by the prospect of a political triumph and by equivocal assurances of apostasy given by the Liberal leader. The Laurier-Fielding tariff was the banner held aloft in industrial Canada. The 1919 platform was the battle-cry down the concessions and through the prairie West. As was inevitable both groups of followers have been betrayed. We have not in Canada to-day either the one policy or the other. In fact we have no policy at all. We have had a process of tariff hacking, chipping and tinkering-in fidelity as declared by the honourable member for Watereloo- in fidelity to no principle whatever. We have had nothing but a bartering of tariff concessions on the auction block, the victim industry chosen every time with an eye to political support; with an ear tuned to the division bell. Every day this chamber has rung with denunciation of our fiscal system even from the ranks of the government, loud vauntings about the goal of free imports, threatenings and slaughter breathed out by three ministers in succession-stability promised a year ago, the death-knell of protection to-day. This i3 the melancholy record of two and one-half years of power.
What would honourable gentlemen expect? -1 appeal to the business men of this House- what would you expect would be the consequence on industry? There is alarm, there is dismay, there is a stoppage of expansion; there is depression. The United States strengthened their tariff defences three years ago and sprang forward after '21. They have enjoyed a wave of prosperity the most abundant in their history, not universal but almost universal in its sweep. For the first time we have failed to share even a reflex of that prosperity. The industries which this government has attacked have languished. Speaking generally those only have prospered rvho have engaged in selling our crops

which fortunately have been heavy and in selling our natural resources and those dependent on them. To-day every member of this House knows that the feeling through Canada is anything but wholesome or hopeful. The barometer of migration is ominous. From the city, from the town, from the factory, from the farm, the procession is distressing. A year ago its volume suddenly rose to three times its normal dimensions. And still they go. Their numbers may diminish with the saturation of the United States-but are we making work for them in Canada? We are circumscribing the area of employment every day. The inevitable consequences are upon us. Capital alarmed, business harassed, production dislocated, agriculture unassisted, labour contracted, tens of thousands of our children exiled, the debt heavier, taxation multiplied, the budget juggled, these are the reapings of thirty months of this government, the cruel cost to date of its brief and inglorious career.
What this country needs the bitter lesson of experience is teaching now as never before. First and fundamentally Canada needs a protective policy consistently and unflinchingly pursued. Canada needs a fearlessly Canadian policy-a national policy in the sense that Macdonald conceived it, in the sense that Laurier maintained it. Long enough have we trifled with this thing: long enough have we flirted with theories suited only to a nonexistent world to a world where all conditions are alike, all production on equal scale, all labour of equal standard, all markets open, all currencies at par, or suited at best to a country the very antithesis of our own. The time is coming now to settle this question, and to settle it for good. A right fiscal policy is vital to any country; it is a thousand times vital to Canada. For our part we welcome the issue. Almost anything would be better than what we have now. We are in a condition of anxious enervating suspense, industry crouching under a sword tossed between two leaders in this House, a state of perpetual premonition, a sort of endless thunder and lightning betokening a destructive storm. The Conservative party is for protection -for the farm, the mine, the factory, the whole of Canada. To those of other parties in this House I say, you are either for protection or against it. If you are against protection say so and draw your sword against it. Do not talk about tolerating it or palliating it;-if it is wrong, get rid of it and the sooner the better. On the other hand, if you are for protection stand up and say so and join the ranks of its defenders, Do not camouflage your colours by talking

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
about a revenue tariff when you mean a tariff on goods made in Canada. Do not camouflage your colours by talking of a Laurier tariff or a Fielding tariff, or a tariff for the home or any of that meaningless humbug. Protection is protection, no matter what you call it; it is a tariff on Canadian-made goods; it does not matter what you call it. Do not flinch the issue; do not confuse the issue. Let its friends give battle to its foes. Let us have a clean, clear fight and a definite verdict and let this Dominion get on its way once more.
This country needs, yes this country must, if she is going to carry on, take to herself for her own good all the advantages she possesses. She'must assert fearlessly in her law and her administration, not in any spirit of retaliation but in a spirit of self-reliance, her faith in her own resources, her unalterable determination to get for her people the full finished harvest of those resources. In tariff, in internal organization, in diplomacy, this great purpose has become more and more the guiding star of policy in other countries of the world; especially has it become more and more the fixed policy of the United States, and will be for years to come, as every one of us knows with only temporary variations. And even if every other country abandoned this course-an impossible presumption- even if they did and the United States alone persisted, this Dominion would still have to pursue it and pursue it unswervingly if we are going to sustain the contest. We must keep work in Canada if we want to keep workers in Canada.
To this great end we need every day of every year to encourage our people, east, west and centre, by our own speeches, through the press, by our conduct in parliament, to think in terms of the whole Dominion and to understand that only when they are doing so are they in reality - thinking out what is best for themselves. The tariff above everything else is a matter for the nation, it is a question of national policy. The habit of thinking in sections on this subject and carelessly assuming that the loss of one is the gain of another-that habit is pernicious and disintegrating. The loss of one is the loss of all.


John Morrison: Has the right hon. member spoken that way in Montreal?


Arthur Meighen: In Montreal, in Toronto and wherever else I have spoken.


John Morrison: We have not heard the hon. member speak that way in the West.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman does not attend my speeches there very much. This question broadly understood is not a question of adjusting a balance as between Saskatchewan and Ontario, or between Manitoba and Quebec. It is not a question of Montreal as against Saltcoats, of Toronto as against Pipestone, of Halifax as against Mira-michi. It is a question of Montreal as against New York, of Sydney as against Pittsburg, of Hamilton and Toronto and Kitchener as against Buffalo, and Chicago and Detroit, of British Columbia as against the Pacific States, it is a question above all of Canada as against her rivals.
The call of this hour, an imperative, appealing call is for Canadians to think together and never to forget that Canada is one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to join with all
who have spoken on this side of the House, as with most of those who have spoken on the other side, in expressing the regret which I think we all feel at the circumstances which have prevented our venerable Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) from being present at this session to discharge a duty to which he had looked forward with keen expectancy. Had Mr. Fielding been able to present the budget to the House it would have been his seventeenth budget. Although the right hon. the Minister of Finance has not been able to attend parliament this session, he has been following with the keenest and closest interest, the discussions which have been taking place. On each occasion on which I have had the opportunity and the privilege of seeing him-and that has been frequently- since his return from the South, the Minister of Finance has expressed to me the wish, should any of his colleagues desire it, that he should be permitted to come here on the evening of the division, notwithstanding the advice of his physicians, in order to show to the House and the country that he stands four-square by the side of the Acting Minister of Finance in the budget which has been brought down. In his absence, I wish to make it clear to the House that such is the desire and the wish of the Minister of Finance.
May I congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) not only on the budget he has brought down but also on his having brought it down at the early stage of the session at which it was introduced.
Despite the remarks of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and some of his supporters. I think the acting minister should feel deeply gratified at having brought down a

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
budget which has met with general approval throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, and has given fresh hope and heart to the people of our country.
We did not expect that my right hon. friend would become very enthusiastic over thi3 budget. When we assembled at the beginning of the present session, the public had been led to believe that the country would again be confronted with a further increase of the public debt, with a deficit resulting from an excess of expenditures over receipts, with a contraction of commerce and trade, and possibly with an announcement of the need for increased taxation. The unfounded and irresponsible attacks made upon the administration in these particulars by the leader of the opposition and his detractions and misrepresentations in the course of his mournful pilgrimages through western and eastern Canada had, it must be admitted, given rise to doubt and created apprehension. I need not enumerate the circumstances which combined to make it difficult, if not impossible, for my colleagues and myself to attend to our many public duties and also find the time necessary to follow my right hon. friend everywhere in a refutation of these erroneous impressions. We knew that the facts were otherwise. We knew that as soon as parliament met the truth would become immediately apparent, and we were content to wait.
As hon. members well know, we had hot to wait very long. The Speech from the Throne had no sooner been delivered than the public learned it had been deceived by the leader of the opposition with respect to the addition to the public debt; to deficits resulting from excess of expenditures over receipts; as to the condition of trade and the probability of increased taxation. They discovered that in each of these particulars the truth was the reverse-that the public debt for the first time in a decade has been diminished, not increased; that a surplus of receipts over expenditures would in all probability be announced; that trade, instead of having diminished, had vastly expanded and what was most gratifying of all, that taxation instead of being increased would be substantially reduced; all of which expectations have now been realized as disclosed in the financial statement of the Acting Minister of Finance.
In a word, my right hon. friend finds himself very much at sea, and is now endeavouring to restore the impressions which prior to the assembling of parliament he sought so assiduously to create. This afternoon he endeavoured to make it appear that as a

result of representations made in the last general election a sort of nemesis was overtaking the government, and he drew from the papers he had in hand a copy of the Farmer's Sun from which he read an editorial setting forth, according to his statement, the view that there were divisions in the 5 p.m. ranks of the Liberal party, and that this was a punishment for its sins. In this connection let me read to the House an editorial from the Farmer's Sun of April 12, 1924. My right hon. friend did not read this editorial. He has a way of picking and choosing here and there whatever suits his purpose; he does not try to place all the facts before the House, but prefers to give a partisan, partial Statement of a kind that will the better serve his ends. In brief, he carefully avoids anything that will bring out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As I say, this is characteristic of my right hon. friend's method. It will be all the more apparent to hon. members on listening to the following editorial from the Sun, which I think he should have read when he presumed to draw deductions from the editorial which he presented a few minutes ago. This is an editorial which appeared in the Farmer's Sun of April 12, 1924:
A Commendable Budget
The full measure of the benefit to be conferred upon the primary industries of this country by the tariff and tax reduction proposals submitted to the House of Commons by Hon. J. A. Robb on Thursday cannot be estimated until they are considered in detail, but it is apparent, even upon a cursory examination, that Premier King and his colleagues have made a sincere effort to carry out, within practicable limits, some of the pledges given to the electorate by the Liberal party in 1919. It is equally apparent that Mr. King has merited the support which Mr. Robert Forke, on behalf of the Progressive group, intimated, at the opening of the session, would be given to the govemmnt, providing it brought forward progressive measures. Ever since the Speech from the Throne announced the intention of the government to lift some of the burden upon the instruments of production, Premier King has had to withstand tremendous pressure, not only from interests likely to be affected by tariff reductions, but from within his own party. This pressure, it was feared, would cause the government to whittle down its tariff relief proposals. In fact, so general did the impression become that the government's proposals would be of little importance, that The Montreal Gazette a day or two ago interpreted a statement of the Minister of Finance as an assurance that relief would be given by tax reductions rather than tariff changes.
Mr. King seems to have yielded little to protectionist urging, and the new budget will certainly be fought to the bitter end by Hon. Arthur Meighen and his colleagues. There are protectionist Liberals who will leave the ranks and join him, but these desertions will not be serious enough to hinder the adoption of the proposals.	'
Nothing could be truer, Mr. Speaker, than that the proposals will be adopted.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend
believes in always reading everything. I

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
have another editorial here dated April 6, from the same paper, headed: The Wobbling Mr. King.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The editorial
my right hon. friend directs my attention to opens in this vein:
Just where Mackenzie King is going to land finally in matters of tariff policy will not be known until the budget is brought down the middle of this month.
That was April 5. The editorial I read appeared on April 12.


Arthur Meighen: This is April 5-several
days after the budget was brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The budget
was not brought down till April 10th. My right hon. friend, when it comes to a recital of matters on which he wishes to score a point, has a genius for a sort of political thimble-rigging. I do not think the country could have a better example of his method of procedure in public affairs than that which he has exhibited at the moment. The truth is he cannot get over the fact that "this government"-as he continually says-"this government" has succeeded in bringing about a condition of greater national prosperity, has succeeded in having a' surplus instead of a deficit, has placed on the records of this country in its statistical tables figures which cannot be questioned as to the expansion of trade, and has reduced taxation; these are things, that irritate his feelings and cause him very often to lose his better judgment and in his one desire to discredit the ministry, to indulge in extreme language and misrepresent the condition of the country.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that while the constitution fixes five years as the term of parliament, although half of that term has not yet elapsed, the country has had presented to it the third budget of this administration, and each budget has shown a progressively improved condition not only as respects reduction of the public debt but also as respects reduction of expenditure, reduction of taxation and increase of revenue and expanding trade. In short, in all the essential features of our national economy there has been steady and marked improvement. That is the most convincing and gratifying evidence the country can have as to how its affairs are being administered by the present government.
Let me take first of all the public debt. During the period of the war and demobilization there had been, year by year, gigantic increases to our public debt. They did not cease even with the period of demobilization. The war ended November, 1918. I shall say nothing of the additions of the fiscal year
1918-19, nor of the fiscal year 1919-20. It might have been expected, however, that the fiscal years 1920-21 and 1921-22 would have seen an end to the additions to our public debt. On the contrary, however, the public iebt continued to increase. In the fiscal year 1920-21, the debt increased by the sum of $92,010,360. The next year, 1921-22, which represented nine months of office of my hon. friend and his friends, indicated an addition to the public debt of $81,000,000 or over. As I said, speaking on this matter in the debate on the Address, had it not been for the fact that the present administration was in office three months of that fiscal year the chances are the increase in the public debt for 1921-22 would have been as high as the previous year-$91,000,000 instead of $81,000,000. The year following, this government had to meet a vast number of obligations which had been left by the previous administration. In the matter of preparing our budget we were not free. We had to meet these obligations, many of which were uncontrollable in their character, and as a result we were unable at the end of the first year of office to do more than show a very material reduction in the increase which had been made to the public debt in the previous years. Instead of the public debt showing an increase of $91,000,000 as in 1920-21, or $81,000,000 as in 1921-22, the increase had fallen to something like $30,000,000, odd, a decrease of $50,000,000 as against the preceding year.
Coming now to this year, which is the first in which the government has really had some show in the matter, we find that instead of adding to the public debt $30,000,000, as was the case at the end of the last fiscal year, we are now able to speak, and speak honestly, of a surplus amounting to over $30,000,000 on the last year's business. .
My right hon. friend has tried to make out that in some way that surplus is not genuine, that because the government guaranteed loans for the National Railways, to the extent of $50,000,000 that amount should have been included in the public debt. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that in this matter, as in most matters of administration, the government had the officers of the Finance department follow precisely the same methods as had been followed by the previous administration. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when he brought to the cabinet the statement which he brought to parliament, intimated to his colleagues that these were the figures which had been given to him by the officers of the Finance department, that they were taken from the
2118	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
books of the Finance department, and that they were made up in exactly the same manner as records of previous years had been made up. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) in 1920-21 guaranteed a loan of 850,000,000, 825,000,000 to the Canadian Northern and 825,000,000 to the Grand Trunk. That was not included in the public debt. The following year my hon. friend made another guaranteed loan.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend permit a question? Does he recognize the difference between a refunding issue and other issues?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will permit me, I will come to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would point
out that while my hon. friend will find that there is some 812,500,000, it may possibly be $14,000,000-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Better sit down
and learn your lesson.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON-which was not refunded out of the total of these loans, during the year out of current cash we refunded over 815,000,000, 829,000,000 altogether being the amount.


George Perry Graham: It was not added to the public debt just the same.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not. In the following year my hon. friend guaranteed a loan of 850,000,000, 825,000,000 to the Canadian Northern and 825,000,000 to the Grand Trunk. In speaking yesterday, the right hon. leader of the opposition tried to convey the same impression which his former Minister of Finance has sought to convey, that in some way the loan with which he had to do was concerned wholly with refunding operations, and that therefore there was a reason why when this government dealt with the matter it should deal with it in a different way. Well, I happen to have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a statement secured from the books of the Finance department, showing how the guaranteed bond issues were dealt with, and I find that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance did not segregate the different accounts on which the moneys were paid out, but some were paid out for one purpose and some for another. First of all out of this guaranteed loan, some 85,000,000 was allowed on operating deficits of the Canadian Northern, and to the Grand Trunk a sum of 81,095,000 for the same purpose; for interest and sinking funds there was allowed to the Canadian [Mr. Mackenzie King.)
Northern the sum of 88,907,907, and to the Grand Trunk the sum of 85,216,175.


Arthur Meighen: I stated all that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon.
friend did not state it.


Arthur Meighen: I gave the total.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge
my hon. friend-


Arthur Meighen: I stated the total was
about 814,500,000 or 815,000,000, but I stated that so long as the total amount guaranteed by bond did not exceed the total amount refunded, there was no need to add to the debt. And it did not exceed it; indeed, the refunding was greater by 815,000,000 in our time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to give the balance of these figures:	For
acquisition of property, materials and supplies there was allowed the Canadian Northern 85,172,807.


Arthur Meighen: Out of what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Out of the
825,000,000 guaranteed bond issue.


Arthur Meighen: I have a statement to
the contrary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are the figures given by the Finance department; they are taken from the books of the Finance department. On that same account there was allowed to the Grand Trunk 85,157,402; for construction, and betterments for the Canadian Northern 82,725,784.


Arthur Meighen: Is that 1921 or 1920?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The 1921 loan.


Arthur Meighen: I have a statement here from the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways, as follows:
During the year an issue of $25,000,000 Canadian Northern, 6^ per cent, twenty-five year sinking fund bonds guaranteed by the Dominion were sold in New York in payment of advances by the Dominion Government.
That is refunding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit in
a matter of this kind, if there is any difference of view as to which is correct or not, that I am justified in appealing to the books of the Finance department in the statement I give to the House. This statement has been given to me by the officers of the Department of Finance, and will be substantiated by them. Of that total of 850,000,000, 84,421,663 went for the Canadian Northern to meet principal of maturing loans, and 811,717,596 to the Grand Trunk.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that 1921?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I think this proves what I have just said, that my hon. friends opposite in presenting their statement to parliament did not place in the columns which relate to the public debt of this countiy the guarantees made to the railway companies. I would submit further that while my hon. friends opposite might well have included those guarantees as additions to the public debt, because the railroads at that time were in a state of bankruptcy, and what they were doing was to meet the bankrupt condition of the roads, since the present administration has come into office a change has taken place in the position of the national railways under the management of Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors-a condition which justifies the government in feeling that these roads are entitled to have some guarantees given for what they need in the way of betterment and equipment without the amounts being added to the public debt.
There is reason to expect that with the business of the railroads progressing as it has progressed within the last year or two, it will be only a very short time before the National system will return dividends to the people of Canada. In 1921 there was a deficit on net operating expenses on the National system of $11,848,000. In 1922 there was a surplus of $2,886,711- In 1923 the net operating revenue was $20,236,000. During the past twelve months, if we take the period for which we have a record now, up to February 1924, the net operating revenue amounted to $23,768,000, and the president has stated that for the year 1924 he believes the net operating revenue will equal $30,000,000, and that in two more years the system will cease to be a burden to the taxpayers. Now, that was justification, if justification were needed, for our not including as additions to the public debt such guarantees as these we have made .
May I add further that with respect to Dominion government accounts it has not been customary-not only during the last couple of years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, but running back for the last twenty-five years or more-to include as additions to the public debt guarantees of such a character. From 1896 to 1911 guarantees were made to the extent of $124,000,000, not a cent of which was added to the public debt of the country. Between 1911 and 1921 guarantees were made to the extent of $170,000,000, not one cent of which was added to the public debt. Why then
should this government ask the officers of the Department of Finance, in the preparation of statements for parliament, to change the method of bookkeeping and of presentation and give to parliament something entirely different from the methods adopted in previous years.


Mr. MANION:: Were not the guarantees between 1896 and 1911 guarantees for private corporations where the corporations were paying the interest?


George Perry Graham: And they did not pay.


Robert James Manion: They paid some.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to these guaranteed railway loans I think it i3 a fact that not a dollar of the money raised was placed in the federal treasury; there was a trust account made out to the railroad. That account is kept entirely separate from the government accounts and has always been kept in that way. Hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken about refunding, and I think the leader of the opposition said yesterday that "there was refunding and refunding." Well, if hon. members had time to go over the transactions they would find that a good deal of the refunding which my right hon. friend did in his day was to meet temporary loans that had been issued in order to meet deficits of the railway which was in a bankrupt state. That kind of refunding I think ought to find a place in the additions to the public debt. But every dollar which the railways have had of the money which has been issued under the guarantees of the present government has gone into construction and equipment to make these roads better revenue payers than they are at the present time. So we say, Mr. Speaker, that our accounts have been made up in a regular and proper manner.
More than that, not only does the federal government follow this method, but the pro-vicial governments do not include in their additions to the public debt like guarantees made by them. The Ontario government have guaranteed forty-two millions to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission, and these amounts are not included as additions to the public debt.


Arthur Meighen: Are not these active assets? Does not the Hydro-Electric pay its interest?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the case of our guarantees we have reason to believe the National Railway system will pay the interest very soon. Will hon. gentlemen
2120	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
opposite say that whatever is done for the Canadian National Railway system, in the way of branch-line construction and the like, should be added to the public debt of Canada? That is the contention which my right hon. friend is making at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I contend that all advances for capital or for anything but refunding, so long as the security taken is not active, should be included in the national debt..


George Perry Graham: That is directly opposite to the course which has been practised for the last twenty-eight years.


Arthur Meighen: We have only had these railways for four years.


George Perry Graham: You do not want to treat our railways even as they were treated when they were in private hands?


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have said enough to make it perfectly clear that what the government has done under the present system of control is identical in method with that followed not only when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office two years ago but with the custom followed for the last quarter of a century. I think I have made it very clear also that the system we are following is the method which is also followed by the provincial governments.
I should like to draw attention to the care with which the Acting Minister of Finance presented his statement to the House. He did not try to give the government more credit than it was justly entitled to. True, he was able to point out to the House that the books of the government showed some $30,000,000 in the way of a surplus, but he was careful to inform parliament that of that amount $1,300,000 odd was in the nature of some obligations that had been cancelled, and that $9,300,000 was in the nature of the payment of a book debt which was owed to us by Great Britain. So that there were $10,000,000 for which he did not in any way claim special credit for the government. But where was he to put the $10,000,000 to which I have just referred unless he included it as part of the surplus of the year? Was he to add that to the public debt of the country? There was no other place he could put it; he had to make a statement exactly in accordance with what the figures showed.
The outstanding feature of my hon. friend's statement was that for the year, from economics which the government has practised, he was able to show a net surplus of 
revenue over expenditure of $20,000,000. More than that, my hon. friend when he brought in his budget mentioned that he was in a position to present to the House only estimates; he was very guarded and very careful not to overstate the facts. To-day we have the complete returns up to the end of the fiscal year and what do they show? They show that while my hon. friend did not overestimate the revenue he did very considerably overestimate the expenditures. He overestimated the expenditures to the extent of some $5,000,000 with the result that the surplus we have to-day is in reality $35,000,000 instead of $30,000,000.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have made various estimates of the public debt. The ex-Minister of Finance made one estimate, the leader of the opposition made another estimate. I need not point out that their figures were not the same. They both gave to the House different versions. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) made an estimate which was also different but which, except as to the placing of the guaranteed loans, was I think very fair. He went into the figures carefully and I think accurately. He however took the position that the $50,000,000 guaranteed should be included as part of the public debt.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we were right in not including it; but my hon. friend will have this consolation, that if he had had all the figures when drawing up his statement, he would have shown, not that the government had a deficit of some two million dollars, as he figured out according to his calculation, but a surplus of three million, including the fifty million dollars guarantee. He would have been able to show it for this reason: That of that fifty million guarantee there are seventeen millions still in the treasury, or were in the treasury at the end of the fiscal year, which had not been drawn out. The fact therefore is, Mr. Speaker-and I give this to hon. members as conclusive as to the country's position -that in the treasury of this country at the present time, in actual cash, there is that surplus in round figures of thirty-five million dollars.
Let me give now figures of reductions in expenditures. Here I think my right hon. friend will find great difficulty in rebutting what I have to say. I have spoken of the three budgets, and the increasingly better showing which has taken place as each budget has been brought down. These figures are eloquent in themselves, I shall give them in the form of a statistical table which sets forth the figures for the fiscal years 1921-22, 192223 and 1923-24:

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
Budget of	Fiscal year	Total generally controllable expenditure	Total generally uncontroll- able expenditure	Grand total disburse- ments1922	1921-22	$ 156,559,119 143,069,685 140,662,864	8 307,093,317 291,382,656 229,530,787	$ 463,652,436 434,452,341 370,213,6511923	1922-23...	1924	1923-24.	There is a difference of sixty-four million in disbursements between 1924 and 1923. If my right hon. friend wants to know where we get our surplus, there it is, from the economies we have	practised.	What	does	that showwith respect	to	the	estimate	of	the grand
total disbursement per head of the estimated population of the country? It shows the total disbursements per head of population as follows:
Grand total disbursement per head of (population
1922	
$51	771923	
47	501924	
39	60
In other words, the disbursements per head of the population in 1924 were seven-ninths of those in 1922. For every nine dollars which my hon. friends opposite were spending when they left office, this government is now spending seven dollar^. We have been able to reduce expenditure by that ratio.
What about the revenues of the country? They also contain something which reflects
the improved condition of the country. Whilst the disbursements have shown a marked progressive decrease, the revenues on the other hand have shown an equally marked progressive increase. The figures are as follows:
Total
Budget of	Fiscal Year Revenue Receipts
1923
1921- 22	$381,952,387
1922- 23	394,614,900
1923- 24	'	396,000,000
This table shows a steady increase each year since the government has taken office.
I take next the external trade of the country. My hon. friend said a few moments ago that everyone was leaving the country, not the people only but also the trade, that business was suffering, and that the country was in a bad way indeed. Here are the figures in regard to the external trade of the country, they disclose a vast improvement in the total volume of trade and particularly in the favourable balance:
Budget of	Fiscal year	Imports for home consumption	Total exports	Excess of imports over exports	Excess of exports over imports1922	1921-22...	s 747,804,332 802,465,043 893,335,491	$ 753,927,009 945,295,837 1,058,553,297	s	$ 6,122,677 142,830,794 165,217,8061923	1922-23	1924	1923-24...	
*1920-21: Excess of imports over exports-$29,730,763.
My hon. friend says the business concerns of the country have been closing down since the government came into office, that the changes in the tariff have affected business considerably. The figures I have quoted show that this is not the case. Had I taken the fiscal year 1920-21, when my right hon. friend was in office, hon. members would have seen that there was no excess of exports over imports that year; but an excess of imports over exports of $29,730,763.


Arthur Meighen: About two years before it was five hundred million.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are the figures as they relate to the period of time this government has been in office, and as they are recorded in the three successive budgets which have been brought down. Now then, what was the other outstanding feature? It is that this year there is a reduction in taxation of twenty-four million dollars. There you have reflected the condition of Canada. You have a surplus in the matter of revenues over expenditures, you have this great reduction in the total expenditures of the country, you have this vast increase in the total export trade of the country, and you have at last a
2122	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
government which is able to come before the people and say, "Having practised economy, having introduced policies which have been helpful to the nation's progress and development we are now in a position to relieve you of taxation to the extent of twenty-four millions of dollars."
I shall refer now to the other financial matter to which my right hon. friend referred yesterday. He took issue with the statement which I made that the previous government had left as a mortgage upon the wealth and the industry of this country the total capital cost of the war. I wish to repeat Mr. Speaker, that that is a true and accurate statement of the fact. The total cost of the war was met by hon. gentlemen opposite by means of loans, and not a dollar of it was raised by means of taxation. Here again, notwithstanding the figures which my hon. friend gave this House yesterday, I stand in the judgment of the House as to whether I am not right in saying that the appeal to be made in this instance should be to the books of the government as they were kept by hon. gentlemen themselves.
If hon. members will look at the books of the government as they were kept during the period of the war, they will find there were certain sums of money which were allocated to capital cost of the war; to expenditures of account of war and demobilization. There were other sums that were put down to current liabilities to be paid out of the consolidated fund, just as we are meeting all our accounts to-day. These were current obligations arising out of the war, lasting not only during the war, but continuing on for a more or less indefinite time. These obligations arising out of the war were, first of all, interest upon the outlays constituting the capital cost of the war. My right hon. friend would hardly say that the interest that was paid on the capital cost of the war should be added to the capital cost of the war. Interest in such cases is paid to avoid paying the capital-to keep the capital where it is and avoid paying it. Blit that nevertheless was one of the items that was included in the statement of the former Minister of Finance of what his government had met in the way of war expenditure during the period of the war. The soldiers' civil re-establishment and the soldier land settlement are the other two items. Soldiers' civil re-establishment was an obligation arising out of the war, an obligation which is continuing at the present time. Does any 'hon. member believe that it is a fair and accurate presentation of the facts to tell the country that expenditure on account of soldiers' civil re-establishment is a part of the capital cost of a war which ended in 1918? Yet there you have the basis of the figures which my right hon. friend gave to the House yesterday as his reason for denying the statement which I had made that the entire capital cost of the war was left to the country as an obligation by the governments of which he was a member and remains as such at the present time. That is the reason why for some little time it may not be easy to reduce taxation as much as we should like.
My right hon. friend put on Hansard yesterday some figures which he had not read to the House. While I take no exception to his having placed them on Hansard, I think he should have taken care to see that they were accurate. In giving the total expenditure to the country for 1919-20, he fixes the total expenditure at $743,763,186. Those figures should read $785,869,611, the larger figure including advanoes to railways amounting to $45,780,690. This figure makes the deficit for the six-year period, $1,684,179,975, as given on page 43 of Hansard of this session, when I gave to the House the figures* as to the total expenditures. So, that even if we admit the right hon. gentleman's claim regarding sinking funds, the deficit during the six-year period would still exceed the total expenditure on war and demobilization account. There is no refuting the figures, and I think it is well that they should be before the country and the House again. Let me say that when I speak of the capital cost of the war, I include the capital cost of the war and demobilization. Demobilization is a part. These are the figures:
Year	Total Revenue Receipts	Total Disbursements	Deficit	Spent on War and Demobilization Account1914-1915	$ 133,073,482 172,149,393	$ 248,098,526 339,702,502 498,203,118 576,660,210 697,042,212 785,769,611	$ -115,625,044	S 60,750,4761915-1916	-167,553,109	166,197,7551916-1917	232,701,294	-265,501,824	306,488,8151917-1918	260,778,953	-315,881,257	343,836,8021918-1919	312,946,747 349,746,335	-384,095,465	446,519,4391919-1920	-436,123,276	346,612,955
1,461,396,204	3,145,576,179	-1,684,179,975	1,670,406,242

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
In other words, the exact figures disclose that during the years 1914-1920 $13,773,733 was spent on the business of Canada over and above what was spent on war and demobilization account during that period.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been following my right hon. friend and his statement is incorrect. I have just looked at the Public Accounts, and I find, for the year 1920 the deficit is $390,000,000, as against the $436,000,000 that he showed. A very cursory examination is sufficient to show that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The figures I have are figures given me by the Finance department, which I have every reason to believe are absolutely accurate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have the books here.


An hon. MEMBER:: A misprint.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not a misprint.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me come to another part of what I should like to say this afternoon. We have heard it said over and over again in this debate and emphatically by my right hon. friend this afternoon that, in the tariff changes which the government has made, the government has not proceeded in accordance with any principle; that we have acted in a haphazard manner. I think he used the expression that we have been "gerrymandering" amongst the industries. He was very very strong in what he said as to there being no underlying, guiding principle upon which the tariff changes had been based. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the budget which has been brought down this year has been carefully planned, planned in reference to very definite principles. Those are the principles for which the Liberal party has fought during the years which have passed and for which it will continue to fight during the years which are to come. The guiding principle as regards the tariff has been its revision in such a manner as will help to increase production and help to decrease the cost of living-in other words, to effect a reduction in living costs and a reduction of production costs. Those have been, as long as the Liberal party has been the Liberal party, the aims and objectives which it has had in mind in all tariff matters.
I should like to emphasize that in this two-fold aim the Liberal party has had in view, not only producers, but also the consumers of the country. We have sought, in all our policies, to consider the interests alike of consumers and producers. There are some who say that it is impossible, at one and the same stroke, to * render a service alike to producers and consumers. A view of that kind is a very superficial view. Let me give from nature an illustration which in a moment will make the matter apparent. The condition of the country is dependent very largely upon the seasons. If you have a spring in which the rains are just sufficient, a summer where there is plenty of moisture and sunshine and a fall that is free from blight, then you are apt to have harvests and crops which will bring plenty in the land, which will help the producers and the consumers, at one and the same time, and further national well-being as a consequence of helping both producers and consumers. On the other hand, if you have a spring in which there is rot sufficient rain, droughts in the summer, frosts and consequent blights in the fall, not only are producers injured, but consumers as well and the entire country suffers.
Taxation is in the nature of a blight. Let it ever be remembered taxation is a burden whether it is on the back of the consumer or on the back of the producer. The man or woman who has to carry it is a burden-bearer, and the man or woman who is freed to some extent of taxation is freed to that extent of a burden. If you free consumers of that burden to that extent you are helping, not consumers only, but also producers, because you afford a larger purchasing power and ensure a larger demand for the commodities which are produced. Similarly, if you in some measure relieve the producer of taxation, you are helping also the consumer, because in relieving the producer in some measure of taxation, you enable him to produce in larger quantities or the same quantity more cheaply, and you help the consumer by having placed before him commodities in large quantity, and at a lower cost. Where it is possible to relieve the consumer and the producer of taxation, you are helping all classes in the community.
The most elementary knowledge of political economy teaches us that the factors of production are four:	Land, labour, capital
and management. In order that wealth may be produced, that industries may be devel-[DOT] oped, in order that there may be an export trade, and that a country may enjoy economic advantages over other nations, there must be a combination and co-ordination of these four factors.
What is the land? Land, in the broad meaning of the term, consists in the natural, material resources of the soil, the forests, the mines

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
and the sea. Agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing are the industries that grow out of the development of the natural resources; they are the industries that depend upon the soil, the forests, the mines and the sea. As j'ou develop these natural resources, so you make possible the development of the whole of the industrial life of the nation. That is the great fact which lies at the bottom of this budget. We are seeking to make possible the development of the natural resources of the country in a larger way than has hitherto been possible, believing that as we promote this development we are helping the whole industrial life of the country.
Next, take labour; labour includes the actual labour in the .country at any moment; but it also includes in a potential way the immigration that may come to the country to supplement existing labour. I maintain that there is necessary, as a supplement to a vigorous immigration policy, some policy which will induce immigrants to develop our natural resources. In other words, if you are going to stimulate in Canada the kind of immigration movement which is necessary for our development, you must endeavour in some way to attract immigrants to develop the resources of the soil, the forest, the mine, and the sea. It is in the great natural industries of the country that wealth in the first instance must be produced.
I come now to capital. What is capital? It is nothing other than wealth that is used for the production of further wealth. In the great basic industries, capital is the machinery, the implements and the tools required to aid labour in this development, also the food and clothing essential to the workers engaged while production is bringing forth its fruits. The capital that is essential to the development of these basic industries, upon which the whole of the national wealth and development depend, consists in the implements of production. That is why the Liberal party has always stood for the reduction to the lowest point possible of the duties on the implements of production, and particularly those that are connected with agriculture. We have been seeking a policy which would help to develop the whole of the national life; and it would be just as logical to put a tax upon every immigrant who comes into the country and goes to work in mine, or field or forest, as it is to put a tax on the implement he has to use in order to extract the wealth from the soil. We say, therefore, that in so far as the circumstances of the country will permit, we

believe that in our policy we are laying the foundation of a great industrial revival in this country, that we are establishing a truly national policy.
My right hon. friend asks, why single out particular industries? Different members of the House who have spoken have conveyed the impression that we were discriminating against a particular class. We have done nothing of the kind. Let hon. members look through the records of the Liberal party and they will find that from the day on which the question of the tariff was first spoken of. the reduction in the duties on implements of production has been put forward as a foremost object of the party, and put forward for the reason I have mentioned.
Let us stop for a moment to consider further the nature of industry. What, in a general way, is industry? It is nothing other than the transformation of the natural resources of the country, through human intelligence and human energy, by the aid of natural forces, and of tools and implements, into commodities and services that are available for human use. That is all. Industry is a great process of transformation beginning with the basic industries associated with the soil, with the forest, with the mine, and with the sea, a process of transformation in which every handicap that is imposed at the base is carried on up to the very top and where whatever of freedom is given at the start is reflected all along the way. Our object in the budget, far from injuring in any way the industrial life of the country, has been to bring about an industrial development in Canada vaster than has ever been known before.
I have spoken of the different industries as being so to speak, built up one upon the other. I have in my hand a copy of the Canada Year Book which contains a list of the manufacturing industries in this country, not the individual plants, but the different industries, large as well as small. There are between three and four hundred altogether, the larger of which number about forty. [DOT] Now, what does one find as one consults the classification? One finds that all the industries of this country -and I am speaking now of the manufacturing industries in relation to the tariff changes which we are making at the present time-are based, and depend for their raw material, upon the development of the four basic industries to which I have referred. First of all, there are the industries that grow out of the vegetable products, such for example as biscuits, confectionery, bread and other bakers' products, feed and flour mills, and so forth, comprising a list of some thirty-four. Then there are those that depend upon the development of

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
the animal products, and also the textile industries. There are, further, the industries that relate to forestry, such as wood and paper, and those relating to the mines, such as iron and its products, non-ferrous metals and their products, chemical products, and so on; then certain miscellaneous industries; and, finally, the construction industries, hand trades, repairs, and so on. If one looks critically at this list of industries one will find that a great many depend almost entirely on the products of agriculture; others mainly on mineral products, some on the forest, and others again on the combination of the basic industries I have mentioned. In other words, the whole industrial structure, the whole industrial life of the country, is built up on the development of these basic industries. And that is the reason why in the tariff which we have brought down we have confined the changes to the reduction of duties on implements of production in the basic industries. We have tried to make possible a larger production in agriculture, in mining, in lumbering and in the fisheries, knowing that, as we help to stimulate these industries, every manufacturer and every employer in the country will be assisted. But not only will the manufacturing industries benefit; all transportation enterprises, the whole of the commercial and industrial life of the country, and as well the export trade and finance, will stand to gain, and with the industries and trades the great body of consumers who compose the nation. If one will pause to reflect one will see that that is the only sound national policy, the only basis on which national development can take place.
I might conclude this phase of my observations by presenting to the House an analogy which will serve to illustrate my conception of the relation of the manufacturing industries of the country to the great basic industries. I think of Canadian agriculture as the trunk of a great tree, and of its current production as the sap-the life-blood of the tree. The current products-the animal and the vegetable products-leave the trunk of the tree and supply life and aliment to the great branches-to such great manufactures as flour-milling, slaughtering and meat packing, butter and cheese, bread and bakery products, biscuits and confectionery, and so forth, as well as to such smaller branches as prepared breakfast foods, stock and poultry foods, condensed milk, tanneries, leather goods, and so forth-all of which industries were in days of less specialized production carried on upon the farm itself. My idea is that if we desire to promote the prosperity of even these smaller branches of our tree, the best way is to culti-135
vate the ground around its trunk, from which it draws its sustenance, thus increasing the flow of products which pass from the trunk into the manufacturing processes of the branches. That, I submit, is the natural and obvious way of promoting industrial prosperity, and that is why this government is reducing the duties on agricultural implements-those duties which restrict production. But if I may go on with the analogy, the opposition's method of handling the situation is first to tap the trunk at its base by the duties upon agricultural implements, and thereafter to favour one branch of industry at the expense of another-in other words, to control and divert existing supplies of products rather than take the obvious way of increasing all products by working the soil around the tree and affording it all possible nutriment.
Similarly, again, with our forestry industry. In our statistical classification, there appear under the general heading "wood and paper" no fewer than forty-three distinct manufacturing industries deriving their raw material from our forests, which also supply a large part of the raw material for our construction industries. It seems to me that there can be no' better way of promoting the welfare of these industries-the branches of our great "forest tree"-than by diminishing the duties which have a tendency to restrict our forestry production.
Again, the same analogy applies to the many industries based upon our mines and quarries.
This, Sir, is our reason for reducing duties on agricultural, forestry and mining machinery, and I feel that it is a reason which will commend itself to the good judgment of this House. It is true that certain industries may, for the time being, experience inconvenience from the partial withdrawal of artificial stimuli supplied to them in the past; while we regret this, our action must be determined by regard for the best interests of the country as a whole. The government has done its utmost to soften the shock to the industries immediately concerned, and to avoid the possibility of their sustaining any appreciable injury or loss.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between ourselves and the opposition, there is where we join issue with our opponents. They stand for the protection of a few special interests; we seek to develop the industrial life of the Dominion as a whole and with it to improve its commercial and financial prosperity.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
liEVISED EDITION
2126	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when the House rose at six o'clock I had been answering the criticism that was made to the effect that this budget had not been brought down in accordance with any principle. I think I made it pretty clear that the government had been guided by fundamental principles which have been the actuating ones of Liberal policy ever since the Liberal party had anything to do with the question of the tariff. The Liberal party has aimed at all times where tariff matters were concerned, to reduce the cost of living and also to reduce production costs by removing in part, and in some cases in whole, the duties on the implements of production of the basic industries. We are endeavouring in that way to increase production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering, and fishing, with the hope and expectation not only that those industries will be benefited, but that the whole manufacturing industry of the country, which is necessarily based upon the basic industries, will also be benefited, the trade and commerce and finance of the country similarly benefited, and also, but by no means least, that the consumers of the country will be benefited through obtaining in larger quantities and at lower prices the commodities which they require for daily consumption. In other words, our policy is a truly national policy, the only policy deserving of the name of national policy in this country.	*
As I remarked this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, this is the third budget which the present administration has presented to parliament. With respect to the other two, what was the nature of the criticism directed against us by the right hon. leader of the opposition and his following? It was all to the effect that we had not been true to Liberal traditions; that we had not carried out our platform; that we had not implemented the pledges given the electors in the general elections of 1921; in particular, it was alleged that the reductions we had made in the duties on agricultural implements in the first budget, and the increase made in the British preference in the second budget, together with other reductions in both budgets in duties upon many of the necessaries of life and other articles of daily use were insufficient to fulfil the reasonable hopes and expectations of those who had given us their support at the polls, in virtue of which support we had been returned to power.
We had this afternoon from the lips of the right hon. the leader of the opposition in

the characteristic phraseology to which in this House we are becoming accustomed, the criticism that we have been guilty not only of betrayal, but of infidelity, of infamy, I think, of apostasy. Heaven alone knows how many other phrases of a like kind he used. At any rate the right hon. gentleman could not find words strong enough to indicate that we had not been faithful to our promises. He said that not only was the budget repudiating the Liberal policy, but that the Liberal leader was also repudiating his promises and his pledges. He intimated, and this is a criticism which hon. gentlemen opposite have been given to making, that the government in this matter had been actuated by some ulterior political motive, that we have had primarily in view the making, as my right hon. friend expressed it this afternoon, of a sacrifice to the Progressive gods, that we were "opportunists," that our purpose in this budget had been solely that of winning Progressive support; that such was the main object.
Mr. Speaker, I think the most effective way of answering that criticism is for me to review outstanding features of Liberal policy, and the professions that have been made by the Liberal party in regard to Liberal policy in the two particulars which I have mentioned, namely, the desire of the party to reduce the cost of living, and its desire also to reduce production costs by reducing the duties on the implements of production in the basic industries. I must ask the House to pardon me if with a view to disposing once for all of this kind of criticism, I undertake to quote, as it will be necessary to quote in this connection, for purposes of accuracy, statements which have been made, and which should be regarded as authoritative.
I shall not attempt to go over the whole field of Liberal resolutions. I state again that on the tariff, speaking broadly, it will be found that the Liberal party has consistently advocated measures for the reduction of duties on the implements of production, and also the reduction of duties in a way that will reduce the cost of living. I shall begin with the time with which most of us who are on this side of the House are most intimately associated, and for which we are more or less responsible.
I shall ask the House and the country, in the light of the reference and quotations I propose to give to judge whether in tariff matters we have not consistently advocated a revision downward in the interests alike of producers and consumers; have not advocated specifically a reduction in taxation upon the

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
instruments of production and the necessaries of life; and whether the tariff reduction proposals submitted to parliament in the present budget are not wholly in accord with, and a faithful implementing of professions, promises and pledges made to the electors at the time we sought their support in the general elections of 1921.
Let me refer first of all to the platform of the Liberal party as adopted at the Liberal convention in June, 1919. Whilst differences may exist as to the extent to which it may be wise at any given moment to carry out in detail the items specified within its pages, there can be no differences of view as to the essential underlying principles of tariff reform therein set forth. They are embraced in the opening paragraph of the resolution on the tariff, which reads as follows:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of Customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: First: diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; Second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
There is exactly what the present budget proposes-substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation, with a view to diminishing the very high cost of living, and reducing the cost of the instruments' of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion.
With respect to the resolution as a whole and more particularly with reference to the detail which follows, as I have already mentioned repeatedly in this House, I have never regarded the purpose of the convention as other than that of giving to those who might be entrusted with the administration of the party's affairs a chart on which was plotted the course the party would be expected to take when in offiee, and to take in the light of all existing conditions and oircumstances, not, as I have also repeatedly said, at the dictation of any one individual but under the guidance of those of its number whom the party might elect as its representatives in parliament and in the government. This I need not remind the House is not some new version placed upon the platform of the Liberal party to suit the exigencies of the occasion, but was the interpretation placed upon the platform by myself in the presence of the assembled delegates at the time of the convention and heartily acquiesced in by them-an interpretation moreover which in the sessions following was quoted to parliament and repeated by me from every public plat-1354
form in addresses delivered during the campaign of 1921.
The Liberal convention was held, as I have remarked, in June, 1919. In May of the following year we availed ourselves of the first opportunity afforded thereafter of disclosing to the country through parliament the official or authoritative view of the Liberal member's of the House of Commons with respect to tariff matters when the hon. member for West York, the then Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) introduced his budget. An [DOT] amendment was moved on behalf of the then Liberal opposition by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, the present Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding) and seconded by myself. It was supported in division with one or two exceptions by every Liberal member present in the House at the time. The amendment will be found in Hansard of May 18, 1920, at page 2510. I shall not read the whole amendment, the last paragraph will be sufficient to disclose to the House and to the country the consistency of the attitude of the Liberals in advocating the two great purposes I have already mentioned, namely, substantial reductions in the burden of customs taxation, with a view to (a) the reduction of living costs and (b) reduction of production costs, especially as those are related to necessaries of life and the instruments of production. Here are the words of the paragraph referred to:
Tha-t in view of the continued increase in the high cost of living, of the greatly increased burden of taxation, of the hardship which many of the people suffer from those causes, and the unrest naturally arising therefrom; and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to increase production and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of Parliament, the House is of opinion that, pending a wider revision of the tariff, substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance; first, diminishing [DOT]the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That was the manner in which we put forth in this House the Liberal position with respect to the tariff. But there was another session of parliament which succeeded the one to which I have just made reference. It was the session immediately preceding the general election, and the Liberal party therefore was doubly careful to outline in its resolution of that 'day the position which it was taking before the country. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we were not at the time of the elections seeking Progressive support. We were offering opposition to the Progres-
2128	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
sives. We thought the party as then constituted was going too far. That was the position we took at the time. It was found, when we got into the campaign that they were not taking the extreme position respecting free trade which some had indicated they were likely to take. Be that as it may, the point I want to make clear-because of something the leader of the opposition said to-day-is, that the object we had in view in the course of action I am describing was not progressive support but to put before the people of this country what the Liberal party stood for and was prepared to fight for.
As I have said, the Liberals in parliament sought to place before the House and the country their views on tariff revision in the form of an amendment to the budget of the then Minister of Finance. On May 10, 1921 the following amendment was moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and again seconded by myself. I shall read the whole amendment as it sets out very clearly the essential features of Liberal tariff policy. I would ask the House to recall that it was a resolution moved and in fact drafted by the present Minister of Finance, and to note the emphasis it places upon, first: Reduction in the tariff as the main object to be sought; second, its disavowal of protection as the principle upon which the tariff should be based; third, the aim of our fiscal policy as the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country; and fourth, the reduction of such duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and the cost of the implements of production. The resolution is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end *of the question, be omitted, and the following inserted instead thereof:
The House regrets that, after repeated assurances "by the government of an intention to have a revision of the customs tariff, and after a protracted inquiry extending from ocean to ocean by a committee of cabinet ministers, the government have made no proposals for any reduction of the tariff;
That, while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a customs tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the government that the tariff should be based on the principle of protection; the tariff is a tax, and the aim of legislation should be to make taxation as light as circumstances will permit;
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of- which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprise, giving promise of enduring success;
That such changes should be made in the customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion;
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff

that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
There is the Laurier-Fielding tariff; there is a declaration that what should be done in the matter of the tariff is a reduction of the duties on the implements of production in order that the great basic industries might be developed in the manner described. I could quote what I said in the House in support of these resolutions, but I will not take up the time, of hon. members in referring to the debate that then took place. The whole trend of Liberal discussion then was that this was the object we were fighting for, this was the aim we had before us.
Not only in the House but throughout the country I had occasion to speak on the tariff policy of the Liberal party. Before the election as well as during the election I spoke in eastern Canada and in western Canada. I not only spoke in eastern and western Canada, but I also wrote one or two articles on the Liberal policy with respect to the tariff. I challenge any hon. member of this House to find in any speech of mine made before the election or during the election a single contradiction of the principles that are laid down in the resolution I have quoted. I state that in all the speeches I made I represented to the people in so many words virtually what I have been saying this evening; and more than that I made it a point of emphasizing in every speech-and this is the truth I desire to bring out-that the Liberal party stood for a reduction of the duties on the articles that would affect the cost of living, and especially on the implements of production in the basic industries of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing.
I spoke in Toronto with my colleague and friend, the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland), on August 14,	1920. That was the year before
the passing of the second resolution which I have just read. Let me give to the House the report contained in the Mail-Empire of Toronto of August 16, which was Monday, of the meeting held at Hanlan's Point, Toronto, on August 14, 1920.	This
is what the Mail and Empire reports as the -Liberal policy as stated at that time: Quoting my words, the paper has the following: We believe that the time has come, indeed that it is already long past, when a downward revision of the tariff is necessary. In this revision we believe that there should be substantial reductions of the duties on the necessaries of life; in other words, on those articles which go to make up the food, the clothing, the shelter of the Canadian people; that certain specific articles required for the purposes of

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
consumption and other articles essential to production should be placed upon the free list, and that in regard to the instruments of production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing, there should also be a substantial reduction of duties. It is not a question of free trade or protection. With the revenue which will be required for years to come, to meet the large interest payments on public debt, the obligations to our returned soldiers in the way of pensions and in other respects, as well as to carry on the work of government in Canada -resort as we may to direct taxation of incomes and of business profits, which is also a part of the Liberal policy; tax as we will all luxuries, which is another plank in the Liberal platform-there will still be required for purposes of revenue large sums of money which of necessity will have to be raised by indirect taxation through a customs tariff. In revising the tariff to this end, care will be taken of the position and needs of all the industries in our country; but such tariff as may be necessary in this connection will be, under Liberal policy, a tariff for consumers and producers, and not a tariff to further the interests of combines, monopolies, or of any special or privileged classes.
The Toronto Globe of the same date contains, on its front page, part of what I have just read, and has the following additional statement which I made at that time, and which I have held to consistently ever since:
It is not honest to say that we can do away with the tariff. We can revise it, and that is the policy of the Liberal party. And I shall say in regard to tariff policies exactly the same in the city of Toronto as I shall say in the western provinces. I have not one message for the city and another message for the country, one message for the employer and another for the employee.
During the fall of 1920 I went out as far as western Canada with my hon. friend the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the hon. member for Lunenburg and the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy, and we spoke in a number of the cities of western Canada. I shall not take up the time of the House reading lengthy extracts, but I would like to read a few words from the speeches I then made, and I shall give a reference in each case to the paper in which these statements will be found; so that if hon. gentlemen wish to look up the records they may do so. I will read the statements that have a bearing on what the government is seeking to do in the tariff proposals before the House. In the Victoria Daily Times, September 18, 1920, the following will be found:
The Liberal leader's policy on the tariB is a substantial reduction of the duties on the necessaries of life, -the things which go to make the food, clothing and shelter of the Canadian people; the placing of articles essential to production on the free list, and material reductions in the duties on implements of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing. He frankly believes in a tariff, but declares it should be a tariff for consumers and producers rather than for profiteers and special privilege.
After a meeting in that city on the night of September 29 a press despatch sent out from
Vancouver appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of the day following as follows:
Hon. Mr. King discussed the leading problems of the day, the cost of living and the tariff, declaring that, with regard to the latter that what is wanted is not taking of evidence, but immediate revision to bring relief to consumers and producers, in regard to the high cost of living.
The Lethbridge Herald has the following with reference to a meeting held at Lethbridge October 19, 1920:
It is not a question of free trade or tariff. Under Liberal policy it will be a tariff for consumers and producers".
Change of tariff means the interests of consumer and producer and putting an end to profiteering".
Cut down the tariff on all necessaries of life. Substantial reductions or taking off the duties on the implements used in our basic industries of farming, lumbering, mining and fisheries, is our tariff policy.
There , is no time more than the present for a great agricultural policy.
It is a good thing to have towns and cities, but an evil thing if towns and cities are to develop at the expense of rural centres.
As you develop the great basic industries so you increase the amount of raw material for manufacture.
The Lethbridge Herald of the 20th October has also the following editorial reference:
There was a basic truth in what Mr. King laid down that the basic industries of the country should be* relieved from the factors that prejudice these industries to the detriment of the country at large, in the placing of burdens on the implements of production. He brought his argument home when he exemplified its truth in the statement that only by the production of cheap raw material could the manufacturers of the country hope to be able to compete with other countries.
Speaking at Saskatoon October 22, reported in the Manitoba Free Press the day following, I find the fallowing:
We hold that there should be an all-round revision in the interests of consumers and producers, and substantial reductions in two great particulars-the necessaries of life and the implements of production in the basic industries.
At Prince Albert a meeting was held on October 28 and the report in the Montreal Herald, October 29, reads as follows:
He maintained that the greatest question in Canada was the cost of living, and that its only ultimate solu-ion lay in greater production. It was for this reason that the Liberal party felt that in the interests of Canada as a whole too much encouragement could not be given to the agricultural industry.
There were other speeches made in 1920 m different parts of the country, and telegraphed all over Canada by the Associated Press in which the same declarations of policy appear. There could be no doubt in the minds of anyone who had been reading the press where I stood and where the Liberal party stood on the question.
I will now quote from MacLeqn's Magazine, and in doing so I do not think any hon. gentleman will think I am quoting from a Liberal organ. This magazine published a series of
2130	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
articles on the tariff, one by my right hon. friend opposite, (Mr. Meighen) one, I think by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and one also on the Liberal policy by myself. This publication is dated January 15, 1921, and here is what is stated in the magazine as to the Liberal position on the tariff:
Mr. Meighen is striving to make the issue between the political parties in Canada one of free trade versus protection. Were he in a position so to do he would create an issue to his own Irking. That the issue cannot be between free trade and protection is clear from the fact that none of the political platforms now before the country, not even the platform of the Farmer's party, demand free trade. The Liberal party has no thought of tariff abolition. Its policy is one of tariff revision through reduction in the interests alike of producers and consumers. All of us are consumers; all of us are or ought to be, in the broad sense, producers, rendering some service to the community with hand or brain or both.
We believe that the time has come, indeed that it is already long past, when a downward revision of the tariff is necessary. In this revision we believe that the home and its needs should be a first consideration, that there should be substantial reductions of the duties on the necessaries of life; in other words on those articles which go to make up the food, the clothing, the shelter of the Canadian people; that certain specific articles required for the purposes of consumption, and other articles essential to production, should be free of duty altogether; and that in regard to the implements of production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing, there should also be a substantial reduction and in some instances, a total elimination of duties.
With all there has been of destruction during the period of the war, what is needed most to meet the . scarcity and taxation which have ensued is increased production. If the basic industries,* the key industries of Canada, are relieved as far as possible of taxation, if the instruments of production are made easier to obtain, if production is thereby cheapened and enlarged, these industries are benefited, and the whole community is benefited. Not only do secondary industries gain in the reduction in cost of raw materials, but consumers also gain in the lessened cost of many of the essentials of life.
Exactly the same thing as I have been saying in this House this afternoon. I regret being obliged to take up the time of the House with these quotations; but I should like my right hon. friend to believe that there are in this House men who are quite as sensitive with respect to their honour as he is himself, and that the kind of talk he has been indulging in about my saying one thing in one place and another thing in another, being guilty of apostasy, infidelity and whatnot, is not the kind of thing that will go down with the Canadian people, nor is he as leader of a party setting an example that others should follow.
May I speak now of the campaign of 1921? The first meeting that I spoke at in that campaign was in the city of Toronto which, I think, is a manufacturing centre. It was addressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
Fielding) and myself on the evening of September 20. I have in my hand a copy of the Toronto Globe which contains extracts of what was said at that meeting. This was the opening meeting of the campaign in an industrial centre, and hon. members will I think admit that, with the possible exception of Montreal, there is no other more important industrial, manufacturing centre in Canada. This is what the Globe gives under the heading of:
Liberal leaders on two vital issues, the tariff and government railways.
Quoting from my speech that night:
It is for the principle of a tariff for revenue that the Liberal party has stood in bygone years; it is for that principle the Liberal party stands to-day, and it is for the principle of a tariff for revenue that the Liberal party will continue to stand if returned to power in the present contest.
Let me tell Mr. Meighen that, while it is impossible to have an issue between a tariff based on the principle of protection and a tariff based upon the principle of free trade, it is possible to have an issue on a tariff primarily for revenue as against a tariff primarily for protection; and that upon this issue we are prepared to fight, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding fought in 1896,
The Laurier-Fielding tariff, if you please.
. . . and with expectations of a like return of prosperity and stability in matters industrial and commercial, should our policy be vindicated at the polls...
I added at that time and it is quoted in the same connection:
It is because we believe that in no other way can the battle be won throughout this Dominion from ocean to ocean we propose to place Liberal candidates in the field not as expressing an antagonism toward any class or group who may share Liberal or Progressive ideas, but solely to make sure the triumph of Liberal principles and policies at the polls.
In other words, I stated at that meeting that the Liberal party intended to place its candidates, as, it did, in practically avery constituency in this Dominion, against hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party opposite. They fought against these hon. gentlemen and fought on the very tariff principles which we are trying to put through this House at the present moment. We were not catering for Progressive support at that time. It cannot be said we were seeking at that time what we could get in the way of votes in this House. We were telling the people of Canada what the Liberal party was prepared to do if it were returned to power. Over and over again, throughout that campaign, I mentioned, as I mention now, that I could see no necessity for men of Progressive and Liberal views with respect to these questions, shared in common as in this particular we share them in common, being divided as we were divided in that particular struggle. I say now to my hon. friends of the Progressive party in regard

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
to these great questions which affect the wellbeing of the masses of the people, which have to do with the. prosperity of the country, which have to do with the interest of consumers: the less we let hon. gentlemen opposite divide the forces that have the interests of the people at heart, the better it will be for this Dominion of Canada. They are derisive because the government is bringing down a policy which appeals to hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party. From the moment that I had anything to do with public life in this country, I have tried to bring about unity between the forces that are making for the dominance of progressive and Liberal ideas in Canada, and I shall continue to strive in that direction. I say, too, speaking to my hon. friends of the Progressive party, that the only hope the Tory party in this country will ever have of getting back into power is that they can divide the forces that have the interests of the people at heart.	_
I have read what the Toronto Globe said in reference to my remarks in that regard. Remember that this was the campaign in which we were appealing to the people for support and these were the grounds we were putting forward when we asked the people to return us to parliament. The Mail and Empire of September 21 has the following:
The Liberal leader's tariff statement last night was simply a repetition of previous declarations of the Liberal policy of a "tariff for revenue." He went a little further, however, by admitting that he would revise the tariff to cheapen the means of production-fa is way of referring to a cut in the protection given machinery and farm implements manufactured here, and he would also use it to lower the cost of living by permitting freer import of foodstuffs.
The London Advertiser contains also a statement of what was said that night in very much the same words. The Toronto Star of September 21 had the following, taken from my speech of that evening:
There need be no mistaking the position of the Liberal party as regards the tariff. It regards the tariff not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. That end, according to the Liberal policy, is three-fold, and is to be effected not by abolition of the tariff but by its revision.
First: its revision for purposes of revenue; this to be accompanied by making such revisions as are required to give greater effectiveness to the tariff, as one of the means of raising revenues necessary to carry on the government of the country.
Second:	its revision for purposes of increase of
production. This to be accomplished by facilitating more extended development of the industries based on the great natural resources of our country-agriculture, mining, lumbering, and fishing-by making the necessary instruments and implements of production available where possible at lessened cost.
Third: its revision for purposes of decrease of the cost of living. This to be accomplished through rendering possible increased production in the manner
already described and by making certain of the necessaries of life available to the people at lessened cost.
From Toronto in that campaign I went to the city of Montreal where I spoke on the evening of September 22, and I take the following extract from the Montreal Star of September 1923:
...The issue is not between protection and free trade; it is what it has been in the past, between the old Tory party and the old Liberal party, an issue between high protection on the one hand and a tariff for revenue on the other. . . . But there is a great difference between having a tariff that has stood for many years and never changed and revising the tariff in the interests of the needs of the country as you see it. Mr. Meighen says the tariff needs revision; we say the same thing. The difference I can see is, were they to revise the tariff it would be revised in the interests of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers. If it is left to our revision it will be revised in the interests of the consumers and the producers, and this is the first interest to be considered.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Speaker-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give my hon. friend a little more; he will get all he wants. I shall quote next from the Moncton Transcript of September 23rd which 'gives a report of a speech I delivered at Sherbrooke in the constituency of my hori. friend (Mr. McCrea) who spoke in the debate a day or two ago.
Mr. King declared that the first need of Canada was true economy and a reduction in the cost of living. Revision of the tariff was overdue, but it should be downward revision in the interests of all classes.
The leader of the opposition read an extract from a report of my speech in one of the Sherbrooke papers. Well, I take the following from a press despatch to the Ottawa Citizen of September 24 reporting what I had said in Sherbrooke on this question of the tariff:
The Liberal party believed in cheapening raw materials by reducing the tax on implements of production.
The Liberal tariff -was the only one which was equally fair to residents of both city and rural area alike. It was the policy which would bring about increased production, which was the need of Canada to-day.
The point I want to make perfectly clear is this, that I did not choose one centre in which to say one thing and another centre in which to say something different. If I felt that in any particular constituency some special question was likely to be raised at any time with respect to these matters I emphasized that particular point, and when I spoke in Sherbrooke I knew how my hon. friend on this side of the House felt in regard to tariff matters. I was therefore very careful to make it clear that as respects the instruments of production our intention was to reduce the duty if we were returned to power.
A little earlier in the year, speaking at Bedford in Missisquoi in the province of Quebec.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Kay), I made a statement a report of which appeared in the Montreal Gazette and which I shall read to the House. In passing, I may say that my purpose in giving these quotations is that the House shall see that so far as the seyeral provinces were concerned, in the province of Quebec in Montreal, and other centres, there was no mistaking our position. This is an extract from the report as it appeared in the Montreal Gazette and which might have been read by every one who reads that newspaper:
The people also expect a government to devise methods of helping to relieve conditions. We have a tariff that needs revision in many ways. The government said it would revise the tariff, and this year they announced that intention in the Speech from the Throne, but before the session was over there was no revision and nothing has been done towards reducing taxation or lowering the duties on the necessities of -life and instruments of production, as advocated by the Liberal party.
Speaking in Nova Scotia at the first meeting that took place in eastern Canada I made the position of the Liberal party perfectly clear to the people of that province. The gentleman who presided at that first gathering in the Maritime provinces was a close and intimate friend of the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding),-I refer to Mr. Murray, the ex-premier of the province. What did Mr. Murray say in opening the campaign in Nova Scotia? The report will be found in the Halifax Morning Chronicle of September 27 of the meeting held the night before at Sydney. Mr. Murray said:
The Liberal tariff policy of to-day is embodied in the resolution moved by Mr. Fielding and seconded by my friend Mr. King.
That was the resolution I read a moment or two ago. Reporting my own remarks, the Ottawa Citizen had the following despatch:
The tariff, said Mr. King, should be framed to develop the basic industries of the country. It would be our aim, he said, to develop these industries and bring them to a proper success.
Speaking at Digby, Nova Scotia, I said, as will be found in the report that appeared at* the time in the St. John Daily Telegraph:
"The Liberal tariff policy," declared Mr. King, "was wide enough for all the Dominion." He enumerated the different industries found in the surrounding area which included the four great basic industries. Other industries were dependent on fishing, agriculture, lumbering and mining. "The natural resources of the country must be fully developed," the Liberal leader declared, and implements and instruments of production should be relieved as far as possible from taxation to encourage fullest production."
In Amherst, Nova Scotia, I am reported in the Daily News of October 6, in the report of the meeting held October 5, as follows:
Referring to the industries and resources of the province, Mr. King declared these should be developed. 
The instruments of production in the basic industries should be as free of taxation as possible... Necessaries of life should also be made as cheap as possible to the people.
In Prince Edward Island, speaking at Sum-merside on October 6, as will be seen by the Island Patriot of Charlottetown, I am thus reported:
The platform was laid down as a guiding chart. It [DOT] stood primarily for two things. For tariff revision to reduce the cost of production and to reduce the costs of necessaries of life.
And in the Island Patriot of October 7:
What is the Liberals' position in regard to the tariff? .	. .We say the tariff is a tax, and being a
tax it should be made to bear as lightly as possible upon the people as a means of getting the necessary revenue to carry on the government. The Liberal policy is that of a tariff for revenue in the interests of producers and consumers. .	. .We want a revision of the tariff in the interests of consumers and producers.
In the Halifax Chronicle of October 7 there appeared the following:
The tariff is of importance, and our stand is well known. . . .There must be a tariff for revenue and not for protection. There must- be increased production in the basic industries, and this demands the lowest possible tariff on the implements of production. Then we all need certain things; on these necessaries of life the tariff also should bear lightly. The home and its needs will be our first consideration in revising the tariff.
Speaking at Alberton in the province of Prince Edward Island I am reported to have said:
Wc, when elected, intend to revise the tariff in suc>
a way as will aid the basic industries of the country, farming, fishing, mining, lumbering, in a way that will encourage production and to that end we contend that the equipment, the tools, the machinery required in these industries must be placed on tbi lowest possible tariff rate. This is something that I of interest to every one in this country.
In the province of New Brunswick I spoke at a meeting, in the city of Moncton on March 13, the following report of which is to be found in the Moncton Daily Times of the 14 th:
The Liberal tariff policy was again outlined by M-King. It was based on development of the bas>~ industries. The tools and equipments needed for these industries were as important as the resources themselves. Increased production in these main industries would help all industries based on them. Reduction of duties on these implements of production was vitally important, as also was the reduction, as far as possible, of the taxes on necessaries of life and the needs of the home.
A similar quotation from the Montreal Gazette of October 16 relates to a meeting held in Sussex, New Brunswick; and from the St. John Globe I take the following report of a meeting held on October 16:
There was need for revision. The Liberals demanded that such revision should be in the interests of all

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
the people. The need for revenue would be a primary consideration instead of protection.
Then in St, John, New Brunswick, as reported in the Globe of October 17:
It was to the interest of the country as a whole that the tax on implements of production should be as light as possible. Also the tax on the necessities of life should be light. It was along these lines that the Liberals proposed to revise the tariff.
In St. John, as reported in the St. John Times of October 17:
He regarded the platform as a chart of the course that the Liberal party was supposed to take. He would keep the chart before him and with the assistance of his colleagues would take the right course. Conditions had changed materially since the 1919 platform had been framed. There had been changes in the United States tariff. Must we be bound by the actual words of any document? The people would regard him as a madman if he did so. He would have to accommodate himself to conditions and take a common sense view.
That would be the sane course to take	
It was to the interest of the country as a whole that the tax on implements of production should be as light as possible. Also the tax on the necessities of life should be light. It was along these lines that, the Liberals proposed to revise the tariff.
I come now to the province of Ontario. Speaking in Samia on November 2, as reported in the Sarnia Observer, the day following, I said:
The wealth of the country came from the great basic industries, lumbering, mining, farming, etc., and as all manufacturing was the turning of raw materials into articles of consumption, the Liberal party wanted the implements of production to be taxed as lightly as possible. The same applied to certain classes of necessities of life, such as food, clothing, etc., which should be taxed as lightly as possible. The Liberal tariff proposed that manufacturers should be prosperous because they could get their equipment at reasonable prices while the masses of the people should not be overtaxed in costs of food, clothing and other necessities.
In Sudbury on November 8, as reported in the Montreal Gazette on November 9, I said:
The tariff could not be abolished, however, since revenue was needed, but it should be revised from a revenue basis. To increase the wealth of the country its natural resources must be developed and this demanded the removal of taxation as far as possible from implements of production in the basic industries. Necessities of life must also be freed of taxation to the greatest possible extent.
Then at Port Arthur on November 10, as reported in the Manitoba Free Press Bulletin of November 11:
The Liberal leader outlining the revenue tariff policy, declared that free trade was impossible, and unthought of at present, and that the Liberal party stood for downward revision, making the tariff bear as lightly as possible on necessities of life and implements of production.
Mr. King declared he had been making exactly the same tariff speeches in all parts of Canada for the past
two years.
Tn Newmarket, in my own constituency, I said on November 22:
The Liberals believed in revising the tariff in a manner to increase production by lightening the burden on implements of production in the basic industries and on the necessities of life.
The report is from a despatch to the Ottawa Citizen of November 23.
At Peterborough I am reported in the Examiner of November 27, as follows:
Mr. King said that the best tariff policy in the interests of the country was that of the Liberals, which, he explained, was a policy of downward revision; a tariff designed primarily for revenue, which would lighten the burden of taxation on implements of production in the four basic industries, and on foodstuffs.
Again at Pembroke I am reported in the Montreal Gazette of November 29, 1921, as follows:
The Liberal tariff policy was unchanged, Mr. King said. He believed in the necessity of downward revision, with reduced taxes on necessities of life and on the implements of production used in the basic industries.
At Gananoque I am reported in the Ottawa Citizen of December 1, 1921, as saying: The Liberal revenue tariff policy would help bring the needed revenue and also increase production in the great industries. Machinery and tools used in the four basic industries of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing, and also necessaries of life, must be freed from irksome taxations. As far as possible, a Liberal tariff revision, said Mr. King, would be based on the home and its needs.
Now I come to the western provinces:	Of
my speech at Melville, Saskatchewan, the Manitoba Free Press of November 14, 1921, contained the following report:
Mr. King reviewed the platform as put forth by the Liberals, and said that his party stood for downward revision and for relieving of taxation as far as possible-implements of production in the basic industries and necessities of life.
At Calgary, Alberta, I am reported in the Manitoba Free Press of November 16, 1921, as follows:
The Liberal party, he declared, stood for a tariff for revenue. This, he believed, was in the interests of all producers and consumers. He also held that duties should bear as lightly as possible on the implements of production in the basic industries and on the necessities of life.
The Calgary Morning Albertan on November 16, 1921, contained the following report:
We stand for a tariff for revenue, not to protect monopolies. But we would have the tariff revised for the producers and consumers. The burden should bear as lightly as possible on the tools of production of farm, mine, lumber camps, and so forth, and on the food and clothing of the people.
At Edmonton I am reported in the Edmonton Bulletin of November 15, 1921, as follows:
Tariff for revenue only should be the object. The Liberal party was pledged first to reduce the duty on implements of production to the lowest possible

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
degree, and second to lower the scale of tariff on necessities of life as far as possible. Liberals stood against tariff for the interest of trusts, combines and monopolies; theirs was a policy for *the people of Canada as a whole.
At Regina I am reported in the Edmonton Bulletin of November 16, 1921, in these words:
His policy, he said, was one of downward revision, with the lightening of the tariff burden on implements of production in the basic industries and on the necessities of life.
The Moose Jaw Times on November 18, 1921, contained the following report:
We should view the tariff in the light of what is best for the Dominion as a whole. If life will be made easier for the great majority and greater prosperity for the masses will ensue, then we should revise the tariff. The tax on necessities is now too high and the way to lower this is to revise the tariff. Greater production and greater demand will follow cheaper prices.
The basic wealth of Canada is derived from four great industries. These are agriculture, mining, fishing and forestry. It requires implements and tools to turn these into a state for consumption. These implements can be regarded as capital. That being the case, it is a foolish policy as any financier will tell you to tax capital. Yet a heavy tax is put upon these. The reason why we advocate a lower tariff on implements is that it will make the finished product that much cheaper. In this manner, production will increase.
Our policy is not a tar/ff for protection of special interests but simply a tariff for purposes of raising revenue. The present tariff must be revised to help production. Where it bears too heavily on any one class it should be lowered and this is the case regarding implements and tools.
I might quote from many more speeches and publications but I think these should suffice to disclose what was said by me during the campaign of 1921 as to the Liberal policy on the tariff.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that after listening to what I have quoted no hon. member with a sense of fair pday can say that in the last campaign the Liberal party did not make its position known with respect to a reduction in the tariff on implements of production, as we are seeking to carry it out at the present time. These few quotations-only a few out of the total number-show that during the campaign on every platform-I repeat, on every platform-I emphasized the two outstanding features of the Liberal policy: Reduction of the cost of living by a reduction of some of the duties on the necessaries of life, and by a reduction of duties on the implements of production in the basic industries of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing. That was the line of policy which Liberals took in the general election. It was in virtue of what was then represented that we were returned to power. If we have not sooner carried out that policy in the measure which we have to-day, it is because we also stated that we would have
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
to have regard for revenue, and until we got to the point where we were able to balance our budget and to reduce taxes, we did not feel justified in taking the step we have now taken. But having come to that point, having found we were able to save the people $24,000,000 in taxes, we have taken the first opportunity we have had to carry out in a consistent and real way the pledge and the promise which we made the people, and on which we were returned, namelj', to reduce the duties on the implements of production in the basic industries enumerated in the budget.
Now, Sir, let me say a word or two with reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). After listening to the quotations I have read my hon. friend will see that the Liberal party is committed to reduce the duties on the necessaries of life to help bring down the cost of living. I submit that we are doing this in the most effective way when we reduce the duties on the implements of production in these basic industries, because as I have shown this afternoon, and I think conclusively, as you cheapen the
9 p.m. raw material in these basic industries you help in the course of the natural working out of things to reduce the prices of commodities as they become available for consumers from one end of the country to the other. In that way we feel we are doing a great deal. But in the preceding sessions we have also done quite a little in the way of reducing duties on implements of production and also on some of the necessaries of life, and those reductions must be taken into account in considering what we are doing to reduce the cost of living. Also, what we have done by way of reduction of the sales tax should not be lost sight of. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that there is no desire on my part not to have everything done that can be done for consumers; but there are ways of and times for doing all things. You can go so far; if you go too far you sometimes do harm in the direction in which you wish to do good.
The amendment is as follows:-
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

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
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.
There are several reasons why it seems to me the amendment should not receive the support of hon. members and why the government is unable to accept it. In the first place, it commits us, as I have indicated, to new methods of taxation or to alterations in existing methods. Apart altogether as to whether such changes might or might not be in the national interest, I submit that there has been no opportunity given either the government or the House to consider their possible operation and effect. I shall not question, Mr. Speaker, your ruling to the effect that the amendment is in order. I doubt if it would have been so ruled save to permit of greater fiee-dom of discussion in debate, but I would submit that the grounds are very strong for rejecting any amendment to the budget which commits the House and the country to forms of taxation into the possible consequences of which neither the House nor the government has had opportunity to inquire. As I say, the proposals may be good in themselves; each of the proposals made has much to commend it, and something to be said against it, but this is not the time nor the occasion to pass upon them.
In the second place,' the amendment, I think, fails to recognize some of the existing conditions of which account should be taken just at this time in any extensive revision of the tariff with respect to the so-called necessaries of life, conditions of which the government has been fully cognizant and has taken very fully into account. Not a little has been said in the course of this debate of the effect of depreciated currencies in countries overseas upon the price of many articles which materially affect the cost of living; boots and shoes, textiles, clothing, foodstuffs and the like, have been mentioned more particularly. It has been pointed out that where articles are imported from countries whose currencies are depreciated the effect of the tariff remaining as it is, is to permit what is equivalent to reduction in the existing duties.
I may say quite frankly that the government has recognized the existing situation in this regard. We agree that in their operation, the one upon the other, the two are interrelated-the effect of the tariff and the effect of depreciated currencies.
We recognize further that the matter is a very involved one requiring the most expert and minute examination, an examination which the Department of Finance as at present organized is not in a position to give.
To the manufacturers and dealers who have been urging U3 to increase the tariff on account of the effect of depreciated currencies abroad, we have frankly said such a step could not well be taken at this time without considering the whole question of tariff revision with respect to the necessaries of life. That by refraining from any general downward revision, such as is suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), we were, while recognizing the effects of depreciated currencies, meeting them in a manner which seemed equitable and just: and similarly I would say to my hon. friend, and those who may have thought of supporting his amendment, that by refraining at this time to grant additional tariff considerations to manufacturers in this country to offset the additional competition which has come through depreciated currencies overseas, we have in effect, in addition to what we have already done in reducing duties on the necessaries of life, been giving to the consumers of Canada the full benefit of whatever in this regard may be to their advantage.
May I at this juncture say that the government is in sympathy with the view which has been expressed by many hon. members in different parts of this House, that there should be in the Department of Finance, in addition to the one or more persons who at present act as advisers to the minister on tariff matters, other persons with special knowledge or specially qualified to obtain exact information with respect to just such questions as the operations of depreciated or appreciated currencies upon the tariff, and the operation of existing tariffs and suggested or needed tariff changes, upon industry and upon revenue: a body of experts to be known as a tariff .committee or a tariff board, or by some other suitable designation, whose duty it will be to give continuous time and attention to tariff matters, so that the Minister of Finance, in making his tariff proposals or suggesting tariff revisions to the House may do so in the light of the fullest expert and exact knowledge of the situation in all its bearings.
Hon. members will have noticed that it was announced in the Speech from the Throne, that:
Legislation will be introduced making provision for consolidation of the revenue collecting services of the government under one administrative head. With a view to simplifying and improving the existing system,
2136	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
it is also proposed to constitute a board to investigate and study the various modes of taxation.
I shall not anticipate what may be said upon the legislation to be introduced by outlining its provisions at the present moment; I would like to point out, however, that this announcement in the Speech from the Throne constitutes an additional, reason why the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg is most inopportune and should not be accepted at the present moment. It is, amongst other things, to study and investigate just such modes of taxation as the hon. member has suggested, viz. the readjustment and extension of the income tax to bear more heavily upon unearned incomes, a direct tax upon unimproved land values, and the institution of a graduated inheritance tax on large estates, that the board is to be appointed. It might also inquire into the simplification of income tax returns.
Some have suggested that this board should be the one to which should be assigned the investigation and study of the tariff as well as all other modes of taxation. That, I think, is a suggestion deserving of the most careful consideration. There is much to be said for it, and much to be said against it. There is no reason, however, why the personnel of such a board might not, if thought advisable, be utilized in whole or in part in the manner suggested, either as members of a separate tariff board, or as a board on taxation including an investigation and study of the tariff along with other modes of taxation. That point, we are not, however, called upon to decide at the moment. It is sufficient for my present purpose to say that the government is of the opinion that expert and exact knowledge to be obtained in the manner mentioned should precede any general tariff revision, such as is suggested by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg in his amendment, and that such revision should take into account the operation of depreciated currencies as well as other factors affecting the tariff.
I wish to say this, however. So far as the tariff changes of this year are concerned, and I say this more particularly to my friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), these tariff changes were not made in the dark. There was nothing haphazard about them. There was no singling out of any one particular industry or of any one class of industries. It was simply carrying out the policy that was laid down at the general election, and which has been a part of the Liberal policy from the time the Liberal convention was held.
There is one point, however, I should like to make clear whilst- speaking on this matter, and that is that a tariff board such as I

have described, is not to be confused with a tariff commission, as some have suggested, which should operate wholly apart from the government or the Department of Finance, and which would take from the government of the day and this House of Commons responsibility with respect to the tariff to be imposed. It must never be forgotten that a customs tariff is a tax, and that the control of taxation is the supreme right of the Commons, and that the responsibility for taxation must be that of the government under which it is imposed. What is proposed and meant is a board for purposes of investigation and study of tariff problems which shall act in an advisory capacity to the government, it being recognized that with the need for revenue what it is to-day as compared with earlier years, to say nothing of the changed and constantly changing conditions of the world, and the increasing importance and magnitude of the country's business, there is need also for the most enlightened judgment in all matters of tariff policy.
I come now to the last of the reasons why the amendment should not be accepted, and why the government in the proposals it has brought down should receive the hearty unqualified support of all who regard a reduction in the cost of living and in production costs as essential features of Liberal and Progressive policy. It is, that taken as a whole, and in connection with what has been accomplished in previous budgets, both these aims are in large measure being achieved in the budget proposals before the House. I hope the House will give me permission to place on Hansard tables showing what has been done in that regard.
Let me touch upon this matter under three heads: What has been, and is being done with respect to first, duties on the implements of production in the basic industries, of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing; second, duties on the necessaries of life; and third, the exemptions under the income tax.
The total reductions effected in production costs through the reductions in duties upon the instruments of production are perhaps best shown in a descriptive statistical table which I have prepared and which with the permission of the House I should like to be permitted to have inserted in Hansard as it stands. It gives the rates of duties as they were when the present government assumed office in December, 1921, and the rates of duty as they will be when the proposed reductions go into effect, account being taken in this connection of such reductions as were made

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
by the budget proposals of 1922 and 1923 as well as those of the present year.
In addition to the reductions in customs duties it should be remembered that when the present government came into office there was a sales lax affecting the articles mentioned in the table which figured out to practically three per cent on the selling price of these articles when of domestic manufacture and to four per cent on imported articles. The sales tax on these articles-with the exception of but two items-no longer exists, so that
the total savings effected by the government through reductions in customs duty and sales tax combined, in respect of the articles mentioned, would really be three and four per cent more than the figures given in the column under 'reductions".
Table showing the reduction in rates of customs duties on instruments of. production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing, under the three budgets of the present Liberal administration.
Agricultural Industry.
Items	Rate of Duty	Reductions	1921	1924	1922	1923	1924	Totalp.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.Farming-	Mowing machines, harvesters, binders, reapers-	12|	5	7$	12$12J	6	2$	4	6$12!	6	2!	4	6!Cultivators, harrows, horse rakes, seed drills, manure	spreaders and weeders-	10	10	1015	7!	2!	5	7$15	7!	2!	5	7!Ploughs, threshing machines and complete parts	thereof-	12$	5	2$	5	7$17$	10	2$	5	7$17!	10	2!	5	7!Farm or field rollers, post hole diggers, hay loaders,	stumping machines, grain crushers, potato diggers,	hay tedders and other agricultural implements-	12$	5	2$	5	7$20	10	5	5	1020	10	5	5	10A.xes, scythes, sickles or reaping hooks, hay or straw	. knives, edging knives, hoes, rakes and pronged	15	10	5	520	15	522!	20	2$	2!Shovels and spades-	20	10	10	1030	15	15	32!	20	12!	12!Farm wagons-	15	5	5	5	1020	10	5	5	1020	10	2$	7!	10Fertilizers-	5	5	57$	7$	7$10	10"	10Machinery of a kind not made in Canada for manu-	facture of fish meal, stock and poultry food and	fertilizers from fish and fish waste-	15	15	1525	25	2527!	27!	27!{See note (a) )	2138	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
Agriculture-Continued
Items	Rate of Duty	Reductions	1921	1924	1922	1923	1924	Totalp.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	Farming-Con? inued.	(See note (b))	Articles which enter into cost of manufacture of	fertilizers-	2-3	2-32 3	2 3Free	2-3	2-3Non-alcpholic liquid preparations for disinfecting,	dipping or spraying-	20	10	10	1025	15	15	1025	20	20	15Rolled iron, rolled steel and pig iron when imported	for use in manufacture of agricultural implements-	Draw	back	Some items	99	1	1Other items	[DOT] 30	Free	70	70Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture	of agricultural implements-	Preferential	15 -30	5	10 -25	10 -2517|-35	6	111 29	11$ 2917J-37*	6	ni-3i*	1H-311{See note (c))	Fruit Crowing-	Spraying machines, fruit or vegetable grading ma-	chines, pruning hooks, pruning shears-	Preferential	12$	5	5	7$Intermediate	20	10	5	5	10General	20	10	5	5	10Poultry Raising-	Incubators for hatching eggs; brooders for rearing	young fowl-	Preferential	12$	5	5	7kIntermediate	20*	10	5	5	10General	20	10	5	10Dairying-	Milk cans-	Preferential	20	12$	7$	7$27$	17$	10*	1030*	20*	10	10Milking machines, centrifugal machines for testing	butter fat, milk or cream-	Preferential	12$	5	5	[DOT] 7$20"	10	5	5	1020	10	5	5	10
Notes re Agriculture:-
(a)	While it is not possible to make any accurate estimate, it is considered the reduction would be a least two or three per cent.
(b)	The change made under these items, apart from the actual increase of drawback, means a great advantage to manufacturers in that it does away with the keeping of accounts and advancing moneys. Another benefit to manufacturers is that materials on hand April 11, 1924, which enter into the cost of implements mentioned will be subject to a draw'back of 99 per cent.
(c)	These items were subject to various rates of duty, but on the principal items the duties were as indicated.
The agricultural industry was also benefited in 1922 by the exemption from sales tax of fibre used in the manufacture of binder twine.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
Table showing partial list of reductions in rates of duties on some of the articles entering into the cost of living under the three budgets of the present Liberal administration-Concluded.
Article	Rate of Duty	Reductions	1921	1924	1922	1923 (10 p.c. Discount on British Preference)	Total Reductionsp.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.	p.c.221	201	2J	2122|	20|	21	21Collars and cuffs	25	18	5	2	7Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened,	171	15	21	21Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any	material, n.o.p	20	I5i	21	1}	41Sugar, above No. 16 Dutch standard in	colour and all refined sugars-	$1.50 to 31.79	si.33 to$1.59	67 to 70per cwt.	per cwt.	to $1.09	cts. peraccording	according	cwt.to test	to test	$2.00 to $2.39	$1.50 to $1.89	per cwt.	per cwt.	per cwt.according	according	to test	to test	Sugar for refining and sugar n.o.p. and	sugar not over No. 16 Dutch standard	in colour-	70 to 87.25	35 to 46-50	35 to 40-75cts.	cts.	cts.per cwt;	[DOT]	per cwt.	per cwt.$1-1608 to	81-08 to	35 to 40-75$1-8325	SI-4250	cts.per cwt.	per cwt.	per cwt.Tea-	2J	21Intermediate	10 cts.	7 cts.	General	10 cts.	10 cts.	
While the duty on tea is a rate per pound, the ad valorem rate on the basis of value imported and duty paid for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923, would equal 26-4 p.c.
In addition to the reductions in taxation made by reductions in customs duties on many articles which bear immediately and directly upon the cost of living, the government has also made far reaching reductions by abolition of or reduction in the sales tax on an even much larger number of articles. Besides the total remission of the sales tax, already mentioned, on instruments of production, and which should be reflected pretty
generally on reduced prices in the necessaries of life, there are many articles of daily use on which the sales tax has been completely abolished and others on which it has been considerably reduced. On all articles that have not been exempted from the sales tax there is under the present budget a reduction from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. As respects the following articles the tax has been altogether removed, or reduced as indicated:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
sure of success that we have had in the past, in devising a tariff which will meet the requirements of all interests in the country, and that we shall have again a period of- tariff stability under which the industries of Canada will go on and prosper as they have done in the past nine years.
He was speaking in 1906. All the tariff changes that were made in 1897 come within the past nine years, the changes that succeeded in the interval before 1901 and 1904, those changes, those reductions in the tariff, and in the revision to be made there were the further changes, changes with respect to the implements of production in basic industries that I have already quoted. Mr. Fielding uses these words:
We hope to bring forward a revised tariff-not one wdiich will make any great changes, perhaps...
And they were considerable as I have read them to the House.
.. .and that we shall have again a period of tariif stability under which the industries of Canada will go on and prosper as they have done in the past nine years.
If you will take his thought, you will see that when Mr. Fielding uses the word stability," he used it always in reference to meeting new conditions that have arisen or may arise. It is not a stationary, stagnant business; it is a matter of making progress and making it in the right direction.
Not, one which will make any great changes, perhaps, but one which will meet such conditions as have arisen.
There is the first thing.
...and we hope that we shall have the same measure of success that we have had in the past, in devising a tariff which will meet the requirements of all interests in the country.
There is another phase of it.
...and that we shall have again a period of tariff stability.
In other words, the tariff was not to be something permanent, stationary, immutable, unchangeable and the like, but with tariff stability there was to be progress in the right direction. I might indicate what I think Mr. Fielding had in mind, what seems to be the right interpretation, if I remind the House of a little rhyme which is, I think, familiar with regard to the word "rest". Many persons would like to define rest as idleness, to give it the significance of indolence, doiug nothing, marking time. The little rhyme runs:
Rest is not quitting this busy career,
Rest is adjusting oneself to one's sphere.
It is adjusting oneself to one's environment, a going in the right direction, making progress, and it is the same with stability. Whoever spoke of a ship at sea as being stable because it was standing still? When a ship puts out 
to sea to make from one port to another, we say that she is steady or stable when she is in motion, when she is making headway, according to the way in which she holds her own against the different winds and seas which she encounters. We to-day are following that course. We have come to the moment where we can reduce taxation, and we are reducing it in accordance with what we have promised.
Just a word to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) for whom there is no one that I have greater affection or greater regard, the last member of this House that, if it was within my power to prevent it, I would injure in any way or for that matter the constituency of which he is the distinguished representative. My hon. friend, in the speech that he made some little time ago said:
I am loath to think that the Prime Minister would do anything against the interests of Brantford.
He is right.
In this resolution that was brought before the city council, it is stated that when the Prime Minister was in Brantford before the election he made a promise and a pledge to the people that if he were returned to power, no legitimate industry would suffer. Consequently, we cannot, upon present evidence, condemn the Prime Minister, but we shall not forget his promise.
This afternoon my right hon. friend, in his characteristic way, read a portion of a speech which I made at Brantford, and which contains, I think, the promise to which my hon. friend has reference. I asked my right hon. friend the name of the paper from which he was reading, and he said he was reading from the Montreal Gazette, but he thought the article was from the Brantford Expositor. I have in my hand a copy of the 'paper and of the article. It is a Canadian Press despatch headed:
Rocks and shoals may divert route of Liberal ship. King will not lay out course by convention tariff chart alone. Brantford meetings.
And so forth. My right hon. friend as I say, read this and also the following:
No legitimate industry is going to be hurt by our tariff policy, Mr. King declared. "But if we find industries taking advantage of the tariff to build up combines and trusts, then, if I have anything to do
with it, we will put an end to this amassing of fortunes at the people's expense."
But he did not read this part, and this I would recall to the mind of the hon. member for Brantford as to what I said. It is in the same despatch quoting what I said at Brantford when I was supporting him at his election :	*
Mr. King reiterated that the Liberal party did not stand for free trade. The people now realised this fact. But the tariff must be primarily for revenue, and it must be revised in a manner to bring about an increase in production. Implements used in the basic industries and necessaries of life must be relieved of taxation as far as possible.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
There is the statement that I made in Brantford when I went there to support my hon. friend, when I hoped that he would be returned to parliament. I said there the thing which I knew I would have to say some day in this House, because I believed that the Liberal party was going to be returned to power, and I was careful to see that no man in Brantford, because I thought my hon. friend would be returned, or in any other constituency, would be able to chide me with having taken one position in Brantford and another elsewhere. So I took care to say this and the Brantford Expositor records it:
Implements used in the basic industries and necessaries of life must be relieved of taxation as far as possible.
I did say that industries doing legitimate business would not be injured, and I think I do not need to go further than the words uttered by the leader of the opposition this afternoon to convince the hon. member for Brantford that I have been true to what I then said. The leader of the opposition said this afternoon: "As regards these agricultural implement manufacturers, I do not believe they are going to be hurt," and that is what the country thinks and that is what the implement makers themselves think.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The worse the quotation, the more the applause. I did not make the statement which the Prime Minister attributes to me. It is only about three minutes since I read it. I took no responsibility as to what the effect would be. I did say that I did not think it would be very great.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to accept my right hon. friend's latest twist and to take his word.


Arthur Meighen: I will show the Prime
Minister the statement in the transcript of Hansard if he calls it a twist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I protest against the
Prime Minister describing my words as a twist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I shall
be much dismayed by the rumble which hon. gentlemen create on the other side.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is rather sensitive.


Arthur Meighen: I do not twist, but I
know who does.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is squirming badly now. I was not referring to the words in Hansard, I was referring to his present interpretation. The House is accustomed to the habit of the right hon. gentleman of trying to leave one impression by the use of certain words which are susceptible of a different interpretation. However, that is not an important point. The main thing, is it not, is the fact, as my hon. friend from Brantford will I think agree, that the government has endeavoured to meet the implement manufacturers as we said we would.
We have been able, in a large part at least, and I believe time will show, wholly, to make good to the manufacturers of implements in one way or another whatever they may have lost through tariff reductions. That is only carrying out the policy announced by the Liberal party; for wherever mention is made of reducing the duties on implements of production there is also indicated an intention of reducing the duties on raw materials that enter into the making of the finished product. We have endeavoured as far as possible to meet the manufacturers in that way. A statement has been- quoted from the Massey-Harris Company, and I shall not refer to it again except to say that, interpreted in the way I think it ought to be interpreted, it implies that the government has dealt fairly by that industry and that the company hope, as a result of the changes which have been made, to be in a position to offer their implements cheaper to the farmers and thus do a greater business in the future than they have been able to do in the past. Let me say to my friend the hon. member for Brantford, I have not forgotten my promise, I have fulfilled it.
I have in my hand, from the Brantford Expositor, a series of interviews which I shall not attempt to quote even in part. These interviews are given by the Verity Plow Company, the Cockshutt Plow Company and the Adams Plow Company. The headline reads:
New schedules introduced will constitute some help in matter of lower tariff .... Comments of Brantford implement makers to whom free raw material list had not been previously extended-an undoubted feeling exists of improvement in the outlook-firms will continue to carry on to the best of their ability.
They feel that a very considerable concession has been made and they hope to go on with their business as in the past.
My right hon. friend said this afternoon that the tariff changes had been restricted in their application so as not to touch the constituency of any member of the government in which there might be an implement industry. At any rate, that was the purport of his words. The implication was that, as the common saying is, care had been taken by the government to look after their own relations

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
but that they had let their neighbours' relations shift for themselves. Well, in the constituency, North York, which I have the honour to represent in this parliament there is an important implement industry and one of long standing in this country. I refer to J. Fleury's Sons of Aurora, Ontario, makers of cultivating implements and stock raisers' machines. I need not tell members of the Progressive party who J. Fleury's Sons are in the implement-making business, but I will read a letter which I have received from Mr. Fleury, the head of this firm, so that the House may see what his view is with respect to the changes that have been made. The letter is dated May 1, 1924 at Aurora, Ontario, and it is as follows:
Dear Mr. King:
I wish to express my satisfaction with the amendments put before the House yesterday in connection with duties on materials entering into the cost of implements.
Manufacturers of agricultural implements should feel, I believe, that they have no real grievance; and should be able to show fanners (and no doubt will) that the adjustments of the tariff and the removal of the sales tax will give farmers appreciable benefit in the matter of lower prices.
1 wish to express my appreciation of, and thanks for, your consideration in taking time personally to get a real understanding of the situation of implement manufacturers as affected by the changes in the tariff.
With kind regards, I am,
, Yours faithfully,
H. W. Fleury.
Mr. Fleury, as hon. members are aware, is one of the best known and most important agricultural implement makers in Ontario and indeed in Canada. I may say that when the government decided that the time had come when a change should be made in the. tariff on implements of production we did not try to bring about that change in an indifferent manner or one which would work injury to any industries that could be avoided. We sought to get in touch with the implement makers and I myself asked a number of them and their representatives to come to Ottawa to confer with some of my colleagues and myself. We met them and intimated that in our opinion the interests of Canada demanded that there should be a reduction in the duties on agricultural implements and that the government had made up its mind to that reduction. We added, however, that we wished to make that reduction in such a manner as would do the least possible injury to the industries with which these manufacturers were connected, and we invited suggestions from them as to how, in making the reduction, we could meet them in other ways. We had numerous conferences with them, the result being that we have worked out a 
tariff which in my opinion, not only will prove beneficial to all the basic industries and the manufacturing businesses that develop out of those industries, but which will also prove of advantage to the implement makers themselves. Time will tell, and time I think will prove that the government in this connection has been wise.
I was going to say something on immigration but I shall reserve my remarks on that subject until another occasion, for I fear that other speakers have been much restricted this evening. As we opened- the debate with an exchange of courtesies in the nature of an exchange of editorials from the Farmers' Sun between the leader of the opposition and myself, I think before concluding I should tender him one more from the Farmers' Sun to make up for the "Wobbling Mr. King" one which he sent over to me. My right hon. friend waxed eloquent in his desire for a general election. He said, "We are ready now and we challenge the government to go to the country at once." And all his cohorts alongside him applauded so that it was impossible to hear another sound for a good many seconds. Perhaps the Farmers' Sun is not very far wrong in its view of what my hon. friend's desire is in the matter of a general election. This editorial appears under date April 16 and is headed "Mr. Meighen's hard luck." It reads:
The heaviest cross the Tory politician has to bear is not an overpowering fear of industrial collapse due to tariff reduction. Such a fear might disturb him somewhat, but it could never impress him as a misfortune equal to the circumstance that Hon. Robb's budget should make its appearance a year or more before a general election. It is one thing to plunge into a campaign, broadcasting blue ruin, creating distrust and apprehension by predicting disaster in the future; it is an entirely different proposition to unbalance the judgment of an electorate able to measure of sincerity of election propaganda in the light of experience. By the time the voters of the Dominion are called upon to speak, the changes submitted to the House by the Acting Finance Minister will have had a reasonable trial. It will be known then beyond dispute how much or how little they have benefited agriculture, and the other primary industries of the country. It will be possible, also, to estimate the injury, if any, inflicted upon industries whose protection has been reduced. And this is as it should be.
My right hon. friend says that he is ready for a general election. Let me tell him that this government has not yet finished1 its work of the present parliament. We have a lot more to do; we have only started upon what we hope to be able to do for the country. My right hon. friend may want a general election, but the country does not. The country notes with favour the progress in its affairs that has been made since the present

The Budget-Mr. Crerar
administration has taken office. The people have not failed to observe the improvement in conditions disclosed by each successive budget brought down since the present administration took office. The country is looking to this administration to carry on the good work it has begun and which it intends to continue.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, we believe that in this budget we have been able in very large measure to implement the promises, the professions and the pledges which we made to the electorate in the general election of 1921. We believe that we have established a policy that is entitled to be called a real national policy, because it is so framed as to serve not one class but all classes as well as all interests, manufacturing, commercial, and financial. We want to see that policy given a trial. We believe that if it is given a trial this country will witness a forward progressive movement such as it has not known for many years, and that when the time does come that we appeal to the people again for their support, they will express their confidence in a government which has lived up to its convictions, carried out the promises which it made to the electorate, and conducted the nation's affairs with the interests of the people ever at heart.
Let me say in conclusion that in what we have done not only have we been seeking to improve the country industrially, but we have been seeking also to unite the nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have viewed with a good deal of concern the division which has sprung up between eastern and western Canada. We have felt that it was not good for Canada to be divided into two great sections, each becoming more and more class conscious-the West feeling that it had a grievance against the East, the East bitter in its antagonism towards the West. We have sought therefore a policy which would bring about national unity and demonstrate a community of interests. We have sought to do this in a manner which, we believe, will help to bring from the Old World immigrants to our shores as the tide used to flow hither in the past, which will have the effect also of again bringing immigrants from the United States. We believe with the legislation we are presenting prosperity will return as it came in the days of the Liberal party before, when due regard was had to the development of the primary industries of this country. We feel we are helping to unite Canada, to promote a community of interest between the different classes and the different parts of our country, and in this way to build
up a stronger, a more prosperous and a happier Dominion, proud to be a part of the great British Empire to which we belong, a country that will be of service to its own kith and kin and of service as well to the community of nations of which it is a part..


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night and at this late stage of the debate I shall endeavour to make my contribution to the discussion as brief as possible I cannot let the occasion pass without saying a word of commendation to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the statement he submitted to the House five weeks ago to-day. My hon. friend is Scotch, and he has some of the valued characteristics of his race; he has the Scotch characteristic of hard-headedness, he has also the Scotch characteristic of modesty. But I think his modesty must really be suffering very severely in view of the lavish compliments that, quite properly, have been bestowed upon him. His budget speech was the shortest that has been delivered since I became a member of this House in 1917. That may be the reason why the debate is the longest in my parliamentary experience. If I might be permitted, I would proffer a word of advice to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to my right hon. friend who leads the opposition (Mr. Meighen); it is that in this respect they might each endeavour to emulate a little more the brevity followed by my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance in introducing his budget.
Nor can I let the occasion pass without saying a word with respect to the Minister of Finance (Mr Fielding) who is unable to be in his seat. I think by common consent the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding occupies a pre-eminent position in the public life of the Dominion. His experience as a public servant has extended' over forty years, commencing in the province of Nova Beotia and continuing in the larger federal arena. In that long and valuable service he has contributed unstintedly of his outstanding abilities to the upbuilding of this Dominion. I think it is a great deal to his credit that at the end. of that lengthy period of public service he stands at the forefront, remarkable for his courtesy to his opponents, and without the slightest suggestion of a stain on his reputation as a public man. In that respect he has set a worthy example to our public men, young and old, who may be moulding the destinies of the Dominion today, or in the future.
The Budget-Mr. Crerar

Turning to the 'budget itself, I wish to refer first to the national debt and) the surplus. I have not very closely analysed the statement produced by the Acting Minister of Finance as to whether it really shows a surplus or a deficit. I must confess that when I listened yesterday to my right hon. friend who leads the opposition I thought the surplus was vanishing into thin air, but when I listened again this afternoon to m3' right hon. friend who leads the government, I thought he presented another side of the story. But at any rate, what is the purpose of bookkeeping in a business concern or in our national economy? Its whole purpose is to reveal the precise and exact position of a business; and it should be so in regard to the affairs of the Dominion. I dare say that probably others could put a different construction after an analysis of the figures, to that which has already been given to the House. The important thing, however, is that the public should bo plainly and completely informed as to the exact position of our
10 p.m. finances. In respect to our railway financing I think its nature must govern its treatment in the national accounts. Anything in the nature of capital charges in the way of expenditure for railway extensions, for proper betterments, is a proper capital charge; there is a definite asset against it; and I see no good or sound reason why such should be charged up as a part of the ordinary expenditure of the country. That is the manner in which it has been treated in the past: all the guarantees that this country has given, to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, has never been charged to the national debt. I could instance that in the guarantees that have been given to bodies like the Montreal Harbour Board, the Quebec Harbour Board, the Vancouver Harbour Board, and similar corporations; But there should be a- sharp distinction drawn between expenditure of that kind and expenditure that is incurred, for instance, in the form of capital charges on our railways.
It will be several years yet, probably two or three under the very best of conditions, before the earnings of the National Railways will be sufficient to pay operating expenses and all the charges against the money invested in the enterprise. The custom has been in the past to add these interest charges to the obligations of the road. These interest charges should be a direct charge on the finances of Canada until the road is in a position to meet them.
I want to make reference to a suggestion made by my hon. friend the member for

Brome (Mr. McMaster) in his admirable speech on the budget some days ago. In discussing the handling of the railway finances he advanced rather a novel idea. He made the suggestion that all the revenues of the railway should be paid into the consolidated fund of Canada, and that all the expenditures should be disbursed in the same way as other government expenditures are disbursed. Now I usually find myself in complete agreement with my hon. friend from Brome, but I am quite sure of this, that he has not given the suggestion that he made to the House very full study or consideration, or he would not have made it. That, to my mind, would make a wholly impossible condition of affairs in the administration of these roads. Fancy, for instance, having all the revenues that are taken in over all parts of this broad Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific paid into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada! How are the payments to be made? How are the expenses of the road to be met? The road could not possibly operate under those conditions with any satisfaction whatever. There would also be the further disadvantage that it would drive the administration of the road more and more into the ambit and orbit of political pressure and political consideration, and if this road is ever to succeed, and I believe it will succeed, it must be removed, absolutely and utterly, from the region of political interference.
I think there is some credit coming to the Acting Finance Minister (Mr. Robb) for the reductions in taxation that he has made. If press despatches are correct strong representations were made to the government prior to the delivery of the budget, that taxation should be reduced. But I have observed that the reductions that have been made through the budget we are now considering, affect altogether what might be termed the necessaries of life for the great masses 9f the Canadian people. I am among those who believe that taxation should be reduced in this country as rapidly as possible, and I am glad to see in the step the government have taken in that direction that they have reduced the taxes as far as possible on the things that are in most common use among the Canadian people, and that is certainly where taxes should be first reduced.
The chief issue involved in the budget, however, is the issue of the tariff. I listened with a great deal of interest to the address delivered by my right hon. friend who leads the opposition, and as well to my right hon, friend who leads the government. There is

The Budget-Mr. Crerar
no question whatever now where my hon. friends to my right stand on the question of the tariff.


Arthur Meighen: There never was.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, to be quite frank, when I was listening to the speech of my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, yesterday afternoon, I had a doubt where he was going to come out on the question. But he evidently got some inspiration overnight and now he stands absolutely and flat-footedly on the principle of protection and not the tariff as we have it to-day. If there is any meaning in the words of my right hon. friend, they mean that if he is again returned to power and the party he leads resumes the reins of office in this country, there is no further chance of reductions in the tariff, but there is a certainty that the tariff will go up. My right hon. friend also had some criticism to offer of members of the Progressive party for having expressed different views on the tariff. Well, I presume that he will stand by the utterances of his own followers on this question. Only the other day, on May 12, the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Hubbs), speaking from his seat in the House had this to say on the tariff:
'Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am entirely opposed to the budget. Let me emphasize again, what we must have in this country if we are going to build up Canada, is a good constructive tariff. If I had the framing of it I would say put on a tariff so high that nobody could fly over it with an aeroplane and so deep in its foundations that a submarine could not dig under it.
Now there is the real Simon-pure gospel of protection. I do not know how far my right hon. friend agrees with that, but I can tell him that th.e gospel that he preached this afternoon will not find a very favourable reception in that great part of Canada that lies west of the Great Lakes. But if the government's policy means anything, as enunciated by the Acting Minister of Finance, and as elaborated by the Prime Minister this afternoon, it means this, that the fiscal policy of this country, so far as the present government is concerned, is to be shaped in the future as it has been shaped in this budget, upon the principle of developing the great natural wealth of this Dominion. Now that, it seems to me, is a distinct step in advance, and I will endeavour to show why a little bit later.
Some reference has been made in the debate to the Liberal platform of 1919. Well, I remember reading the press descriptions of that great convention, at which were assembled delegates from every constituency in Canada. They gathered here in Ottawa
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and it was not the leaders of the Liberal party at that time who were making the platform of the party. That was a democratic convention, so far as my recollection goes, and so far as my reading of newspaper reports of its proceedings is concerned, and that convention, embracing some seven or eight hundred delegates from all over this Dominion, sat down in consideration of a course of public policy. Whether the government that was elected in 1921, and which my right hon. friend now leads, has up to the present lived up to that platform or not, I think they may justly claim that in the present tariff proposals which they have brought down they have at any rate made a step in that direction.
Why do I offer a word of commendation of this budget? Because this budget recognizes the position of agriculture in this great Dominion. I have advocated in this House on several occasions before-I advocated it during the election of 1921 in every constituency, I think, in which I spoke-that a sound fiscal policy for Canada was a policy which would develop the natural wealth of the country, which would not endeavour to foster and stimulate, at the expense of the great masses of the people, artificial industries that were unsuitable to the development of this Dominion. Sir, I believe that that policy is sound to-day, and sounder to-day than it has ever been before. Our protectionist friends argue that we should be a great manufacturing country, that we should manufacture our own raw materials in Canada and export the finished product abroad. I have no fault to find with that. But what value is a protective tariff in the development of manufacturing industries based on the natural resources of this country when we produce from these resources away and above what we can possibly consume at home? I ask what value is a protective tariff to an industry of that kind? What value is a protective tariff, to the great pulp and lumber industry of this country? Take the figures of our exports and they are growing almost every year in that particular industry. What value is a protective tariff, for instance, to the flour milling industry of this country? We export hundreds of thousands of barrels of flour every year from Canada. What benefit is it to a meat packing establishment? What benefit is it to any of the great industries that are based on our natural resources? It is of no benefit. But where has the protective tariff been invoked in Canada, where has it been used? It has been used in building up or creating industries in Canada the major portion of which depend
The Budget-Mr. Crerar

upon a foreign country for their raw material. I submit, Sir, that that is not a sound method of development.
After all, where does the great wealth, the real wealth, of this country lie? It lies in our fertile fields, it lies in our vast mineral areas, in our forest wealth, and in our fisheries: and if we are to seek and find a sane and sound policy of national development we must seek it along the lines that will encourage production of wealth from these things, and not by the creation and stimulation of artificial industries that depend upon foreign countries for their raw material. I might instance some of these. Take the most highly protected things in this country and what are they? Well, we find them in cotton goods, we find them in rubber goods, and we find them also in many other lines. Is it a sane policy-I ask my protectionist friends this question-to penalize the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to increase the cost of living to every person in this Dominion, to build up industries of this character? I say it is not a sane policy. That is why I am in support of the policy the government has brought down as far as it has gone.
Now, this budget has not really hurt any one. Who has it hurt?


George Perry Graham: It has hurt a lot of feeling.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It has hurt a lot of feeling. The reductions in duties on agricultural implements have been compensated for, and rightly so, by the reductions on the raw materials that go into those implements. And what is the net result? The net result to-day is that every farmer in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will buy his agricultural implements this year cheaper than before, or cheaper than he otherwise would have done if this budget had not been brought down. I am at a loss to understand the attitude of many newspapers and public men, and I might include in that the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition because of the course he has taken on this question. I read something not very long ago about "the influence of the psychology of fear." That is the attitude of mind to-day of some people. If you study this thing in the light of the cold analysis of fact what injury has it done? And yet we have a tremendous outcry all over the greater part of Ontario and part of Quebec. I am amused in reading the Montreal Star. A few months ago it had a series of editorials under the caption "The whisper of death." It saw nothing but

blue ruin, and now it sees nothing but blue ruin from this budget'. I can compliment my right hon. friend who leads the opposition on one thing-that his speech here today has probably brought him the support of the Montreal Star, and that, I am sure, will be a great joy to his heart. I shall watch very anxiously and with a great deal of care for its editorials to-morrow.
But this brings back to my mind the reciprocity arrangement of 1911. What injury was done to the Canadian manufacturers under that arrangement? There was not a single possible injury to them under the reciprocity arrangement of 1911; it would in the end have been a boon to them. But what was the course taken? Well, we had the manifesto of the "noble eighteen" of Toronto who came out in flat-footed opposition. We had a frenzy and furor of opposition to that proposal created for months by active propaganda in eastern Cnada. And with what result? That the people of Canada were misled as to the real purpose and real value of that arrangement. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has argued that that arrangement would have been of no value to Canada, that we were far better without it, and some of his supporters have taken the same ground. Was it of no value to this country with its tremendous agricultural output to find! all the possible markets that could be found for these agricultural products? On the very face of it was that not a common sense proposal? In a study of our national economy what this country needs more than anything else at the present time is markets, and under the reciprocity arrangement of 1911 we were given access to the American market for our natural products.


Donald Sutherland: What was the response from your own province of Manitoba in regard to that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh yes, I have heard that question before and I answered it. I want to say to my hon. friend now that he got a response from the province of Manitoba in 1921 as to what it thinks on the question of reciprocity and the question of tariff generally. In Canada we were robbed of the benefits of that arrangement. My right hon. friend argues that there would have been no stability to that arrangement, that we could not depend on the United States government living up to its obligations; but the fact was that the American government kept that offer on its statute books for over ten years

The Budget-Mr. Crerar
It incorporated it into the law of the United States, and it remained there until they became convinced of the fact that Canada had slammed the door in their faces and did not want to have anything to do with them. The agitation that has been worked up over the budget in eastern Canada reminds me of the agitation worked up against reciprocity in 1911.


Arthur Meighen: It did not frighten you?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it did not frighten me. Let me say a further word or two about the reciprocity pact in 1911. That arrangement gave entry to the United States market for our wheat and live stock. Every additional dollar that could be brought into Canada as a result of the sale of these products was an additional dollar of purchasing power on the farms of Canada for the business concerns of this Dominion. I am amused at the attitude I find in eastern Canada on this budget. I was interested recently in reading an article in the Hamilton Herald, an interview with the president-I take it the president of the local branch of the manufacturers' association in the city of Hamilton-given out after the budget was delivered by the Acting Finance Minister (Mr. Robb). The article says:
It is very far reaching and is giving the western farmer, who is really a foreigner an award at the expense of the other parts of the Dominion.. The western farmer as a rule has no interest in the country. He eats out of a can and gets all he can from outside the country, and puts his wheat in in the spring. As soon as he harvests and markets his grain he goes off to California, or some other place for the winter, and spends his money outside the country.
Here is a new definition of a western farmer. He is a foreigner who eats out of a can and winters in California. That is an interview given to the Hamilton Herald by the president of the local manufacturers' association. I have here another paper, the Labour Leader, of Toronto and I would commend this to my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I shall not read the article in full; in fact, I shall do no more than draw attention to it. But the whole purpose of the article is to excite indignation, to stir up people, and to work them up to a high pitch of opposition to any reductions in the tariff that may give any benefit to agriculture.
I desire to say a word or two as to the attitude of the West on this question of tariff, and why western Canada holds the view it does hold on the tariff. What are the chief products of western Canada? The chief products of that part of the Dominion are agricultural products. We produce grain in large quantities. We produce live stock, butter,
wool and the other agricultural products that are commonly found in agricultural communities. The wheat production of western Canada last year reached 480,000,000 bushels. We will require to export at least 380,000,000 bushels of that crop either in wheat or in flour. We sell that wheat to the markets of the world, in competition with the countries of the world. We also produce live stock in great number and our production of live animals is away In excess of the possible consumption of this Dominion. What is the basis upon which the prices for these commodities are fixed? They are fixed also in the markets of the world in competition with the world, and the same is true with regard to our dairy products, and all our agricultural products. What value then is your protective tariff to the western Canadian farmer.
I mention this fact, sir, because I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding in eastern Canada as to the actual position of the West on this question of tariff. The western farmer is not a protectionist and never will be; I will say more, that you can take the most hidebound protectionist you can find in Ontario, in Montreal or anywhere else; and send him to western Canada, and while the heresy may cling to him as long as he lives because of his early environment and training, yet none of his children will grow up to believe in it. After all people's views on questions of this kind are fixed or influenced largely by their local conditions, and environment, and you cannot convince the western farmer, nor can you convince the average western businessman in town or city, that a protective tariff is of any value to him. I was glad to hear a reference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the concluding portion of his remarks as to the need of unity in this Dominion.
After all the most significant political fact in Canada to-day is the thousand miles of wilderness between the East and the West. As legislators in this parliament we should never lose sight of the fact that what we really have in this Dominion is two or three separate communities, and one of the greatest tasks of statesmanship in the Dominion is to shape policies, and find policies that will hold this country together. It is not enough to say to the western people, "You are ungrateful; we have assisted in creating the country for you and you are ungrateful when you protest against a protective tariff." That will not convince them, but I do believe that the western people in general outlook are reasonable, notwithstanding the criticism that has been directed against them. It is true the great mass of the western people
The Budget-Mr. Crerar

have pretty definite views on this question of the tariff. I realize in any solution of it, there may require to be something of the principle of give and take. The idea that exists among many eastern manufacturers and industries that western Canada is out to destroy industry is wholly wrong. It is not the case, but we must realize the fact that western Canada does not profit in any way from a protective tariff. I say in all seriousness that that fact should be realized and understood in eastern Canada, if a way is to be found that will prevent any serious conflict of opinion arising on this question as between different parts of the Dominion. I speak quite frankly, speaking only for myself, when I say that if the tariff is fixed on a basis of the revenue needs of the country, it should be possible to'find such a way. The revenue requirements of this country mean that revenue must be raised through the agency of the tariff for many years to come. There is no gainsaying that fact; but I want to repeat that a tariff based on the principle and the needs of revenue is a wholly different thing from a tariff based on the principle of protection.
We have had a good many arguments in this debate from hon. members who believe in the principle of protection, that it is essential to the building up of this country, that a protective tariff is the great contributor to the wealth of this country. After all, what is the best measure or gauge of the wealth t>f a country? It is the volume and character of its trade, with other countries, not the volume it does in trading amongst its own individuals. What are the facts in respect to the trade of the Dominion when it enters the world's market? Let us take the figures for the twelve months ended March 31, last, as prepared by the Department of Customs and Excise. We find this:
Exports of Dominion
Agricultural and vegetable	products.. .. $391,000,000
Animals and animal products	 140,000,000
Agricultural and vegetable products, other
than foods	 39,000,000
Wood, wood products and	paper	 273.000,000
And so on. I quote these figures merely to show that the real source of wealth in this Dominion comes from its agricultural lands, its forests and its fisheries.	.
I do not wish to delay the House, and I want to pass on and to consider briefly the argument that has been urged by our protectionist friends that we should have a self-contained country; in other words, that we should endeavour to live as much as possible within ourselves. There is no such thing anywhere in the world to-day as a selLcontained country. Reference has been made in the discussion before, I believe by the hon. mem-
ber for South Winnipeg (Mr Hudson), to the position of Great Britain. Where is there in the world to-day a country that excels Great Britain in prosperity, a country that has stood the shock of war and the reconstruction period following the war as well as Great Britain? But is she a self-contained country? Great Britain has not at any time food supplies to last her for more than six or eight weeks. She imports raw cottons, raw materials in a multitude of ways, and it is by manufacturing and re-exporting them and trading with the world that she has amassed her great wealth. And with what result? Only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought down his budget and he showed a reduction in their debt for the year of over $240,000,000. What is the position of protectionist Germany, of protectionist France to-day?-one asking the world to help rehabilitate her; the other in a perilous position financially.


Mr. STANSELL:: Does the hon. member think that western farmers who are complaining to-day would better their condition by emigrating to Great Britain?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not really know what that has to do with the case. I do not think they would. I do not see why they should do so. The fact is that there are too many people in Great Britain to-day. The British government are subsidizing them to get them away.


John Lawrence Stansell: Would the same thing happen here if we had free trade in Canada?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend asks if the same thing would happen here if we had free trade in Canada. With a country 5,000 miles in extent from ocean to ocean and anywhere from nothing to 1,000 miles north of inhabitable territory we could support a hundred million people without any difficulty.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) had something to say about the Americanization of Canadian industry. He argues that, as a result of these tariff changes the manufacturing business of this Dominion will go to the United States; that our industries would be all Americanized, and that our people would be leaving Canada in shoals as a result of the proposals brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). What are the facts in respect to the movement of population to the United States? It is true that within the last few years we have had a considerable movement of population from Canada to the United States, but that movement took place before this budget was brought down. If we go back

The Budget-Mr. Crerar
a little bit into the history of Canada, I find on examination that, in the period 1880 to 1890, which is the period immediately following the inauguration of the National Policy of protection which was put into effect in Canada in 1878 or 1879, ^t a time when the population of this Dominion was about one-half of what it is at the present time, more than 392,000 people left Canada to go to the United States. If we examine the figures further, we find that from the late nineties for the next ten or twelve years there was practically no movement of population from Canada to the United States. What was the reason of that? It was this, that western Canada was opening up; great quantities of free land were available to settlers who were coming in and taking advantage of that. The movement was from . eastern Canada to our western provinces. As regards the Americanization of our industries, I should like to draw attention to this fact, that that process is going on at the present time in any case. What are the facts? Today American capital is flowing into this country in immense quantities, and that is perfectly agreeable to my hon. friends to my right. The industries of the Dominion are to-day largely controlled by American capital. A statement issued by the Bankers' Trust Company of New York, a short time ago, gave the information that over $2,500,000,000 of American money was invested in the Dominion of Canada. In 1921, more than SI,- 000,000,000 was invested in fifteen groups engaged in manufacturing enterprises in Canada. What does this mean? My hon. friends to my right do not want Canadians to buy American made goods; they want the American to come over here with his capital, to establish himself in Canada and to make the goods in this country.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend says:
"hear, hear," but the result of that is this, that he comes over here and he becomes the most ardent advocate there is for a protective tariff in this Dominion.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend again says:
" hear, hear " to that fact. As a result of that, the American capitalist comes to Canada under the aegis of our protective tariff. He gets his return on his investment; he takes that back to his own country, and the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other have contributed to that result.


William Alves Boys: He pays a large amount of wages.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He pays a certain amount in wages, and the raw materials are found in this country. Now, there is one other result so far as the principle of protection in the tariff is concerned, and that is that it leads inevitably to the development of state socialism; it is a form of state socialism. When the power of the state is used to give benefits to a certain section of the people through tariff laws it is a direct use of that power to benefit a portion of the community at the expense of the rest. Reference has been made in this debate to the condition of agriculture in western Canada and throughout the Dominion, and the argument is advanced that what agriculture needs in this country is more protection. The United States is a highly protected country; and what is the position of agriculture there? With all their protection agriculture is in a worse condition in the United States than it is in Canada. And what is the inescapable result? The American farmer is appealing to congress for relief and proposals are before that body for the expenditure of vast sums of money to afford relief to the farmers of the United States who find that they cannot prosper under their present system.


Robert James Manion: Does not my hon. friend admit that in England under free trade since 1846 the British farmers have been nearly wiped out of existence?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If they have been nearly
wiped out of existence, it is because of another reason altogether. If my hon. friend would talk with British farmers as I have to many of those who have come to western Canada he would find out why they leave the Old Country.


Robert James Manion: They left to come to a protected country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Nonsense; they left because they could not pay the exorbitant rents which the landlords asked them to pay.


Joseph Archambault: Conservative landlords.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are a few other
points which I think should be touched upon. I believe that this country needs strong constructive policies at the present time, and I purpose supporting the budget because I think it is a step in the right direction. At the same time, if my right hon. friend who leads the government gets his tariff advisory
The Budget-Mr. Crerar

committee at. work one of the first duties which I think that committee should undertake will be to find out for instance why it is that the duty is fixed at 20 per cent, on shovels and spades and 30 per cent on bathtubs and dishpans. There should be a consistent principle running through the establishment of a tariff policy in Canada, and it is for the people through their government to settle what that principle shall be. With the principle upon which your tariff is to be based once established, then I think there may be some advantage in having a body such aS the Prime Minister referred to; but that body should be charged with further duties than those of advising on the ironing out inequalities in the tariff. One of the most necessary things in the Dominion to-day is some study of the whole question of taxation in order to prevent overlapping in the imposition of taxes, and a study of the incidence of provincial and federal taxation. After all, we cannot get away from the fact that the country is facing grave difficulties. While our debt is enormous I believe we have the resources that will overcome our handicaps from the taxation that we have to support. But this can be done only by the most intelligent study of the whole problem, and I think that some such body charged with the duty of studying the whole question of taxation could give a great deal of information to the government and to the country that would assist in getting taxation established on a fair, sound basis.
I am satisfied with the budget as far as it goes; but, if I may repeat what I said a little while ago, I believe that a basis can be found upon which we can get some common agreement between East and West on the question of the tariff by placing the tariff frankly on a revenue basis and recognizing it as such and not as a protective tariff. There must yet be very considerable reductions in the tariff. No one wants to hurt Canadian industry, and least of all do the people of western Canada desire to do so. But I say that the task of statesmanship in Canada is to find policies that will hold the country together, that will unite it from one end to the other. We can have our differences of opinion on administration, and we doubtless shall have such differences in the future. But I deprecate, I deplore anything that will arise in this Canada of ours that will fix our political differences on sectional or racial considerations. Let us avoid that altogether. It is because I think that the government, in the step that it has taken in

the budget in reducing the taxation on implements of production, is pursuing a sound policy and one which I believe will conduce to harmony in the Dominion, that I intend to support the budget when the vote is taken.


Hon.   J@: While there have been many references in the course of this long debate to the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not present with us on this occasion, I do not think it would be at all out of place for me, coming in a sense from the section of the country from which he comes, to express again the feeling of regret which this House and the country experiences that a man who has been so long prominent in Canadian public life, a man with whom we do not all pretend to agree-for we cannot expect such unanimity in political matters-yet a man who has won our respect for his courage, his directness and the great ability he has displayed during many years, is not able, through unfortunate illness, to participate in what to him was probably the greatest happiness of his life, namely, parliamentary work. We must always expect in the course of life that incidents of this character will occur; and I can never avoid thinking, when it does occur in the course of a strenuous political life, of the words of the great poet who depicted what comes into the life of almost every man when he says:
...in the open noon of my pride
They sent me a voice from the darkness;
They whispered and called me aside.
They said, "the end is forbidden;" They said, "thy use is fulfilled."
And to those of us who may be permitted to remain perhaps for years in the active work of the nation will some day come the summons to that enforced rest which always seems to come unexpectedly, and which evokes in such an assembly as the Parliament of Canada that warm and deep and honest sympathy which has been expressed from either side of the House towards the absent member.
In a purely personal sense I join in the tribute that has been paid to his acting successor (Mr. Robb). I can at least congratulate the acting minister on the brevity of the remarks with which he introduced the budget. I agree with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that it would have been well if that brevity had been emulated by many succeeding speakers, but I fear before I get through to-night that I too may be counted among those who have somewhat failed to copy that extreme brevity which characterized the introduction of the budget. I will, however, do my best to economize time.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
In passing, may I remark on the absence from the House this evening of a gentleman who used to be considered in political circles as a probable successor to the Minister of Finance should a vacancy occur in that post. We have not with us to-night the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell), nor have we any explanation of his absence. No doubt there is a reason, a potent and a valid reason; and while I enjoyed the mock heroics of my right hon. friend the leader of the government when he declared there would be no general election, ' and that the people of Canada were so contented and happy under his beneficent rule that there would be no need for a general election, I could not help but think that at all events he will have the benefit of a record of public opinion in an important part of the Dominion as the logical and necessary political consequence of the withdrawal from this chamber of the hon. member for St. Antoine.


Arthur Meighen: They have had two or
three already.


Mr. BAXTER:: To which I shall refer in
good time.


Mr. FINN:: Not on the budget.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There are so many other
questions besides the budget upon which public attention could be challenged that I almost wonder at the temerity of an hon. gentleman on the other side suggesting the possibility of additional reasons for the government asking the country for that public confidence which no longer remains with it. I sympathize with the temporary successor of the Minister of Finance. He is walking with stumbling feet along a path which he does not know, driven by the impulsion of a blind opportunism which has already destroyed a great historic party that once had a record of achievement behind it and a set of principles by which it believed the Canadian commonwealth could be best regulated. But to-day the right hon. Prime Minister is no longer leading a great historic party. His traditional Liberalism has faded into invisible distance and the real direction of the affairs of Canada is coming from the group which is seated to my left; the wreck and the rump of the Liberal party follows along the path that is blazed by the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). It is a great price-some of us would think too great-to pay for the temporary enjoyment of office, but hon. gentlemen opposite us do not apparently so regard it. They probably think it is cheap. The public sooner or later will have an opportunity of pronouncing judgment, and we will then realize where they think the real cheapness is.
I	do not propose to follow at any painful length the speakers who have preceded me in a discussion of the supposititious surplus which has been presented to the House. I have heard some discussion of bookkeeping methods, and I think if I caught them aright I am tolerably in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette, who thinks it would be better to place on public record in a definite way the obligations of the country. I have listened, not without amazement and not without some impatience, to the most extraordinary references that were made by the right hon. Prime Minister and some others to the reasons for treating the advances to the Canadian National Railways as something other than a part of the public debt. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite have ever stopped for a moment to think quietly of what constitutes the real difference between the cases cited by the right hon. gentleman and the present case. We are told that when a dry dock has been
subsidized or a loan made to a
II	p.m. railway company, as very frequently has been done in the history of Canada, that that is an interestbearing advance, and does not properly become a portion of the public debt. That seems to be quite true. But is there any possible reasonable analogy between a case such as that and the financial transactions of the past years? I fail to see it. Let us try to get the thing down to the basis of a purely homely illustration. Suppose that a man has a house and some land on which he has from time to time expended $100,000; suppose that the actual present value of the property is not one penny more than $10,000; and suppose that he has outstanding obligations for his $100,000; then let him go into the market and ask someone to lend him $1,000 on a mortgage of that property. Can he get it? Yes, but not on the property; he can get it on the personal security of individuals who are worth a sufficient margin above the amount he wishes to borrow. Now to my mind that is exactly where we are with reference to the Canadian National Railway system. We have a congeries of railways brought together into one vast system with a debt immensely exceeding the present or possible future value of the property, and no money loaned to that system can get any adequate security. Who in the world of finance would to-night lend one dollar on that railway without some collateral security? But what do they do? Something that has been very common to all of us in political life.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter

Somebody comes and says:	I have not got
any credit at the bank, but the manager says if you will put your name on the back of a piece of paper he will be most happy to make the advance. By analogy, the lender of the money comes to the Dominion government and says:	If the people of Canada
will put their collective name on the back of a piece of paper the money will be forthcoming. Now, that is what you do when you guarantee any loan on account of the Canadian National Railway system. There is no security in the railway; the security is in the tax-paying power of the people of Canada, and nowhere else, and the only honest thing, the only proper thing, from a bookkeeping standpoint or any other standpoint, is to honestly and properly charge that up as an additional debt upon the people of Canada. I shall not spend any further time upon that. We were told by the right hon. the Prime Minister to-day that that was a matter of no importance, and he launched into, shall I say, a very satisfactory statement to himself of that increase in trade that had taken place in the last few years. Was that due, * in any way, to this government, Mr. Speaker? Did he expect after the war period was over that the world and Canada was going to stand absolutely still? We had had far greater trade expansion during the war years, and we know the reasons for that expansion. Then came the falling-off. Did he expect that there never would' be any recovery? Some recovery has fortunately accrued to Canada, but how much greater would that recovery have been had the business interests of Canada been assured of some reasonable stability in the financial policy of this country?
He passed on and discussed the reduction in taxes. I shall spend but little time on that. He told us, as others have told us, that that reduction will be $24,000,000. The only estimate we have been able to get has come from the Finance department, and it is that the reduction in duties will only amount to $750,000. Will any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, or will any hon. gentleman sitting to my left, sitting there in control of the side of the House which is on the right, tell us that $23,250,000 will be economized by the reductions in the sales tax? I do not think I will find anyone with the hardihood to make such an assertion as that. If there is to be a reduction of $24,000,000, why has not some gentleman in the course of this tremendously long debate come forward and given us some kind of tabulated definite estimate of the particular things which will achieve this reduction? Oh,

but it suits them far better to go out to the public and talk of $24,000,000. I will venture to predict, and I am not at all fond of the role of prophecy, that when they come back ^ here next year we shall not hear of a reduction in taxation of $24,000,000 or if we do, we will have a worse financial statement than any that has preceded it.
The right hon. gentleman also undertook to illuminate the want of financial capacity of the previous government. He dilated on the assertion that has repeatedly been made from the other side of the House, that Canada did not bear any portion of the war cost during the period of the war. That is the way, I am putting it precisely, the assertion was made and repeated over and over again in the course of this debate, and in the course of another debate which took place in this House. But .the right hon. the leader of the government discovers now that we paid only some of the interest on the war debt, and he charges now that the old government did not pay part of the capital cost while the war was in progress. If it were not for the frenzy of politics, would hon. members see any real distinction? Let me come to that again by way of a very simple illustration. When a public work is undertaken, everyone knows, the interest during construction is charged as a part of construction, and is properly so charged. Unfortunately, what the whole world was doing during four years was paying the cost of destruction instead of construction, and they had to pay, most regrettably, interest upon the cost of destruction. Can you distinguish that from the capital cost? Is there any difference? And yet it is manifest in the figures that the old government bore some part of the cost of destruction that was being incurred during those perilous years. There is no use mincing words about it, no use inventing new phrases, no use trying to draw some inferences to the discredit of gentlemen on this side of the House. The fact remains that the cost of the war that was passed on after the old government went out of office was less than the total cost of the war to Canada, and therefore some part of it had been paid during the period in which my right hon. leader or his predecessor was the leader of the government.
Then we were told further, that the reduction of the cost of living was the great aim of the Liberal party. If that be so, unless the Liberal party had its genesis with the advent to power of the right hon. the Prime Minister, when that Liberal party was led by' Sir Wilfrid Laurier and assisted by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, I would like to ask why

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
they did [DOT] not abolish the tariff in those pre-war days when the whole tariff could have been abolished with far less strain from a financial standpoint upon the people than is involved in a very small disturbance of taxation at the present time. When we are dealing now with hundreds of millions of dollars to run this country we can see how, when it took less than $100,000,000 to run the country, they could, if that had been the real aim of the Liberal party, have got along with some internal revenue taxes, some income tax and sales taxes and done without protection, which they are proposing to destroy root and branch with a pair of tweezers, nipping off a little each year.
But it is like everything else that comes from the government, it is entirely unsatisfactory. It is only meant for a bit of camouflage; it is only meant to delude some people and to obtain a temporary anchorage in some political haven that perhaps appears, and appears only on that magical chart by which the leader of the government is professing to steer the country, and which no one else has ever seen. If Mr. Speaker, you follow the advice of my good friend and take the burdens off production, he tells you that the producer can produce more and at lower costs. Well, there are a good many producers, but will my right hon. friend explain to the country where are the markets for the producers? He has heard very largely from the group sitting to my left that they are producing more today than they can get sale for, and they keep on producing. But there are other things in Canada than the production of wheat, and if we are to take the burdens off production so that the producer can produce more, I want to find out a little something about the consumer. That is a matter of some importance to the country. I want to know, and this country has got to know, and has got to make up its mind whether it wants the consumer to dwell within the limits of Canada, or whether it proposes that the consumer shall dwell only in some part of the United States.
That after all marks the absolute line of cleavage between this party and the party and a half with whom we are in conflict in this House and in this country. Shall we have a home market that is worth having? Shall we bring people into this country, provide the means for their employment, build up industries within Canada, make it a country worth living in, and in that way develop the agricultural interests of the Dominion? Or shall we, gradually or by one bound, obliterate all traces of industry and thereby make what 137i
was the home market of Canada consist in exporting goods from this country to reach citizens who have been exported a little in advance of the goods. But the right hon. Prime Minister does not tell me where the markets are. Instead of that what do I get? A rhythmical treatise delivered in splendid language on the four essentials of land, labour, capital, and management. He hesitated a little over the management. First of all he said there were three essentials, and then he stated there were four. He was sure of the land, the labour and the capital, but after a short period of doubt he decided to include the management. I know why the doubt was. It was not a philosophic doubt, it was a real, actual one that time. Having had an experience of his own government since December, 1921, he doubted if there was such a thing as management of this country. About that disquisition there was a faint aroma of the class room. One could almost imagine the campus of a college largely endowed by the Rockefeller millions. You could see the students assembled there and you could almost hear their cheering, led by some professor, when the happy news would come to the college that John D. had opened another oil gusher on some part of this world's surface. It was an unreal thing; it was the sort of thing that you get at an institution of learning; it was not a real practical sort of thing that has to be dealt with in this House and in the government of the country -wholly academic, while God knows what the world to-day needs is the thing that is practical. When we have shown the world how to do its work and how to solve its problems, some twenity-five years afterwards the universities will begin to write books about it and tell the people how it was done. The solution of the problems of the world comes from the working men of the world first and finds its way into the universities afterwards.
Then my right hon. friend passed to the basic implements of production, but he did not follow them very far. He dodged the lawn mowers, they were not apparently basic. He tarried a while with the farmers. It- was basic there because it was political. It was the basic thing that gives a basic majority in a House where they would not have a scintilla of power unless they reached out and treated your opponents better than they have-treated their friends. That is the position of the right hon. Prime Minister: He has sacrificed, he is sacrificing-and fifteen of his supporters from Nova Scotia are daily and nightly parties to the sacrifice-the best interests of the Maritime provinces in the matter of the steel and the coal industry be-
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

cause the Prime Minister has seen fit to pay no attention to the claims, the legitimate claims, of the part of the country that gave him its support when he turned to the three western provinces that had rejected him and paid them with some reduction in the duty on farming implements. He had a solid sixteen to join in this iniquity. Since the people of Halifax had the opportunity of speaking it is only a solid fifteen; and the sooner the constituencies are opened in Nova Scotia the sooner the Prime Minister will find what the people, not the politicians, of that part of the country think of his performance.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is an anaemic
platitude on my hon. friend's part.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Did I hear anything?


Mr. HANSON:: Just the sighing of the wind.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am waiting for any member with courage to repeat anything he may have muttered.


An hon. MEMBER:: Job.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is a platitude that is not worth answering.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. Will he repeat his statement?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Your anaemic platitudes are not worth answering.
' Mr. BAXTER: That is .first rate, but my hon. friend ought to have some sympathy with anaemia. He is known throughout the House as one of the microbes of the Liberal party.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Another platitude.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I found him the other
night interfering with the political organism of the Secretary of State. They did not seem to be entirely in harmony, and I notice that the Secretary of State has been looking rather anaemic since the attack of my hon. friend. I rather agreed with my hon. friend too. Microbes are useful under certain circumstances.
Well, as a result of this wonderful budget a few tools are made free for the miner but the market is left to be invaded by the alien. I suppose a few shovels, and possibly a few shovel handles are affected. I do not know whether they have yet got as far as the handles that the coal miner may use in a pit in Cape Breton but his product is not protected, not adequately protected against the ravages of [DOT] American competition. And the railway rates remain so that he cannot send his product into the central portion of Canada under favourable conditions. My hon. friends opposite have done far more for the wheat miner than they have done for

the coal miner, and in doing it for the wheat miner they did it with the boisterous applause of fifteen members from a solid Nova Scotia.


Robert Emmett Finn: Does my hon. friend not
know that the government of Canada has nothing to do whatever with the question of rates in reference to coal or any other product coming from or going to the province of Nova Scotia?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, all I can say is that the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) spent half an hour boasting in the House the other day of what the government had done-	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is not an answer to my
question.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And it is not very much.
(Mr. FINN: It is not an answer to my question.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, you are going to be
answered; my hon. friend is not going to escape. It is not very much that the member for Prince had to boast about, it is a pitiable thing, and my hon. friend who has just interrupted me said that the reduction of 7 per cent was hardly perceptible-


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And he found fault with
it.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: He also took three hours
and forty minutes to give us his life history, and to tell us how many delegations to Ottawa he had attended to try and get this very grievance remedied. I sympathize with my hon. friend. I was glad to know-*


Robert Emmett Finn: That was-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Just a moment.


Robert Emmett Finn: That was to the late government.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will take any number of questions but I will answer them one at a time. I sympathize with my hon. friend. I was glad to find that so much activity had been displayed. I was glad to know that such a good looking, and amiable, and useful member had come to Ottawa. Everything was in his favour. From the very sacrifice of his profession to the giving up of the best years of his life to the service of his country there was everything that man could desire except results and those unfortunately, he has not been able to obtain.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend got some results late in life.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: To what does my hon.
friend refer? I assume he is speaking about railway rates.


Robert Emmett Finn: Not now.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then my hon. friend is wandering from the question. If he wishes to put questions to me I will do my best to answer them. My hon. friend, like myself, comes from a sea-girt constituency.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And is at last realizing the merit of a clam which knows when to close up.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend will realize that when he sits down.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: He is going again. I am a little bit interested, and I know that my hon. friend who interrupted me is interested, and that there are fourteen others on his side of the House, whether they are physically present or not, who are very much interested in the development of the native and natural industries of Nova Scotia. Though I come from New Brunswick I feel that I am quite as much interested because the hour has come when the Maritime provinces must stand together in order to get a fair show from the rest of the people of Canada in reference to their development. I am going to quote-and I can quote with approval- a portion of a speech made by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) speaking at Stellarton, Friday, October 26, 1921. He said:
Last year one hundred million of good Canadian money was paid to the United States for coal under this protective tariff-this peculiar tariff which they say you must not lay any unholy hands upon.
My hon. friend was then running in opposition to the Meighen government. I am not going to entirely endorse the abuse that he uttered in this speech, but I am going to agree with the sense and purport of it. He continues:
One hundred million dollars we paid out, while at the same time people here could not sell their coal and our mines were working two or three days a week. Do you want these conditions to continue? If you do you will vote for my opponent, and he has no solution for the situation other than that.
I commend that to all good Nova Scotians of the Liberal party. They must have agreed it was good doctrine. They ought to agree it is good doctrine still. My hon. friend was discussing Colonel Cantley, his opponent, and he said1:
Do you want to send a man to Ottawa that, when he gets there, will turn around and say: " I gave you no pledges, I never said to you I would take this course or that on any question. All I said was, " There is a tariff in this country and I do not want to see it removed."
Hon. gentlemen will remark how much difference it makes whether a nebulous statement is uttered by Colonel Cantley or by the present Prime Minister. In the one case it is condemned and in the other it is worshipped, and it is even repeated to the drum roll of applause, hour after hour, in this House, as has been done on this very occasion. My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence did not think it was right when it came to Colonel Cantley. He said:
That is not a proper course for any man under responsible government who asks the suffrages of a people. I have had long experience in public life and I say that a man who seeks the suffrages of the people should be prepared to come before them, state his policy, pledge himself as to what he is prepared to do, and when grave situations arise be in a position to have some justification for actions to be taken in order that these conditions may be changed.	.
Then my hon. friend 'challenged the audience and said:
What do you think of maintaining a duty on wheat and flour? Why should there be a tariff to enable the men who grind the flour to grind the * faces of the poor. I am opposed to the duty on flour.
The hon. gentleman is a member of the government now. I look, I watch, and I wait, for some sign of carrying into effect this solemn declaration which he made to the people of his own constituency. It was the advice of a true Progressive who spoke, but I find1 he has not yet joined the majority of the government. He continues:
I pledge myself if I go back to Ottawa-
And he did.
-to represent this county to advocate in parliament and insist upon the fact that the people of Ontario, if they want to burn coal which is not produced in Canada, that they should contribute to the revenue of the country by paying a tariff on it. And so, my friends, I am not like Colonel Cantley-unwilling to give pledges. I tell you if I go to Ottawa I shall urge parliament to put a duty on coal that is a real duty and not a fake duty.
My hon. friend came to parliament. He is in parliament now. He has been advanced in parliament. He is in this House to-night, and I give him the opportunity of telling us if there has been any change in the coal duties except to allow the dust from lignite coal to come in free and lignite coke. These are the only changes. He was a wonderful power in Nova Scotia, a tower of strength to the Liberal party, but how futile when he reaches the atmosphere of this House. He cannot do a thing for his constituency. Why it would have been better to have elected Colonel Cantley without his pledges than to have elected the Minister of National Defence with all his promises. But I want to go back for a minute or two to my right hon. friend
The Budget-Mr. Baxter


C0MM0N8
[Stage Direction]
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He referred to a wide spreading tree this afternoon, with beautiful branches, and he saw those branches all rising at the stump. Well in a wooden country we do not see the branches coming from the stump. When you find the stump the tree is gone. He may have seen the bole of the tree or the trunk, but the stump, comes there after the tree has been destroyed. Well, this is the tree that he saw. He has been seeing these visions and dreaming these dreams. He saw this tree denuded of its sap. Somebody took the sap away near the base of the tree, near that stump. He apparently was not familiar enough with forest life in Canada-forest life perhaps was not philosophical enough-to know that you can drain sap from the tree which is the national emblem of the country, and it can be made profitable to the community without injuring the tree. In the same sense we can, I believe, have protection in Canada without destroying the tree of my - right hon. friend's vision. But he descanted so much upon the tree that it made me really wonder whether he had not gone back to extremely early times and imagined himself to be the first if not the only man in the world. He may have thought of that tree of knowledge of good and evil of which we read. He apparently had gone so far as to taste the fruits of it. He had become conscious in a traditional sense, and in order to cover his political nakedness he spent about an hour in piecing together newspaper clippings in order to make a sort of garb with which to cover himself, and that as a contribution to the budget debate of the country. I would remind him that people who meddle with the tree of knowledge of good and evil are pursued by a flaming sword and driven from the paradise in which they have temporarily taken refuge. Give the people of Canada one fair chance, and the angel with the flaming sword will forever bar his return to those precincts in the Eastern block where weary legislators refresh themselves in the afternoon with a cup of invigorating tea. But with more fire still he inveighed against protection for what he called a few special interests. I want to ask, not this House-it is not worth while really asking this House- but this country, whether my right hon. friend has scotched the snake of the special interests to which he has referred so much, or has completely killed it? We spent some time in developing special legislation at his instance directed against trusts and combines; the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) was brandishing a battle-axe; something was going to crash in this country; the people were absolutely 
afraid because of the investigating powers that were given; but we were assured that all that was necessary was to get plenty of light and publicity, and these noxious weeds would disappear from Canadian public life. I have not yet heard of a trust or combine that has been rooted out by this government. I have heard of some towards the fostering of which I thought they contributed. I remember, during the last election campaign, the way in which former Attorney General Raney of Ontario inveighed against trusts, combines and everything else connected with automobiles, but I have not seen the automobile snake even scotched yet by the vigour of this government. I have not found any other trusts or combines attacked. What was all this legislation for? Did they know of these things before they came into power? If they did, why did they not get after them? If they did not know of them and only suspected them, why are we not made cognizant of the efforts that they have made since coming into power to drive these things out of our economic life? The sum total of the matter is that it is like almost everything else that distinguished the campaign of my hon. friends and that distinguishes their political course at the present day; it is nothing but camouflage, nothing but deception, a hollow mockery, a beating of the sounding drum, in an effort to arouse public attention hoping that it will be in its favour.
Then, credit is claimed and volubly claimed for a reduction in the sales tax. Time forbids that I should go into any painful discussion of the sales tax to-night; but I would ask, as one of the minor questions-and it is an important one in some of our Maritime constituencies-why it is that canned vegetables are exempted from the sales tax, but canned fish are subject to 5 per cent, which is now the maximum sales tax? Does this government solemnly recommend people to eat vegetables and eschew fish? I wonder how the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) views that proposition.
Robert Emmett Finn: I always thought a mixed diet was good, together with a little something you cannot get in Toronto.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is just what I want
to get, the chance to mix the diet, but the poor consumer has to bear, on an absolute foodstuff, a 5 per cent tax if it is canned sardines or fish of any kind. Vegetables, he can get free, but on sardines he has to pay the tax. Yet this government is a government in favour of cheap food for the working people. I have a case in my constituency where it means all the difference between expanded operation and contracted operation

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
if the sales tax is removed or if it is kept . on. That may seem like a minor matter, but it is interesting and instructive as one of the examples of the want of consideration that has been given by this wonderful government in the preparation of these wonderful budget changes.
I want to pass for a moment to something that, I think, is of more importance than a special instance. I am impressed with the idea that matters are not being grappled with on a big enough and broad enough scale in this country. These tariff alterations are at best a mere haphazard, piffling bit of work. Other countries of the world that are solvent since the war are dev.oting their energies to an actual reduction of their debt We are disputing in this House whether you ought to enter a certain set of figures in one book or in another, or put them on one page or another, and we know that we are not reducing our real liabilities. In the same way we come to this House and discuss a question whether you can stand a rate of 5 cents, or 7i cents, or 10 cents, on some particular commodities. What is pressing down upon internal business in this country to-day? The sales tax as amplified by the present government, this government that was going to abolish oppressive taxes. What did the United States do after the Civil War? Within a comparatively few years, as soon as they pulled their country together, the first thing they did was, not to lower their external tariff walls, but to remove the things that were burdensome upon the internal commerce of the country. I ask: Why, instead of taking a few cents off here and a few cents off there in the protective tariff, if this government had 824,000,000 of tariff they felt they could reduce, why did they not take the whole $24,000,000 off their sales tax, give the people real and vital relief, and let the tariff stay as it was, good enough for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) last year and'good enough for many of his Liberal predecessors? The farmers themselves, the agricultural interests that are represented here, tell the government plainly and frankly that they do not think this reduction amounts to very much to them. Some of them say that, after all, the question of the West is not a question of tariff. Many members in the House to my left have said that, and yet the government, in the hope of and for the sake of political support, carries an unwanted gift to the provinces of the West, where it might distribute its favours, if it has favours to give, or its benefits, if it has
benefits to bestow, on all the people of Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic. But we find an outpouring about the unity of Canada and the West and the East being brought together and all that sort of stuff. The East and the West can and will get together, but it will be upon the principle of equal opportunity and equal sacrifice to the needs of the nation, and not by patting a special portion oh the back as long as it votes right.
I do not want to take up more time to-night but as the tariff has been discussed at considerable length, I am going to pay a few minutes' attention to something of the history of tariff issues. I am not going to read what some professor has written in a textbook of theory; but I propose to turn to solutions of facts, some of them in this country and some of them in the next best available instance, in the country lying to the south of us. I believe it is better to proceed by building upon the actual accumulated knowledge of the past than to base your policies upon mere conjectures and hopes for the present. If you will go back in our own country as far as 1855 you will find that there was a period of great prosperity in Canada caused largely by the building of the Grand Trunk railway. There was at that time a tremendous expansion and a very great land boom was on. In 1857 the boom collapsed and Canada was in a state of crisis. In 1858, as a remedy for conditions of that character, Sir Alexander Galt first introduced the protective principle into the tariff of Canada. It was successful and industry sprang up. I have neither the time nor the inclination to-night to go into statistics; I want to weary the audience as little as possible. But I propose to put the facts on record, because I believe they are of value not merely historically but practically as well. In 1866 because of the impending confederation Canada reduced the tariff to an average of 15 per cent; the Maritime provinces' average at that time was 12 1-2 per cent. Canada during that period had been greatly helped by the condition of the United States. Immediately after the Civil War in the United States there was an absolute paralysis of industry and there was a high internal taxation which continued down to about 1873,1 think. Those conditions afforded a virtual protection to the people of Canada; but in 1873 the United States, recovering from their war burdens, reducing internal taxation, came into competition with us in our own lowly protected markets. I am not going to discuss whether we had a tariff for revenue or for protection in Canada; I will simply say
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

that we had a tariff low enough for the American manufacturer to get over the barrier and sell to our own people in the market which should have been our own. What happened? The Liberal party was in charge of affairs at that time in 1873; Sir Richard Cart-wright was its great exponent. I will give you a few words from a public utterance of his in parliament. He said:
It becomes us to consider the various remedies proposed for this unfortunate state of affairs.
In the first place I desire to expend a few words on the general impression which prevails, even in quarters where we would hardly expect to find it, that it is in the power of this government, of any government, this legislature or any legislature to make the country prosperous by the mere stroke of a pen or the enactment of acts of parliament. I would like hon. gentlemen in this House and out of it, who entertain that illusion, as I consider it, to think to what such a course would lead and would ask them if they are prepared to pay the price. You cannot have at one and the same time a free government and a paternal government.
His solution was no solution at all. From 1873 to 1878, as we know, Canada passed through one of the worst periods in her history, and it was only by the advent of the Conservative party to power with Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Leonard Tilley and Sir George Etienne Cartier, at the head of affairs, that a real National Policy was introduced which preserved to this country its own markets and its own industries. And it is only in so far as that beneficent policy has not been completely expunged from the statutes of Canada that Canada has been able to succeed in the years which have followed the Conservative administration. The United States had precisely the same experience. From 1818 to 1824 they had what hon. gentlemen would call a revenue tariff. The balance of trade was against them, and in that period exports of specie itself exceeded imports by over $10,000,000. In 1824 they adopted the protective tariff and the results were immediately gratifying, so much so that in 1828 they passed a higher tariff and enjoyed a period of unequalled prosperity down to 1834. In that period they imported $30,000,000 more of specie than they exported and paid off the debt incurred during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. But there was too much prosperity; then came that phrase which has become so familiar in these days, "a step in the right direction." A step in the right direction was taken, no doubt amidst as great plaudits as it has received to-day. The tariff was lowered to 20 per cent, a higher average tariff than we have to-day and meaning a great deal more in those days of nearly a century ago. They tinkered with the tariff,

they lowered it, and in a very few years the government, as a writer put it, was out of funds and credit. So serious was the situation that^ in 1842 they went back to protection and again they experienced a period of prosperity. Once more, however, another "step in the right direction" was taken with a new tariff in 1846 and that was followed by an absolute crash. There may be other causes, but I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that every time they took that step in the right direction, every time they lowered the tariff, they were invaded by foreign manufacturers and a financial crash ensued, in that country which was then in a process of building itself up comparable to Canada at the present time.
Experience teaches, they say, but I have yet to learn that it teaches a Liberal government. Now, let us have an example that occurred in this country in 1872. At, that time the United States government took the duty off tea and Canada followed suit; but when she did she found a clause in the United States law by which a duty of 10 per cent was charged on all tea imported from countries west of the Cape of Good Hope-a sort of jigger in it such as we should get if we went into reciprocity with the United States. Ten per cent was exacted on all tea imported into the United States from Canada; so that while we had free trade in tea with the United States they had protection against us. This is the same policy as the Progressive government is pursuing to-day step by step and adopted by its liberal junta. Canada at that time took to itself power to impose a duty of 10 per cent on all tea coming from the United States, an equivalent of the duty imposed by the United States on that commodity going from Canada; and the trade was saved until in 1874 our Liberal friends, with Sir Richard Cartwright as Minister of Finance, took hold of the helm again, when they succeeded in very short order in ruining the tea trade. Then the tea dealers went to the United States and sent circulars into this market inviting the people to purchase tea on the other side of the line. Our direct trade was gone, a fine accomplishment, one apparently so fine that the greatest ambition of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to-day is to have it repeated in an almost infinitely larger number of articles than the government of that time dealt with.
This question of protection has been discussed to-night in very measured terms and very fairly by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), but if you follow his remarks to their logical conclusion what be-

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
comes of Canada? Have we a cohesive country? You have, if you are prepared to make Canada one vast agricultural tract from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I speak from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces, and I have just as good a right to speak from that standpoint as other hon. gentlemen have to speak from the standpoint of other sections of the country. It is only by this common discussion in parliament of the difficulties with which we are confronted in different parts of the Dominion that we will be able to evolve any policy which will do reasonable justice towards all parts. I would put the situation of the Maritimes in this way: You take the duties down low enough, you let our protection fail us, and you soon reach the point at which our very mines will cease to operate because the United States can produce more cheaply and can use us for a dumping market. I am supported in that by the statements that have been made by hon. members behind the government. There is no question between us. Now, if you protect the development of our natural products in steel and in coal, you increase the population in certain centres. The moment you increase that population the demand comes upon the rural districts to provide food for that population. It is the old story of the home market. It ought not to be necessary to discuss it in this year 1924, but apparently it is necessary to re-state the fundamental principles all over again.
Our position is different from that of the West. The man in the West who is mining wheat instead of coal has to compete in the world market. We cannot help him except in one way, as I see it: we can find him the cheapest transportation that the country can afford to give him. That is infinitely more valuable to him than a few dollars off his farm implements. We in the East are prepared to make sacrifices, and we have made sacrifices, for that very thing. The Canadian Pacific railway was built out of sacrifices of the older provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, yes. The newer provinces did not build the Canadian Pacific railway.


An hon. MEMBER:: A lot of our land out there paid for it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The land was bought and paid for by the older provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are paying for it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It was Canada's gift, it was part of the price of getting the railway built. And it made settlement possible. We do not begrudge it, and we do not want to
go back on it. But I ask: As we made the development of the West possible, is it not fair'that the West should in some way make possible the development of the natural resources of the East? Let us look where we stand to-day. I am not going to discuss in a spirit of asperity what has taken place with regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. I just refer to the fact that that agreement was made not between the provinces at all; it was a rider put by Canada upon the assistance given to the Crowsnest Pass railway. The western people get the benefit of that to-day.
If that agreement had never been made what possible argument would the West have against the equality of freight rates all over the Dominion? Do they not realize that the very fact that they enjoy the rates under that agreement-whether rightly or wrongly we need not discuss now-means that the people in other parts of Canada and in regard to other commodities have to pay more than they otherwise would? That is the burden we are bearing daily and hourly in other parts of the Dominion. Is it too much for us to ask that our gateways-in the East, Quebec and Montreal in the summer, our gateway in the West, Vancouver, all the year around, and our gateways in the Maritimes, Halifax and St. John, in the winter, shall be used by the western people in preference to searching for a special route for their freight by the j gateways of the neighbouring nation? I say frankly, you cannot expect this to go on all the time if there is to be a Canada for us, so long as our income tax is to be paid and our sales tax and our customs dues to maintain our railways and to build further extensions in the West. We are not begrudging that expenditure, but we cannot have the West say: There is no Canada east of the Great Lakes or east of Quebec. We say we want our share in the handling of this western produce. That is the case of the Maritime provinces on transportation. And do not think for a moment that we are going to relieve the situation by getting out of confederation, or even talking about getting out of it. We are going to stay in confederation, and we are proud to be in it. But we are going to keep everlastingly at this question until we make the same impression upon the country and upon parliament as our western friends have made in regard to some other matters. They have shown us the benefit of agitation, and we are going to do the agitating. I believe that my own party tonight stands back of the reasonable requests of the Maritime provinces. If I thought otherwise I would mighty soon part company with it.
The Budget-Mr. Baxter


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Hon. members laugh.. I will go a step further for them. After the next election comes there will be another government. I might, perhaps not unreasonably, expect to be included in that government, but I would not enter it unless I were sure that I would get justice for the Maritime provinces.


Mr. RINFRET:: Does my hon. friend mean the portfolio of Justice?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would tell my hon. friends that there are people who could fill it worse. I am not at all conceited, for I can be fair, but I have met some people who cannot be. I want to pursue for a moment the statement I started to make-if I found after assuming office that I had been mistaken in my party, I would leave the seats of the mighty and go into such opposition as there was opportunity to consort with. That is the difference between the attitude that I consider must be taken in order for the Maritime provinces to be successful in their fight for their rights and the attitude that has been persistently and consistently taken by the "solid sixteen" as they were in this House. One of those hon. gentlemen has taken office at the hands of the government, and a very effective stopper has been put in his mouth as far as any advocacy of the rights of the Maritime provinces is concerned. We have heard no motion for a duty on coal nor for a duty on steel, we have heard no motion to take the duty off flour-none of these things that he promised his constituents. We have heard protests from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and when he got away from his free trade heresy I have agreed with the other things he has said. But does the hon. member realize how utterly helpless he has been? During one admirable speech he made I, a poor, miserable, benighted Conservative, had to appeal to the Speaker to preserve order among his friends so that we on this side could hear him. That is the sympathy the Maritime provinces have got from the Liberal party, that is the sympathy the hon. member for Cumberland has received from his party in doing his duty by standing up for the rights of his native province. I have not heard any other members from Nova Scotia trying to do what he did. What they should have done was to have said to their leaders: We are a solid sixteen. We are Liberals. We have followed you. We have borne the heat and burden of the day. You are now on the eve of making a trade with the western provinces for political support. If you make that

trade for the sake of that support, you are going to lose the stalwart friends you have had in the past unless you give an even square deal to the part of the country we represent.
My hon. friends of those sixteen were sup- [DOT] porting the right hon. the Prime Minister when he was in the depths of opposition. They went to the country asking the country to get back of him. They were not like people to my left who went to the country saying they had no faith in the present Prime Minister and no faith in his party. And yet it is far, far more unequal than the story of the Prodigal Son. These people who were never in the fold have had everything heaped upon them. The faithful sons who stayed at home, who would not raise a voice of protest, have seen the fatted calf killed and the table spread for the benefit of those who had been, if not spending their substance in riotous living, at least not been living at home within the ambit of the Liberal party.
I want to say a word about this coal business from the standpoint of Nova Scotia. I got the returns ending March 31, 1924, and they show that over 15,500,000 tons of bituminous coal came in from the United States valued at over S44,000.000, and nearly 5,000,000 tons of anthracite, at a value of $44,000,000. The lignite is inconsiderable, but the total imports of coal from the United States were $88,000,000, in round figures. Now my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) advocated a greater duty. He said: "Let us make this Dominion one; you people in Ontario burn our coal." Well, what have we heard in parliament? All sorts of devices, and a committee sitting day after day and week after week to see if it is possible for the Canadian National Railways to bring lignite from some part of Alberta into Toronto, when the best coal in the world was hundreds of miles nearer, accessible most of the year by water, all the year by rail, and nobody ever raised a voice of protest or demanded that the rates on the railway should be made low enough to give Nova Scotia coal the entrance into the markets of upper Canada that were promised to it on every platform when confederation was discussed.


Robert Emmett Finn: Would my hon. friend tell me why it was when F. B. McCurdy of Nova Scotia was Minister of Public Works in the government of Sir Robert Borden, and my hon. friend was in the government of the now leader of the opposition, they did not put a duty on slack coal? Why did they not have the railway freight rates reduced? What was my hon. friend doing then in the Tory administration? Was he asleep at the switch?

The Budget-Mr. Baxter


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was not. For my hon.
friend's information I would tell him that F. B. McCurdy was never a member of R. L Borden's government.


Robert Emmett Finn: The Union government, then; it was the same thing.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And the rest of the answer to his question is, what were the cabinet ministers on the Liberal side doing in the years from 1896 to 1911? Had we not better make a fresh start? If the public men from the Maritime provinces have not been getting for the Maritime provinces that advantage the Maritime provinces ought to have had, is it not time we presented a united front and demanded these things? I am doing it tonight. Will my hon. friend join with me?


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Will my
hon. friend be good enough to tell the House what he thinks the Maritime provinces should have? What things should be done? He has been talking in very general terms.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not need to go
further than to repeat to my hon. friend the speech that he made at Stellarton; that is enough. If he will get that-and he has not got the whole of it yet. there is some more of it coming to him-but if he gets that carried out, he will take a long step towards getting something for the Maritime provinces.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the
debate on the Address my hon. friend's leader, and now my hon. friend himself have quoted from an alleged speech which they said I made at Stellarton. The whole report of that speech is absolutely made up from Conservative sources. I was never reported by any paper, speaking at Stellarton on that day.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No, my hon. friend was
not reported by any newspaper, but a stenographer was specially employed, and I have a stenographic copy of what the hon. member said. It is considerably longer than the extracts, but it is here, and if my hon. friend presses far enough he will get it, every word of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to tell my hon. friend-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Before my hon. friend goes any further I want to give him a note of warning. He has got into an atmosphere to-night where bluff and bluster will not carry.
Now to follow to their logical conclusion, the expressions of my hon. friend the member for Marquette, (Mr. Crerar) in the eastern
provinces or in any other part of Canada, you would leave our natural resources in the ground until the more favoured countries which have got ahead of us in their development would have exhausted all their natural supplies, and then they would be driven to us. When, for instance, there was no more coal to be got anywhere else they would come to us as the only place where it could be got. That sort of development is too many centuries in advance for me to see any possibility of enjoying it. I hope to be in a place where coal will not be necessary when the world is driven to that, because I like the society of my own fellow-men and I know where to go to find them.
Now I want to take up for a minute the steel question. I find in dealing with the steel question that I am running right into my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence again. Quoting from another section of that speech of his, he said:
You would think that there is an enormous duty on steel products. The Trenton people burn your coal in the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. The duty on steel products as produced down here is as follows: Fifteen years ago there was a duty of 50 per cent on all products of the Trenton works, steel which was used in the manufacture of agricultural implements in Toronto. This government has taken the duty off steel used in agricultural implements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker. I desire to rise to a point of order. I have already stated that my hon. friend is quoting from an alleged report of a speech which I never delivered. I never uttered those statements he is now giving to the House, and I submit he has no right to read to the House any statements which are untrue.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I submit that my hon. friend has no right to say that these statements are not true. I am responsible for them and I have stated the way in which I got them, and I do not think he can very well rise to a point of order to prevent me from reading statements which I shall attribute to him. He can, if he has the temerity, get up afterwards and deny it,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am denying it now.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That issue will not be determined in this House; it will be determined by the people in Stellarton when they read the hon. gentleman's denial.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have dealt with bigger men tKan you there.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: "Fish plates". Somebody said at Stellarton, somebody who wore clothing resembling that of my hon. friend-
The Budget-Mr. Baxter


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a point of order. I say it is not open to any hon. member of this House to allege in respect of another hon. member that some stenographer-whom nobody ever knew or heard tell of before-made public a statement containing assertions that the hon. member in question declares are utterly incorrect and untrue and were never uttered by him.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not know how my hon. friend can possibly deny-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
trouble?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am arguing the point of order and in spite of interruptions I shall finish my statement; the night is young yet. I confess it is utterly impossible for me to see how the hon. member can deny that he made statements until he hears what they are.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statements my hon. friend has read so far were never uttered by me.


An hon. MEMBER:: All right; go on and read the rest.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Excuse me.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the point of order now?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would ask the Speaker to rule.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: On what?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the point of order.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is it? Must I stop my speech.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The second point of order is that no hon. member has any right to make an untrue statement about another hon. member. That is the point.


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) wish to discuss the point of order? Under Rule 19 when an hon. gentleman denies a statement made by another hon. member that denial must be accepted. I hope my hon. friend will not continue to attribute to the Minister of National Defence statements that he denies ever having made.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, I never had the slightest intention of refusing to accept within the walls of parliament my hon. friend's denial. Neither had I any intention of relinquishing my right to say that I. am informed he made certain statements. After I have made them he can make the denial if he chooses.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is attempting by subterfuge-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not think there is any point of order now. I said I accepted my hon. friend's denial.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to another point of order. My hon. friend thinks he can go on now and make statements in another form which I have already stated are absolutely untrue and were never uttered by me. I say that my hon. friend cannot do that.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps it would be better for my hon. friend to exercise patience and wait until he hears what I have to say. Then if I do anything contrary to the rules he can rise to a point of order. Until I do that I have not transgressed the rules.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to direct my hon. friend to accept your ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Baxter) is an experienced parliamentarian and debater. He knows that it is contrary to the rules to repeat a statement which has been denied by the hon. member concerned.


Arthur Meighen: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert does not want to repeat anything.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member to be stopped from reading a quotation? I never heard of any such rule as that. If the quotation is denied the member making it is bound to accept it; but I do not think it is the rule that the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) should be stopped and not be allowed to read what he wants to read.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman has read what claims to be the report of a speech delivered by the hon. member for Pictou.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was prevented from reading it.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Pictou says he never made such a speech and that the statements contained in the report are utterly untrue. My hon. friend has no right to go on reading an untrue report.


Arthur Meighen: What about the rest of the statement? It may not be untrue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statements are all untrue.


Arthur Meighen: How do you know until you hear it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Such a
speech was not delivered.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has not heard it read but he looks as though he thought the speech was characteristic.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Conservative party fabricated this speech which they allege I uttered.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is reading a fabricated report.


Hewitt Bostock: I think it is perfectly clear that the hon. gentleman is wrong [DOT] in reading a report containing certain statements which are specifically denied by the hon. Minister of National Defence. That is my ruling. I hope the hon. gentleman will accept the ruling and not continue to read from an alleged report. The hon. member says it was not a report published in the press but Was specially taken down by somebody at a meeting. It is not usual to quote from a report the author of which is not known.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, heai


Hewitt Bostock: That has sometimet
been held contrary to the rule. The report
is said to have been taken at a certain meeting but the statements contained in it are specifically denied by the Minister of National Defence. Under the circumstances I think the hon. member, who is well aware of the spirit and letter of the rules of the House should abstain from quoting from the report.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I regret that so much
time has been taken up with this incident. 1 have already said that I accepted within the walls of parliament the denial of my hon. friend. I had not been permitted an opportunity to read one sentence more, or to make any other portion of my speech. My hon. friend interrupted me again on a point of order which seemed to me merely a pretext for denying that he had made a speech in Stellarton such as he alleged the Conservative party were circulating as having originated from him. Now I may say that I have frequently heard letters read here the signatures to which were withheld by hon. gentlemen.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was such a case only yesterday.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Only yesterday. Still I
have no desire to prolong discussion on such a barren and unfruitful a thing as parliamentary law. I want to get at the facts. I am not going to bother attributing statements to my hon. friend, but I am, within the rules of the House, going to continue my speech. Now, I may say that speaking on behalf of the Liberal party-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the speech my hon. friend did not deliver .on the debate on the Address. He ran away that night.


Arthur Meighen: What is the matter
now?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does my hon. friend say I ran away from anywhere?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was here ready to go on.


Arthur Meighen: Why did you not go on? You said you were going to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member did not go on.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will ask my hon. friend to accept my declaration that this particular speech was not prepared until to-day and part of yesterday, and the very part to which he has reference now was not put together until late this afternoon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You had
the fabricated report in your possession at the opening of the session.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does my hon. friend entirely think he is doing justice to himself or the House in making a statement of that kind?	-
. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou): I absolutely do.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then all I can say to my hon. friend is that in my belief he knows that the report has never been fabricated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know
nothing of the kind, that i.s all I have got to say.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Now, I want to say that
at Stellarton, in the province of Nova Scotia, Friday, October 26, 1921, in the course of the general election a stout gentleman addressed a meeting in the interest of the Liberal party. I am not going to say who the stout gentleman was. He had gray hair and a gray moustache but I am not going to name him. I am going to tell the House what was said in the name of and in the interest of the Liberal party on that occasion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a
point of order. My hon. friend is attempting by a subterfuge to evade your Honour's ruling. No hon. gentleman in this House would have failed to note the person to whom my hon. friend was referring and I say, Mr. Speaker, that you in your long experience probably have never seen and in my long experience I have never seen any hon. gentleman attempt so boldly to evade a distinct ruling of the Chair, and I raise a point of order.
The Budget-Mr. Baxter


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would suggest in regard to the point of order that your ruling should be that if my hon. friend finds any stray shoes lying around which fit him he might put them on. Otherwise I will be in order.


Hewitt Bostock: I will call the hon. gentleman's attention to number 249 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which says:
It has been formally ruled by speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticise statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
The hon. gentleman, as I stated a moment ago, quoted from an alleged report which I thought was taken from the press. It was denied by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). Then the hon. gentleman stated that the report had been stenographed at the meeting referred to. He said it was a verbatim report of the statements alleged to have been made by the Minister of National Defence. The minister stated that, the report was not correct and denied its authenticity. Now surely his word must be accepted. It is a ride of the House that when a denial is made by a member of certain words or phrases attributed to him', his word must be accepted, and I hope the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) will not evade the rule by giving a physical description of the occurrence. I would appeal to his better sense not to indulge in the practice of giving a reference to the oceurrence, omitting only the name. The ref#ence is clearly to the Minister of National Defence. Under those circum" stances, I would ask the hon. gentleman not to continue along those lines because he is evading the rules.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think in deference to
you, Mr. Speaker, I will find a way that will not infringe upon the rules of the House, nor impinge upon the sensitiveness of any member of the House. I shall simply say that during that campaign-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend has intimated again in the clearest and most definite way that he is proposing to evade your Honour's ruling. The statement which has been made by my hon. friend is simply an indication to the House that in some wonderful way the creative power of that gigantic brain of his is going to be able to get round the rule. That is the clear intimation, and I submit it is not possible for an hon. gentleman to

evade the rules of the House in the face of the decision you have given on the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman has accepted my ruling.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I say to the House that at the time of the last campaign, steel used in agricultural implements was absolutely free. I am pausing to see if that is objected to. I wish to say further that at that time the duty on fish plates was only ten per cent, on bars eleven per cent, on billets six per cent, and on angle bars nine per cent. Would that be called protective duty? Would anyone say that that is even revenue duty? In the days of the Laurier government-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend whose wonderful astuteness is displayed in an effort to defy your Honour-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Order, order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is proceeding to read a speech which was fabricated and attributed to me, and which I have already denied, with the purpose and intention of giving to the House the idea that I uttered those words. I submit that is only another attempt to evade your ruling which has already been given.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will give your Honour the assurance that the speech which I always understood the Minister of National Defence made is that which I am holding in my hand, which has been lying on my colleague's desk unopened, and that I have not been reading that speech, but I was proceeding to read from notes that I made of the address which I am trying under manifold difficulties to deliver.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think there is any point of order.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I say that in the days of the Laurier government a bounty was given to the industry at Trenton of from two to three dollars a ton in order to encourage and strengthen the business of manufacturing steel in this country. I would have expected under those circumstances that some one among all the candidates of the government in Nova Scotia would have pledged himself that when he went to Ottawa he would move a resolution in the interests of Nova Scotia that the duty on steel products would be increased, in order to enable them to compete successfully. I am waiting for someone to move that resolution yet. Out of the whole sixteen members elected at that time I would have thought the most forceful, the ablest

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
man,' the one with the greatest brain power, and the one with the greatest ability for bringing people to his point of view would be the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), but I cannot say to-night whether he was pledged to do a thing of that kind or not. If not I think he ought to have been pledged. At all events I notice he has not done the thing which somebody was pledged to do. I will go further and say that a candidate on the Liberal side in one of the constituencies in Nova Scotia was pledged to do it. The minister may not have been pledged.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was it?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But one would have thought that he would at least have picked up the fallen torch, and when he found the rest of the crew was insufficient for the duty that he, naturally interested in the steel and coal industry would have done that which the other candidate was too remiss to implement. He has not done it, however, and now he gets into the quiet lockstep of the Progressive party, and chants in chorus with the Canadian Council of Agriculture the new political creed1:
A revenue tariff on the other hand will impose a low scale of duties and will be designed to encourage importation so that the largest possible revenue may be secured.
It is fine to think of bringing coals to the Newcastle of Cumberland, to encourage importations of coal and importations of steel. Why, what has become of the basic industries? It seems as if the only basic thing is the comparatively small amount of steel that goes into a harvester, binder or plough or something of that kind, not even into the lawn-mower, but when it comes to being a billet or rod or something that is really sizeable in the steel business we are to encourage importations, instead of making use of the splendid opportunities for natural development in the province of Nova Scotia. No matter what the Minister of National Defence said or did not say in that or any other campaign, it is remarkable to think that he sits in a government which so studiously turns its back upon that Nova Scotia of which he must be proud to be a son. He made up a chant in collusion with the Canadian Council of Agriculture not long ago and they prescribed the particular hymn tune to which this was to be sung. He has to sing:
In framing a revenue tariff no consideration need be given to the effect upon the home manufacturer, although there will incidentally be a certain amount of protection so long as duties are imposed upon goods of a class manufactured or produced in this country.
So that, instead of getting American coal excluded and American steel excluded, firms
in Nova Scotia will have to be satisfied with the incidental protection which will be afforded by the kind permission of the Canadian Council of Agriculture.


Mr. CARROLL:: What difference has the
present tariff made to the steel industry in Nova Scotia?	.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: By the present tariff, does my hon. friend mean the one that is before the House at the present time?


William F. Carroll: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: As it is now and not as
it may be to-morrow or a day or two after -we never know.


William F. Carroll: Neither one of us is very prophetic.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: All I can say is that from the coming into power of this government to the present day, Nova Scotia has not been given the benefit of any increased duties on its coal or steel.


William F. Carroll: That is not my question.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot answer just in a moment, and I want to supplement what I have said by this, that in so far as importations of raw material for making the general class of agricultural implements are encouraged, that must be at the expense of the development of the basic industry in Nova Scotia.


William F. Carroll: What difference does the present budget make on the question of coal in Nova Scotia?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would think that my
hon. friend would see that coal is used to a certain extent in the production of steel, and the more you reduce the production of steel, the more you necessarily reduce the production of coal. As regards the coal question, I am not so very much concerned with the tariff. If I had not been under the unfortunate mistake which I am assured I have made, and which I must accept myself as having made while I am within the walls of parliament, but no longer, and under the rules of the House, but not in any other way, I would have thought that an hon. gentleman from Nova Scotia had pledged himself to take a very definite line of action with regard to this, but as that has been so studiously denied, my hon. friend can see exactly the point that I was trying to discuss as regards the situation, a point that I can not very well pursue any further in view of what has taken place to-night, and a point on which my hon. friend can have his views as I can have mine.
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

I want to pass for a very few minutes to the question of transportation. I now come into not at all unpleasant collision, but into juxtaposition to my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp). I regret he is not in the House at the present time, but I think I can discuss the subject without occasioning in him to-morrow morning any very strenuous desire that he might have been in the House. I will quote from what he said the other day as reported at page 1967 of Hansard:
The thing the people of the Maritime provinces, for whom I have every sympathy and consideration, to do to-day, is to look into this question...
That is transportation.
...from a business standpoint. I think it would be wise on therir part to choose a business committee who would do for the Maritime provinces what the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade of Portland, Maine, did for that city last year.
I want to call the attention of the House and incidentally the attention of the electors of the county of Westmorland to the fine air of detachment which pervades this statement. No one knows better than my hon. friend the temper of the people of Westmorland, and he realizes that this air of detachment is only the forerunner of that actual detachment which will take place whenever this government sees fit to hold a contest in the county of Westmorland. Just imagine a minister saying:
The thing for the people of the Maritime provinces, for whom I have every sympathy and consideration...
And that gentleman is a minister from one of the Maritime provinces. That is the language not even of mild protest. It is, perhaps a species of self-abnegation. It is certainly a species of profound dejection. It is not the spirit we want exhibited from the Maritime provinces. We want a little more punch and go in it, and in that view I know we have the entire support of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) who was not satisfied with this declaration in the House the other day.
The Secretary of State gently chided me for the speech that I was supposed to have made in the county of Kent. I am not going into that speech in detail. My hon. friend has embellished Hansard with it. It has been a subject of correspondence between myself and Sir Henry Thornton, and I am not going to drag it in any further than to say that I conceived it to be my duty as a gentleman, under the circumstances, to explain to Sir Henry Thornton how far the report was a fair summary of the speech I had made on that occasion. I pursued what I thought was the correct course, a different course in dealing

with Sir Henry Thornton, from what I have sometimes noticed people choosing in regard to speeches they have made. Of course, I do not refer to anyone in this chamber, but I have noticed before now that amongst people there is a disposition sometimes to get away from the things they have uttered. Sometimes we have even denials of that which they have uttered, even though those denials shock common sense. I did not pursue that course. I pursued a course which commended itself to my judgment, a course which, I think, met with the approval of Sir Henry Thornton as a gentleman. This is what I said to him:
I did refer to you as "an imported miracle" because, as I explained to the audience, that is the way the government press treats you. I did say that you were born in the United States and that you subsequently went to England. That was said in explanation of the fact that you had little or no experience of local conditions and that you had been given a board to advise you, many of whose members were mere political hacks who would be of no assistance to you except along certain political lines.
I did not say that you were "knighted for some pretended service."
I read this part of the letter in order to do justice to Sir Henry Thornton, because the newspaper report of my speech certainly did him an injustice, and it is only right that I should take an occasion as public as this, not of making reparation for my own fault, but of relieving him from the annoyance that must have been caused by what I contend was an inaccurate report. This is what I said to him:
I have talked to the reporter who wrote the article and he says that his recollection is that I did say it. Nevertheless I am positive that I did not. All I know about your knighthood and all that I need to know about it is that it was given for war service and nothing could be farther from my thoughts or expression than to refer to these services as pretended.
You will notice that even if a thing makes against me I do not go back on it.
The reporter, who is a conscientious hardworking chap with a desire to be absolutely accurate, admits that he may not have accurately expressed my statement when he used the words, " thrown out of a job in England." He admits that that reads as if you had been ignominiously dismissed and that I did not use language to convey that impression but merely referred to the cessation of your employment there. I did also refer to men having been removed as, " the second deportation of the Aeadians."
While from my own explanation you may think that the report is a fairly accurate one, yet I can frankly say that it does not in my judgment fairly reflect the character of my address. I referred, though the reporter has not mentioned it, to the Scribe Hotel in Paris and generally contrasted what has been done or not done in connection with railway administration in the Maritime provinces with the programme which was promised by the late administration and which would have been carried into effect if they had been returned to power.

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
I can assure you, Sir Henry, that I have not the slightest ill feeling towards yourself and I would be sorry to say anything of a personal nature which could give you pain or annoyance. Also, though I am opposed to political interference with the detailed operations of the railway, I do not believe that any administration can or should divorce itself from the general policy of railway administration. That administration should have as one of its principal aims the recognition of the needs of all parts of the country to such transportation as will enable the natural and basic products of each part of Canada to be supplied to other portions of the country and the withdrawal of business from foreign ports for the purpose of utilizing our own harbours.
On these questions you will find I shall speak freely and repeatedly until I see my views adopted or find that it is impossible to do so. I entirely concur that there is no place in this discussion for personal abuse and I am sure that you will acquit me of having had any intention of resorting to that style of persuasion.
I received in reply from Sir Henry Thornton a letter which was most courteous in its tone and which entirely accepted my communication, thus establishing a state of friendly relations between us. But I did not. go back on anything that I had really said: I did not deny having made a speech on that occasion.


George Perry Graham: You denied making that ?peech.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No; indeed, I admitted
almost every word of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend did not say anything about the title. Homer, it would seem, sometimes nods after all.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Never having been
Homer I do not know. Homer, if I might observe this, is such a common designation for a Scotchman that I would let my hon. friend settle that question; I think perhaps Homer did nod to-night. Now, I am not going to go into the genesis of the matter, but the fact is that we have the National Railways, and that is all we have. I do not know that we should ever have had it if the people who think as I do had been settling the question. But we have it, and it is no use looking backward; we must look ahead. The railway must be made national and what we need in my judgment is a national railway policy which will make the railway subservient to the country. I want to put myself distinctly on record as saying that I believe it is the office of the government to give directions to the board of directors of the railways as to what this country wants accomplished, for I do not believe in taking the supine position that the whole matter should be turned over to the board of directors and that we should put up with exactly what they see fit to do.


Robert Emmett Finn: Is that the policy of the hon. gentleman's leader?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think my leader will concur in it. But I may remind my hon. friend that I have never yet seen the occasion, nor do I think the occasion will ever arise, when my leader will be found to be incapable of expressing his own policy for himself. And, what is more, there is never any evasion about his statement of policy; you get it straight from the shoulder. Now, I do not propose to allow myself to be misrepresented or misunderstood, so that when I say questions of policy I mean of general policy. I do not suggest that this parliament or this government or any other government should interfere, as has been done in some parts of Nova Scotia, in the detailed operation of the road by particular individuals. I leave it to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) to start an inquiry to find out who has been doing that. Possibly he will be able to discover the offender if he will devote his attention to the pursuit of him. In the. meantime I am going to suggest, in view of the fact that I have been put in an awkward position to-night, that the newspapers in Nova Scotia offer a small reward to find out who the real author was of the speech to which I have referred. I would even suggest that they give a ten dollar prize.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend has been throwing out innuendoes in such a way that he has been able to circumvent the rules of the House.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I repeat, I have accepted
my hon. friend's denial, and that is the reason I want to find out who masqueraded as the hon. gentleman; I am anxious to discover the identity of the person who impersonated him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some reference has been made to "peculiar politicians in New Brunswick," and-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend will pardon my interrupting him. If I allowed myself to be drawn into that sidetrack the hon. gentleman might follow with the question, who it was that had stopped endorsing certain notes. Did my hon. friend ever do it, or has he left off doing it? Now, to come back to the subject that is really of more importance to the country than the discussion of some of the things that have come up in the last few minutes. I say again, that it is the office of the government to institute a policy in regard to the railways and to take power enough to have it carried out, and such a

The Budget-Mr. Baxter

policy must make the railways serve this country and not another country. Repeatedly in the public press, ever since the roads were acquired, we have had statement after statement-and we have had it in this House- that the Union government apparently was responsible for some sort of iniquity in taking over the whole of the Grand Trunk, because forsooth they had taken over the Grand Trunk from Montreal to Portland, Maine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Somebody says, "hear,
hear."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: More say "hear, hear."
Now let us have all saying " hear, hear." All together.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Very good I The training of my hon. friends opposite is admirable. I suspected it before, but I never had quite such convincing evidence that the applause ' accorded the Prime Minister was not spontaneous. I now know it was rehearsed. Well, if my hon. friends are in a receptive mood I want them to reflect for a moment on this acquisition of the Grank Trunk, including the line to Portland, Maine. In teaching one needs to use illustrations, and I think some of my hon. friends are still, or ought to be, in a state of pupilage on that subject. If you own a lot of land, and your neighbour owns a lot of land adjoining, that neighbour can pass over any part of his land when he likes and you have nothing to say about it. If, however, you buy his land you can stop him from even putting a foot upon it. I do not think we can get any political difference on that statement; the political difference comes when we talk about a railway running to a Maritime port or to Portland, Maine. So long as the Grand Trunk Railway Company, a private company organized and financed by British capital, owned the Grand Trunk railway, which had one of its connections running from Montreal to Portland, Maine, the people of Canada had no fair right to say to the private owners of that road: You shall not carry traffic over the lines of steel that you have laid down out of your own pocket. The moment the people of Canada bought that road and took it over they had as good a right to stop the use of those rails as they had to stop the use of any other part of the system. My question is:	Why do
they not do it?


Robert Emmett Finn: I would ask my hon. friend
if he thinks that the government of this country to-day, after the late administration
TMr. Baxter. 1
under the right hon. leader of the opposition took the good money of Canada to buy the Grand Trunk from Montreal to Portland, should tear up the rails, abandon that portion of the road, and throw into the Atlantic ocean the money that was so improvidently spent by the late administration.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wonder my hon. friend
had not asked his question long ago. My complete answer is:	They slashed a way
through the province of New Brunswick, and ran what was once the National Transcontinental from Grand Falls to Moncton, with the idea of helping Nova Scotia-and it has never helped Nova Scotia one five-cent piece.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is not an answer.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot give an answer
all in one sentence. My hon. friend took three hours and forty minutes the. other night, and now he will have to give me some time. Now, on the National Transcontinental the rails are fairly rusty. It develops no local business. It does not help the province of Nova Scotia. The present government, or its political board, is not making daily use of those rails. Now, may I ask my hon. friend if the National Railway Board is bound to use those rails every day because they belong to the government?


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Wait a minute. That did not come because of anything that my leader or any government he was associated with did; that came because of the unfortunate arrangement which was made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding. But the country has got the road just the same. It is a curse upon the country, but I do not see that that is any reason why we should waste money running trains over it every day if there is not business to warrant such operation. I would suggest that as we have not got traffic enough to run over that road and to run down to Portland at the same time, we should simply take the traffic that goes down to Portland and route it over those other rails into the ports of Halifax and St. John, using the rails within our own country. Now, of those two great connections one is bound to lie idle and unproductive. Shall the unproductive road be within Canada and the productive road in the United States? Or is this House and the present government willing to reverse the position? I understand Sir Henry Thornton, according to the newspapers, says that his business is to make money out of the whole system, and he is going to do it. Therefore until the government gives him directions to the contrary he

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
will be perfectly right in following that course. That means that where he can make more money by routing traffic through United States Atlantic ports than through Canadian Atlantic ports, then under his present declaration Sir Henry Thornton will route it to the American ports. What I want as compensation for what we in the Maritime provinces have given up and for what we are suffering is the mandate of the people of Canada, expressed through this government, to Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors: Here, even if you make less money by handling the traffic through Canadian ports, that is the way you must route it, and that is the National railway policy of Canada.


Robert Emmett Finn: If shippers in Canada will not route their traffic except through Portland, how are you going to make Sir Henry Thornton do as you propose?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In the first place, my hon. friend is beguiled by this myth of routing. There is not nearly so much specific routing as he thinks or as we are led to believe. In the second place, my hon. friend ought to know painfully that back in 1898 a Liberal government put a differential on the Intercolonial railway against the port of Halifax and in favour of the port of St. John, and that that was removed only a few months ago.


Robert Emmett Finn: That was agreed to by the people of Halifax and by the Board of Trade of Halifax.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And it was complained of, and justly so, ever afterwards.


Robert Emmett Finn: It was done under statute.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Surely my hon. friend has had experience enough of the power of a differential.


Robert Emmett Finn: Oh yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And if Sir Henry Thornton wants to serve Canadian ports, all he has to do is to charge a higher rate-which is a differential-for hauling to Portland, Maine, than to Halifax or St. John, and the freight will go by the cheaper route.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend realize that as soon as the traffic gets into the United States it is subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission? I am treading on delicate ground. Let the Canadian National Railway take steps towards making traffic in the United States difficult over the line that we own in that country, and he will find where we will land with the Canadian National, not in the East but in the West where we get our through traffic.
13Si


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is a way of dealing with that-make your rates cheaper to St. John and Halifax, and let the country bear the difference for the sake of building up the National railway.


George Perry Graham: That is another policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I hear groans. There is to be no Canadian national spirit for the benefit of the Maritime provinces, but we can submit to the Crowsnest pass agreement for the benefit of another part of Canada. Is that the way to bring east and west together? Is that making a United Canada? Where are all the Prime Minister's platitudes now, in view of the groans and roars from the other side of the House-platitudes about Canadian unity denied and discarded by his own followers almost before his voice had ceased to echo in this room. Let us come right out in the open and see where we stand. We will find out whether it is to be a united Canada, or whether it is to be united without us. As I said before, you will not drive us out of Confederation, but you are starting now the agitation on the part of the Maritime provinces that will eventually win this case, and you may as well prepare yourselves to adjust the business of the country to those conditions, for sooner or later you will have to do it.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: The hon. gentleman started that propaganda last fall.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I did not start that propaganda last fall. I started the idea of Maritime unity long before, and I have joined in with the idea of Maritime co-operation, but what I found was that in the city of Halifax, and I think throughout the province of Nova Scotia, the idea is there among the people and it will get expression. I have been one of those who gave it voice, and only one among a number, but the feeling is so deep-rooted that the government is going to realize what the real soul of Nova Scotia is feeling over the treatment it has received.
Now I call the attention of the House to another fact. Out of the ports of Canada to the United Kingdom and to other countries, wheat and flour, all converted into terms of bushels, were exported in 1922 to the amount of 61,000,000 bushels, and by United States ports in the same year over 113,000,000 bushels; in 1923 nearly 116,000,000 bushels were exported through Canadian ports, and nearly 149,000,000 bushels through United States ports, a better relative showing. But the object of our railways should be to in-
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

duce the export of every bushel of Canadian wheat through Canadian ports. I am not asking now for any special privilege for the Maritime provinces. I am only asking the Liberal party to be true to its really great leader, to implement the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said he would never be satisfied until every pound of Canadian traffic was carried over Canadian rails to Canadian ports.


Robert Emmett Finn: He never intended to buy
the Grand Trunk then.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But he intended to build
the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental, and he built them.


Robert Emmett Finn: All in Canada.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Certainly, all in Canada.
I wonder if my hon. friend objects to taking traffic from Ontario or other parts over the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Emmett Finn: Certainly not.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would hope not. I wonder if my hon. friend realizes that the traffic would be comparatively small if it were limited to traffic originating on the Transcontinental railway, and not very large if it were limited to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The real feeders have been the portions of the Canadian National system, and without them this system of railroads would not have had much vitality. .Personally I would rather have seen it under private management, but it is now under public management, and I want that management directed to make the best use of the road for Canadian ports on the Pacific and on the Atlantic.
Now on this transportation question someone spoke at a public meeting in the interests of the Liberal party in tolerably similar language to what I am about to utter:
Would you consider that it is wise to send these people back? In the old days we could send coal in the winter time from the mines at Stellarton to Montreal. The freight rates under the Liberal government were $1.90 a ton return for nearly a thousand miles. The rate that Colonel Cantley and D. B. Hanna have to-day is $1.20, or an increase of $2.30 per ton on Nova Scotia coal when you send it to Montreal.
Take steel. What was the rate charged on steel in the days of the Liberal government? Cost from Trenton to Montreal $3.50 per ton. What is the rate to-day-$7.80 per ton, an increase of $4.30 a ton on steel. Is it any wonder that the steel works are not working?
But we who are fighting the battles of the Liberal party are pledged to at once take steps to see that the I.C.R. comes back to the hands of the people of the Maritime provinces and that it will be operated under a readjustment of the freight rates, where only the cost of operation of the part of the railway in which we are interested will have to be taken into account.
I Mr. Baxter.]
Well, I wonder if anybody ever made that promise. I wonder if any member from Nova Scotia has ever attempted to implement it. I wait for an answer.
Let me point out to the House some of what might be called minor matters in railway rates that do not receive the adjustment or the attention I think they should in the Maritime provinces. The other night the hon. member for Prince represented me as having somewhat improperly dealt with certain railway rates. Now I dealt with the reductions according to the best information I could get, and I know the figures are substantially correct. I would ask the hon. member to compare the rates of 1897 all over Canada with those of 1924, and he will find that our rates in the Maritime provinces, and generally the rest of Canada are vastly higher, that the rates shot up for a few years while the Crowsnest pass agreement was suspended, and they are now back again to the terms of that agreement. There was some little alteration by the Railway Commission, but, very small, and I think a moment's comparison of the rates as they are now with the rates for the same products in 1897 will convince the member for Prince that there is something that calls for his work in trying to get a re-adjustment, instead of simply petty criticism of the addresses that have been delivered against the government in the by-election in Halifax.
I have in my possession a letter from the Mann Axe Company of St. Stephen, NJB., and it throws rather an illuminating light on the treatment the railway accords to manufacturers. Now we have basic materials in Nova Scotia, and we are willing to manufacture in New Brunswick. We want our market, and what treatment do we get? The Mann Axe Company say in December last:
We ordered some goods from Brockville for expoifc to Newfoundland, freight was to be allowed to North Sydney, but instead of any freight allowance we have a charge of the difference between 75c. and 97c. per 100 lbs.
And they go on to quote the railway's confirmation :
As the rate from Brockville to North Sydney is 75c. per 100 lbs. and the rate from St. Stephen to North Sydney is 97c. per 100 lbs., you can readily understand there is no freight allowance to be given you, but instead a charge of 22c. per 100 lbs.
These people are to-day the only manufacturers in their line of any consequence in the Maritime provinces. Two other concerns have been driven out of business in St. John, probably on account of freight rates, companies that had been manufacturing for nearly

The Budget-Mr. Baxter
fifty years. Now instead of manufacturing axes in St. John one of the concerns is importing from the upper provinces goods they are selling under their own brand and label.
That is not the sort of thing that conduces to a satisfactory industrial condition.


George Perry Graham: Which firm is doing that?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think it is the Campbell Brothers that are doing it.


George Perry Graham: Not the Mann Axe Company?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No. This other company
went out of business as far as manufacturing is concerned.


Mr. LOVETT:: When did they go out
of business?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The Mann Axe Company is not out of business; it is this other concern.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: When did they go out?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Just a few years ago.
That is they went out of the business of manufacturing. They are selling articles made elsewhere.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I am very sensitive as to complaints about our railways being unfair. The complaint as read by the Mann Axe Company is based on a statement by them that they were promised a certain rate and did not get.it. Now where is the proof that they were promised such a rate?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot say, that, but
what I point out is this: Instead of having oppressive local rates in handling business of this character they should be given the benefit of some kind of a through rate to Newfoundland, an export rate. Now I am told the same thing comes up in regard to Newfoundland which depends largely upon the Maritime provinces for some imported commodities, among them fodder for live stock. In 1922 New Brunswick had a good crop of hay. But the furtherance charge on this commodity via North Sydney was withdrawn leaving regular local mileage rates on hay in effect. In consequence New Brunswick could not compete. Now, Newfoundland purchases largely in the United States. Commodities arriving from Chicago and Central Association points are covered by tariffs granting furtherance rates to North Sydney and thus compete with Canadian manufacturers. In other words people running from Chicago points can get these furtherance rates and people in Canada and the eastern part of Canada do not get them.
Then we have in regard to Prince Edward Island a special commodity tariff on oats in carload lots. I am told this is merely a farce, and that the so-called special rates that were put on from points in Prince Edward Island to Maritime provinces points for local deliveries were nothing better than standard 8 class rates.
Then we have on examination of the tariff the undoubted fact that on iron and steel commodities from 1916 to the present date rates have been advanced from 100 to 150 per cent. From the government of my own province which professes to be dealing with the matter of freight rates I find there has not been a single representation made here on the subject of railway rates. At any rate in a return brought down to the House I looked in vain for any communication from them. I do not know what they are doing. Up to a few weeks ago there had not been a single letter, or telegram, or bit of correspondence produced. I think the railway authorities ought to be alive to the situation but I am rather surprised that the provincial government of New Brunswick would be so supine in this matter when there has been so much discussion in the Legislative Assembly with regard to it.
Now I want to come to something else. I know this speech is painfully long, but there are not many opportunities of bringing some of these matters to the attention of parliament. I have been discussing railway problems from what I think is largely a local standpoint. There is a bigger standpoint than that. I tried to emphasize earlier in my address the necessity for tackling as big a thing as the sales tax and eliminating it as soon as possible. There is a similar proposition to be grappled with in connection with the railway and yet it does not seem to matter as no one thinks of it. Do hon. members realize that the operating revenue from all the railways of Canada aggregates nearly $475,000,000. That is not merely the Canadian Pacific and the National but takes in all the smaller roads. That in other words is the total amount of money that the people of Canada as a whole pay for railway rates whether passenger or freight. Now that is distributed among several roads but the principal earners of the money are the National and the Canadian Pacific; the others are almost negligible. Now what do we see going on in the country from day to day? These two great national systems-for they are both national-jockeying one another for position. Almost any day that you went into the railway committee room lately you would find some discussion about possible parallels. An
The Budget-Mr. Baxter

examination of the railway map shows the parallel. All you have got to do is to take a trip, for instance, from Ottawa to Montreal and you find practically four parallels. Go from Montreal to Toronto and you have parallels. There are many other parts of the Dominion where you will find parallels. The whole administration of both railways to-day is based on the principle of competition. People say when there is competition the consumer gets the benefit. In this case the rates are fixed by the railway commission and all that this competition can do is to increase the cost of service. I had the honour of suggesting that idea to the former Minister of Railways, Hon. Mr. Kennedy, and I wish to say again, as I said before, that I regret very much that death put an untimely end to his career, because I believe he was a man big enough and strong enough to have grappled with this railway problem. I trust that my hon. friend who occupies the position of Minister of Railways at the present time may have vigor enough and interest enough to grapple with the problem as well.
On a question as large as this is I think it is my duty as well as my privilege to give suggestions. My suggestion is this:	I think
these two roads ought to be asked not to compete but to co-operate. I would suggest that the directorate of each should appoint some small committee that would have no power whatever except -the power of consultation and making representations, and that that joint committee should, with all the expert advice possible, devote itself to the problem of settling what service or forms of service can be dispensed with in Canada, still preserving to the people, not perhaps the service that they want nor perhaps the service that they think they are [DOT]willing to pay for but the service they ought to be able to afford to pay for. There are many places in Canada where we do not need palatial trains or palatial cars. Where two points are connected all the special services could go by one line. If one road gets it the other road may feel it is not being treated fairly, but that can be compensated for by giving it something in another part of the country. In other words put the two of them together to solve the problem as if it were one of joint operation. What will the result be? That their operating expenses will decline and that by the decline of the operating expenses the demands on the people of Canada, who foot the total of this bill of $475,000,000, will be lessened. The money that is returned to the pockets of the people for railway service is just as much a remission of taxation as the money that is cut off by lower duties on any particular commodity.

Now there, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, is a real problem and one of enough magnitude to be worth tackling. This is no piffling about five per cent or two and a half per cent or anything of that kind- not a discussion between a lawn mower and a reaper. It is a big thing. It may easily mean $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 saved to the people of Canada, or $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 more left in the common pot to be available to bear the burden of the country. That is the real economy that is worth considering, not the sort of economy that roots among the offices of the Civil Service and tries to cut off $400 here and $500 there, and winds up by saving $30,000 or $40,000. I do not say that should not be done, if useless or unnecessary people are being employed, but all you can save by those methods is a mere nothing. Tackle a big problem when you are at it and go at it man fashion.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister in an address to this House said the only questions that were discussed in the by-elections of Kent and Halifax were local questions, except where appeals were made as they had been made by the hon. member for St. John of a sectional character-sectional appeals to one part of the country setting it over against the other. He also added that among the government following from one end of the country to the other, the fact that many of those who had been bitterly opposed to the government, men who had been prominent in Tory circles had been given political appointments under civil service administration, more than anything else had created dissatisfaction with the government. The Prime Minister is quite right that there is dissatisfaction with the government from one end of the country to the other, but he is entirely mistaken as to the cause. He may repudiate the Civil Service Commission if he will, but he has not pricked the blister yet.
If what I have said to-night be sectional, if it be unpatriotic, or if it be putting one class against another, or one part of the country against the other, I tell him that this is precisely the sort of talk that I and others associated with me indulged in in the counties of Halifax and Kent, and that we found a body of people there who needed no preparation, who were thinking the same thing and only asking public men to give expression to it, and yet I have heard the attitude we have adopted described by some hon. members in this House as parochial; and it seems to me that it comes to this: If you talk about spending the public money to bring coal at less than cost from Alberta

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
to Ottawa then it is national. If you speak of bringing coal at cost from Cumberland to Montreal, it is parochial. If you speak of carrying wheat, lumber or fish from the Pacific, it is national. If the concessions apparently are all to be for one interest, then it is national, to the deprivation of all other interests. If we complain about it, we are parochial. Free trade evidently is national in its scope, protection apparently is parochial. Tell that sort of thing to the artisans of this country who depend upon that protection, and who depend upon a wise and fair solution of our transportation problems in order to enable them to participate to the fullest extent that this country can afford. In conclusion I ask this House and this country to adopt a real policy, give us Canadian railways for Canadian ports. Give us a limitation of the British preference to British bottoms and to Canadian ports, give us Canadian tariff to protect Canadian interests, give us Canadian coal for the use of Canadian people, give us Canadian steel for Canadian use, enable us to transport Canadian fish to Canadian consumers. In short, let us have Canadian products for Canadian users and Canadian railways for the Canadian people - national policy from beginning to end and from East to West.


Ernest Lapointe: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for attempting to address the House at this late hour. I am not responsible, however, for the lateness of the hour. My hon. friend who preceded me is more responsible than I am. I will omit the usual preliminary remarks and the usual compliments. I will try to deal with the questions before the House from a national viewpoint and not from the point of view of an election campaign in the Maritime provinces. The budget is a Liberal budget. That is why my hon, friend seems to dislike it. It is based on the traditional policy of the Liberal party, a policy which is one not of free trade but of freer trade, and based on a proper consideration of the interests of all classes of the community. It has been greeted with satisfaction by the large majority of the people of Canada. It will carry much larger support when the clouds of poison gas that have been spread are lifted, and when the troops of bogeys who have been let loose to play havoc with the common sense and intelligence of the population are dissipated.
The government has redeemed the pledge that was given in the Speech from the Throne. Three or four days before the budget was delivered, I believe, the right hon. leader of
the opposition (Mr. Meighen) addressed a meeting in the city of Windsor, and ventured a prediction that there would be no reduction in the duties on implements of production. As usual he was wrong. My only hope is that experience will teach him the wisdom of some modesty in political predictions. The government has redeemed its pledge, has reduced taxation by an amount of $24,000,000, and has removed that burden from the shoulders of the ratepayers of Canada. It is rather a large amount. Three dollars per head for every man, woman and child in Canada might seem a very small sum for the financial magnates of the opposition, but it is quite an amount for the hardworking labouring men and the farmers, and that reduction has been made on articles which have been used by the many rather than the few .
I have heard some members in this House express regret that the income tax has not been reduced. My hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Elliott) is one of those who expressed that regret. The payment of taxes by itself in an irksome task. The rendering of returns to the government puts one in an ill frame of mind. Even I, with my serene and calm temper, must confess that I am not exempt from that weakness, but the income tax has that advantage of being levied on those who are more able to pay it.. Before the income tax could be reduced, the burden of taxation should be lessened on those of the poorer classes of the community.
In dealing with the budget and more particularly with the changes in our taxation, the government had to take into account three main considerations; the necessities of the revenue, the needs of industry and the interests of consumers. I have already stated in this House that I am not a fanatic in matters of trade. The words "protection" and "free trade" are not to me the red rag which they seem to be to some of my friends on both sides of the controversy. This is a very imperfect world, and we have to deal with things as they are rather than as we wish them to be. A battle of words or on words is useless. The word "protection" in itself is a fine word and it appeals to me; but I would rather like its meaning to be broader, and I would apply it to the farmer, the labourer and the consumer at large, and protect them against high prices of articles which they have to buy.
I have met few people who do not admit that a condition under which nations would exchange the articles which they are best able
.2180
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

to produce would be a beneficial condition to everybody. Most protectionists admit that, but they dismiss this statement at once as an ideal which cannot be attained. The discussion in the House on this budget has shown the accuracy of my statement. I have heard the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) defend protection or a tariff as a bargaining power with other countries. Bargaining for what? Bargaining, indeed, to obtain concessions and to haye larger freedom of exchange with that country. I have heard the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) defend protection and claim that the tariff was necessary as a weapon for retaliation. What is the purpose of retaliation, if not to obtain concessions from the country against which retaliation is made? Indeed, those were the arguments of Mr. Chamberlain when he launched his campaign in England for tariff reform, and in Canada that was the great argument of the father of the so-called National Policy in 1878. He made it a part of his resolution in the Canadian House of Commons when he introduced the National Policy in this country. These are the last words of his resolution:
And moving-as it ought to do-in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country, eventually, a reciprocity of trade.
The idea of a greater freedom of trade should not, therefore, be abhorrent to any of those hon. gentlemen who admit that their policy or doctrine is temporary, is not an end, but a means, and should end when the goal is reached which they intend to reach. That is a reason why there cannot be any permanency of tariff, because when the bargaining power which the hon. member for Centre Vancouver spoke of is used successfully and when the retaliation suggested by the hon. member for Kingston is also used successfully,	in order to secure better
and longer freedom of trade with other countries, then obviously the goal is reached and there must be a change in our tariff. Only in freedom could stability be made permanent, and we all think that it is impossible to have free trade in this country at the present time.
As regards stability, did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that those who proclaim most loudly the necessity of stability are quite willing to compromise when the demand is for an increase of duty? Stability works when the question is one of reduction, but the principles are not quite so inflexible when there is a demand for higher duties. I cannot admire I Mr. Lapointe.]
such logic and consistency. If reciprocity is admittedly the goal of many protectionists, I believe that a common ground could be found. There are few free trade doctrinaires in this country. Most people who oppose protection do not like the artificial raising of prices on many articles at the expense of the community; but they admit, as a rule, that the tariff is a means of getting revenue, and as there must be revenue in Canada, especially at the present time, in order to meet the expenditure of the country, there could not be any great objection to a tariff for the purpose of securing that revenue. High protection as well as free trade would kill the revenue. When the protection is so high that the foreign goods cannot enter this country, there is no customs duty, no revenue, and other forms of taxation must be devised. Those duties, if applied scientifically from a business viewpoint, in such a way as not to hamper production in those basic and indigenous industries of our country, will still afford an incidental protection	that should	be
sufficient to preserve our industries. Is not then a tariff for revenue a basis on which well meaning, reasonable moderate people could have an understanding? Is not a tariff for revenue a fair compromise? Compromise, after all, in the sense of avoiding extremes, is a British characteristic; the British Empire has been built on compromise, and by compromise it has been kept alive. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) the other day said that we were opportunists on this side of the House. I remember having read a speech of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in answer to a similar charge made against him in the British House of Commons, and he said virtually this: "Well, there is such a thing as good opportunism in the sense of not endeavouring to do what is at the moment impossible and not rushing precipitately at the thing which cannot be attained immediately; for in trying so to accomplish your purpose you are apt to hurt the very cause which it is your desire to serve." That, I agree, is good opportunism. Why, Mr. Speaker, most of the good that is accomplished in the world is accomplished by such means. Every soldier that knows his business is an opportunist; every seaman battling with the elements is an opportunist; so is every physician and every engineer. Even St. Paul was an opportunist, because he said:
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient.	.
In economic as well as in other spheres the part of wisdom is to avoid extreme views,

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
to eschew the too much and the too little, the too fast and the too slow, and even to be capable of retracing some steps in order to strike the right path.
So far as the needs of industry are concerned, I think we have been careful in that regard. My right hon. leader said prior to the last general election-and these words have been referred to frequently in this debate-that no legitimate industry would suffer as a result of the changes which would be made by his administration should he be returned to power. Well, I claim that no industry has suffered, nor will any suffer, as a result of the changes that are made in the .tariff. Is there any suffering evident anywhere? We do not believe it. We believe that it is in the interests of Canadian industry to open foreign markets, to have greater freedom of exchange with other countries. We cannot sell without buying. I see my hon. friend from York (Sir Henry Drayton) laughing, but he knows that what I say is right; we cannot sell without buying. The export business is not a gift, it is 'a matter of trade, and we must be prepared to buy goods from other countries. What is the hon. gentleman muttering about?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is asking me a question it seems, and I suppose he wants an answer.


Ernest Lapointe: I want my hon. friend to voice his views audibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With our present unforeseen balance against us we have a large amount of outside credits against which we can sell. We have imported many hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of coupons against the interest on which goods can be sold. If my hon. friend does not know that he ought to.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has
waited until the end of the debate to tell us that we have a balance against us. Let me tell him that he is wrong; we have a balance in our favour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is putting words inito my mouth and I object to that. I am talking about interest coupons we have to import, and he is thinking only of a visible trade balance.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the question. I happen to have the floor at the moment and I should like to be allowed to proceed. I say that industry has not suffered, and I go further and say that no industry will suffer, as a result of the tariff changes. A
statement of the Massey-Harris Company issued recently seems to have disappointed hon. gentlemen opposite; they do not like it. They would have liked to see that company close its doors they would like to see blue ruin and disaster in order to achieve political success.


Mr. HARRIS:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: At this late hour I must ask hon. gentlemen to be good enough to let me	proceed.	I repeat, my hon. friends
opposite seem to be in partnership with calamity and desolation. We have heard many stories of the chimerical closing of bogus factories, and other statements which Ananias would envy. Now, my hon. friend from Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) handed me a few moments ago a letter which is very interesting. On April 1 he wrote to Mr. J. 0. Darche, who last year was president of the board of trade of Sherbrooke, Quebec, and who, I may say, is not a political friend of the government.
Mr. Tobin's letter is as follows:
My dear Darche.-
I see in last Friday and Saturday's papers the statement that there are six manufactures closed down in Sherbrooke on account of the tariff. This was a surprise to me as I never heard any talk about such a state of affairs. I would be very pleased if you could let me. know, if such is the case, the names of those manufactures, etc. In so doing you would oblige.
Yours very truly,
E. Tobin.
Let me read the reply:
Dear Mr. Tobin :
Replying to your letter of the 1st instant re statement made at a meeting of the Rotary Club and Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the Sherbrooke House on the 25th of March last, by Mr. Geo. D. MacKinnon, I beg to report the following. The manufacturers referred to are The Regal Tire Co., The Geo. St. Pierre Co., The Hamilton Shoe Co., The Jenckes Manufacturing Co., The Goupil Chocolate Manufacturing Co., and the Manganese Steel Co.
Now, The Regal Tire Co., The St. Pierre Co., The Hamilton Shoe Co., the Goupil Co., failed from two to five years ago, The Manganese Steel became in financial difficulty lately apparently for other cause than the tariff question, and the Jenckes Co. were absorbed by the Canadian Ingersoll Co. immediately after the war.
It is the opinion of our industrial commissioner that this statement of Mr. Geo. D. MacKinnon of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was an argument to favour their particular cause.
Hoping this explanation will be of some help to you, I have the honour to be,
Your friend,
J. Omer Darche.
Already the nightmares created by that flood of misrepresentations are vanishing. The idea that people could be carried away

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
by such a panic-mongering campaign was an insane miscalculation, and history will repeat itself in that regard. When in 1897 the Liberal tariff was introduced in this House Sir Charles Tupper, the then leader of the opposition and of the Conservative party, gave expression to the following language:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while hon. members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
I feel that so far from rejoicing at it from a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada, and upon its great industries. Still I unhesitatingly say that, from a party point of view, the hon. gentlemen are doing our work; they are showing the people of this country that no reliance can be placed upon the most solemn declarations that they make either in the House or out of it; they are showing the people of this country that, having obtained power, which was all they wished for, they are now prepared to abuse that power at a cost of sacrifice of the industries of Canada.
The very words which we have heard in this House for the last four weeks! And even the good old Montreal Gazette. still doing its work as it was doing it at that time -defending Toryism every morning and telling its tale of woe. Well, such was not the case. Those predictions did not prove true. Indeed they proved so untrue that a few years afterwards those gentlemen were carrying on their campaign by saying: Let well enough alone, we are doing too well to change.
We believe in the tariff changes that we have proposed, and we are. prepared to fight for them. We are going to fight in this House and out of it for the principles embodied in those changes. I am sorry indeed that some of our friends may not agree with us, because, if so, they are going to deprive themselves of the pleasure of carrying on a triumphant fight against the combined forces of Toryism and selfishness and against some watered stock mandarins who masquerade as the champions of Canadian industry.
The propaganda has started; we have it now. I have here the Journal of Commerce of April 3, containing a report of a meeting of the Eastern Manufacturers in Montreal, under the title: "Eastern Manufacturers combining for Tariff Fight: Plan to unite all sections of business and members of political

parties to fight for higher tariff." I quote, these two paragraphs from the report:
The plan when put in operation will probably be modelled on the-
There is a blur at this point-
-of 1911, which so successfully fought reciprocity at that time; and it will include as the principal plank of its platform the commonsense suggestion that all those who think alike on national questions get together for national interests, irrespective of the party labels of individual manufacturers. In this way it is hoped to bring together for the purpose of securing a higher tariff, the business section of the Liberals of Quebec and Conservatives of Ontario whose tariff aims are considered to be identical. The plan would be broad enough to include all classes of business life, on the theory that the interests of classes not directly related to manufacturing interests are in reality bound # up with them. The first-
And I call the attention of hon. members to these words:
The first definite expression of the campaign was a get-together non-political rally held last week in Montreal when four hundred Conservative manufacturers' association delegates from all over Quebec made an impressive demonstration in support of criticism of the present tariff.
Well, this propaganda will not be successful. We will appeal, and I believe successfully, to the manufacturers who have achieved success through hard work and keen business methods, who trusted the Liberal party when it was attacked in the past, who trusted Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he was assailed in the same way as my leader is being assailed today, and who do not believe that it is in the interests of Canadian industry that their association or group should be made an adjunct, or, to use words familiar in this House, a "dilapidated annex" of the Tory party. They realize that there is danger in such an attitude. They know that this country is so vast and has such various and diversified interests that no public man, indeed no progressive business man, should centre his views upon purely local or provincial enterprise and ignore those questions which are fundamental and which must be studied and so dealt with as to make this country prosperous. Those chiefs of industry I think we can successfully appeal to from this higher plane, and I believe that our appeal will be responded to. Our governmental institutions and politics must not be bent in the direction of any class interests, but must be based on the principle of equal justice to all as the only means of safeguarding national peace and norma/ evolution.
I believe that the changes in the tariff will reduce the cost of living substantially and alleviate the troubles of our consumers during the crisis which they are passing through as

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
the result of conditions which are prevailing throughout the world. Pending a gradual recuperation of the purchasing power of the nation, the obvious remedy, and the only remedy, is a reduction in prices. Ask any influential man in our rural districts and he will tell you that the farmer is suffering from the high price of everything he has to buy. That is the reason that so many cannot make both ends meet and are attracted by the lure of foreign countries. Any policy which will decrease the cost of living and the prices of 2 a.m. what the farmer has to buy will afford him most necessary relief. Hon. gentlemen opposite have referred many times to the exodus from Canada, to the fact that so many of our fellow-countrymen are going to the United States. Surely they do not expect the people to believe that those who left us two or three years, or even one year, ago did so on account of the present tariff changes? The primary cause of this exodus is the high price of everything and the lack of purchasing power, which I hope will be partially remedied by the decrease of taxation and the resulting reduction in prices. Industry and agriculture must not quarrel with each other; they must help each other in the interests of production. The Canadian nation has its roots in the soil. I was reading a few days ago in the English Review the words of Lord Milner, who in a preface to a pamphlet on the place of agriculture in the life of a nation wrote:
Unless we are prepared to make a serious and sustained effort to preserve it, agriculture in Great Britain seems doomed to progressive decadence, but if we acquiesce in the decay of agriculture that is to incur national disaster.
Those words are much ti-uer when applied to our Canadian agriculture. I may remind hon. gentlemen that there is a difference between agriculture and the other industries in this, if another industry than agriculture declines or disappears it may be replaced by another industry, but there is no substitute for agriculture.
It has been suggested that the reductions made-in the tariff this year have been made to answer the demands of the western farmers, and even to cajole them. Mr. Speaker, were it true that these reductions are made solely to give satisfaction to a large section of the Canadian community and in order to achieve a greater unity in this country, they would have much value, but the western farmer is not alone in his claim for a lower tariff on the instruments of production. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will not be surprised if I remind him
that he made a tour of this country in 1920 as an investigator for the purpose of getting all the information necessary for a revision of the tariff. Indeed in the session following, we were told in the Speech from the Throne that there would be a revision of the tariff. During my hon. friend's peregrinations he came to the good old city of Quebec, where he listened to much testimony that was given before him, especially by the manufacturers; but the farmers came too. and I have here a copy of the evidence that was taken before my hon. friend. The leaders of the agricultural societies of the province of Quebec appeared before the commission, and I see attached to a memorandum they presented the names of:
N. Garneau, President Breeders' Association of the Province of Quebec and Member of the Council of Agriculture.
Aug. Trudel, Manager Co-operative Central de Agriculture de Quebec.
Frank Byrne, President of the Breeders' Association of the Quebec District.
Louis Lavallee, Gerant de la societe Cooperative Agricole des producteur de semence de Quebec.
John Hay, M.P.P. Argenteuil and Member of the Council of Agriculture of Quebec.
Georges Bouchard, Professor at the Agricultural College of Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere, P.Q.
C. A. Fournier, M.P., Bellechasse.
Elizee Theriault, M.P.P. for L'lslet Gustave Boyer, M.P., President Dariy-Men's Association of the Province of Quebec and President Maple Sugar Co-operative Society of the province of Quebec.
I see that Mr. Garneau appeared before the commission and said:
The intensified difficulty of the farmers' position resulting from the 'high prices of machinery and of the different materials and merchandise necessary to agricultural operations and to the requirements of the family justify the demand for a general lowering of the tariff on all the articles required for the cultivation of the soil and for the support of the family.
Then they give a list of the instruments of production which they want to make free or on which they wish a reduction of duties. Mr. Garneau also says:
The reciprocity claimed by the farmers in 1911 was combatted by the manufacturers, which did not, however prevent the great majority of the electors of Quebec from favouring the measure. In 1917 one of the principal articles of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's programme included the lowering of the duty on all agricultural implements and the promise of a tariff reform which while sufficiently protecting the Canadian manufacturing industries would have greatly improved the condition of the farmer, of the workman, and of the Canadian consumer in general.
I could read what other gentlemen said before the commission, but it is practically the same thing. So the demand for a lowering of duties, on agricultural implements and the instruments of production generally does not come exclusively from the west as my hon. friends opposite like to repeat under so many
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

different circumstances. Now if a farmer saves 825.00 on the purchase of his implements, he will be able to buy goods which he could not afford to buy otherwise. This means increased production for other manufacturers. These are the considerations which have influenced the government in proposing the changes which they have submitted to the House. The responsibility of many of our critics is to their board of directors and to their shareholders. We are responsible to the people of Canada. Our responsibility is even to the future of Canada, to those future Canadians to whom we want to bequeath a united country.
My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) whom I am pleased to see in his seat at this late hour, told us the other day of what he called a romance, and indeed it was a fine piece of fiction. There is another fiction which I would like to say a few words upon, although my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has already alluded to it.
I was elected to this parliament in 1904. I was a young man coming here, with all the enthusiasm of my age. I was proud then as I am to-day to call myself a Liberal. By temperament, by training,; by aptitude, I could not be anything else.
But, sir, I do not hesitate to say that my greatest incentive, my real source of inspiration was the unbounded admiration I had for the then illustrious leader of the Liberal party, my late chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have followed him to the very last moment of his life. My political principles, the things I hold dear in public life, I have learned and received from him and even now his revered memory is a fiery cross which lights the way through the difficulties we have to face. I say it is a crime on the part of those who were strangers to his spirit and opposed to his policy, who fought against him, sometimes in a most unfair way to endeavour to use his name to cover their mistaken policies and propound very illiberal doctrines. He devoted forty-five yeans of his life to the pursuit of freedom and the advance of right and we who were his associates, his companions, his devoted followers, his disciples, will not allow those former opponents of his to misuse his noble figure in support of their reactionary principles. I could quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, prior to 1896 and since that time. They would be worth publishing and will be published some day, but I do not think it is necessary that I should read them here - to-night. I do intend, however, to read the words which my right hon. leader read because they were

uttered in the last speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier delivered. I may perhaps ask the liberty to read those words again in order that they may be included in my remarks. Addressing the Eastern Liberal Ontario Association on January 14, 1919, Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke as follows:
In this country, Sir, Liberals have always been the disciples of the British people on the question of commercial freedom. Indeed, many years ago-when you recall that time to-day in the resolution which was passed upon this subject at the convention of 1893, we declared against the principle of protection, and when we had the opportunity we lived up to our declaration. Sir, it has always been made a cause of reproach to us that when in office we did not adopt but were recreant to our declaration. Such a reproach cannot reach us. We were not recreant, We proceeded step by step towards the goal, always keeping it in view, never imposing a duty for protection's sake only but always acting on the principle or the basis of a tariff for revenue and revenue only. This was our policy in the p$st, it is our policy to-day, and we have taken this occasion to re-affirm it.
And we, to-day although we have not the fame of our lustrous leader declare to-day that this is our policy and that it will prevail.
Now, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to fight many elections in the course of his public life, and he had to fight many after 1896. If you take the trouble, as I did, to go to the library and read the electioneering pamphlets issued by the Conservative party in all the elections which followed 1896, you will see what hon. gentlemen opposite thought of the tariff policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I will not read the extracts I have here on account of the lateness of the hour, but I promise to the electors of my province and of the rest of Canada that they will be published. Will you permit me to read simply a little song which was published in the Conservative campaign pamphlet of 1911; it is very interesting:
Cheer boys cheer for R. L. Borden,
He's our leader staunch and true,
For he's bound to win the day
Over Sir Wilfrid Laurier
And the members of the annexation crew.
I will not recall what was done when the British preference, what was done when reciprocity was proposed by the Canadian government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by the present Minister of Finance. May I refer though to a little incident. In 1902 my right hon. leader of that time was absent attending a conference, I think it was the Imperial conference in London, and a member of his cabinet-a very able man in every way but who had on tariff matters the same views as the present right hon. leader of the opposition -during Sir Wilfrid Laurier's absence had

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
preached the principles of high protection in the province of Quebec, and I think in the rest of the country. The first thing that was done by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on his return was to ask for the resignation of that member of his cabinet. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite claim that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was asserting their views in tariff matters. Let me tell them in all earnestness: Hands off the sacred name of Laurier. Leave his untarnished and glorious memory alone.
There are a couple of things I should like to refer to. The hour is late but it will be my only opportunity to do it. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), I am afraid he is not here to-night-


Donald Sutherland: Before my hon.
friend leaves that subject would he mind placing on record the statement made by the minister, who he says was read out of his party, regarding an understanding the Liberal party had with the manufacturers prior to the election of 1896. Make the story complete while you are at it.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know anything about it. My hon. friend seems to have a fountain of knowledge regarding matters that I am not familiar with at all. This is the first I ever heard of such a thing and I cannot give him the information asked for. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has a fondness for attacking the French treaty. He did it last * year and the House will remember that he spoke about bronze powder at the time. He came back this year and gave statistics which I am afraid I must describe as most unfair. My hon. friend gave a list of the amount of duties which had been collected under the treaty since its operation. Then he gave the amounts which would have been collected if that treaty had not been agreed to, and he said that there was a considerable amount which had been lost by the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I discovered a peculiar thing. Instead of comparing 'the duties wjhieh are collected under the present treaty with those collected under the treaty when my hon. friends were in power, he made the comparison with the general tariff which is most unfair, so unfair that my hon. friend referring to silk fabrics from France said the amount collected was $279,093 where as he said, the amount that would have been collected should be $330,004. Well, Mr. Speaker, the amount that would have been collected for imports when the former government were in power, under the old modus vivendi, would have been $259,-
289.52. That is to say that we have collected under the present treaty on silk fabrics $24,000 more than would have been collected under the old treaty. If you applied the same process to silk fabrics from Switzerland, we collected $533,655.88, and my hon. friend gave the large amount that would be collected without a treaty, and that amount would be $624,334.90. Well, sir, the amount which would have been collected under the treaty in force when the late government was in power, and which was replaced by the present treaty, is $490,548.85. We have collected over $50,000 more under the present treaty. The same thing would apply to velveteens, plush fabrics from France, fabrics from Switzerland and many other countries. On champagne the hon. member said we lost a revenue of $32,222.20, when as a matter of fact there is a loss of revenue of only $7,476.74, being a difference of $24,745.46 between the figures wrongly given by my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. minister will be kind enough to quote the rate in the absence of the hon. member for Lincoln. It is the only way these things can be checked.


Ernest Lapointe: I am giving the calculations furnished by the officers of the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask what the rate is. I may tell the hon. minister that the same information was given to the hon. member for Lincoln, and I may also tell him that, discussing this very treaty, he gave the House percentages in connection with velveteens, the figures of which I have never been able to get. It is idle to say it can be checked without the rate. If my hon. friend does not want to give the information, he will not give the rate.


Ernest Lapointe: I am more than pleased- and my hon. friend will realize it in a moment-that my hon. friend has referred to this little difference that we had about silks and velveteens last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will you give us the rate?


Ernest Lapointe: I am giving the figures as they are given to me by the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I am asking, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend can refuse if he wishes.


Ernest Lapointe: I will give them tomorrow. I did not know my hon. friend would be so thirsty for information about the rates on champagne. I will give him some information to-morrow that will interest
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

him very much. Last year my hon. friend, in the discussion on the treaty on the very question which is now mentioned, said that there would be a terrible decrease in the duty on silk because it was reduced by 20 per cent by schedule D. I then told him that he was mistaken, that only a proportion of about 10 per cent would come under schedule D, and that the rest would come under schedule E and the intermediate tariff, and I said that the hon. gentleman was 10 per cent right and 90 per cent wrong, and he has never forgiven me for that statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked for the information and he did not give it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have it to-night-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad.


Ernest Lapointe: . -as the silk has come since the treaty was in operation. I will tell my hon. friend that the proportion that has come under schedule D, is only 3.2 per cent. Instead of being 90 per cent wrong, my hon. friend was not quite 97 per cent wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. minister will give us the real figure.


Ernest Lapointe: I will with the greatest of pleasure, but it is rather an extensive document and the hour is late.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is quite
satisfactory to me if the document is handed into Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: I will put it on Hansard with pleasure:
Statement of total imports and imports from France and Switzerland of velvets and silk fabrics as specified entered under treaty rates from September 1st, 1923, to March 31st, 1924
Item and Country	Intermediate rate, 32|%	Schedule Fi, 32|-10%	Schedule D 20%	>.Value	Duty	Value	Duty	Value	Duty$	S c.	s	$ c.	$	$ c.Velveteens and plush fabrics:	France	37,008	12,027 60	49,431	14,458 59	22,155	4,431 00159	46 52	1,636	327 20Total countries	44,909	14,595 44	60,700	17,462 33	25,166	5,033 20Silk fabrics:	France	167,458	54,423 85	1,111.927	325,238 64	37,577	7,515 40Switzerland	392,418	127,535 90	2,281,890	667,453 29	33,164	6,632 80Total countries	843,387	274,100 95	4,648,936	1,358,568 86	101,520	20,090 60Velvets of pure silk:	2,940	955 50	3,669	1,073 20	
Total countries		5,504	1,723 63	4,250	1,243 16	77	15 40
Velvets other than pure silk, and plush						
fabrics:						
France	113,777	36,977 54	169,453	49,565 18	37,200	7,440 004,041	l,3i3 32	6,702	1,960 45	Total countries	154,433	50,190 80	190,479	55,686 06	38,933	7,786 60
There is another subject on which my statements have been challenged, and to which I wish to refer. The right hon. leader of the opposition toured the country last summer and fall, and said in all his speeches, referring to a statement of mine, that the debt of Canada per capita was less than the debt of all the other dominions and even Great Britain; and he said it was true, but he stated that Mr. Lapointe did not state the reason why our taxation was higher than that of these countries. I have taken the first opportunity to deny that our taxation was higher than that of Great Britain and the other dominions, and that statement has been challenged not only by my right hon. friend the

leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), but by the press which is devoted to him in the country. I remember that the Ottawa Journal used rather strong language regarding me in that respect. They thought that I was deliberately misrepresenting the facts, or displaying gross ignorance. I have taken the trouble to inquire about it, and I state tonight that our taxation per capita is less than that of Great Britain and the other British dominions, and that taxation per head in the United Kingdom is $101.59, being $79.37 for central government and $22.22 for local government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does that include the provincial government?

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: There is no provincial
government in the United Kingdom. I am quoting England at present. In the Commonwealth of Australia the taxation per head is $67.06, the revenue of the Commonwealth being S43.09 per head, and the state revenue being 815.78 per head, the municipal revenue $8.19 per head. New Zealand has a taxation of $76.75 per capita, the Dominion revenue from taxation being $60.33, and the local governing body $16.02. In reference to our local taxation in Canada, unfortunately we cannot have exact figures as to rural municipal taxation as correctly as they have in the other countries. The tax of the Dominion per capita is $36.67; of the provinces, $6,85; of the urban municipalities, $12.65. or a total of $56.17. The Bureau of Statistics adds this note:
The rural municipalities are unquestionably much more lightly taxed than the urban. However, their expenditures for education are fairly heavy. Doubtless in the aggregate they raise as much in taxation as do the provincial governments. All that can be said is that the total taxation of Canada is between $60 and $65 per head of population-probably $63 would be a fairly good estimate.
So our taxation per capita is lower than that of the British Empire, not only the United Kingdom, but the other dominions as well.
But there is more. The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) asked me what was the taxation in the United States, and I did not know at the time. He told me that I should make the comparison with the United States. I have in my hand the Bankers Magazine of April, 1924, and this is what I find as regards the details of taxation in the United States. The article which is entitled "Your Government" by Carlton P. Fuller:
The final summing up shows annual taxes of $68 per person, $29 going to the federal government, and $39 to the state and local governments. Putting it another way, $7,000,000,000 out of a total national income of $63,000,000,000 go for taxes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the municipal taxes?


Ernest Lapointe: All is included in that. So that in Canada our taxation as estimated at $63 per capita is even lighter than the taxation in the United States. I hope the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will go into all those places where he spoke last summer and make the real statement about the taxation of Canada. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to take a leaf out of his book and distribute medals at the end of the session to those of us who are specially virtuous, he would not qualify as regards accuracy in making public statements. As to the Ottawa Journal, of course I am a humble public man
and I cannot have the license of the press in expressing myself. All I can say is that they have shown a peculiar lack of accurate information in this respect. No, Canada is not what the "whispers of death" and the "scaremongers" are describing it to be. I have before me the latest figures of trade which have been given to me by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have total exports amounting to $1,058,553,297, being a considerable balance of trade in our favour.
Employment in this country is not what it has been described to be by my hon. friend opposite. I am sorry the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) is not in his seat. I would give him some information about conditions in Hamilton that he does not seem to know. In his speech he read a statement showing the reductions that have taken place in the staffs of a number of Hamilton industries in the period from 1920 to 1923. He said:
Not only does this statement illustrate the unfortunate results that have already occurred, but it serves to show other changes along this line which may be expected in future if reductions of the tariff are continued.
He placed on Hansard a list of some twenty-seven plants, branches of American industries located and manufacturing in Hamilton, and he gave a tabulated statement showing the number of employees in the various plants in the year 1919 and the number of employees in the same plants in the year 1923. I do not think this was absolutely fair, because in 1919 all the manufacturers were operating to a reasonable extent, manufacturing articles for the rest of the world. Our government was then lending money to European countries, and that money was going to them in the shape of articles manufactured by Canadian manufacturers. But my hon. friend should give the figures as they are now. Steps were taken, I think in the Labour Department, to secure a check on the number of employees in those plants to-day, and the figures secured within the last week indicate the condition of employment in that city. The hon. member stated that the Hamilton branch of the American-Canadian Company, New York, had 175 employees in 1923. It is found that in May, 1924, the company employs 188. He stated that the Hamilton branch of the Canadian Horseshoe Company in 1923 had 80 employees. It is found that at present the company employs 102. He stated that the Hamilton branch of the Chipman-Holton Knitting Company employed 400 employees last year. It is found that at present this company employs 450. He stated that the
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

Hamilton branch of the Frost Steel and Wire Company, Cleveland, in 1923 had 100 employees, and it is found that at present this company employs 200. He stated that the Hamilton branch of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in 1923 had 250 employees. It is found at present that the company employs 296. He stated that the Hamilton branch of the Imperial Cotton Company in 1923 had 200 employees, and it is found at present that it employs 290. He stated that the Hamilton branch of the Standard Underground Cable Company had 100 employees last year. It is found at present that it employs 180.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), speaking of the International Harvester Company, said:
It will now close up its factory in Hamilton, manufacture in Chicago and just ship its agricultural implements over into Canada. The money invested in the Hamilton plant can be considered wasted and the plant can now be scrapped.
The hon. member for West Hamilton stated that the branches of the International Harvester Company of Chicago and the International Plow Works of Chicago employed 450 men in 1923. He will no doubt be very much interested and elated to know that the investigation of the past week shows that instead of . the 450 employees who were employed last year, there are at present 1160 employees in the plant of the company at Hamilton, or an increase of 710 employees over last year.
As regards our trade with Great Britain, owing to a propaganda that is carried on in my province at the present time, I find it necessary to put these figures on Hansard. Our imports from the United Kingdom for the year ended March 31 last were $153,581,716. while our imports were $360,094,021, being a balance of trade in our favour of more than double. Some people are talking of British goods that are dumped into this country. The figures show that we are selling to Britain more than twice what we are buying from her. Some people .have a queer idea of what the British preference is; they think it is something that has been instituted in the interests of Great Britain. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it was instituted in the interests of Canada for the purpose of developing trade with Britain. That trade has been developed and we are gainers by it, because we are selling to Britain more than twice what we are buying from her. So that it is preposterous to say that because we have no particular preference in Britain we should not shape our own policy in the way we have shaped it. Our goods are admitted free in the markets of Britain and her goods pay a duty coming into Canada.

Britain has no tariff against us whereas the United States maintain a high tariff to the exclusion of our exports. I contend therefore that it is right that a preference should be given to that country into which our goods can be shipped without paying a duty, in order that we may build up a trade with her. The argument in regard to depreciated currency countries is not in my opinion a good one. I have never been able to appreciate the contention that a country whose currency is depreciated benefits by reason of the fact, as though it could enrich a nation to become bankrupt. We have been buying from these depreciated currency countries. We are told that our market is flooded with goods coming from Germany, Belgium and other countries whose currencies are depreciated. What are the figures? What is the result of our exchange trade with those countries? Belgium bought from us last year $17,452,442 worth of goods and sold to us $5,340,875 worth; a balance of trade in our favour of three times more in exports than imports. From France we imported goods to the value of $15,770,145 and exported to that country $18,879,097. That left a balance of trade in our favour of $3,000,000. I come now to Germany, and the argument in regard to that country is one we hear everywhere: we are told that German goods flood our markets. Well, we sold to Germany last year $16,153,673 worth of goods and imported $5,379,737. Italy imported from us $18,501,578, and we purchased from Italy only $1,849,844. So that there was a balance of trade in our favour in exports eighteen times greater than our imports. I say, Sir, that we are not losing by not blocking the avenues of trade with those countries. We are selling to them a good deal more than we are buying from them, and they have to pay high prices by reason of their depreciated currency. In other words, it is they and not we who are suffering; and I implore Canadian business men not to try to block the avenues of trade with any country. In this regard I want- to quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in a speech delivered by him at the Windsor Hotel, Montreal, on May 29, 1912:
Oh! ye of little faith! Oh! ye Canadian business men, who refused to open wide the avenues of trade, I have more faith in you than you have in yourselves. Will you tell me that Canadians are not the equals of Americans? Will you tell me that in a fair field we cannot compete with them and hold our own against them? Until you tell me that Canadians are not the equals of Americans, I refuse to believe that we made a mistake last year.
I hasten to conclude these rather lengthy remarks. Canada is a young country and a young country cannot be immobilized: its very life consists in motion and progress. The

The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
function of Liberalism is to recognize this state of mind, to bind it with prudence and safety-in making reform and avoiding danger. Our most powerful agent of reconstruction and recovery is peace among Canadians, and you cannot have peace economically or otherwise unless you extend social justice to all. Canada is a smiling country. Let it be a nation of nine million smiles, and I am willing to include my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition in that glorious demonstration of national cheerfulness.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If I felt that an apology was necessary on my part for contributing to the debate at this late hour it would be the fact that I have occupied, not only during this session but in the last session as well, as little time as any hon. member has done. I have been particularly impressed with the speeches that have been delivered in this ddbate, although the whole discussion has been somewhat like one of the serial stories that one reads in the magazines; it is difficult to keep in mind just what transpired in the first chapter. However, I do not wish to review the whole story, but I shall content myself with dealing with a few things that have been said in the debate. I do not propose spending very much time in any discussion of the budget, which has been very well considered by hon. gentlemen in this group, the attitude of the Progressive party having been clearly defined not only by its leader (Mr. Forke) but also by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and other hon. gentlemen on this side who have spoken. I was very much impressed with some of the sentences that fell from the lips of the Prime Minister this afternoon as well as from the hon. member for Marquette, both having largely stated the same views in certain respects. I refer particularly to the plea for unity in this country, if we expect to attain to that full stature of nationhood which is ours by right, by the gifts of Nature, and by Providence. I heartily agree with the Prime Minister's statement that the aim of the government should be to unify or harmonize the different elements in this country. With that feeling I desire to associate myself, although there are some very prominent men in Canada who seem to devote their whole energy to making this ideal an impossibility by trying to set one interest and one section of the country against the other. In this respect I wish to quote from a speech made in the House last year, which by the way I had not the pleasure of hearing. As a matter of fact, I was unaware of it having been made until after prorogation when I discovered that 139
it had been printed in pamphlet form and distributed where the hon. member who delivered it evidently thought it would do the most good, or, from my point of view, the most harm. Now I quote from a speech made in this House on February 8 last year by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter). I will not quote the whole speech because a great deal of it is not worth repeating.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which member for St. John?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The member who spoke to-night. I could define him so you would know beyond question if I thought it necessary. That part of his speech which I am now about to quote relates to the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement and its effect on the eastern farmer. This quotation will be found on page 137 of last year's Hansard:
In the parliamentary agreement of last year potatoes were not mentioned. Now, can you tell me anything that distinguishes the pian who grows grain from the man who grows potatoes? Is there any reason why a burden should be even partially lifted from the one and yet allowed to remain upon the other? I know my hon. friends will not say there is any reason. Well, then, what happened? The government's action paralyzed the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the potato growers of New Brunswick could not seek relief in that quarter. Railway rates were so much reduced that the railway companies, which have to pay their bills like every other company, had to get money from some source and the only source of course, of their revenue is the passengers and freight they handle. Therefore the Railway Commission could afford no relief by lowering the freight rates on potatoes or lumber, except upon one commodity only coming under the classification of building materials, namely, bricks, and in this instance the reduction was very small.
It is just possible that the hon. member was ignorant of the actual conditions when he made that statement; I hope so. Two months after the Crowsnest pass agreement was restored by legislation, and about five months before the hon. member made this speech, the potato growers of New Brunswick-whom he refers to almost with tears in his eyes-got a greater reduction in freight rates than the farmers of the West secured on their grain. We obtained a reduction of over 25 per cent on our export rate, and all the potatoes we moved that year were for export. I shall refer to the Crowsnest pass agreement a little later because even tonight the hon. member stated:
The government makes the Crowsnest pass sacrifice for the benefit of the West.
It has been said that that agreement was only of benefit to the western grain grower. I therefore propose to show the benefit this agreement was to the eastern manufacturer

The Budget-Mr. Caldwell

and fruit grower in comparison with its benefit to the wheat grower. As we all know, the reduction of the rate on wheat was 3 cents per hundred pounds regardless of the length of haul, and in a great many cases the haul was long. We got a reduction of 6 cents per hundred pounds on a short haul on a rate that was only 23-J cents a hundred pounds originally.. This made our reduction over 25 per cent of the original rate. To show the absurdity of the statement made by the hon. member-and I hope he was ignorant of the facts when he made it, because I would hate to think that any hon. member would make such a statement otherwise-to show the absurdity of the statement I have worked out the reductions per acre. I have taken twenty bushels of wheat per acre as the average yield, but I think it is above the average. That would be equivalent to twelve hundred pounds, or a reduction of 36 cents per acre to the 'western grain grower. Taking the average yield of potatoes at 100 barrels to the acre-which would be small, the yield last year running in some cases as high as 150 barrels to the acre,-this would mean 16,500 pounds, or a reduction of $9.90 per acre. In other words, a gain to the potato farmer of $9.90 per acre, as against a gain to the wheat grower of 36 cents per acre.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago I moved a resolution in this House asking the government to establish frostproof facilities at St. John in order that we might get our potatoes to market during the winter season at a rate that would return the farmer something for his product. I had some difficulty in convincing the government of the necessity for establishing these facilities. I made several trips to Ottawa as well as to St. John, and at last almost despairing . of being able to convince the government single-handed, I asked the Secretary of the Board of Trade of the city of St. John to call a meeting of his board, which he kindly did. It was well attended, but the hon. member for St, John, although he professes to have the interests of the potato-growers of New Brunswick so much at heart, did not put in an appearance. The members of the Board of Trade realizing that these facilities at St. John would very much increase the traffic through the port'-a traffic which was at that time going through the port of Boston owing to our lack of facilities-got behind the project. As I say, the hon. member for St. John did not attend, although this meeting was for the purpose of urging the government
IMr. CsldweU.J
to furnish facilities in his own port and to bring traffic to it, a subject upon which he is so insistent, and in which I heartily concur with him. I have estimated that the benefit to the potato-growers of New Brunswick would amount to 75 cent per barrel. As confirmation of this estimate, I shall quote an extract from a letter from one of our shippers who was very anxious to have these facilities established, giving his view of what it would mean to the potato-growers of New Brunswick. By the way, this saving of 75 cents a barrel would mean a saving of $75 an acre, because we would get the short rail haul to St. John. When we shipped through Boston we not only had the long rail haul, but we had to pay the freight in American funds from point of shipment clear to Cuba, which in 1921 meant a discount of 15 per cent on our money. The discount is less now. This shipper has been shipping to Cuba for twelve or fourteen years, from Boston in cold weather and from St. John when there was no danger of frost. In writing me to urge upon the government to establish those frost-proof facilities he said:
Now, all we need is the government to do what they should do for this province, furnish us frost-proof facilities at the port of St. John and a line of tween deck steamers out of St. John. They will not only be helping out the revenue of the Canadian Merchant Marine, but such a boom to the farmers and shippers.
This is the interesting part:
If we had a rate of $1 per barrel from St. John to Havana we could be paying the farmer in New Brunswick to-day $2 for potatoes instead of 75 cents. Not only this but we would have a market which is a regular market for our products.
He estimated that the saving at that time would' be $1.25 per barrel. As I pointed out the discount on our money then was greater than it is to-day. However, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will admit that I am making a very conservative estimate in placing the saving to the shipper at 75 cents per barrel by the establishment of frost-proof facilities at St. John. Therefore I say that any hon. member who will stand up in this House and make a statement of that kind, if he knew the facts, is certainly not trying to promote national harmony.
With regard to the restoration of the Crows-nest pass agreement, the statement has been made repeatedly that it is a 3 a.m. benefit only to the western grain-growers. I shall quote from the agreement itself and then give some figures as to the freight saving to other people besides the western grain grower. This is the agreement:


IS, 1924
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
The Crowsnest pass agreement was an undertaking entered into in 1897 between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway, whereby in consideration of a subsidy to be earned by the construction of the Crowsnest pass railway, which subsidy amounted to $3,404,720, a reduction should be made in the rates upon the classes of merchandise.
The Crowsnest pass agreement was an undertaking entered into in 1887 between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, whereby in consideration of a subsidy to be earned by the construction of the Crowsnest pass railway, which subsidy amounted to $3,404,720. a reduction should be made in the rates upon the classes of merchandise below stated westbound from, and including Fort William and all points east of Fort William on the companies railway-
I want the House to pay particular attention to this.
-to all points west of Fort William on the company's main line or on any line of railway throughout Canada, owned or leased by, or operated on account of the company. The commodities, the classes of merchandise to be affected, are as follows:-
Upon all green and fresh fruits, 33£ per cent;
Coal oil, 20 per cent;
Cordage and binder twine, 10 per cent;
Agricultural implements of all kinds, set up in parts, 10 per cent;
Iron, including bar, band, Canada pilates, galvanized,	sheets, pipe,	pipe-fittings,	nails, spikes	and
horse shoes, 10 per cent;
All kinds of wire, 10 per cent;
Window glass, 10 per cent;
Paper	for	building	and roofing	purposes, 10	per
cent;
Roofing felt, box and packing, 10 per cent;
Paints of all kinds and oils, 10 per cent;
Live stock, 10 per cent;
Woodenware, 10 per cent;
Household furniture, 10 per cent;
The agreement also provided for a rduction in the rates on grain and flour from all points on the main line, branches or connections of the Canadian Pacific Railway	west	of Fort	William and	Port Arthur.	Thedecrease	was	fixed at	3 cents per hundred pounds to
be reached in two annual reductions of a cent and a half each.
Another contention has been made that the Crowsnest pass agreement provided for a rate on grain away below the cost of hauling. I think I can prove conclusively that that is not the case, and I wish to quote briefly from the report of the Transportation committee of this House of 1922:
The Crowsnest rate on grain and grain products remained in entirety from September 1, 1899, until October 7. 1903, when it was modified by a lower rate resulting from an agreement made between the province of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway. Lower rates continued until March 15, 1918, when an increase of 15 per cent on rates generally was made by order of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This increase was granted because of representations by the railways that they could not successfully maintain their services unless granted rates that would enable them to meet the increased operating costs due to substantial increases in cost of fuel, coal materials, supplies, equipment of all kinds and wages.
Now comes the interesting part of it.
This increase was subject to the Crowsnest pass agreement, but it brought western grain rates up to
139i
Crowsnest maximum rates from most points in Saskatchewan and Alberta, though not in Manitoba.
That proves that for fifteen years the Canadian Pacific Railway hauled grain at least fifteen per cent and in some cases more than fifteen per cent below the rates provided in the Crowsnest pass agreement. I think this effectively explodes the theory that the Crowsnest rate was below what the railways could afford to haul it for, because there was nothing to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway to haul this grain at a lower rate than the Crowsnest rate. Yet we have the evidence here in the report of the committee that dealt with this matter two years ago that for fifteen years, from 1903 to 1918, the Canadian Pacific hauled this grain at rates at least fifteen per cent lower than the rate set by the Crowsnest pass agreement.
Now I wish to show exactly what these reductions mean to the eastern manufacturer and apple grower because to my mind that was a wise agreement. It was entered into tolenable the eastern manufacturer to get into the western market with his farm machinery, binder twine, wire fencing, horse shoes, spikes, nails and other commodities; and by the way, our friends to my right, the official opposition, while they are the champions of these interests, did not seem very favourable to the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement. They were even willing to sacrifice their manufacturing friends if they could deal a knockout to the western grain growers. That seemed to me to be the attitude when this matter was discussed in the House two years ago.
On page 21 of this report you will find a statement by the 'Board of Railway Commissioners, called statement No. 2, showing rates on agricultural implements, in carloads, from points in eastern Canada to various stations in western Canada. From the Toronto group, prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement, there was a rate of 76 cents per 100 pounds. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement it was reduced to 68i cents per 100 pounds, or a reduction of 7i cents per 100 pounds while the reduction on wheat was only 3 cents per hundred pounds.
From the Montreal group, prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement, the rate was 82 cents. That was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to 74 cents, or 8 cents under the rate prior to that. On September 1, 1919, the rate in the Montreal group was further reduced to 62 cents per 100 pounds, although the railway was not compelled to give that rate under the Crowsnest pass agreement. That meant a reduction of 20 cents per 100 pounds. There is quite a long table here
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
[Stage Direction]
which I would ask permission of the House to place on Hansard. Take Montreal and Toronto to Winnipeg, the shortest haul possible for agricultural implements to get the 'benefit of the Crowsnest rate. Very little of the implements would stay at Fort William. I want to quote the rate to Edmonton from the Ontario group. The rate was 164^ cents per 100 pounds, as compared with 148 cents, or a reduction of 16-J cents per 100 pounds, as compared with 3 cents per 100 pounds on wheat. From the Montreal group to Edmonton prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement the rate was 170 cents. After the Crowsnest pass agreement that was reduced on January 1, 1898, to 153j, or a reduction of 17 per hundred, another reduction which the railways are not compelled to make under the agreement. That shows that the railways were able to haul freight at a lower rate than the Crowsnest pass agreement provided for, which, by the way, was only a maximum rate; there was nothing to prevent the railways from hauling at lower rates.
I would like to refer to the freight rate on potatoes for a moment. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member in his speech said that the action of the government in restoring the Crowsnest pass agreement was to paralyze the railway commission, and therefore the potato growers were not able to get any relief. We did not, as a matter of fact, even have to apply to the commission. Two of the shippers from New Brunswick and myself went to Montreal and interviewed the Traffic Department of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways and got this reduction without applying to the railway commission and we got it in one afternoon, so if the railway commission was paralyzed, the railways were not.
I wish to quote from page 23 of this report. I have here statement number 4 furnished also by the Board of Railway Commissioners to the committee who investigated the subject. It is thus described:
Statement showing rates on binder twine and cordage, iron, bar, band, Canada plate, galvanized sheet, pipe, pipe fittings, nails, spikes, horse shoes, wire, common window glass, building and roofing paper, roofing felt, paints and wooden ware, in carloads, from points in eastern Canada to various stations in western Canada.
From the Toronto group to Winnipeg prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement a railway rate of 82 cents. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement the rate was reduced to 74 cents a reduction of 8 cents per hundred pounds. From the Montreal group to Winnipeg, prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement, the rate was 88 cents. The rate was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement of 1898 to 791

cents, a reduction of 81 cents per hundred pounds.
My hon. friends to my right would emi-deavour to make it appear that these reductions only benefited the western grain grower. I find that reductions for manufactures going west is in no case less than double the amount per hundred pounds, and in some cases is six times the amount of the reduction on wheat coming east.
Now the rate to Edmonton. From the Toronto group prior to this agreement the rate was $1.85 per hundred pounds. It was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to $1,661, a. reduction of 181 cents per hundred pounds. From the Montreal group prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement the rate was $1.91. The rate was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to $1.72, and was further reduced in September, 1914, to $1.26. We find that in December, 1921, the rate had advanced to $2 per hundred pounds. Still our friends to my right were unwilling to give their manufacturing friendls the advantage of this by putting it ini operation two years ago. Possibly some gentleman will say that two years ago the eastern manufacturers were not given that advantage, and I want to show the sacrifice our friend from St. John was willing to make of the manufacturers of the east in this regard. When this agreement was undter discussion in the House on June, 26, 1922, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baxter) moved the following amendment. And he prefaced it by these remarks:
I therefore move an amendment to the motion: That in the opinion of this House, regardless of all other considerations, the Crowsnest pass agreement should be immediately abrogated.
Well, that was a verbal amendment and he was asked by the speaker to commit it to writing which he did and formally moved it. He had the doubtful distinction on that occasion of moving a very important amendment in this House which only received one other vote beside his own. I think I am safe in making that statement. The other member who voted for his amendment got up next day when the orders of the day were called and explained that he had misunderstood the motion or he would never have voted for it.
Now I wish also to give a statement showing the rates on coal oil in barrels by carloads from points in eastern Canada to various stations in western Canada to show the saving there was in that instance also. From the Toronto group prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement the rate was 82 cents per hundred pounds. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement

The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
the rate was 65i cents per hundred pounds, a reduction of 16i cents per hundred pound. From the Montreal group the rate prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement was 88 cents per hundred pounds. Under the Crowsnest pass agreement in 1898 it was reduced to 70i cents per hundred pounds a reduction of 17i cents per hundred pounds. In 1914 the rate was further reduced to 64 cents per hundred pounds, a net reduction of 24 cents from the rate prior to this agreement going into effect. The rate to Edmonton from the Toronto group prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement was 81.85 cents but it was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to $1.48. The rate from the Montreal group prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement was $1.91 per hundred pounds. It was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to $1.53 per hundred pounds. In 1914 there was a further reduction to $1.24 per hundred pounds although the agreement did not compel the railways to give it.
Now, I think possibly, I am coming to the more interesting reductions yet, and I think this may interest hon. members for Nova Scotia as well as hon. members from New Brunswick. They will be somewhat surprised if they have believed statements made by hon. members in the recent by-elections in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that this rate was only a benefit to the western grain growers. At page 25 of this report, and this was also furnished by the Board of Railway Commissioners to the committee you will find the following:
Statement showing the rates on green apples from eastern Canada to the various stations in western Canada.
This shows that it includes the farmers of the east and manufacturers as well as the farmers of the west.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What portion of the full
schedule is now in force? The whole schedule is not in force, I presume my hon. friend knows that?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think possibly the
hon. member was asleep when I dealt with that. I do not blame him for being asleep at this late hour of the morning. I dealt with that point and said that only the portion relating to grain was in force. The other will come in force on the 6th July.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member is mistaken, I was listening attentively and he did
not make that clear. The inference throughout the whole of his remarks was that this whole agreement is in force.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am very sorry if I
conveyed that impression. I thought I distinctly stated some minutes ago that only a portion of the schedule was in force. I was disappointed that some hon. members to my right did not ask me the question. I stated that possibly some gentleman to my right would make the statement that only a part of the schedule came into effect two years ago, that part affecting the grain growers. I admitted that was the fact but I think I made that clear and I also quoted the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) seeking to abrogate the agreement in its entirety, notwithstanding that the eastern manufacturer for whom he has such great care and I presume he has care of the fruit growers as well, would be put to very great disadvantage if the agreement was abrogated. The statement issued deals with green apples in carloads from eastern Canada to various stations in western Canada. From Toronto group points prior to this agreement going into effect the rate was 82 cents per hundred pounds. It was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement rate to 55 cents per hundred pounds, a reduction of 27 cents per hundred pounds, while there was a reduction of only 3 cents per hundred pounds on wheat. This was further reduced in September, 1914, to 53 cents per hundred pounds. Now, from the Montreal group to Winnipeg, prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement, the rate was 88 cents per hundred pounds. It was reduced under the Crowsnest pass agreement to 59 cents, and in 1914 further reduced to 57 cents. I should like to be permitted to put these tables on the records because they give the rates from the Montreal and Toronto groups to various points in the West. I will not take the time to read them and I do not think it is necessary. These tables are quite brief but they are very comprehensive. I will, however, give one other rate, as I did before to the further points showing the greater reduction per hundred pounds. From the Toronto group to Edmonton the rate prior to the Crowsnest pass agreement was $1.85 per hundred pounds. Under the Crowsnest, pass agreement it was reduced to $1.231 per hundred pounds, or a reduction of 61 i cents per hundred pounds.
The Budget-Mr. Caldivell

Statement Showing Rates on Agricultural Implements, in Carloads, from Points in Eastern Canada to various stations in
Western Canada
-	Rates prior to Crow's Nest Agreement	Crow's Nest * Rates Jan. 1, 1898	From all Stations Montreal and West	From Toronto group	From Mont- real group	From Toronto group	From Mont- real group	Sept. 1 1914	April 1 1918	Aug. 20 1918	Sept. 1 1919	Sept. 23 1920	Jan. 1 1921	Dec. 1 1921Winnipeg	76	82	68*	74	62	68*	82*	67}	92*	89	82*Portage la Prairie	82*	88*	741	80	66	741	87*	72*	99*	95*	88Brandon	89	95	80	85*	72	80	95	80	109*	105*	97*Regina	107*	113*	97	102*	86	97	1124	102*	140	138*	128Swift Current	118	124	106*	112	95	106*	124	114	155*	154	142*Saskatoon	129*	135*	116*	122	94	104*	122*	112*	153*	151	139*Lethbridge	134*	140*	121	126*	109	121	141*	131*	179	1754	162*Medicine Hat	128	134	115*	121	104	115*	135	125	170	167	154*Red Deer	156*	162*	141	146*	117	134	151*	140	190*	183*	169*Calgary	139*	145*	125*	131	115	125*	149	137*	187	180	166*Edmonton	164*	170*	148	153*	115	125*	149	137*	187	180	166*Column	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Rates are in cents per 100 pounds.
Statement showing Rates on Binder Twine and Cordage, Iron, Bar, Band, Canada Plate, Galvanized, Sheet, Pipe, Pipe Fittings Nails, Spikes, Horse Shoes, Wire, Common Window Glass, Building and Roofing Paper, Roofing Felt, Paints and Wooden-ware, in Carloads, from Points in Eastern Canada to Various Stations in Western Canada.
-	Rates prior to Crow's Nest Agreement	Crow's Npst Rates Jan. 1st, 1898	From all Stations Montreal and West	Fi om Toronto Group	From Montreal Group	From Toronto Group	From Montrt al Group	Sept. 1, 1914	April 1, 1918	Aug. 15, 1918	Sept. 17, 1920	Jan. 1921	Dec. 1. 1921Winnipeg	82	88	74	79*	69	74	93	127*	123*	114Portage la Prairie	94	100	m	90	74	844	994	136*	131*	122Brandon	101	107	91	064	81	91	108	148	143	132Regina	124	130	111*	117	96	111*	127	173*	167*	155Swift Current	134	140	1204	126	107	120*	140*	192	185	171Saskatoon	151	157	136	141*	105	119	138	1884	182	168Lethbridge	150	156	135	140*	121	135	158	215*	208	192Medicine Hat	145	151	1304	136	115	130*	150*	205*	198	183Red Deer	175	181	157*	163	128	148	167	227J	219*	203Calgary	155	161	139*	145	126	139*	164J	224	216	200Edmonton	185	191	166*	172	126	139*	164*	224	216	200Column	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Ratesaie in cents per 100 lbs.
Statement showing Rates on Coal Oil, in Barrels, Carloads, from Points in Eastern Canada, to Various Stations in Western
Canada
-	Rates prior to Crow's Nest Agreement	Crow's Nest Rates, Jan. 1st, 1898	From all Stations Montreal and West	From Toronto Group	From Montreal Group	From Toronto Group	From Montreal Group	Sepl. 1, 1914	April 1, 1918	Aug. 20, 1918	Sf pt. 23, 1920	Jan. 1921	Dec. 1, 1921Winnipeg	82	88	65*	70*	64	65*	82	113	109	101Portage la Prairie	94	100	75	80	74	75	94	129	124*	115Brandon	101	107	81	86	80	81	101*	139	134*	124Regina	124	130	99	104	96	99	124	169}	163*	151Swift Current	134	140	107	112	107	107	134	183	1764	163Saskatoon	151	157	121	126	105	105*	132	ISO}	174	161Lethbridge	150	156	120	125	120	120	150	204*	197*	182}Medicine Hat	145	151	116	121	115	116	145	198	191	176*Red Deer	175	181	140	145	128	135	167	227*	219*	203Calgary	155	161	124	129	124	124	155	211*	204	188}Edmonton	185	191	148	153	124	124	155	211*	204	188}Column	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Rates are in cents per 100 lbs. 
Statement showing rates on green apples, in carloads, from Eastern Canada to various Stations in \\ estern Canada From Toronto Group	From Montreal Group
To	Prior to Crow's Nest Rates	Crow's Nest Rates, Jan. 1, 1898	Sept. 1, 1914	April 1, 1918	Aug. 20, 1918	Sept. 23, 1920	Jan. 1, 1921	Dee. 1, 1921	Prior to Crow's Nest Rates	Crow's Nest Rates, Jan. 1, 1898	Sept. 1, 1914	April 1, 1918	Aug. 20, 1918	Sept. 23, 1920	Jan. 1, 1921	Dec. 1, 1921Winnipeg	82	55	53	55	69	95	92	85	88	59	57	59	74	102	984	91Portage la Prairie	94	63	63	63	79	1084	105	97	100	67	67	67	84	1154	1114	103Brandon	101	m	68	m	844	116	112	104	107	714	72	714	894	123	1184	110Regina	124	83	83	83	104	1424	1374	127	130	87	87	87	109	149	144	133Swift Current	134	894	90	894	112	1534	148	137	140	934	94	934	117	160	1544	143Saskatoon	151	101	89	88	110	1504	145|	1344	157	105	93	92	115	1574	152	1404Lethbridge	150	100	100	100	125	171	165	1524	156	104	104	104	130	1774	1714	1584Medicine Hat	145	97	96	97	1214	166	1604	148	151	101	101	101	1264	173	167	154Red Deer	175	117	107	1084	1354	185	1784	165	181	121	107	113	1414	193	li>64	171Calgary	155	1034	104	1034	1294	177	1704	158	161	1074	108	1074	1344	1834	177	164Edmonton	185	123|	104	1034	1294	* 177	1704	158	191	1274	108	1074	1344	1834	177	164Columns	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Rates are in cents per 100 lbs.
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to labour that point any further. I think I have proved to any reasonable man that this agreement is not all in favour of the western grain grower. We Maritime province men who voted for this agreement have been criticized very severely and I think very unfairly because this feature of it has never been put up to any audience in the east. I have never heard of it being presented to them in that way. It was simply presented as a sacrifice of the interests of the East for the benefit of the western grain grower. I do not think I need apologize for taking up the time of the House to put this on record to-night. It should have been done long ago. I certainly would have done so last year had I known that the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) made this speech then. As I say I never knew such a speech had been made and I was amazed when I saw it. It was circulated in pamphlet form in New Brunswick to try to make the potato growers believe that they had been sacrificed in order to give the western farmer something that he was not entitled to. I think, however, that I have proved beyond question that the statements and the inferences in this speech had no resemblance whatsoever ito the truth, because we had a greater reduction in the actual freight on potatoes five months before this speech was made and two months after the Crowsnest agreement went into effect, to say nothing of the great advantage of the frost-proof warehouse that saved us untold money. According to my Romputation the actual reduction in freight to the farmers on account of the short haul to St. John, and this was made possible by the warehouse, is 76 cents per barrel compared with 3 cents per hundred pounds on wheat.
I could hardly credit the statement of the hon. gentleman from St. John (Mr. Baxter) in reference to this matter. I spoke of the rate on green apples from Montreal to Winnipeg being 59 cents per hundred pounds. There is a table here which also gives the rates from Okanagan Valley to Winnipeg at $1.13 per hundred pounds; although the distance from Montreal to Winnipeg is 236 miles more than from the Okanagan Valley to Winnipeg, the rate is 54 cents less from Montreal than it is from the Okanagan Valley to Winnipeg, which certainly gives the eastern fruit grower a very great advantage over the fruit growers in the western country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member consider that a justifiable rate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, I do not. I
thoroughly agree with the gentlemen from
IMr. Caldwell.l
British Columbia and Alberta who- contend that the mountain rate should be adjusted especially on the government road through the Yellowhead pass where the grades are easy and long trains can be hauled. But when the Crowsnest pass agreement goes into effect on the 6th July next, if it does become effective-and I see no reason why it should not -our manufacturing friends from eastern Canada and the fruit growers will certainly be able to get into the western market. There is no question about that. I am sorry I have not the rates on apples from the Maritime provinces to Montreal. I have taken the rates on potatoes from the Maritime provinces to Montreal, and I think the rates are practically the same. The rate from the furthest point in New Brunswick from where potatoes were shipped to Montreal, in 1917, was 19 cents per hundred pounds, and in 1920 it was 38i cents per hundred pounds, and the Crowsnest pass rate provides that from any point in eastern Canada the reduction shall be 33J per cent from the regular rate, which would mean two-thirds of 19 cents in 1917, which would be 12f cents added to the 59 cents from Montreal to Winnipeg, which would mean that you could ship apples to Winnipeg from any point in the Maritime provinces to Winnipeg for 71f cents per hundred pounds, while the rate from the Okanagan valley to Winnipeg is $1.13. In view of those facts, I do not think that any man can contend that the Crowsnest pass agreement is a discrimination even against the eastern farmer who is growing fruit. We do not ship potatoes to the West because they grow their own potatoes, but they cannot grow apples. Here is an opening for the fruit grower.
I had another table giving "the comparative rates from Montreal west and from Vancouver east. If I am allowed to place this on Hansard I will not take time to read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have one or two other matters I wish to refer to. We have heard very doleful wails indeed from our friends to my right with regard to the plight of the Canadian manufacturer and what this tariff will do to him. I am not contending that the tariff is the sole cause of the conditions that I am going to place on the records of this House just now. I hold in my hand a copy of the Royal Gazette of the date of April 30 and I find 22 farms advertised for sale under mortgage in New Brunsrvick. I wonder if people who are wailing about the manufacturers have any thought for the agriculturists of this country. I do not think if a man wished that he could attribute this to the present

The Budget-Mr. Caldwell
budget-because a man does not get sold out under a mortgage in one year, possibly not in ten years. A man who loans money on mortgage wants to make an investment, and as long as the farmer is able to pay his interest he is not sold out. I have never known of a case where foreclosure was made if the farmer was able to pay the interest. But here are 22 farms advertised for sale in one issue of the Royal Gazette for April.


William Richard Motherwell: What size farms?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is covering pretty well the province. These are not all the farms advertised for sale in the province. I have a copy of the Weekly Mail, Fredericton, New Brunswick, in which there were four farms advertised for sale under mortgage, in the one issue. If you pick up any weekly paper in that province you will find these advertisements. People will say that that is a pretty doleful picture, and I am glad the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in his place, because I want to quote from the Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics, February 15, 1924, from the crop reports of the province summarized from the reports of the crop correspondents, January 31, 1924, as follows:
Maritime provinces.-Throughout the Maritime provinces, the open winter has been very beneficial for live stock. There is an abundance of feed everywhere and cattle are in good condition. The market has been dull, and farmers selling are realizing but low prices. A correspondent at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, writes: "In many cases farmers deem it more economical to slaughter some of their stock rather than winter it with no prospect of market next spring". Prices for lambs and sheep are about the same as last year, whilst those of swine dropped badly during the summer. Poultry prices were particularly disappointing at Christmas time on account of the mild unseasonable weather during December. Buildings have increased in value the last few years, while farm land has decreased. Help is hired by the day, as farmers cannot afford to pay wages since the drop in value of farm products. Some farmers talk of leaving their land if conditions do not improve.
I am pleased to see some members from Nova Scotia in their seats. I attended with them a meeting in this House not long ago to listen to a discourse by a man who had been making a survey of vacant lands in the Maritime provinces, where there was a possibility of settling immigrants. I do not remember the number of farms he mentioned in any one given county, but I know it ran into large figures. He was asked how many of these farms had complete buildings, and I think he answered 60 per cent. I think one of the members from Nova Scotia asked the question, and received the answer that 60 per cent had complete buildings and a large number were vacant, and they were surveying with the idea of settling the newcomers on the farm, so that the statement that many farmers would leave the farms if conditions do not improve is mild indeed. I will not deal with all the provinces, but I will take the province of Quebec, because we have been told it is the most prosperous in the Dominion, and possibly the farmers in Quebec are in the best circumstances of all the farmers in the Dominion. The report from Quebec reads as follows:
Owing to the mild weather of the first part of the season, the supply of fodder was conserved, and the cattle were kept in good condition. The value of farms and of cattle has declined during the last few years. There is practically no sale for cattle and horses. Milch cows and poultry are about the only descriptions yielding any revenue. Correspondents state that if the situation does not improve, many farmers will have to give up their land.
Lambs are the best sellers and the prices quoted for wool show some increase over last year.
This is the interesting part of it:
Very few farm labourers are hired by the year, and farmers, where possible, manage without help, as they cannot afford to pay wages.
I do not know whether our city men realize what this means to a farmer; but I know-and I have farmed under those conditions years ago as well as recently-about not being able to hire farm help. It means that the wife must go out and help on the farm to do work that the man cannot do alone. It means, in all too many cases, that children are kept from school who should be in school and are thereby deprived of getting an education, which feature is the saddest of all.
By the way, I am sorry that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is not present, because I have a little crow to pluck with him about farm help in the Maritime provinces in the harvest season. Last year, just about the time when we got ready to harvest our potato crop, which is the crop for which we require the most help, a crop that takes a great deal of help, I saw the usual advertisement of cheap farm excursions to the Canadian West for farm help. I immediately sat down and wrote to the minister calling his attention to this, also calling Ins attention to the fact that, due to depressed times in the Maritime provinces and to the lure of good wages in the United States, many of our young men had left the Maritime provinces and gone to the United States; that help was very scarce. Most of our farmers in the potato growing belt hire their men by the summer; they have to do so because there is a continuous summer's work in cultivating and spraying potatoes. What happens when those posters are put up on fences, barns and every other place where they can stick them,
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell

advertising a cheap rate to the Canadian West? Your hired man puts in his team at six o'clock and he is in such a hurry, he has hardly time to feed them. He tells you that he is going on that harvest excursion next morning. That is after he has been paid good wages all summer and possibly been not overly busy all the time, so that he may be available in the rush season for the potato harvest. I got a reply from the Minister of Railways and Canals stating that this was a matter, not for the government, but for the railway management. I do not agree With the minister. In the matter of inducing people to move from one part of the country to another, it is not for the railway management but for the government to take means to see that help is evenly distributed. If they endeavour to get help for some part of the country that is in need of it, I hope they will not rob the Maritime provinces of the few men whom they are able to retain for the harvest in the fall of the year. If they need help for the western harvest fields -and I realize they do and I do not object to their getting it-let them bring it from where they can get it without robbing the Maritime provinces. Let them go to the bread line in the cities. Of course, I realize that very few of those men will go to the country; they want to be able to go to the pictures at night.
I wish to quote from the records of the special committee on Agricultural Conditions which sat last year to show the other side of the picture. I have endeavoured to give, as briefly as I can, just what is happening to agriculturists in the Maritime provinces, and I think we have had proof enough of conditions in the other provinces. Last year we had all classes of people before us. Some were summoned and some appeared voluntarily. I want to quote from the statements of some manufacturers who were before the committee. I do not wish to be unfair to anybody, nor call particular attention to any manufacturer in Canada and, therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will omit the names. This particular manufacturer who 5'ppeared before our committee painted a very doleful picture of the condition of his industry for the two previous years. We took his statement and we believed it as being possibly correct. He did not, however, state that they had lost money because they could not manufacture the article that they were manufacturing for the prices that they were receiving, but they had lost money because they were not selling; they were doing no business and they were maintaining a big overhead

which was eating up, not only their profits, but their capital. After listening to this very patiently, our chairman asked this question: You brought forward a rather doleful picture of the last two years, and I said, to be fair, we should have a ten-year statement. Do you think there is any objection to giving that?-A. I think I have that, Mr. Chairman, and if you would like to consider it, I will pass it to you, and I would like you to consider it yourself, or with any members of the committee, but I prefer not to have it on the record.
That is, he offered to hand it to the chairman to consider it himself or with any member of his committee, but he refused to have it put on the record. If his condition was bad, why would he refuse to give us the required information. Because no man, I do not care how sharp he is, could form an opinion of the condition of any business by the condition during the two years of which he had given us the operation and cost in very minute detail. We had, however, before us another manufacturer who was more frank, and with your permission, Sir, without giving the name, I will also read a few questions and answers from this man's evidence. The first question and answer which I wish to quote are as follows:
I think you told us your capital at the start was $60,000?-A. $125,000.
Q. $60,000 paid up in cash?
Q. What is your present worth?-A.-
This company was formed in 1903 and had been in operation for eighteen years at the time when this evidence was given.
A. Our present worth on July 31, 1922, surplus $12,500,000, capital, $7,000,000,-about $20,000,000.
That is quite interesting. Starting with a capital of 160,000, they had increased their worth to $20,000,000 in working capital and in the cost of their plant. We were naturally quite anxious to know how this capital had been increased from $60,000 to $20,000,000. There is, however, another question which comes first:
Q. How much dividends have you paid on that?-A. Over what period?
Q. In the whole period?-A. $10,000,000 in cash and $6,000,000 in stock.
The next answer is very interesting:
Q. How has that capital increased to the present amount?-A. By earnings. There was never any fresh money taken in.
I will admit that that is a very frank statement. Starting with a capital of $60,000, admitting there was no further capital taken in, they had increased their worth to $20,000,000. besides paying to the shareholders $10,000,000 in actual cash dividends.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What line of business
was that?

The Budget-Mr. Caldwell


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Manufacturer of automobiles, and by the way I think there should be a reduction in automobiles this year. We require cheap automobiles and especially trucks. In New Brunswick, due to the shortage and high cost of help, many of our farmers buy trucks to haul their potatoes to market when they live any distance from the railway, and I think it would be a boon to the farmers to take the duty off trucks and cheap cars. I say that in view of some of these statements it is unfair for hon. gentlemen to accuse the government of any attempt to secure the support of the Progressives in this House through a reduction in the duties on argicultural implements and other tools of industry. I would strongly commend to the careful perusal of my hon. friends the evidence that was given before the special committee on Agriculture last year, and unless their hearts are made of stone I tlnnk they will hardly ever again object to anything that will help the agriculturists out of their present difficult position. I am going to quote a part of a letter which I have received from a gentleman in New Brunswick, and I will not refuse to give his name if it is asked for. This gentleman is not a farmer, and I think he must have been reading the evidence that was given before that special committee last year. He says:
I have been a manufacturer and merchant, doing business in the Maritime provinces for thirty-five years, president and secretary for Connors Bros. Limited for twenty-five years, president and secretary for the Maritime Steamship Co. for fifteen years, president of Sturgeon Cove Lumber Co., Ltd. for ten years, and several other corporate and private companies in the Maritime provinces, would say:-
I have been a believer in a high protective tariff in the past for manufacturers, such as the United States for home practice. But times have changed, and we must study our best interest and lay party lines aside, because our people that have been educated in all lines of business are leaving Canada and going to United States. High tariff is all right for them, but bad for Canada, because we cannot sell our fish, lumber and wheat we produce. Not more than half of it can be sold in Canada, and when we look to use our nearest and best markets we aie up against a wall of high tariff.
Here is a man who admits that he had always been an advocate of a high protective tariff but, as he says himself now, times have changed. Well, Mr. Speaker, in concluding I might quote that old saying, that a wise man sometimes changes his mind; and much as I dislike saying unpleasant things, I cannot but add the rest of it-a fool never does.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I had not intended trespassing on the time of the House or taking part in the debate, and I would not at this
late hour venture to detain the proceedings were it not for the peculiar performance which the House has witnessed this evening on the part of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter). After having during the past months advertised himself throughout the country as the great champion of the rights of the Maritime provinces, after spending almost three months of the present session in parliament, the hon. gentleman has taken this opportunity of putting forward in his own peculiar way what he considers to be the claim of the Maritime provinces; and he has done so at midnight at the end of this protracted debate. At no time since the session opened did this wonderful champion of our rights in the Maritime provinces venture to call the attention of the House or of the country to our needs and our necessities until the present moment, and under these peculiar circumstances. The hon. gentleman has put forward remarkable claims, and made loud assertions as to the necessity for unity among all of us who come from the Maritime provinces. I may be permitted, I think, to say that hon. gentlemen who come from that part of the country view with a great deal of suspicion these high-sounding statements on the part of the hon. member. We recall a meeting that took place a little over a year ago during the last session of parliament when all hon. members from the Maritime provinces, irrespective of politics, assembled to discuss matters and agreed that they would fight unitedly on certain questions which they considered of importance to the Maritime provinces. Within three weeks after that meeting had been held1, at which my hon. friend was present and in the discussions in which he joined in the most assertive way, declaiming upon the necessity for united action, when a question arose in this House on a motion submitted by his colleague the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to strike out of the estimates a very much needed public work in the province of Nova Scotia, this high-sounding patriot supported that action against the interests of the part of the Dominion in which he professes to take such a lively interest. Since that time, when he indulged in such high-sounding phrases as he used to-night in regard to the rights of the Maritime provinces, I asked him this evening what his platform was and just what his demands amounted to on behalf of the provinces by the sea and: he failed to give any answer. Well, I do not want to detain the House, but I must say that my hon. friend is hardly the type of man, to go forward as the leader of the people of the Mari-
2200	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou)
time provinces. I intimated to him the opinion which the Fredericton Gleaner had of him, and he replied that he hadi stopped endorsing notes for that paper. Naturally the inference was that when he did endorse notes for that strong Conservative journal it praised him. And the further necessary inference must be that he was obliged to endorse notes for some newspaper in order to secure some appreciation of himself.


Mr. DUFF:: And the bank would not
discount the notes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This leading Conservative organ in New Brunswick referred to the hon. member not long ago as one who had an unenviable reputation as a public man, and declared that he was viewed with a great deal of suspicion in that province. Yet this is the gentleman who comes here and upbraids other hon. members who have been fighting continuously in the direction they deemed wisest and most prudent in the interests of their part of the country. I say that we may naturally be expected to resent this ex-cathedra tone, this air of superior dignity which this wonderful gentleman assumes when he addresses the House and alternately chastises gentlemen who sit on his left and those in this part of the chamber who represent the Maritime provinces. I happen to have under my hand a report of the debates of the legislature of New Brunswick for the year 1919 and I find here the address which was given at that time by the then premier of the province, reciting the findings of a commission that had been appointed by the government. He makes this statement:
Then we have ex-Attorney General Baxter found guilty of assisting W. Tennant to fabricate evidence for the purpose of misleading the court, a court duly constituted to hold the inquiry concerning the Valley Railway.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was never found guilty
by anyone of assisting any man to fabricate evidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am
reading from the official debates of the legislature of New Brunswick.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And I am speaking from
my own personal knowledge.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is suggesting that the report of the commissioner, which the then Premier of New Brunswick was quoting was incorrect.
I am quoting from the official report of the debates of the legislature of that province and it mentions my hon. friend in that way. 
I need not go into the findings in detail, but I may mention this further fact-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I object to this, Mr. Speaker, because any report which my hon. friend professes to quote from is that of a desperately partisan commissioner, a mere hack of the government of the day. But even he never found me guilty, either directly or indirectly, of suppressing any evidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am quoting, as I have already said, from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Foster who at the time in question was Premier of the province of New Brunswick. He was reading from the report and he concluded-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
member to consider whether or not he is within the rules of the House in discussing the personality of another hon. member, basing his remarks on a report which is not regularly before the House. I understand that the hon. member is reading from a report which is not regularly before the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
catch what you say, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I was about to say that it is against the rules to quote from a report which is not regularly before the House, especially a report emanating from another legislature. At page 62 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms will be found the following under rule 19:	.
234. Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member while speaking must not: (1) discuss messages or reports which are not regularly before the House.
Under those circumstances-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I am discussing this proposition: .My hon. friend claims that he is the great exponent of the rights of the Maritime provinces, and throughout the country and in this House he has put forward certain views and asserted his leadership respecting the exposition of those rights. He has belaboured hon. gentlemen who sit in-this House from other parts of the Maritime provinces for their laxity in defence of these rights, and has asserted that he alone is -fulfilling his duty. I take the point, Mr. Speaker, that other members from the Maritime provinces and the people of those provinces will not follow the leadership of this gentleman, and I am showing the House why they will not.


Hewitt Bostock: But I cannot as Speaker-

The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou)


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot as
Speaker allow the hon. member to assail the personality of a fellow-member by basing his charges on a report which is not regularly before the House. This report emanates from the provincial legislature of New Brunswick, if I mistake not, and the charges contained therein are specifically denied by the hon. member in question. Under the circumstances his denial must be accepted by the hon. gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Your
Honour rules that I cannot quote from a report made to the legislature of New Brunswick. But your Honour will rule that I may quote from the terms of a resolution passed by that legislature?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That resolution, after referring to my hon. friend, and certain other gentlemen whom I do not intend to name for the moment, proceeds as follows:
Resolved that in view of the evidence and the findings of the said commissioner-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the resolution is no more in order than the report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: (reading).
Resolved that in view of the evidence and the findings-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. member, whether he is reading from a report or whatever it may be, has given utterance to certain statements reflecting upon the hon. member for St. John. The hon. member for St. John from his place in the House has declared that the statement is not in accordance with the fact. I submit to you, Sir, that under the rules of the House the word of the hon. member for St. John must be accepted, no matter what the document may be that is being quoted or whether it is in order or not.


Hewitt Bostock: That has been my ruling. I called upon the hon. gentleman not to assail the hon. member for St. John by basing his remarks on a report or a resolution, the charges contained in which are specifically denied by the hon. member assailed, I rule that according to Bourinot, page 336, reading from a document casting reflection on an hon. member is out of order.-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question as to whether or not a resolution was passed in the legislature of New Brunswick
calling upon my hon. friend to resign is a fact which I think I can mention. I was not reading from any report of a committee or a commissioner, but from a resolution passed by the legislature of New Brunswick, stating that the conduct of my hon. friend was derogatory to the proper tone of public life in that province, and asking him to resign his seat in the legislature.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is not correct.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) My hon. friend says it is not correct. I am not going into the findings of the commissioner. All I say is that in view of the fact that this is on record as part of the proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick, it is about time that my hon. friend from St. John should cease lecturing hon. gentlemen in this House with an air of serene superiority and intense holiness, an air which he has adopted ever since he came to this House. He undertakes to lecture everybody who happens to disagree with him upon any subject. I submit that this conduct sits very badly upon a gentleman, the legislature of whose native province passed the resolution which I have referred to, which is on the records of that body, and which will remain there forever.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I quite realize that the hour is late, and in view of the fact that the budget has been so thoroughly debated I shall not take up any more time than I can possibly help in the few remarks I am about to offer.
In so far as the tariff reductions and the provisions dealing with the sales tax are concerned, I approve of the budget. But I would call the attention of the House and of the government to the fact that there are many other items in the tariff schedules that could very well have been reduced with great benefit to the consumers of this country. In view of the high cost of living I think the government might have gone a good deal further and made such reductions as would have increased the, purchasing power of the people.
We have heard a good deal about the benefits of protection, but in my opinion there is no possibility of a protective tariff making for prosperity in this country. We must all realize this important fact, that the only way whereby wealth can be produced is
4 a.m. by applying the machinery of production and labour to the development of our natural resources, and anything that stands in the way of such development will naturally reduce the amount of real wealth that otherwise would eventually be produced.
The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

suggestion to the House, but I trust the government will take some action in regard to it this year because it is important that we should have the question of rural credits settled at the very earliest opportunity. I would remind the House also of this very important fact:	We are spending something
like $3,000,000 a year to bring settlers to this country, and what are we going to do with them when we get them here? We have no method of financing those settlers if we desire to put them upon the land. Until we have some such system it is worse than useless to spend two, three, or four million dollars a year to bring in fresh settlers to settle upon the land, and our immigration policy is absolutely ridiculous.
There is another matter I should like to refer to for a moment and that is the port of Vancouver. Representing as I do an Alberta constituency the development of the port of Vancouver is a very important necessity to us. It is estimated that we will ship through the port of Vancouver this year something like 50,000,000 bushels of grain, and as time goes on the amount of grain passing through that port will become much larger. There will also be shipped through the port of Vancouver other commodities than grain, and therefore the development of that port is a matter of great concern to us at the present time. I understand that the Board of Harbour Commissioners have made requests to the government for sums of money for different development purposes. It was rumoured at one time tfcat the amount was something like $18,000,000. Lately I have heard that the amount they are demanding is in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but the government will doubtless bring down an estimate for a substantial vote of money for the development of the port of Vancouver. The reason I bring this question up to-night is this: While we would desire to see the port of Vancouver have all the facilities that are necessary for the proper carrying on of business at the present time, we are very anxious that there shall be^ no over-development at that particular point for the reason that if there is overdevelopment at that port we are satisfied the grain passing through it will have to carry the big share of the burden.
I would refer hon. members to the report of the Montreal Harbour Board, and if they look up the financial statement of that board they will find that the grain passing through the port of Montreal is bearing the big bulk of the cost of that particular port, and I submit that the charges on grain are far too

high in comparison with the service they are rendering. The same thing might become prevalent in the port of Vancouver. We as grain farmers are quite willing to pay our fair share of the charges of the port, but we are not willing to pay more than our fair share, and if there is an over-development at the port then we are satisfied that we will have to pay more than our fair share on the grain passing through that port. Another matter I would like to ask the government to take an interest in is with reference to the elevators at Vancouver. I submit with all seriousness that those elevators should be placed under the grain commission. We are not satisfied the elevators at the port of Vancouver should be wholly under the control of the harbour board. We believe the Board of Grain Commissioners is the proper authority to control these particular elevators, and I trust the government will take some action in the near future to see that these grain elevators are placed under the grain commission, and that the grain commission will have full authority over them, so far as their power goes. I would like the government to look into the matter of the port and the elevators at the port of Vancouver to see that the elevators are licensed under the Board of Grain Commissioners. If they are so licensed, then we have some control over them, but if they are not so licensed under that board, then we have practically to all intents and purposes very little control over their activities.
During the last session of this parliament a considerable sum of money was voted for an addition to the No. 1 elevator at Vancouver, and I trust the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), whichever is the responsible official, will take cognizance of what I have to say on this particular matter. From a return we have received in this House we find that it has cost for that new construction on No. 1 elevator, 98 cents a bushel to build that elevator. In so far as the cost at the head of the lakes is concerned1, it costs usually about 23 cents a bushel to provide storage capacity. Now when we find that at the port of Vancouver it costs 98 cents instead of about 23 cents, I think we are justified in asking the government why it is that there is such an excessive cost at the port of Vancouver, as compared with the cost at the head of the lakes. Possibly the government may say that it was necessary to push on this work and make haste; but even conceding' that it was necessary to make haste, I submit that the cost is far too high. I find also

The Budget- .Ar. Gardiner
from returns made to this House that there there were no tenders let for this particular additional work to this elevator. The Pacific Construction Company did the work on a cost plus basis. It is all right to have work done on a cost plus basis, provided the cost is within reason, but when you have work done on a cost plus basis where the actual amount of money spent is perhaps three times more than it should be, then we can begin to realize that the profit, even on a cost plus basis, to the construction company is far too excessive.
Another matter I would like to bring before the House is in relation to the port of Vancouver. You will have noticed in the press some months ago where some arrangement has been made with the harbour board to buy what was known as the Woodward elevator. I understand that the foundation had only been built for this elevator when Mr. Woodward died, and we find that the Board of Harbour Commissioners has bought this foundation, bought the property in fact; but what are they going to do with it? They are going to complete it at a probable cost of $650,000, and license it to a private company, and for what purpose? For the purpose of buying grain and possibly mixing it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know something of what is taking place in private terminal elevators or mixing houses at the head of the lakes, and I am very sorry indeed that the harbour board has allowed a mixing elevator to operate at the port of Vancouver. We must remember that this mixing elevator is going to be paid for by public funds or public credit, and I submit that it is no function of the harbour board to buy elevators and turn them over to private interests, for the exploitation of these private interests. I am going to bring to the attention of the House information furnished by the Board of Grain Commissioners to the special committee on agricultural conditions at the last session of parliament. This deals with the private terminal elevator companies or mixing houses at the head of the lakes, and I am going to give the House one example of what is happening there, so that the House and the government will realize why it is we object to the mixing houses being operated at Vancouver. On this side of the page are the different grades that go into the elevator. In this particular case there were 48 different grades that went into the elevator. In these other columns are the number of bushels of the different grades. One column represents the total number of 140
bushels of the different grades that go into this elevator. Over on the other side at the far comer appear the different grades that were shipped out. As I stated a minute ago 48 different grades went into this elevator, but only five grades came out. The grades on this side run from No. 1 northern to tough feed. We have rejected-tough and no grade running down to rejected feed, which is a pretty poor sample of wheat.
I am giving the House an opportunity to realize the different classes of grain that went into the elevator. The grades shipped out were Nos. 1, 2 and 3, No. 4 dried and No. 4 heated. No. 5 and No. 6 special. Feed wheat and rejected feed-these grades have disappeared. Where do they go? They go into the higher grades. That is where these went. I would like to remind the House also of this important fact that when we farmers in western Canada ship a carload of grain we ship it usually through a commission house, and the commission merchants sell it for us When we get our bills back the first thing we find on our bills is the freight and the interest on the freight. The next thing we find on the bill of cost is the one cent commission for selling the grain, and the next item is the weighing and inspection charges. I have looked up the auditor's report and I have found that the farmers of western Canada, pay all the salaries, the charges of both the weighing and inspection departments and when we pay their salaries, they should be to all extents and purposes our servants. But what happens? When our servants grade our grain, these are the grades they give to us. But when they grade it out of the private mixing houses these others are the grades they give to the terminal elevator companies, although we are paying the salaries.
In one column there is shown the total number of bushels shipped in, and in another column is shown the total number of bushels shipped out. I will give the figures to the House so that they will begin to realize our objection to this particular project that is going on in Vancouver. The total number of bushels of all grades of grain shipped in amounted to 704,283 bushels, 50 pounds. The total number of bushels shipped out was 831,000, or 126,716 bushels, 10 pounds more were shipped out than were shipped in. The quantity of wheat the farmer gets paid for when he ships his wheat in is 704,283 bushels 50 pounds, but when that company ship out their wheat, they get paid for 831,000 bushels. I have brought this particular return before

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

the House in order to emphasize to the government the reason why we object to this Woodward elevator being turned over as a mixing house to private interests at the expense of this country.
Perhaps I might give a little further information with regard to the situation at Vancouver as regards the harbour board. They have had engaged there as superintendent of the harbour board elevator Mr. Colin McLean. Mr. McLean was employed by this very same company at the head of the lakes, the return in regard to which company I have read. I understand that Mr. McLean has recently handed in his resignation to the Vancouver Harbour Board, but that the royal commission is going out there to make some inquiries and he has agreed to with-1 hold his resignation until such time as that commission visits Vancouver, takes, the evidence and makes its report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure the hon.gentleman would not choose to injure unjustifiably Mr. McLean's reputation as regards his record in Vancouver. It is only fair to state-and I am sure my hon. friend will permit me to state this-that Mr. McLean's record 'during his residence in Vancouver is absolutely clear from any charges or suggestion that his administration has been in any respect faulty.


Robert Gardiner: I thank the hon. gentleman for the information, but we will proceed a little further and see how the information ! that he has given to the House coincides with the information that I have received. Mr. McLean, as I stated, was connected with this Davidson Smith Elevator Company at Port Arthur; Mr. McLean is now manager of the elevator at Vancouver. The Pacific Construction Company is a company that was formed very recently for the purpose of build-| ing elevators at the port of Vancouver. Mr. | Davidson, who was one of the partners of this : private terminal elevator, is president of the Pacific Construction Company. He is president of the company which made the addition to the present elevator last year at 98 cents i bushel capacity, whereas at the head of the akes it cost 23 cents a bushel. There may )e some connection in that way. .With regard to the explanation of the hon. member ! for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), I would I just remind the House of this important ; matter in connection with the operation of j the Vancouver elevator under Mr. McLean. \ Hon. members will remember that, during i last winter, Mr. Maharg, a former member of this House, made the statement that there was a certain spout in the Vancouver elevator

in such a position as to make grain shippers feel that all was not well. This particular spout was right under the spout that grain comes in through.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Does my hon. friend think it is quite fair to go into the history of this spout and at this time to repeat and to follow the gossip that has been used throughout the prairies, knowing that a commission is going to investigate this matter and report upon it within a few days in Vancouver?


Robert Gardiner: Under those circumstances, I will say just this, that instead of one spout being found in that elevator there were four that should not have been there. In view of the representations made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) I will not deal with that matter any more, other than to call the attention of the government to this very important fact, that in all these terminal elevators, we usually have overages, but so far as I am aware no overages have been published with this particular elevator. Whether there were any overages or not, I do not know, but I would suggest that the government look into that "particlular matter. This Woodward elevator is going to be used as a mixing elevator, and we protest just as strongly as we possibly can against the public money or credit of this country being used to allow persons to go into this character of business. It should be no function of the harbour board nor of the government to finance a corporation that will go into this particular class of grain handling.
I want to say just a word in regard to the amendment and then I have finished. I propose to vote for the amendment because it represents the platform upon which I was elected, and I am not going to vote against my convictions or against the platform upon which I sought the suffrage of the people. It is usual I believe in this House that when an hon. member votes for an amendment against the budget, the government look upon that vote as a vote of want of confidence in the government. Personally, if the government feel that way about the matter, then I cannot help it. That is their business. I do not propose to be tied down by precedent. I am here as an independent member of this House, and I propose to retain my independence as long as I am a member of this House.


John Morrison: I
have noticed that since ten o'clock last night when each succeeding speaker has risen he has apologetically, explained to the House that it was hot his intention to speak for any great

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
length of time. I observed also that when ' the preceding speaker intimated that he was about to close, there was some elation on the part of hon. members. I am not going to say that I intend to cut my remarks short, simply because it is five o'clock in the morning. I consider that it is an injustice to the members of this House that they should have been kept here all night.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cut it out.


John Morrison: No, I am not going to cut it out; I am going to tell you just what I think. We western members and those who come from the Maritime provinces are obliged to stay here for five months never having a chance to get home once; yet, for the accommodation of those who live nearby in Quebec and Ontario, because they are anxious to get home every week end, we are kept here all this night. I am going to take all the time I want and I make the statement without any hesitation.
Now, much has been said about the reductions in the tariff ruining the manufacturers, and I am going to give you a little enlightenment on just how it will ruin them, particularly our farm implement makers, about whom we hear so much. Since last session, I had the privilege of interviewing the managers of two of the largest farm implement concerns in Canada, and I discussed matters with them. I asked one of them whether he patronized home industries himself, by buying his raw materials in Canada and he said he did not. I wanted to know why, and he pointed out to me that he was a winner by buying his raw materials abroad. He explained that when he bought his steel in the United States, the price of the steel, plus the duty, equalled the price he was charged by the home steel producer, and if he got this steel at home he received no rebate. On buying his raw materials abroad, however, he got a rebate of 99 per cent, which, to use his words, was all "velvet" to him. He could not therefore afford to patronize the Canadian steel industry, which we have bonused to the extent of $17,000,000. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) almost wept-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Hear, hear.


John Morrison: You prick up your ears now, I see. Come a little closer and you will hear it all. The hon. member was feeling very badly about the condition of the interdependent industries; according to him, the farm implement manufacturers were going to be put out of business by the reductions in the tariff. By this system of rebates, which 140i
has formed a part of the customs tariff law, there has been a real incentive, a real inducement to the manufacturers to go abroad for their raw materials, instead of patronizing the home industries. It is not among the pet theories of these manufacturers to favour investigations into the tariff in the interests of the workers. They have not been lying awake at night considering the working men in the coal mines, in the steel industries, or in the National railways. They forget all about that; they ignore co-operation and the. part that it ought to play in these industries. * After speaking for some time with this gentleman to whom I have referred, I said to him: "After all, my friend, don't you think it is a miserable arrangement to build up the industries of the country by this tariff route and bonus route?" He said in reply: "Between you and me, Mr. Morrison, I think it is."


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is the hon. member repeating something that I said?


John Morrison: Does my hon. friend not understand English?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I thought I did, but for the moment I am not positive.


John Morrison: That is your fault, not mine. We have bonused the steel industries to the extent of about $17,000,000, and, according to some, the object has been to provide employment for the working man, others say that we have done it so that we should not be dependent on other countries for our raw materials; and hon. gentlemen to my right are of the opinion that it is necessary in order to build up a well-rounded Canada and have a home market. In looking into this matter I was surprised to learn that there was a rebate not only in respect of the raw material imported for conversion into exportable products but also in regard to many domestic sales. I have here the Customs Tariff Act giving a list of the things on which there is a rebate. On page 223 I find that there is a drawback of the customs duty allowed, under the Act of 1914, not exceeding 99 per cent of the duty that may be paid through the Department of Customs on pig iron used by the manufacturers of mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders or attachments for binders, in the manufacture of these and other goods for consumption in Canada. So that this new arrangement, by reducing the tariff on implements and taking off the duty on raw materials, is going to tend to the patronising of home industries by the manufacturers. It has been a real improvement. We have paid $17,000,000 to bonus steel plants in Canada. The British American
220S
The Budget-Mr. Morrison

Steel Corporation officials were the ringleaders in our Great Lakes Shippers' Combine that made things so interesting last autumn in shipping circles on the Great Lakes, thwarting and defying this government's regulations over shipping, and thereby charging excessive rates on grain. My observation leads me to the conclusion that it is about as logical for us to try to enrich Canada by the bonus and the tariff route as it is for a man to go on a prolonged drunk to overcome his financial difficulties. The last end of such a one is worse . than the first. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) said that about $8 from each Ontario and Quebec farmer and 115 from each western farmer was not very much, but would save the great implement manufacturers of Canada.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I never made any such statement in this House.


John Morrison: You made that statement right from where you are sitting.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I made no such statement. I said that these munificent gains which are going to bring prosperity to the West-the hon. gentleman included, I suppose-all these small gains in the aggregate constituted a large loss for the manufacturers of implements. That is what I said, and it is quite correct, I doubt if my hon. friend at this time in the morning can analyze the statement.


John Morrison: 100. Then if we had the same rate on wheat for one-third the distance we should only pay 214 cents instead of 414 cents, or if they had our rate then they would pay SI.25 instead of 64 cents, and this 64 cents on coal, remember, is a domestic rate, not an export rate.
A few other discrepancies might be quoted to show the chaotic condition of this freight rate question. Sugar from Vancouver to Calgary, 640 miles, costs 98 cents per hundred; to haul it to Winnipeg, an additional 833 miles, only costs 62 cents. Tea costs from Vancouver to Calgary SI.50 per hundred, and to haul it an additional 1,256 miles to Fort William costs exactly nothing; in other words, the rate is the same to either point 1,256 miles apart. Grain from Calgary to Winnipeg, 833 miles costs 26 cents; Winnipeg to Port Arthur, 423 miles, costs nothing. Is it any wonder that the people in St. John say that if wheat can be taken from Winnipeg to Port Arthur for nothing, why not Montreal to St. John, which is only 480 miles.
The domestic rate on tea from Vancouver to Calgary in carload lots is $1.45, and the " domestic rate from Vancouver to Winnipeg, $2.51. To Winnipeg the import rate is $1.50 in carload lots, the same to Fort William, Brandon, Edmonton, Weybum, Regina, Moose Jaw. In less than carload lots the rate is $2.
There has been a lot said in this debate about the uncertainty the manufacturers are in if the tariff is taken off; they do not know what to do, it is said. But I wonder how much certainty the farmer who produces the grain and live stock in this country has? Who guarantees him an income? Who guarantees him a reasonable price? Who guarantees him a reasonable return for his labour? The farmer is up against weather conditions and other uncontrollable factors, but we do not lie down and whine and ask that somebody else be taxed to keep us alive and in the game. The railways through the Railway Commission have their dividends guaranteed, the same applies to the Bell Telephone Company. It is guaranteed eight per cent, and its stock has gone up to 127i and was up to 128 yesterday. We have no dividends guaranteed to the farmers. I do not believe in guaranteeing any man's investment in this country. Every time you guarantee a man's investment you are creating a contingent liability on the credit of the other fellow. The manufacturers say that this uncertainty is killing the industry. I say it is not, and we propose to kill that heresy.
My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition charged the government with bring-

ing irrelevant issues into the campaign. Well, some of us fellows have the idea that members of his party did the same thing out in the West, but we are not making much complaint about it. He also said that unity in Canada was essential, and in that I entirely agree with him. Urban and rural, east and west, manufacturer and farmer, we are all solid for that doctrine. I asked the right hon. gentleman to-night if he preached that doctrine in Montreal and Toronto, he said that he did. Now all through our debates in this House the right hon. gentleman has been trying to hang every slip and every defection from the party opposite on to the Prime Minister himself. He holds him responsible not only for his ministers, but for all the members of his party. It is therefore only fair that he should accept the same responsibility for his own following, and if there is one thing that we need in this country it is harmony. Now I would say to the right hon. leader of the opposition that one member of his party, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), through his work is doing as much to spread dissension and distrust in this country as anyone I can think of. There is nothing to be gained by that sort of thing, and the Conservative party can never work themselves into public favour by adopting such tactics. I refer to some of the work that the hon. member for west Toronto does in the Orange Sentinel. We read in the Scriptures:	"Whatsoever things are
pure, whatsoever things' are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, .	.	.	.
think on these things." I do not see very much of that kind of thing being reported or discussed in the Orange Sentinel.
It is time that sort of stuff was dropped. While I am a member of the same church as the hon. member for West Toronto I never feel proud of the fact when I look at the Orange Sentinel, which is not very often. If we want unity we must first establish a desire for it in the hearts of men. There is something of more value than making money in this country and that is that men may think rightly toward one another. The methods of my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) are not helping towards that end but having the very opposite effect.
In regard to the budget while it has not gone as far as some of us would like, especially in certain lines, yet it is a step in the right direction and I am going to support it.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: This is morning.


Edward Joseph Garland: True this
is morning. I say this with regret but not with apologies.
It is quite clear to me, indeed abundantly clear, that the surplus of $30,400,000 claimed by the government does not exist. I have listened to the debate from both sides of the House on this matter and the only excuse, or explanation, I have heard from the government side has been "but they did it also," referring to the Conservative party. In the budget statement we find an allowance of only $23,781,000 for the deficit on the railways, whereas according to a return made to the House, I think secured by the ex-Minister ot Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), the total deficit for the calendar year was $44,962,760. Now, if we make an allowance for a possible increase-as a matter of fact there really was an, increase in operating revenues over the expenditure for the months of January, February and March-we can estimate-indeed I made an estimate some weeks ago and fairly accurately-that the total deficit for the fiscal year will have been in the neighbourhood of $41,500,000, or $18,719,000 greater than the amount allowed by the Acting Minister of Finance. This obviously reduces the surplus, and the actual reduction in the national debt will then be $11,700,000 of which $8,199,000 is admitted to be a payment on an amount due by the Imperial government. What had happened in this case apparently was that the government had paid out in net ca^h to the railways the amount of $23,781,000 allowed by the Acting Minister of Finance, but in addition they paid out the balance of the deficit of $41,500,000 odd from the loan of
$50,000,000. Now, I regard that loan as just as much a part of the liabilities of this country as, any other item of the national debt. The government, in my opinion, would be well advised to take into consideration the necessity for altering the present accounting methods so that when the annual statement is laid before the country the man in the street, the ordinary business man, could appreciate at a glance exactly what was the financial condition of the Dominion.
I now come to the tariff changes. These I do not intend to discuss in detail. I simply wish to refer to the extraordinary gloom that arose, surrounded, depressed and still rests upon hon. members to my right and the horrible picture which they painted of ruined cities, destroyed industries, and a destitute and impoverished Canada. Well, that picture gave me the creeps. After all who is hurt? Has anybody been hurt yet? May I suggest to my hon. friends to my right that they might have taken into consideration the solicitude with which hon. gentlemen opposite take care that the interests of the manufacturer shall not be hurt. First by a free entry of pig iron, bar iron, and bar steel; secondly by the reduction of 7i per cent under all tariffs of materials which enter into the cost of those articles upon which the duty has been reduced in the budget; thirdly the drawback of 99 per cent on all materials and parts on hand which were imported prior to the date of reduction; fourthly exemption from the sales tax of materials to be used in the manufacture of agricultural implements, as well as of goods consumed in the process of manufacture. On April 30, we find additional advantages brought down. The duty is reduced, or entirely wiped out, on such other articles as enter into steel and iron production. We find free entry of wood handles or stems for shovels, and on a recent date still further advantages were given to manufacturers. All this to the end that those who advocate protection may be saved from its effects. But a further precaution was taken before the budget was even brought down, the precaution of removing the 5 per cent margin that existed between the fair market value of imported goods and the invoice price. It is true that regulation was suspended and then the suspension was suspended but I would call the attention of those who are enemies of protection and the friends of freer trade to the fact that the suspension is only a suspension-it is not a removal. If this situation is not definitely cleared by the words of the Acting Minister of Finance when he closes this debate I doubt very much whether I would be justified in supporting the budget.
2212	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
A body we are told is to be appointed to investigate the matter of taxation and advise this government. If that body is to be^in the nature of a permanent tariff commission I want to register my grave suspicion of it. As a result of the reliefs which I have mentioned it is fair to state that the reductions made in the duty on agricultural implements have been offset entirely, and I am satisfied that were agriculture in even a reasonable condition of prosperity not only would the profit making policy of the implement manufacturers not be damaged but it would be enhanced by the action of the government.
In this connection it may be interesting to again quote-I admit it has been quoted before, but it proves my point-the letter of the Massey-Harris people who make this very clear. It reads:
The provisions of the budget which exempt farm implements from the sales tax are most welcome, and these, combined with the lowering of customs duties on raw materials announced in the government's amendments, now enable the manufacturer to make an immediate reduction in his prices. So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned (and no doubt this applies to other implement companies) there will be passed on to the farmer in the way of reduced prices the complete saving effected in the remission of the sales tax and the lessened duties on raw material.
I have a further extract if necessary in support of the position taken by the implement manufacturers. Colonel J. B. Maclean is no free trader. On the contrary he has been guilty of writing articles of the most extravagantly protectionist character; yet in the Montreal Herald of May 14, appeared the following:
Col. J. B. Maclean, who as a publisher of trade
papers naturally represents the views of manufacturers of this country, evidently sees no cause for the alarm of some of the Tory politicians at the Robb budget, for one of his journals, the Financial Post, says: "The old adage that 'an old tax is no tax ' applies very aptly to the present tariff situation. There is little possibility that any of our industries will be wiped out or even seriously handicapped- statements by leaders in the steel, motor and implement industries are less disquieting as the facts arc faced. Looking at the business situation throughout the country as a whole there seems to be little justification for the degree of pessimism which has existed in some sections during the past weeks."
So that the manufacturers are not hurt. Unfortunately, however, we find that the chief basic industry is still in a serious position. It is loaded down with a heavy accumulation of debt, and we are attempting to pay upon those debts interest rates at 8 per cent, 9 per cent and in many cases 10 per cent. At the same time a tremendous disparity exists between the prices we receive for the goods we produce, and the prices we pay for the manufactured goods which are necessary for the maintenance of the farm, the

farmer and his family. The result obviously is either a seriously curtailed or wholly destroyed purchasing power. I could give this House many examples-if it were not so early in the day, of the methods the farmer is employing to meet the situation. He is doing without implements, he is borrowing them from his neighbour, or loaning them to his neighbour, or he is patching up the worn-out implements. I think the action of the government in this matter was not brought in any too soon, but was delayed too long. We find that organizations of farmers in Western Canada are now banding themselves together to pledge each other not to purchase any implements so long as prices continue high. I read the following extract from a report of a Farmers' meeting:
PROTEST AGAINST MACHINERY PRICES Nakamun local recently passed a resolution protesting against the continued rise in price of agricultural machinery, and pledging their members to " desist from purchasing any more new implements, and that in the interests of economy, and with the spirit of mutual aid and co-operation, we make our present outfits serve our purposes, and agree to assist our neighbours wherever a lack of proper machinery is observed.
The inevitable result of that situation, the lack of purchasing power, and the revolt on the part of the farmers against prices has been a tremendous falling off in manufacturers' sales. The proof that this is so may be found on page 529 of the Canada Year Book. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is exceedingly difficult for a private member of this House, and an individual not entirely friendly to the manufacturing interests of this country, so far as protection is concerned

always friendly to them in every other respect-to secure accurate information from these men as to the amount of their sales in this country; so that I cannot produce definite figures with regard to actual sales of farm implements in Canada, but I think it is fair to take the figures given in the Canada Year Book for the imports of agricultural machinery as reflecting the purchasing power of the farmer as regards the not only foreign product but the home product also.
I find that in the year 1921 the total imports of agricultural machinery from all countries into Canada was $24,458,000 worth. In 1922 it had dropped to $7,718,000. In 1923 there is a slight increase, the amount being $8,423,000. However, it should be remembered that during that last year there was a rapid rise in the price of agricultural implements; so that the $8,000,000 purchased less machinery in 1923 than the $7,000,000 in 1922. That I think conclusively shows that the sales have been

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
reduced by two-thirds as compared with 1921, the reason being that the purchasing power of those who consume the goods was gone. But were the manufacturers on the other hand, piling up implements? Were they manufacturing? If we turn to page 525 of the Canada Year Book we will find that the iron ore importation had dropped between the years 1921 and 1923 from nearly 2,000,000 tons to just over 1,000,000 tons, or had been cut in half. Again we find that in pig, ingots, blooms and billets the value of imports was 84,638,987 in 1921, and $2,277,435 in 1923. In scrap iron or steel the amount in 1921 was $2,419,000 and in 1923 the amount was $242,632. Then there was $6,790,520 worth of castings and forgings in 1922, and 83,304,595 worth in 1923; and so the figures continue until we reach the total. The total imports of the raw product of the implement manufacturer for 1922 was $70,056,650, and in 1923 it was only $36,573,581. There had been more than a 50 per cent reduction in the activity of the agricultural implements industry. In short, we may assume that, even before the Robb budget was brought down, the implement manufacturing industry of Canada was in a half dying condition.
It must be clear that a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements can be reflected in the saving to the farmers in this country only if the reduction is passed back to the farmer in reduced prices, and if the farmer is able to purchase the implements. These are the two conditions, and these alone upon which the saving can be returned to the farmer. And so, Mr. Speaker having shown that the purchasing power is gone or practically so, then in spite of the enthusiasm with which the Minister of the Interior assured us of the benefits to agriculture of this budget-and I quote his words:
That this budget has succeeded in extending the most clear cut and practical recognition of the needs of those immense new agricultural and commercial interests which have arisen in western Canada.
I must most regretfully express it as my opinion that, because 'of the lack of purchasing power, even should the saving be passed back to him, the amount would be so very small that the effect of this budget in remedying the condition in agriculture would be pitifully inadequate. I do not, however- let it be clearly understood-decry the timid step taken towards freer trade. I am glad that step was taken, but I do most earnestly point out that all the exaggerated claims of hon. members apposite cannot and will not be fulfilled while agriculture is in its present condition. The most urgent need of the moment is not a reduction of the duties
on agricultural implements. That was one way in which to help slightly, but the most urgent need at tte moment is some system of agricultural credits which will relieve the farmer of the great pyramid of debt which is now bearing down upon agriculture in this country, a system which would release our basic industry from at least a part of the huge interest charges that she is at this time attempting to carry.
Some hon. members think that the immense crop of Alberta this year has solved all our difficulties. May I give to the House the opinion of a banker in this connection?
I asked him last winter what was the actual reflection of the crop on the financial position of the farmer. He answered that as regards current loans, they had been paid up, and that we were in that respect better off than in the previous year. I asked him then with regard to the pile of debt upon our shoulders, and that banker stated that at the most we had removed between 18 and 20 per cent of it. Let me remind hon. members that the crop of 1923 in my province was three times the size of the crop of the previous year and twice the size of any normal crop; yet it had the effect of removing only between 18 and 20 per cent of the debt on our shoulders and leaving 80 per cent carrying a rate of interest of from 8 to 10 per cent. No, the bulk of our debt is still there. Years of ceaseless and heartbreaking toil and bondage to the mortgage companies and the banks face us unless the government takes immediate action.
Let me turn for a moment to Saskatchewan. The premier of that province, Mr. Dunning, in his budget speech, called the attention of the people to the fact that the total proceeds from agricultural products of 1922 was $232,524,300, but in 1923 with, let me remind hon. gentlemen again, a much larger crop, the total proceeds were only $171,556,750, or a loss of $60,967,550 over this previous year's income. No province of the size of Saskatchewan with a population of 750,000 or so can afford to lose in one year nearly $61,000,000 worth of purchasing power and not have that lack reflected in loss to the eastern manufacturers. Does this show agriculture to be on the up grade? Is this what our professional optimists call " turning the corner," towards prosperity? Let us not forever try to fool ourselves and other people. Let me make this [DOT] very clear:	There is nothing
wrong with this country. We have the most fertile soil probably in the world. We can raise in my province crops of a quantity and quality unequalled anywhere else in the world. I have never heard of their like. We have mineral resources beyond those of any other
2214	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
province in this country. We have live stock that walk off with the Chicago awards year after year. We win your dairy prizes at the Chicago fair every year. We won first prize for wheat for the world this year. We won first prize for oats. The barley king of the world lives at Claresholm, Alberta. There is nothing wrong with the country. What is wrong is that I see my people there digging in year after year in a well nigh hopeless effort to overcome the handicaps placed upon their industry by the crass stupidity and greed of their fellow men. I have been called a pessimist for uttering truths that have never been successfully contradicted, for picturing conditions that must, in Canada's own interest, be remedied, for saying things that if whispered on the roaring front pages of a Montreal newspaper or ripped down the columns of a Toronto magazine, would be called courageous publicity, or if uttered by a lieutenant governor of a province, would be called " frankly facing the facts." Let me, however, tell hon. members that at every meeting at which I have spoken during the last recess-and I addressed forty-five of them-I made one appeal consistently, that my fellow farmers at that meeting should stay in this country and fight it out with us here; that nothing would be gained by leaving this country and going to the United States or anywhere else. We want to keep them here, but we want a policy that will keep them here. These r en are encouraged to know that even though our efforts are largely nullified by the attitude of opposing interests, they at least have representatives who are pleading their cause without fear of party or of press, and who will not be silent while injustice still stands.
I intend to go on fighting for my people telling the truth about conditions in Canada and no mere name-slinging politician or journalist will intimidate me, nor cause me to slacken in that attack. I appeal to this government to recognize' the condition of the West where high prices and high interest rates are destroying the people and driving them from us, and to recognize that they must do something more effective than merely tickling the tariff. They must tackle it and tackle it courageously. I intend to support the amendment because it represents the principles upon which I appealed to .the electorate and upon which I was elected. The timid and ineffective nature of the tariff changes themselves do not inspire me nor fill me with expectation. Let it, however, be understood that so far as they have gone, they are, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

While I am on that question, may I refer for a moment to the very able and eloquent speech of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey)? In referring to the amendment, he quoted the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and congratulated him on having become a convert to tariff reform. He attributed the conversion to the fact that the hon. member sat beside the genial and always friendly hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). He quoted from the speeches of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg of 1923, words which would lead one to believe that the hon. member thought that the tariff was but of significant character and that tariff was but of insignificant character and that he had changed his stand thereon.
What the hon. member said-and I quote the words quoted by the hon. member for Springfield-was:
I would, however, like to point out that in the opinion of the group which I represent the mere bringing about of a larger measure of free trade does not really touch the root of the trouble to-day.
Had the hon. member for Springfield only taken the trouble to look at the speech of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg of this year he would have found the following two passages:
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.
And again:
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 south-eastern 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 eastern Canada than are the proposed changes in our tariff.
And I most certainly .agree with him. There is no difference whatever in the position taken by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg in 1922, 1923 and 1924. The only difference so far as I can ascertain is in the position of the hon. member for Springfield, who supports a certain policy on the hustings and then comes into the House and refuses to vote for it. I have said that we need some long time credit system in order to help ' agriculture in this country. The report which Dr. Tory has just brought in urges that the movement for rural credits is a normal development arising out of modern scientific

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
agriculture. To-day in Europe the agriculturist can borrow money cheaper than anyone else in the community, while exactly the reverse is the condition in this country. In France he may borrow through the co-operative banking systems and the Credit Fon-cier at 4 per cent; in Denmark, through the system of co-operative banks, at 5 per cent; in Germany farm loans are obtainable at between 4 and 5 per cent; in England from 4i to 6 per cent. The average rate of interest on farm loans in Europe is 5 per cent. In nearly every country in Europe facilities are now provided to meet in some way the demand for cheap mortgage credit and many of these systems are wholly or partly state-established.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Does my hon. friend imply that conditions in Europe are better than they are in Canada?


Edward Joseph Garland: Not at all;
I will come to that in a moment. In Australia the agriculturist can obtain loans at 5 per cent, in South Africa at 6 per cent and in New Zealand at 5 per cent. In New Zealand there is a system that allows the farmer to get a loan for 36i years at 5 per cent, and in the United States the maximum rate on farm loans under some of their new systems is 6 per cent, although the rate of interest may be lower. In the United States there was also established a method of equalizing the rate of interest East and West, and I submit that something of that kind should be introduced in this country. I do not wish to quote at any considerable length, but some of the matters discussed in the report of Dr. Tory are of such vital importance to this country that the government, I think, should be considering them at this time. Dr. Tory states that the present system of short mortgage loans makes it difficult, by reason of high cost of equipment and the increasing value of land,-indeed makes it impossible-to redeem mortgages out of farm production, and further that the establishment of a long term amortisation plan for mortgages at a fixed low maximum rate of interest would materially strengthen the position of farmers in competition with Europe. In my opinion, whatever system is set up, it should have as one of its objects the placing ultimately of its administration in the hands of the borrowers and not in the hands of joint stock banks or private mortgage companies which are governed by considerations of profit rather than of service. Some organization for co-ordinating the credit of the farmer is required. It would make it liquid and more readily acceptable to those who have money to lend. And when we realize that 2 per cent
under amortization will amortize a farm mortgage in twenty years it must De apparent that the reduction of 2 per cent would be equivalent in thirty-five years to the total capital mortgage debt. The estimated mortgage indebtedness of the farms of Alberta is 8100,000,000 and a reduction of 2 per cent on that amount would represent a saving to the farmers of that province of at least $2,000,000 annually, which would be infinitely more than the budget reductions represent. I therefore urge on the government again the necessity for setting up, without delay, a long-term mortgage system for the purpose largely of funding the present indebtedness of the farmer and extending payments at a low maximum rate of interest, such a rate, as would permit the Canadian agriculturist to enter into fair competition with the farmers of European countries. I trust that action will not be delayed another year. We have had two years of investigation already, one inquiry having been held before the special committee on Agricultural Conditions last year, in which a very exhaustive examination was made of conditions generally. In addition to that we had the commission of Dr. Tory in the winter. Again, if further information is required, the government can secure it from the reports of the American commission that toured Europe; the evidence obtained by that commission is among the records in the Library and it relates to the credit systems of the world. No further delay in my opinion should be permitted, and indeed no excuse can be found for such delay.
Hon. members to my right, and occasionally some hon. gentlemen opposite, urge that the country should be self-contained, manufacturing all that is needed within its boundaries. I have often puzzled over this and have wondered what those gentlemen meant. Do they mean the exclusion of the goods of other countries? I have listened to their arguments but have never received any logical explanation. The last voice I heard proclaiming this doctrine was that of the delightful member, whom it is always a pleasure to hear, the representative of the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). He said:
I claim that we should be a self-contained nation, manufacturing what we want instead of being dependent upon other countries for our needs.
It was, I confess, somewhat of a shock to me at the moment to hear such a doctrine propounded from the ranks of those who are supposed to be a tariff for revenue party. But let us examine the statement in order to ascertain whether the doctrine is possible even if it were good. There was a time in primi-

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
tive society when the economic issues were comparatively simple, when the producers were the farmers and the hunters. They produced or secured in some way what was required and they consumed it themselves. Later on came the leather maker, the tool maker and the weapon maker, and trading commenced. Even then, though the farmer of the valley traded with the herdsman on the hills and the weapon maker in the village, they lived' practically isolated, neither caring nor concerned about conditions elsewhere in the world or how other people lived. Such isolation is no longer possible. The economic life even of the individual has swept out into ever-widening circles, beyond the valley, beyond the hills, beyond the oceans and1 beyond the continents, until to-day each individual life encircles economically the whole world. The industrial revolution with its labour-saving, space destroying, and immensely productive inventions brought about and cemented this condition. It brought to us the steamboat of 1807, the locomotive, the power press, the making of paper from wood, it brought the telegraph, the transatlantic cable, the wireless, the telephone, the radiophone. Thus we have to-day that condition which brings every individual in this world in as close touch with his fellow-men as were the people of neighbouring villages in past centuries.
Now, the effect of this industrialism and of these labour-saving inventions is to create an interdependence of nations, chiefly because nature has not located the raw materials necessary for an industrialized nation in equal quantities throughout the earth not as she has distributed sunshine and air. For example every nation under our present industrial system requires coal, iron, copper, oil and certainly wheat lands and meats. They are localized in their distribution. How localized they are perhaps the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and other hon. members to my right have scarcely appreciated. We find for example, that Great Britain, in 1913, in 1921, m 1922, did not, and still does not produce petroleum; Germany produced 850,000 barrels in 1913, 274,000 in 1921, and 200,000 in 1922; France produced none for 1913, but did produce 392,000 barrels in 1921 and 494,000 in 1922; Russia produced 62,834,000 barrels in 1913, 29,150,000 in 1921, and 35,091,000 in 1922; Belgium did not produce any, neither did Spain; the United States, on the other hand, produced 248,446,000 barrels in 1913, 472,183,000 in 1921, and 551,197,000 in 1922; Canada produced 228,000 barrels in 1913, 190,000 in
1921,	and 179,000 in 1922. But Canada imported in 1922 no less than 513,217,000 gallons of petroleum and petroleum products, and in
1922,	479,868,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to hon. gentlemen that no nation can survive in competition with other nations without at least crude petroleum. Yet we notice that it is scattered in such unequal quantities that trading is essential to secure it to all. In 1922 the United States produced five-eighths of the total of the world's petroleum output.
I have also the figures for iron ore production in metric tons for the same nations, also for coal and copper. I do not desire to delay the House or to weary members by quoting these figures in detail, so with the permission of the House I will hand them to Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: The table
is as follows:
	Iron Ore, Metric Tqns		
1913	1920	1921Britain	16,263,950 28,607,900 21,918,000 Pig iron 3,801,273	12,912,065 6,361,600	3,533,950Germany	France	Russia	171,500 17,260 4,767,693 67,604,465 8,060	131,300Belgium	Spain	9,861,668 20% of world supply. 196,558	United States	29,282,690 960Canada	

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
	Coal, Metric Tons			Copper, Metric Tons		
1913	1920	1921	1913	1920	1921Britain	
Germany	
France	
Russia	
Belgium	292,047,544 277.000.	000 40.700.000 32.206.000 22,841,590 3,900,000 570.000.	000 13,622,070	233,000,000 25,303,228 8.138.000 22,388,770 5.500.000 653,089,094 15,088,000	165,800,000 28,700,000 8,400,000 21,750,410	2,108 886,000 521 34,000	82 576,200 373 3,750	138 119 4,6702,268,691	United States	506,395,401 13,660,162	Canada	34,926	37,014	21,600
These figures are all to be found in "Mining Industry" Yol. 31, Edition 1922.
It may interest hon. members to know that the greatest copper ore deposits are the Chu-quicamata deposits in Chile. Now, I could put the information in another way. In 1913 the United States produced 36 per cent and consumed 37 per cent of the world's iron ore; Germany produced 20 per cent and consumed 27 per cent; Britain produced 9 per cent and consumed 14 per cent; France produced 12 per cent and consumed 7 per cent; Russia produced 5 per cent and consumed1 5 per cent; Belgium produced none, and consumed 4 per cent; Spain produced 6 per cent and consumed 1 per cent. Only in France and Spain did production exceed consumption, and four of the other nations had "to depend on other countries. Belgium in spite of her great industrial development imports all her iron ore. We find the same condition of affairs in regard to coal.
Millions of Tons Produced Consumed
United States		.... 517	495
Britain			217
Germany			167
France			60
Italy			10
Austria-Hungary		.. .. 17	30
Canada to-day is dependent on other nations for coal. France, Italy, Austria-Hungary-since divided-are all dependent on outside coal supplies, especially Italy. Italy produced one million tons and consumed ten million. Modern manufacturing and transportation depends on these minerals and the fuels I have mentioned. Nations must and will depend therefor upon each other. The principal deposits of iron ore, copper and petroleum happen to be in the western hemisphere. And the world requires them. On the other hand, we require the products of the rest of the world, and must get them. Therefore trading is only natural. The United States has the largest iron supply in the world, France the second, Newfoundland the third, Cuba the fourth and Brazil the fifth. The
world's interdependence is again reflected in the growth of world trade. World trade, in spite of trade barriers, increased from $4,049,000,000 in 1850 to no less than $75,311,000,000 in 1919. But the next year, the last for which I have the figures, shows a falling off of no less than $13,893,000,000. That I think is a fair reflex of the unsettled industrial condition of the world at the moment.
May I suggest to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that Great Britain relies largely for her wheat supply on the United States, Argentine, Australia and Canada? But strange to say she buys twice as much from the United States as she does from any other country except Canada. Belgium relies on the Argentine and the United States for the grc a ter part of her wheat supplies. France relies almost entirely on Australia, the United States and the Argentine. It may be interesting to know that out of a total importation of 24,692,000 bushels of wheat France
6 a.m. imported only 2,850,000 from Canada. Italy relies on the Argentine and the United States. Germany also relies on those sources of supply. In the case of Germany, out of 51,000,000 bushels imported in 1922, 26,000,000 bushels came from the United States. I hope I have dispelled from the mind of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George the extraordinary idea that to-day any industrialized portion of the civilized globe can be self-supporting and independent. At the same time I trust I have shown that the interdependence of each nation is so vital that the absurdity of making trade difficult must be clear.
The blocking of trade by artificial barriers is absurd, but the evil effects of this practice have been only too well demonstrated by the never-ending state of war in which the world has found itself. Think of the tens of millions of people who are at this moment co-operating throughout the entire world in the production of the necessities of life and in their transportation, or the attempt to distribute them, and think on the other hand of the effort that is being made by privi-
2218	COMMONS
The. Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
leged interests in every nation to block and check the transporting of supplies between nations. Each great nation in the world must provide itself with the essential raw materials, and so we find that each nation is busy securing, either by aggression or by financial invasion-it is called "investment," but is as far-reaching an evil in its influence as any invasion by force could be-the largest possible resources of raw material, and each of these nations in turn is then using trade barriers to prevent other nations securing their requirements on equitable terms-all except free trade Britain. I have no hesitation, then, in stating that one of the great world problems is the competitive struggle between national groups for trade, for markets, for resources, and with this problem of course, goes its partner, the excessive concentration of world wealth in a few centres and in the hands of a few individuals. Real peace is impossible under these circumstances. But preparation for war by increasing armaments is the negation of intelligence. This problem must be solved. The war has shown that war means world-war. It also has shown to those who think, that peace must be world peace and that prosperity will be world prosperity. We suffer here because Europe suffers, and to-day we must recognize that it is impossible to destroy the economic well-being of an integral part of the world without destroying the general prosperity of the whole world. In the Manchester Guardian some time ago I read words which I would like to read to the House in this connection, the words of Sir Charles W. Macara, chairman and managing director of Henry Bannerman & Sons Limited, chairman of the Cotton Employers' Association, and a man holding many other important positions in Great Britain:
It is impossible for any country to expect to win economic success at the expense of or in total indifference to the success of others	the good of
one country -is bound up with the good of another, and it is only by studying what will be mutually advantageous that we shall find the key to our good fortune. The whole world is interdependent, and you cannot injure one member [DOT] of the international body without injuring all the rest.
And here, let me remind the House of the thought of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), a man whom we always delight to hear, a man for whom I have a great personal regard, but who slipped from his usually high plane, and in the spirit of the king of old, who challenged God to a duel, rejected as will-o-the-wisps the ideals of free trade and peace, linking those who sought them with the seekers of perpetual motion and consigning them all to insanity. If it be sanity to call free trade and peace will-o-the-
	*
wisps and madness, if in seeking them we must wander from protection and war, then may our feet earnestly seek the path of that which is free and the " madness " of peace rather than the " sanity " of war.
It is of little use to argue disarmament. There is little value in holding peace parleys so far as actual results are concerned, but I agree that they have a great force as an educational factor, and I would encourage the holding of them as often and for as long a time as possible. Let them sit all the time; I would agree to them doing that. But the great hope is not in the holding of these peace parleys or in these arrangements for mock disarmaments. The great hope is in the ever-increasing number of young men and women who to-day are looking forward, hungry for the realization of those ideals that were portrayed so eloquently by Woodrow Wilson. To use his words: "Instead of exclusive combinations I want to see universal cooperation, " America "[DOT]-let me substitute the word "Canada" for that; let us have America too-" Canada shall stand for the just conception and basis of peace, for the completion of merit and the generous rivalry of liberty." Again he says: " The essential principle of peace is the actual equality of nations in matters of rights and privileges."
I urge therefore- that Canada do herself the enduring honour of taking a lead in international affairs now. . Let her send out a call to all the nations of the world to come and hold an international trade conference having for its object the mutual elimination so far as may be possible of international trade barriers. I admit that we cannot hope to wipe out the effects of the dense stupidity of past centuries in a breath. It may take time; it will take patient courage; it will take great idealism; it will take a clear far-seeing vision to bring this to pass. And so, by all means, while striving for peace, while striving for this great ideal of international free trade, let us prepare for that war of which everyone is at the moment speaking. Let us prepare for it in the most effective, the most comprehensive manner, by the enactment of legislation for the conscription of wealth and industry as well as of manpower. Take the profit out of war-all the profit- and there will be less eagerness for it; there will be less talk about it; there will gradually come a clear realization that the true law of nature is co-operation, not war.
It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that the great bulk of our national debt and the debts of the entire world to-day, the overwhelming debt running into hundreds of billions of dollars, is the re-

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
suit of war and continuous war, and yet are we so deadly stupid as to keep on fostering them, building them up, preparing for the next, and never making an honest attempt to wipe wars out? Our national debt at this moment -I am dealing only with Canada, a small country of nine millions of people-is given as $2,888,827,237. And when people talk of that they think they have spoken of all the debt. The man in the street, the woman in the house, the farmer on the farm, think that is our whole national debt, the debt we owe largely as a result of the war; but it is only a fraction of it. There is the debt that has been accumulating in the provinces through the war years, and due largely directly or indirectly to war condition. There is the debt of the municipalities. I have here the figures for 1922, showing a debt for the provinces of $629,705,771 and for the municipalities of $794,941,476, or a grand total of debt, excluding individual debts, traders' debts, and debts between wholesaler and retailer, store and individual of $4,313,474,484, or more than $500 per head of population, or a sum of $2,500 per family of five.
And during the six fiscal years of the war what were the conditions? I have a statement from the Bureau of Statistics which shows that during those years-1914-15 to 1919-20 inclusive-the total revenue receipts of the Dominion were $1,461,396,304, and the total disbursements were $3,145,576,179. The total collected from special war taxes in the same period was only $183,658,287, but this was swallowed up in interest on war debt and in pensions. The total disbursements on capital account for war and demobilization purposes duting the same period was $1,670,406,242. This sum is exclusive of interest on war debt, current payments for war pensions, and so on. We should have paid our war debt out of the tremendous war profits as_ the war was fought. As it is, not only is industry in our own country -staggering but industry throughout the entitre world is in the same desperate state, and most nations engaged in the war are insolvent. Another general conflict would most certainly ruin modern civilization. The Toronto Star in a recent article expressed the following opinion:
The world is realizing that war and civilization cannot tolerate one another much longer. One or the other must go.
The soldier went over and got $1.10 a day, and the danger, but the farmer and the workman who stayed at home fared fairly well. The manufacturer and the capitalist who operated or owned a factory made fortunes. I am in favour of legislation providing that not only shall the young of our country be
conscripted, but that labour and capital be drafted as well. When the nation is at war let no one profit by the nation's peril. No one should be permitted to gain more than a soldier in war time. Action in this should not be left for the hurried frenzy of emergency but should be taken now in the bitter realization of the effects of war. Let us whilst we still stand amidst the ghastly ruins of nations and of industry, whilst we have the cold facts of wrecked bodies and minds, the result of the insanity of war still around us, plan out methods of eliminating as far as possible the recurrence of this scourge. Let us leave it not to the younger generations which, being taught now the glories of war, will hear but the beating drums and the call to arms. Let our bitter experience be our guide whilst it is still strongly present. Canada sent overseas between 400,000 and 500,000 men. Sixty-three thousand of them are dead in France, one hundred and fifty thousand of them are wounded, and we had an amputation display in Ottawa not long ago that ought to thrill men's hearts to a realization of what war means. In the United States five million men went into uniform for the war. Between sixty thousand and seventy-seven thousand lie buried in France, and two hundred thousand were wounded. And yet, according to an article by Mr. Marquis James, 6,664 American citizens became war millionaires, and more than ten thousand American citizens amassed fortunes from profiteering in war necessities. Doubtless we have like examples in this country. Mr. James further states that out of 27,000 contracts totalling 6 billion dollars there was not one single cancellation clause. In this country the evil system of " cost plus " contracts added enormously to our debts. Let us, Mr. Speaker, have equal rights for all. If man be conscripted then on exactly equal terms let industry and finance bear its share. Let there be equal service for all, and special profits for none.
At present in the United States Congress, amongst the people, and indeed all over the world there is a movement in this direction. Let Canada give her impetus to the movement. May I quote here the draft of a resolution which is only one of several attempts that are now being made in the United States to achieve this purpose. It is the draft of a resolution introduced in the United States Congress by Royal C. Johnson, ranking veteran of the United States Congress. It reads:
That in the event of a declaration of war by the United States against any foreign government or other common enemy, the Congress shall provide for the conscription of every citizen and all money, industries and property of whatever nature necessary to
The Budget-Miss Macphail

the prosecution thereof, and shall limit the profits for the use of such moneys, industries and properties.
The whole case for the universal draft as we may call it is well summed up by Colonel Wainwright, who retired as Assistant Secretary of War of the United States in order to take his seat in congress. He has this to say, and I recommend his words to the jingoes and militarists in this country.
Wealth should be controlled and called into service as well as man-power. I am convinced that a way must and can be found to approach that ideal where, if we cannot avoid war, we can accept the whole-hearted support of the great majority and compel a few industrial bandits to abandon hope of gain while the struggle is on. Those who labour in factory and field to produce the things essential to the nation in war must be convinced that no inordinate profits shall result from their labour. They must find also that as the war progresses those who sell food, sheFar and clothing do not profiteer.
Let us act, then, Mr. Speaker, before we:
-have forgotten ancient martial musics,
That summoned youth to blunted, faceless years, Galloping drums, proud horns, and sounding bugles
Drowning the guns, trenoh-smells, before-dawn fears; -
Before we:
-have forgotten in this tree-filled valley,
Loud with the rush of wind like surf on shore,
How it grows fat, feeding on our oblivion:
The dumb and hungry cancer men call war.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, I put human values too high to impose on this weary house the thirty-five minute speech which I had carefully prepared, and I trust that when numbers of women come to take their seats in this chamber such nights as this will be unknown. I want simply to make my position clear on the vote that is about to be taken. It is not for the Liberal party, or for the Liberal government, or the present budget, that I am thankful, but for the independent political thinking and voting of such sections of Canadian people as are reflected by the new groups of this House, groups whose presence here and actions since coming, account for the departure by the Liberal party from a fiscal policy essentially one of protection. I am convinced that more aggressive action by us would have brought a budget more nearly approaching that called for by the Woodsworth amendment. I will support the Woodsworth amendment because I believe in the principles laid down in it, because it is part of the platform on which I was elected, and because it is part of the memorandum, at present in my hand, that was drafted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and presented to the government no later than April 2, eight days before the budget came down. It is the goal to which we are working, and 
working the government ahead of us as we go. I welcome once more the presentation of this amendment, substantially the same as that presented last year, to the government for their careful consideration. I am not going to depart from the supporting of principles which I Relieve on technical grounds.


Donald Sutherland: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WILSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Mewbum). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.
The House went into committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Arthur Meighen: Before asking what
business is to be taken up at the next sitting, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be expedient as well as convenient-to meet at eight o'clock to-day instead of at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, but I should think we might get

along more quickly with the work if we met in the afternoon, took up estimates, and proceeded with some of the branch line bills in the evening. I imagine those who would be primarily interested in the Department df Agriculture estimates might be willing to be here this afternoon. I think we should be making as much progress as possible with the business.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that those who are interested in agriculture have any more enduring power than the rest of us. I do not know what advantage there is in meeting at three o'clock to-day.


Mr. BELAND:: Make it four o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: I am only one member of the House, and I do not pretend to be speaking for any great number, but I am sure it is the general will of hon. members that we should not meet till eight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might meet at four o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: There would have to be a motion to meet at four before the motion to adjourn. I suppose we will follow the order of business suggested by the Prime Minister,-estimates in the afternoon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And branch lines tonight?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I move, Mr. Speaker that the House meet to-day at four o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 7.35 a.m. (Friday)
Friday, May 16, 1924