1925-04-08

VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-ELEVATORS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	In reference to Vancouver Harbour Commission elevator No. 2, what was the cost of the elevator complete, including all facilities and equipment necessary for the receiving, cleaning, storing and shipping of grain?
2.	How were equipment and supplies for construction of No. 2 elevator purchased?
3.	Were tenders called for all equipment?
4.	What was the cost of the dust collecting system, No. 2 elevator?
5.	What was the cost of the sheet metal work on No. 2 elevator?
6.	What was the cost of the track receiving shed complete on No. 2 elevator?
7.	What is the maximum electrical power required to operate No. 2 elevator?
8.	What power is represented by motors now installed in No. 2 elevator, including track shed, conveyor galleries, etc?
9.	When did No. 2 elevator commence operations?
10.	How much grain has No. 2 elevator handled to February 28, 1925, inward?
11.	What was the amount of payroll of No. 2 elevator from August 31, 1924, to February 28, 1925, including also: (a) Interest on investment; (b) Sinking fund; (c) Amount chargeable to No. 2 for superintendency, and all overhead ?
12.	How much grain has No. 2 elevator shipped during its operation until February 28, 1925?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	To last engineer's certificate:
Foundations	
201,991	00Superstructure	
1,252,477	74Car unloading	
231,290	48Total	
1.685,759	22Ball pier galleries	
568,418	71Substation	
163,542	06Total	
731,960	772.	By tender.3.	Yes.4.	116,305.00, last engineer's certificate.5.	$79,942.52, last engineer's certificate.6.	$231,290.48, last engineer's certificate.7.	1,935 H.P.
Questions
8.	2,950 H.P.
9.	November 22, 1924.
10.	3,982,117 bushels.
11.	$29,134.03; (a) $7,900.00 to operation;
(b) $6,780.00 to operation; (c) $23,715.29.
12.	2,309,152 bushels.


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	When was the Vancouver Harbour Commission elevator No. 3 to be completed in accordance with terms of the agreement with the British Oriental Grain Company ?
2.	Has the said elevator been completed and turned over for operation, if so, when?
3.	What engineer drew the plans and designed the extension of harbour commission elevator No. 3, and on whose authority and instructions did he act?
4.	Did any practical elevator superintendent, or operator pass on the plans, design and layout of No. 3 elevator annex and extensions, if so, who?
5.	Was the said extensions, including jetty let by contract, and was the said work constructed under one contract or divided?
6.	How many tenders were received and what was the amount of the lowest tender?
7.	What was the estimated engineers cost of No. 3 elevator complete?
8.	What has the said work cost to date, and what amount still remains unpaid?
9.	What will be the total capacity of said elevator when completed?
10.	If the said elevator is to be leased or rented to the British Oriental Grain Company, what is the rental of same to be?
11.	Will the said lessee pay cargo rates for grain loaded out over No. 3 elevator galleries?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	December 31, 1924.
2.	Workhouse:	Yes-March 31,	1924.
Storage house and jetty: No.
3.	Messrs. Barnett McQueen Construction Co. Ltd. by authority of and on instructions from Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
4.	Yes, Colin McLean, superintendent, of elevators for Vancouver Harbour Commissioners at time plans were prepared.
5.	Elevator extensions, jetty and dredging were let by separate contracts.
6.	Por jetty, four tenders were received, amount of lowest tender being $48,753.55 based on unit prices for material in place of estimated quantities furnished by chief engineer for jetty as originally designed. For elevator extension, seven tenders received, lowest being $160,000, for construction of storage house, dryer house and completion of shipping gallery.
7.	Workhouse, storage house and dryer, which constitutes the elevator proper, $531,500. To include land purchase, jetty and conveyor gallery add $292,912.
8.	Total cost including land purchase up to February 28th, 1925, $630,156.94. Estimated amount required to finally complete elevator and jetty $194,255.06.
9.	Workhouse	 125,000 bushels
Storage house	 500,000 bushels
Total	 625,000 bushels
10.	The agreement provides that the lessee covenants that it will pay to the lessor as annual rental for the lands and premises an amount which ^hall be equal to the interest paid on the bonds issued by the lessor, the proceeds of Which -have been used in the acquiring of the said -property and making improvements thereon as herein provided for, together with an additional amount to be paid into a sinking fund which paid in equal annual instalments will retire the said bonds within a -period of twenty-one years, together with an additional annual amount of one per centum on the amount of -the said bonds as a supervision charge. It being provided, however, that in no event shall the total charges as aforesaid be greater than nine per centum per annum on the amount of the said bonds, the proceeds of which have been used as aforesaid, dhe lessee in addition thereto covenants and agrees -to pay all registration and solicitor's charges in connection with acquiring title to the -said land and registration charges, solicitor's charges and trustee's charges in connection with the said bond issue. For the purpose of ensuring that the lessee will create a revenue of not less than twelve thousand dollars per annum over the said shipping facilities to be provided by the lessor as hereinbefore set out, the said amount of twelve thousand dollars has been included in the said annual rental herein provided- to be paid by the lessee, it being understood and agreed between the parties hereto, however, that as against the said rental so to be paid, the lessee shall be credited with all amounts paid to the lessor by the lessee by wa5' of cargo or other harbour rates up to but not exceeding an amount of twelve thousand dollars, per annum.
11.	The agreement provides that the lessee covenants with the lessor that it will pay or cause to be -paid all harbour rates and- dues and tolls and all switching charges properly payable by it, it being understood and agreed that the switching of cars, on, to, or from the premises hereby demised, to be under the control of the lessor. For the purpose of ensuring that the lessee will create a revenue of not less than twelve thousand dollars per annum over the said shipping -facilities to be -provided by the lessor as hereinbefore set out, the said amount of twelve thousand dollars has been included in the said annual rental herein provided to be -paid by the lessee, it being understood and agreed between the parties hereto, however, that as against the said rental so to
Questions

be paid, the lessee shall be -credited with all amounts paid to the lessor by the lessee by way of cargo or other harbour rates up to but not exceeding an amount of twelve thousand dollars per annum.


Mr. COOTE:: 1. What was the number of bushels of grain handled by the grain elevator belonging to the Vancouver Harbour Commission at Vancouver for the year ending July 31, 1924?
2.	What was the handling charge per bushel?
3.	What were the total receipts from handling charges of (a) Grain; (b) Other sources?
4. What was the number of employees at the elevator ?
5.	What was the total wage paid to said employees?
6.	What other expenses, if any, were incurred in connection with the operation of this elevator?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Total amount of grain shipped out 53,-
096,150 bushels.
2.	Operating cost per budhel .941c.
3.	Operating revenue:
Elevation	$533,646	32Cleaning	
116,568	87Drying	
462	00Sacking	
56,934	62Storage	
78,187	45Sundry revenue	
4,387	39

4.	151.
5.	Superintendence	$ 9.599 75Office salaries	
15,246	09Maintenance labour	
31,917	28Operating labour	
164,283	26

6.	Power	$ 24,515 18Operating miscellaneous expenses	
14.666	04Maintenance supplies	
21,125	22Improvements	
50,033	04Office supplies, expenses, etc.	22,428	05Registration fees	
2,215	16Interest and exchange..	..	12	98Insurance	
17,027	29
Water front charge on grain
handled	 71,284	11
Proportion miscellaneous expenses chargeable to elevator 55.544 00



$499,897 45 VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-EMPLOYEES

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What number of employees of all ranks were in the service of the Vancouver Harbour Commission on December 31, 1921-22-23 - 24?
2.	What was the total amount paid in salaries for services of all classes by the Vancouver Harbour-Commissioners for calendar years 1921-22-23-24?

3.	What was the total deep-sea tonnage inwards and outwards in the years 1921-22-23-24?
4.	What was the total revenue of the harbour commissioners during the calendar years 1921-22-23-24?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	1921, 38; 1922, 46; 1923, 347; 1924, 511.
2. 1921, $83,174.19; 1922, $90,690.31; 1923, $205,354.27; 1924, $687,093.80.
3. 1921, $1,237,687; 1922, $1,915,194; 1923, $2,631,888; 1924, $3,679,324.
4.	1921, $340,937.88; 1922, $425,076.48; 1923, $725,880.30; 1924, $1,870,521.00.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR-NO. 1 JETTY

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to the jetty at No. 1 Vancouver Harbour Commission elevator, has the superstructure of said jetty been completed?
2.	Has the government received any intimation that this superstructure is improperly designed and constructed ?
3.	What is the total cost of (a) said No. 1 jetty, (b) superstructure, (c) equipment?
4.	Who is the designing engineer and what was the engineer's estimate of the cost?
5.	Was it constructed by contract?
6.	If so, what was the amount of lowest tender
and to whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Substructure to last engineer's
certificate	$448,558	86Superstructure to last engineer's certificate	
172,949	724.	W. G. Swan, substructure. ..	462,059	18
John S. Metcalf Co., Ltd.,
superstructure and equipment	 254,377	00
5.	Yes.
6.	Contract awarded Pacific Construction Co., Ltd., at unit prices for substructure. Contract awarded Northern Construction Co., Ltd. and J. W. Stewart for superstructure, $236,149.30. Contract awarded Northwestern Dredging Co., Ltd., for dredging at unit prices.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Does the government have an inspector on all works being constructed by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners out o? appropriation advanced by the Dominion government ?
2.	Who was the inspector on (a) No. 1 elevator extension, (b) No. 1 elevator jetty and superstructure, (c) No. 2 elevator, (d) No. 3 elevator extensions and jetty?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.

Questions



STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES

Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	What subsidies are being paid to steamship lines plying between South Africa and Canada, (a) as to Atlantic Ports, (b) as to Pacific ports?
2.	What is the tonnage and value of cargoes carried between the said ports, by ships benefiting by such subsidies ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	(a) During the fiscal year 1924-25, which has just closed, a subsidy of $125,000 was paid
for the Canada-South Africa sendee. This will be reduced to $100,000 for 1925-26. This subsidy includes calls at West Africa as well as South Africa. The service is an outward one only, from Canada to South Africa; (b) Nil.
2.	During the last four calendar years, the origin, quantity, and value of cargoes carried by the subsidized line were as follows:-
Canadian Origin	United States Origin	Total	Tons	Tons	Tons	Calendar	Tons	Measure-	Tons	Measure-	Tons	Measure-	Year	Weight	ment	Value	Weight	ment	Value	Weight	ment	Value1921.. ..	.. 16.262	14,395	14,082.959	1,281	5,737	$ 677,720	18,243	20,132	$4,760,6791922.. ..	.. 22.217	22.777	4,108.142	989	4.239	499,811	23,206	27,016	4,557,9531923.. ..	.. 37,656	25,443	5,305,222	798	6,605	789,672	38,454	32,078	6.294,8941924.. ..	.. 40,157	19,114	6,511,160	1,958	15 #39	1,828,195	42,115	35,053	8.339,355



SALES TAX COLLECTIONS

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What was the total amount collected by the government by means of the sales tax during each year of its enforcement ?
Hon. Mr. CARDIN Customs):	(for the Minister
1920-21		.. $ 38.128,063 94
1921-22		.. 61,520.683 79
1922-23		.. 91,262,254 13
1923-24		.. 100,990.078 80
1924-25		.. 62.795.180 84



SALES TAX REBATES

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for the Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Export
1921-22		.. S 9.559.378 07
1922-23		.. 13,306,503 27
1923-24		.. 12 310,244 78
1924-25		.. 10,280,403 72
2.	Home
	Consumption
1921-22		.. $ 1,328,364 57
1922 23		.. 1.199,774 54
1923-24		.. 1,782.893 84
1924-25		.. 1,964 ,.508 84
CANADIAN NATIONAL	RAILWAYS-MILEAGE
By a return dated February 21, 1925 to an order of the House dated July 3, 1924, it is shown that as of date October 16, 1924, out of a total number of 4,486 claims for rebates of sales taxes, 1,907 claims had been checked and paid, leaving 2,563 claims outstanding. How many of these outstanding claims have been checked since the date given in the said return, and how much money has been paid thereon?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for the Minister of Customs) :: Two thousand two hundred and seventy-seven of the outstanding claims have been checked since the date of the return and sales tax deductions amounting to $3,164,281.98 have been allowed in respect of such claims.



CUSTOMS DUTIES-DRAWBACK

Mr. LUCAS:: 1.	What amounts have been paid to Canadian manufacturers by way of drawback of customs duty on articles purchased by manufacturers and wrought in Canada into goods to be exported from Canada, or by way of specific sums in lieu of such drawback during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925?
2.	What amounts have been paid to such manufacturers by way of such drawback or by way of specific sums paid in lieu thereof on articles purchased by manufacturers and wrought in Canada into goods to be consumed in Canada, during the said years ?


Mr. SENN:: 1. What is the total mileage operated under the Canadian National railway system?
2. What is the total mileage operated under the Canadian Pacific railway system?
3.	What is the total number of employees on the Canadian National railway system?
4.	What is the total number of employees on the Canadian Pacific railway system?
5.	What is the average number of employees per 100 miles on the Canadian National railway system?
6.	What is the average number of employees per 100 miles on the Canadian Pacific railway system?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (for the Minister of Railways) :: Average for year 1924 for Canadian Lines
1.	20,523 miles.
2.	13,784 miles.
3.	87,213 employees
4.	57,471 employees.
5.	425 employees.
6.	416 employees.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	When was the last construction work done on the Hudson Bay railway?
2.	Why was work continued on this railway during the war when other railway construction was withheld?
Questions

3.	Was there any correspondence between the British and Canadian governments regarding the construction of the Hudson Bay railway during the war?
4.	Was the British government interested in the completion of this railway?
5.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (for the Minister of Railways) :: 1.	Railway taken over from the contractor October 9, 1918.
2.	During the war years the following new mileage was placed in operation on Canadian railway lines:-
Year ended	Miles
June 30,	1915	
4,788June 30,	1916	
1,852June 30,	1917	1,170June 30,	1918	
2743.	There is no record of any such correspondence.4.	No information.5.	See answer to No. 4.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN VANCOUVER

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Having reference to the answers given on March 30, 1925, to questions concerning the government property situate on the southwest corner of Granville and Pender streets, Vancouver, known as the old post office property, from whom were such inquiries received ?
2.	Were any offers received for said property?
3.	If so, from whom, and what were the said offers?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Sharpies and Sharpies, real estate agents, Vancouver.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



WEMBLEY DELEGATION-PRESS REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What members of the Press Gallery were included in the delegation to the exhibition at Wembley, England, in 1924, at the expense of the Dominion government ?
2.	What was the expense to the Dominion government in each case ?
3.	What members of the Senate were included is this delegation?
4.	Were any other individuals except members of the House of Commons, the Senate, or the Press Gallery included in the delegation and whose expenses were paid by the Dominion government?
5.	What was the total cost of the delegation?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Thos. Fraser, J. A. Fortier.
2.	$899.94 each.
3.	None.

4.	Yes; two newspaper correspondents, one from British Columbia (Harry Hodges) and one from New Brunswick (C. C. Avard), the expenses of the former amounting to $900 and of the latter to $869.95.
5.	$7,769.83.



INCOME AND BUSINESS PROFITS TAXES REMISSIONS

Henry Lumley Drayton: What, if any, remissions or reductions of income taxes or excess business profit taxes have been made by order in council during the fiscal year last past?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Stand as an order for return.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This question is very short. I just want to point out to the government that I would have thought there was nothing there at all; I would expect nothing at all. I was hoping that would have been the answer, that nothing of the kind had been done. I never recollect it being done. We have had questions of the same kind before, and we have had them answered, as I recollect, without any trouble at all, but the minister wishes to make this an order for a return. There are, I admit, lots of cases of refunds of the sales tax and the like, but in this case, unless the government say there are a lot of them, I see no reason why the question should not be answered. If the government say there are a lot of them, it is a different matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I asked that this be made
an order for a return at the request of the officers of the department. Personally I am not aware of the conditions, but I am informed that it would mean a considerable amount of work to obtain the information asked for. I have no objection to letting the question stand.	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: It will stand as a question?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
Question stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HAMMELL:: For a copy of all papers, reports, writings, telegrams and other documents written by Dr. Peter McGibbon in the year 1921 to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, or to any of the officials of the then government mentioned in a letter dated, Bracebridge. October 6. 1921, and addressed to the Hon. J. H. Stewart, Minister of Railways, a copy of which was tabled some time ago; also a copy of all answers to such letters, telegrams, etc., forwarded to Dr. Peter McGibbon.

The Budget-Mr. Irvine



CRUDE PETROLEUM PRODUCTION INVESTIGATION

Mr. LESUEUR:: For a copy of instructions given to Dr. Hume and Mr. Russell in connection with their visit to the county of Lambton, and their investigations into the production of crude petroleum in that county, and of all letters or reports written or made by them or either of them thereon, and all correspondence relating thereto.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
* Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):	I should like
to ask the Minister of Labour whether in case of an outbreak of violence in Cape Breton followed by an application from the provincial government for armed forces, the federal government would consider they were under any obligation to make an inquiry?
Mr. SPEAKER:: I might remind the hon. gentleman that hypothetical questions are not allowed.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	I want to ask the government if in
the face of the continued and ever increasing distress in Cape Breton they intend to calmly sit here while really thousands of people remain hungry?


James Alexander Robb: The government have had no
further word from Cape Breton, and I can give my hon. friend no other answer than that given by the Prime Minister, that we shall await a report from the premier of that province.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: On the 19th of February an order of the House was passed for a return in connection with a question standing in my name. I should like to ask when I may expect that return. It related to the cost of acquiring land at Buffalo Park at Wainwright, and the total cost to date of Jasper and Buffalo parks.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil. Minister of the Interior):: I have not received the information from my department that my hon. friend has asked for, but I shall at once take up the matter with the officials and ask them to hasten the return.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 6, consideration of 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 Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment last night I was in the act of trying to balance the budget, a new kind of budget, a budget which shows a huge expenditure of promises, offset by a meagre income by way of fulfilment. During my attempt at balancing this budget I was interrupted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), while quoting a plank in the platform of the Liberal party made at the last election as an appeal to labour. The interruption was caused by my quoting clause 7 in the first half of the platform, which says:
7.	The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
The Minister of Labour said:
Does my hon. friend not know that neither this government nor the preceding government has had any authority in fixing the wages of civil servants, that authority being entrusted under a specific law to a commission which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter?
Now I understand that while the government may not have full authority as the Minister of Labour suggests, it must oi necessity, according to the act referred to, give its approval to any proposal which the commission might make. If there are women civil servants who are not receiving the same salary as men in the civil service, has the government had any communication whatsoever with the commission in regard to that? Has the government made any effort at all to remove any such discrimination, if such discrimination exists?
I have one more suggestion to make in this regard: Supposing that what the Minister of Labour says is correct-namely, that the government has no authority to deal with the salaries of civil servants because of a certain act^-has not the government full power to change that act? Why not bring in an amendment now to this particular act limiting, if necessary, the power of the Civil Service Commission, or giving the government such power as the Minister of Labour thinks it ought to have?
I referred last night to the different accounts given by the various members of the cabinet at different times in this parliament as to the condition of the health of the nation. I showed that the government presented a picture which was suitable to the aims which it sought to gain for the moment. I would say that the government has applied the same
The Budget-Mr. Irvine

kind of reasoning to the balancing of its budget. As a matter of fact it has over-balanced the budget. It has balanced a certain expenditure over against a problematical income. It has ignored huge liabilities of the government in the case of the National railways merely in order that it may be able to make a pretence of balancing its budget. Now in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are some hon. gentlemen to follow me who would like to complete their speeches and get away for the Easter holidays I am not going to go into the details of the budget as I had prepared to do. As a matter of fact it is really unnecessary for me to do it, because other hon. members already have done so, and I have no doubt that many who will follow me will also deal with the budget in detail.
There are two main questions with respect to the budget that I want to comment on. I think that I may divide the main features of this budget into two questions. First, how can expenditure be reduced; is there any possible way by which we can further economize? The next question is; how is the revenue required to be raised? These are really the sum and substance of the budget. With regard to the first question-how can we economize?-while the government has protested time and time again its anxiety to economize, it has not told the people very frankly that the major portion of the public expenditures is really composed of fixed charges and that the largest item of the fixed charges is interest and that it cannot be reduced; no amount of economy by this or any other government can reduce that charge. The only way that that charge can be effectively altered would be to make some alteration not in the fiscal policy in so far as it applies to the tariff, but to make some such fundamental change as the control of public credit and finance.
How is the revenue to be raised is the next question? This brings us to the most contentious of all questions that arise in discussion of a budget, and that is the question of tariffs. At the present time we raise our revenue by tariffs, income tax and sales tax chiefly. Here I would just stop for a moment to protest against the Whole system of taxation that is applied in Canada at the present time. It is a duplication, it is unjust, it is expensive. Let me say further that I do not believe that there is any system of taxation which will ever solve the basic economic problems. The tariff is first of all as it is applied in Canada a means of collecting revenue. Secondly it might possibly be utilized as a protective agency to protect our industries; but I do not

see how we can effectively do both at the same time. For if we had a tariff that was sufficiently high to protect our industries it appears to me that it would not be a very good revenue producer. If, on the other hand, we have a tariff that is good at producing revenue I fail to see how it can be a protection to industry. I have just said that I do not regard the question of tariffs as being fundamental, in fact I do not think that any fiscal policy is fundamentally 'an economic question. I readily admit that any fiscal policy will have an effect upon the industrial life of the country. It will have an effect like the weather would have on one of the Petersen ships coming across the Atlantic say; if it blows hard it will retard the ship somewhat but it will likely get across; if it is a fair wind it can help her to make a more speedy passage. And so with the ship of state; the fiscal policy may retard a little or may increase the speed, but the fiscal policy is not a fundamental driving force. The tariff is the most contentious question however. It is in Canada of major importance in politics; it is universally, I think, of minor importance in economics. We have found that in Canada no party really stands for the abolition of a tariff. It is used by all parties largely as a means of producing revenue; and as I have just pointed out if the Conservative party were to carry its principles to their logical conclusion, as I understand it, we would have a protective tariff so high that it would not yield any revenue. If, on the other hand, the Liberal party were to take its own programme seriously and carry it into effect we would have free trade ultimately and consequently could not look to a tariff for any revenue. I am not charging the Liberal party, of course, with any free trade inclinations; but if ever it did have them, it has not furnished the country with any substitute proposal for collecting revenue. It seems to me that that is just one of the chief weaknesses of the Liberal party; it claims that it wishes to make towards free trade, but finding that it has no other means of collecting a revenue it just keeps on with the same old tariff in order to be able to balance the budget at the end of the year. It appears to me that the tariff as it is fixed now is possibly at the best level for producing revenue. If we had a Conservative government it would not raise the tariff very much higher providing that it aimed to use the tariff as a revenue producer. The present Liberal government, that has professed to revise the tariff downwards, will not revise it downwards very much more because if this were done the income would be depleted. And so we have a tariff fixed, as it appears to me, at that point

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
where it can produce the greatest amount of revenue. That is my view of the question.
We have therefore the worst evils of both systems in force in Canada at the present time. That is to say we have the worst evils that could come from partial free trade, the worst evils that could come from partial protection, and we have not obtained the inherent virtues of either of the philosophies that underlie this practice. Let me be a little more plain in what I mean by saying we have the worst evils of the two systems. As I have pointed out the tariff is not low enough to cheapen goods. That has been the claim of the Liberal party-that it wanted to reduce the tariff in order to reduce the price of goods to the consumer. But the tariff is not low enough to do that; on the other hand it is not high enough to be a protection to our industries. Everyone will agree that, in so far as it is a collector of revenue, it is a most expensive system. It has been estimated that by this method of collecting revenue three or more dollars go into somebody else's pocket for every one that goes into the treasury. It is not only a very expensive way of raising money, but it appears to me to be a very unjust way, and I think the agricultural industry more than any other bears the burden of the present system of tariff taxation. Next to the farming industry comes the average man or woman, the consumer, who may not be engaged, perhaps, in a protected industry at all, but must pay an extra .price for all protected goods. So that taking the tariff as it is today, this tariff that has been described as a moderate tariff is the most pernicious kind of a fiscal policy that any country could have. I wish to make the assertion that in my opinion the country can accommodate itself ultimately to any fiscal policy, providing that fiscal policy is stable. I think that a statement similar in character to that which I have just made was made in the budget debate in the British House of Commons by the former Premier, Lloyd George, just a few days ago. If further proof that a country can survive any fiscal policy were required, I would refer hon. members to Germany and to the United States. These countries have managed to survive, notwithstanding the fact that they have high protection. Next I will take you on the other side to Great Britain, as furnishing, I believe, the best example of a free trade country, and even Great Britain has managed to survive under free trade. But if you want the main outstanding example of all, I would point to Canada. Canada has been able to survive the worst kind of fiscal policy, a fiscal policy which I say is neither one thing nor 126
another. It is neither hot nor cold. The fiscal policy which we have now has been described as moderate. I think I can recall the former leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) referring to the tariff as an immoral thing. Now we have a moderate tariff, but if it is an immoral thing, let us be done with it. If it is not an immoral thing, let us use it; but as it is now I say it is a most unjust thing and a most expensive .method of raising the revenue of the country. It does not protect the industries. It does protect the manufacturer; that is to say it gives him an opportunity of charging a higher price for his goods, but it does not protect the industries, because it is never high enough to make them secure from the competition of the other countries. So that that is the tariff which we have now.
My contention then, Mr. Speaker, is that we must have one thing or the other. I am prepared with those hon. members opposite, to have free trade, if they are so prepared. But I think if any proof were needed more than we have had in the past we have it this year that they are not quite prepared to give the free trader anything approximating free trade. They are not even thinking about it, and I am not going to play "pussy wants a comer" with any government. If they are sincere about it, I am willing to give it a trial, because I believe if there is any science in government it must be experimental. But Canada has never experimented with anything like free trade,, and seeing now that there is no opportunity of even having a chance to experiment with it, I turn away from it to try some other experiment. I am not going to fool with it at all. The tariff as we have it now reminds me of that fable which speaks of a donkey starving to death standing between two haystacks. But remember, Mr. Speaker, that was merely a fable. A donkey would have more sense than that. Here we are with our tariff policy; no one seems to want to make it any lower, but simply to keep it as it is, destructive and stupid. Still we stand there. That is the reason why I am turning from that policy.
That brings me to the question asked by two hon. members to my right last night. They asked, why did I last year vote for a policy making towards free trade, while on this occasion I have indicated my opposition to a budget that was somewhat similar? That is a fair question and I want to take a little time to answer it. I want to make quite dear the attitude that I have assumed, whether it be right or wrong, on the question of tariff. I have just stated that I personally and the labour people whom I represent do not look

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

upon the tariff as being of fundamental and economic importance. In this we may be mistaken, but that is the attitude we take. Therefore I had no tariff platform at the last election. I was elected on an entirely different platform. The very first and most important point in my election-in fact it was the only thing-was that I was elected as a representative of labour, and that I was to consult with them from time to time as to their attitude on public questions. That was the only plank in my platform. I have just consulted with labour on this point. I did not fail to make inquiries of the Trades	and	Labour Council	of
Calgary and did not fail to make inquiry of the Labour party of Canada as to the attitude I should adopt on this question and I received their instructions. I am their delegate. If I cannot out of principle obey their instructions I should resign. But having the conviction myself that the question of the tariff will not solve the labour problem, having the conviction that we ought to try the one thing or the other, namely, free trade or protection and not something that is half way between them both, my course seems to me to be clear. Last year I still had a faint hope that there was a strong party in this House that stood for ultimate free trade, and that they were willing to take a step towards getting that free trade, and so when mj' hon. colleague brought in the resolution pointing that way I hoped, in fact I never doubted at that time, that that programme, being the programme of the Progressive party, would be supported by every one of them, and that it would be a challenge to the government that the next budget that came down would have to be a budget making towards free trade. For that reason I voted for it, because I am willing to try free trade if anybody else is. But this year, finding that nobody wants free trade, that nobody is even looking towards free trade, and realizing as I do that the tariff as it now stands is an objectionable thing, I turn my eyes towards the other side, and I ask, what has protection to give? Is protection going to be as timorous in its policy as free trade has been? If it is I must turn from it also. But at present I do not know that it is. There is the answer to the question my hon. friend put to me last night.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: My hon.
friend has claimed that there is not a single member in this House who is directing his attention towards free trade. I desire to assure my hon. friend that my allegiance to that principle has not been departed from as far as I am concerned.
IMr. Irvine.]


William Irvine: I am very glad to hear
the confession of my hon. friend. I should have said that no party in this House stood for free trade. If I said "no individual," I did not mean that. I believe there are still a few individuals who keep their first love burning bright, and all honour to them. I can understand them. But there is no major party in this House that seems to have any idea of standing for free trade.
Now I turn to the question of protection.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The hon. gentleman has been answering a question I put to him last night, and I must confess he has not as yet made it clear to my mind by what course of reasoning he arrives at this conclusion, that it is a mark of sanity and consistency on his part to oppose a budget which he characterizes as the same in essence as the one he supported last year, and still considers that it is ludicrous in fact on the part of other members of the House to follow the same course, when these other members may also have discussed the matter with their constituents?


William Irvine: I did not undertake to make my position clear to my hon. friend. I undertook to express it in the hope that it would be clear to all hon. members in the House. The difference between my hon. friend's party and myself is this, that last year I voted the platform of the Progressive party and the Progressive party voted against it.


Alfred Speakman: Not all of them.


William Irvine: I did not say all of them.
The Progressive party voted largely against that proposal. I turned away from the hope of getting free trade when the only party which had given any indication of standing for it threw it overboard. If that, with the explanation which I have given as to my relations with my constituents, the platform! upon which I stood when elected and my personal views, is not sufficient to convince my hon. friend of my position, then I shall have to 'leave that for a later date.


Mr. EULER:: I should like to be clear
whether the hon. member is himself in favour of free trade or of high protection. He has not made that clear. F'erhaps my question is premature.


William Irvine: I have made it clear, I hope, that I think no fiscal policy, economically considered, is of any great importance. My next point is, as I have tried to establish, that a country will survive any fiscal policy whatsoever; but the one that we have now is the worst kind of a .policy, because it is half way



S, 1925

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Irvine
between free trade and protection, and it gives us the worst element of both. I am willing to try either of these. I am willing to try free trade.
William Daum Euler: Which does the hon. member prefer?


William Irvine: I do not know because free trade has never been tried. If my hon. friend is so convinced that free trade is a good thing, why does he not give it to us?


William Daum Euler: I did not say that.


William Irvine: If he is convinced that protection is a good thing, why not raise the tariff to that point? It is all very fine to talk in this way. If I believed in free trade and was Prime Minister of this country, I would take a chance at it. If I lost out, I would at least teach a lesson in history to all that would follow me. But to sit here and talk about free trade and take every opportunity of evading it-


William Daum Euler: As the hon. member is doing now.


William Irvine: -I cannot stand that kind of policy.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Who is the hon. member's authority for quoting the Progressives as being a free-trade party?


William Irvine: I have their platform here which I did not read last night


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The hon. member will not find it in their platform.


William Irvine: If the Progressives never looked towards free trade in the hope of getting it I must apologize to them for having misrepresented them. In that case, I would not have needed to trouble to answer the question of my hon. friend. If the Progressives never looked toward free trade, they certainly have no dividing point at all between them and the other side of the House and they never could have had any. But I had assumed that there was at least that semblance of a difference between the Progressive party and the party to my left.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I should like to suggest that my hon. friend would fit into almost any corner of the House.


William Irvine: I might retort, if I wanted to adopt that kind of recrimination, that I do not think my hon. friend could fit into any comer of the House, but I do not wish to stoop to that kind of argument. I am not saying anything against the Progressive party 126i
that they have not said against themselves. I am not more unkind to them than they have been to themselves. I am trying simply to represent what they have done. I would have given them the credit of being a little different in their principles and policy from the party in charge.


Mr. GOULD:: So we are.


William Irvine: I seem to have made a mistake in that assumption.


Mr. FORKE:: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that if the course of the Progressive party has led him to dissociate himself from that party, that is not altogether without its advantages.


William Irvine: I am very glad the hon. member recognizes the advantages which accrue to me from that separation. I will now turn to the protective alternative. In this connection I want to put to the leader of .the opposition (Mr. Meighen) the questions which I intimated last night I would put. The first thing I want to do is to repeat the question I asked last night: Does the Conservative party really mean to give us a policy that will be a protection to industry. I do not think I could say that the Conservative party in the past has succeeded in doing that. I will readily admit that it has always been a little more sincere and honest than other parties, because it has consistently stood for high protection. But I do not think it has ever given protection high enough to protect industry. I want, therefore, to know whether it is the intention of the leader of the opposition to pursue a policy which would result in really protecting Canadian industry.


Mr. HOEY:: Is there any merit in standing for protection if the party does not carry it into effect, any more than in standing for free trade if the party does not carry it into effect?


William Irvine: I do not think so. That is why I am asking this question. The next question that I wish to put before the leader of the opposition is this:	In the event of
his giving us a protective policy that will protect our industries, will that not result in wiping out the revenue which is now being raised by the tariff as it exists at present? How will the leader of the opposition raise the revenue in the event of having placed upon Canadian industries a protection that will adequately protect them? The next question, and one that I think is more important to labour and, pethaps, the farmers than the others, although it arises out of the other two
The Budget-Mr. Irvine

questions, is this:	Will protected goods, that
is, goods manufactured under a protective policy, be sold to the consumer in Canada at a price that will be equal to that for which those goods might be bought in other countries? If that is the policy that is to be fallowed, I should like to know next how the leader of the opposition proposes to prevent protected interests from exploiting the masses of the consumer's. In asking these questions, I do not think that any of them is unanswerable, and I hope the leader of the opposition will answer them. I am quite sure ihe will not side-step them; at least I have never known him to side-step any that I "have ever asked him. If we cannot have a protective policy high enough to do what protection should do and if it is impossible to protect the consumers of Canada under such a policy, I think we shall have to scrap both policies. I believe, however, it might be possible to raise tariffs to such an extent that it would be prohibitive to bring goods into Canada. In that case, we would certainly protect the Canadian market, and in doing so we would pass some of the benefits on to the workers of Canada. At the present time, all the benefits of the protective tariff go to the individual manufacturer, but it leaves no protection to labour at all and the consumers generally pay the increase in the price. If we are going to have a protective policy-and I see we are not going to have a free trade policy-I would ask the exponent of that protective policy to tell us how high it is going to be, how the revenue is going to be raised, and how the exploitation of the Canadian public by a few protected industries is to be prevented?


Mr. PRITCHARD:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? He seems to be much interested in the question of unemployment. If he gets what he wants in the way of a high tariff policy, which will have a tendency to draw all the employment to a particular industry, how will he prevent unemployment when all the workers go to that industry and there will be no work anywhere else?


William Irvine: I am not sure I got my
hon. friend's question. To begin with. I was not at the moment advocating a high tariff, neither was I presenting it as a solution of unemployment. But if I got his question at all, it is this-and he will correct me if I do not fairly express the idea he had in mind: where an industry was protected there would naturally be an increase of work in that particular industry because of the guarantee of the Canadian market, and that would
fMr. Irvine.]
draw a number of workers to that industry- so many that they would ultimately become unemployed. But I do not see that that is very good reasoning, because if workers come from other industries and are subsequently not required they can go back and get the jobs they had before. I do not quite see my hon. friend's point.


John Pritchard: How will you protect
the farmer, who has to compete in the open market? He will have to quit the business.


William Irvine: If I were the exponent of
the protective policy I would say how the farmers would be protected. The farmer is the most heavily burdened in Canada to-day, and whether you go toward free trade or protection his burden will have to be relieved in some way. It has not been relieved by the government in power. The fanners think their way of relief lies in free trade or toward free trade-in making a bow to free trade, if you do not want to get any nearer than that. But under present conditions there is not even a courtesy made to free trade. Then if we had to turn to the other policy it would be part of the duty of the exponents of that policy to tell us how they were going to relieve the burden of the farmer, how they were going to protect the farmer. That is a question which I pass over to the chief exponent of that policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a point which seems to me to be much more important than the tariff. I think it will be agreed that more and more the question of credit and finance is rising to the position of paramount consideration in all countries. The evidence of this comes from France just a day or two ago; I shall not, quote the despatch but I merely refer to it as bearing out my point that the question of the control of credit and of proper financing is becoming increasingly important. In a despatch of April 6, I note that Premier Herriot of France is asking for an increase of some two billion francs in the circulation of money, and is making it his policy to impose a capital levy of ten per cent. I do not know what the details of either of these policies are, nor do I say that either- of them is the right policy. I do say, however, that the fact that he is going to risk his government on a question of finance is proof to my mind that this question is becomnig a vital one for all nations to consider.
The government, are talking a good deal about prosperity. Sometimes they have found it to exist; sometimes they are only confident that we are going to get it. But surely they will agree that there can be no prosperity in

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
any country while a large percentage of its plant equipment is lying idle. There can be no prosperity in any country that lives largely on wages when a large percentage of the population are unemployed. There can be no prosperity in a country where the plant equipment and natural resources are unused. But how are we going to start these factories and get the men to work and utilize our natural resources? Some say we will do it by a certain kind of tariff policy. It may be so;
I do not think so. But I believe it can be done by a proper arrangement of national credit. So I make the suggestion to the government that they take one step in this direction; let the government begin by testing out this suggestion in a small way. At present the government hand the credit of the country over to financiers and borrow it back from them at a high rate of interest. Our interest account to-day amounts to nearly $200,000,000. which is more than comes in by the tariff. The government can save that much by proper financing. Let them begin by financing the next year the $400,000,000 or so that is required to meet the current expenditures by issuing that amount on the strength of the national credit instead of borrowing it from New York or some other p'aee. Having issued such credit instruments as may be required, they could balance the account at the end of the year by taxing to the extent of the amount issued. There wild be no inflation then-not any more than if they sold bonds; and they will save the entire amount they would have to pay out in interest. And I suggest that when they do their taxing they do not go to the sales tax or to the tariff or even to the income tax, but that they try out the single tax and see what the results would be. The single tax has at least the virtue of simplicity and of fairness. It would be required as much under a protective as a free trade policy as in either case revenue would be required. I will not expound that system of taxation, because I believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), who is the best exponent of it in this House, will be dealing with the question when he speaks on the budget.. But I suggest that as one method of taxation that is better than either that is in use at present.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon.
gentleman allow me a question? I do not want to trouble him about it if he does not want to go into it, but perhaps he has considered it. He suggests we are to raise $400,000,000 by issuing that amount of legals and we are to get that back. by the single
tax. Is it my hon. friend's idea that that should go on year after year?


William Irvine: I do not see any reason why it would not, because that would be a case where the budget could be balanced. If $400,000,000 of new credits were issued and $400,000,000 were collected by taxes the one would balance the other at the end of the year, the country would be in the same position as when it started and could proceed to repeat the process. What would1 be the difficulty in continuing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will see that the next year you would have to get $800,000,000, because you would have to get back the $400,000,000 of credits that were issued as well as get the $400,030,000 of the next year's taxes.


William Irvine: No, the $400,000,003 originally issued would be put in the waste paper basket after you taxed it in, and you would issue a new $400,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but that
is not the point. It has to be brought back by taxation. In the first year there is just $400,000,000, but the expenses of the country are going on, so you have that $400,000,000 and then you have the $400,000,000 of paper which has also to be brought back, which would make $s00,000,000 for that year.


William Irvine: No, the $800,000,000 basis is the basis of present day financing. I can quite understand the reasoning of the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), but just right at that point is where the difference comes in. That is what we are doing now. Every year we are increasing our debt and our interest just by that method, and there is nothing that can prevent this or any other country that is following such a system of finance from arriving at disaster ultimately. There is no use trying to camouflage that fact.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House further. I hope, however, that more and more this parliament will come to the conclusion that fiscal policies are minor matters, compared with such questions as control of national credit, properly controlled finance, control and development of industry, and looking after our means of transportation, the correct solution of these questions is what will bring prosperity, not taxation. I do not suppose that any country can possibly tax itself into prosperity.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I interrupt my hon. friend with regard to the $400,000,000 of expenditure? We will assume that
19S0
The Budget-Mr. Hudson

the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is now proceeding to raise the revenue to meet expenditure for the coming year, say, $400,000,000. The plan of the hon. member, I take it, is that the minister shall also at once commence taxation with a view to retiring that total of $400,000,000 by the end of the year; therefore there would not be $400,000,000 in arrears when the year closed.


William Irvine: The hon. member has got
my point exactly. I do not ask that we do anything different from what the government is now doing, only instead of borrowing what is required for current expenditure from any body on our credit, my suggestion is that we simply use our own credit. The government is doing the same thing now-it is retiring the [DOT] paper that it is going to issue. That is all it would have to do under my suggeston.


An hon. MEMBER:: They would save interest.


William Irvine: Yes.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, this session, as usual, the discussion on the budget has largely centred, around the tariff; and that, I suppose, is inevitable. I propose therefore to follow up the discussion, but in a somewhat different way from that which has been adopted by most members up to the present. Appeals have been made to the authority of political economists and to the experience of other countries, but very little has been said about the experience of our own country. It is with that experience that I propose to deal. In 1868, the first year after confederation, the total external
4 p.m. trade of Canada was $129,000,000, largely with the United States and the United Kingdom, just as it is now. At that time the tariff on all imported goods, whether free or dutiable, averaged 13.01 per cent. It fluctuated slightly but for the most part remained at about that figure until 1879. During the years following 1868 our external trade steadily increased; there were fluctuations, but on the whole the trend was upward until 1878 when it totalled $170,000,000. That year was a period of great business depression, and in 1879 our external trade dropped to $151,000,000, which was much lower than the average during the preceding ten years.
Now, the depression of 1878 began in the preceding year and continued through 1879, and naturally the people became uneasy; unemployment was general, industry ceased to operate, and large numbers of Canadians went to the United States and elsewhere. Our population in 1871 was 3,689,257, and the increase 
during the decade was 635,553, making the population in 1881, 4,324,810. I have no means of ascertaining what the loss of population was by emigration; no doubt it was substantial, as it was before and as it has been since. But the public men of the time turned their attention to what they thought might be remedies for the situation, and in March 1878 Sir John Macdonald moved in the House of Commons an amendment to the budget, which was read 'by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other day, and which I should like to read again:
That the Speaker do not now leave the chair but that this House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of National Policy, which by a judicious readjustment of the tariff will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion: that such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow countrymen who are now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment denied them at home; will restore prosperity of our struggling industry now so sadly depressed; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade; and moving as it ought to do in the direction of 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.
Now, that is precisely the proposal which is suggested as a remedy for the existing situation in Canada.


Mr. GOOD:: I should like to ask my hon. friend if the Conservative party is advocating reciprocity at the present time?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I was going to note that exception. My hon. friend is quite right.


William Charles Good: A notable exception, is it not?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Yes. The situation which then existed, the Conservative party claimed could be remedied only by putting up a high protective tariff, and it is the situation which they say exists to-day and can be remedied only by adopting similar means. Sir John Macdonald said further: We think reciprocity with the United States is a good thing, but we cannot get reciprocity unless we have a club to hold over the United States, and therefore we are going to raise the tariff. That is precisely the position which my hon. friends opposite take now. They do not say that they want reciprocity; they say they want to have a club to hold over the United States. Sir John Macdonald in the course of his statement in support of that amendment used almost all of the arguments which have been used by hon. gentlemen in this House during the present debate in support of a raising of the tariff for the purpose of remedying the

The Budget-Mr. Hudson
existing conditions. Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues came into power as a result of the election in the latter part of 1878, and in 1879 they proceeded to implement t'heir promises. They passed a new tariff law, which was said by those supporting it to be for the purpose of protecting and encouraging industries, to keep men from going to the United States, and to cure unemployment.
Following this tariff of 1879, there was, of course, a period of adjustment. Business did improve. The depression which had existed in 1878 and 1879 passed away, both in Canada and elsewhere.


William Charles Good: Does my hon. friend attribute that to the tariff?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Certainly not. If my hon. friend will be patient for a moment he will see where I am coming to. Business did improve for several years, and by the year 1883 the total external trade of Canada had increased to $221,000,000. It had been in 1878, as you will remember, $170,000,000, and by 1883 it had increased to $221,000,000; that is, the depression was over, and some improvement had taken place.
Now at that time the average tariff on all imports, dutiable or otherwise, was 19.1 per cent; that is, there had' been an average increase of tariff of 5 points from the tariff of 1878. It remained during the time from 1883 onwards to 1896 at that point or thereabouts,
19.1	to 19.2. That being so, let us consider whether or not this changed policy had the results which its authors anticipated.


Mr. LADNER:: Might I ask whether the
hon. gentleman is taking the average duty on all imports, or just on dutiable goods?


Albert Blellock Hudson: On all imports.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Because he will find the
average duty on dutiable goods imported into Canada was in 1870, 20.9 per cent, whereas the hon. gentleman's figure was 13 per cent. In 1880 the average duty on dutiable goods was 26.1, and in 1890, 31 per cent. It makes quite a difference whether you are taking the average duty on all goods or on dutiable goods only.


Albert Blellock Hudson: If my hon. friend has
listened carefully, I stated very specifically that I was giving the percentage on all goods, dutiable or otherwise. My percentages are based on the entire imports, that is the percentage computed as if the total amount of duty had been paid on the total amount of imports. Now during those thirteen years the entire external trade of Canada increased from
$221,000,000 to $231,000,000; that is, in thirteen years there was an increase of only $10,000,000. During those thirteen years the western wheat and the western cattle had come into the market for the first time. In 1883 there was no western wheat of any account moving eastward, certainly none being exported worth mentioning. In 1896 there was a substantial amount.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Before the hon. gentleman can have any argument complete, he would have to give us the figures of home tradte and home production for the same time.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I am saying, as my right hon. friend must know, that a very considerable amount of western wheat was going to England at any rate by 1896. Now that was a new factor in the economic situation in Canada. I have not the figures to say just how much, but it is a factor which should be considered. There was an increase of $10,000,000 in the external trade of Canada in those thirteen years. That is what happened under this policy. Now it is perfectly true that that does not deal with the situation in Canada itself. We do not know from that Whether the people in Canada were happy and prosperous or not. Some gentlemen who lived here at that time and who remember it may be able to say. But there is another factor which may be considered, and that is whether or not people stayed here.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he happens to have read the speech that Sir Leonard Tilley delivered in presenting his budget of 1882, in which he describes in great detail the very factors which the hon. gentleman has alluded to, and explains with figures the prosperity of the country, prices, labour, production, and the revenue that existed at that time.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I have not read the speech my hon. friend refers to, but it may be the Minister of Finance at that time had very rosy views as to what would happen. I have referred particularly to the period from 1883 to 1896. That is what I am dealing with now, and during that period let us see what the people who came to Canada and who lived here did.
In 1881 the population of Canada was 4,324,810. The natural increase we have not definite statistics on, but I have taken the estimated percentage used by the chief statistician for the years from 1901 to 1911, and that is a conservative percentage, because with a smaller population and a larger proportion in rural areas, the increase would be greater; but

The Budget-Mr. Hudson
taking the same percentage, the natural increase would be 648,621. Now the immigration into Canada during that period from 1881 to 1891 was surprisingly large, according to the statistics which were kept by the department of the then government. According to these statistics the immigration amounted to 886,177, making, if those people had all stayed in Canada, with the natural increase, plus the immigration, and the original number who were here, a total population at the end of 1891, when the census yas taken, of 5,859,508.


William Charles Good: Before my hon. friend passes
on, he means by the natural increase, I suppose, the excess of births over deaths?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Yes. Now according to
the census of 1891, the actual number of people we had in Canada then was 4,833,239. That means that during those ten years when this high protective policy was in force there was a loss of population of 1,026,000. That was at a time when we had less than 5,000,000 people in Canada. That means that one person in every five that we had in Canada during that period left. Why did they leave? It may be that these figures as to immigration are not correct, but they are the figures taken from the government's own publication at that time. The loss of population during the years 1891 to
1896	cannot be calculated with any certainty, but it seems to have been in the same ratio. There was a further fact.: Although we had considerable immigration from 1881 to 1891 even immigrants ceased to come here, because in 1896 we got only 16,000 new people. In that year there was an election as a result of which a new government was returned whose policy was that of reducing tariffs; and what was done in that respect I will say just in a moment. The average rate of duty on all commodities in 1896 was 19.2. In 1897 it was 18.7; in 1898 it was 17.5; and in 1911 it was 16.2,
Now let us take the trade. The trade of Canada in 1896 amounted to $231,000,000. In
1897	it was $249,000,000; in 1808 it was $294.000,000; in 1909 it was $559,000,000; and in 1911 $759,000,000. There is one curious thing to note here and that is in regard to the British preference. The British preference was part of a policy which was inaugurated in 1897 but in a large way. it did not have very much effect; the amount of goods which we bought from England in 1896 was precisely the same amount as we bought in 1898, the reason suggested being that goods were so cheap in England prior to 1896 that we were buying all that we required of the kind of goods which Great Britain supplied. In 1898

imports from Great Britain did increase fairly steadily, but not in the same proportion as from the United States. The population of Canada in 1901 was 5,371,315. It increased to 7,206.643 in 1911, a net increase of 1,835,328. The chief statistician makes an estimated loss by emigration during this period of 865,889. That is all I wish to say about that period.
In 1911 we had another election, and we decided that we would have "no more truck or trade with the Yankees." Our total trade with the United States in 1911 was $388,000,000 In 1913 it was $575,000,000; and in 1914, $573,000,000. The war intervened then and the trade of Canada during the war was abnormal so it does not seem to me that we should spend time discussing it.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
arguing that the increased trade from 1896 to 1911 was due to reduced tariffs?


Albert Blellock Hudson: If my right hon. friend
will wait a minute he will learn all that I have to say in that regard.


Arthur Meighen: That is pretty well
dodged.


Albert Blellock Hudson: The question will not be
dodged; I am quite ready to answer my right hon. friend. In 1923 the total trade of Canada had reached $1,733,000,000. Of this $918,000,000 was with the United States and $520,000,000 with the United Kingdom. In 1924 the total was $1,938,000,000; with the United States $1,031,000,000 and with the United Kingdom $513,000 000. Thus it will be seen that we buy from and sell more to the United States than any other country. The average duty in 1922 was 16.2; in 1923, 16.7; and in 1924, 15.1.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That represents our total imports dutiable and otherwise?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Yes, certainly. I repeat
again that the percentages I have used are the percentages of the total imports and not merely of the dutiable.


Arthur Meighen: Then the hon. gentleman should also say that the duties were not lowered by a single fraction of a .per cent as respects the United States; that is where the increases took place.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I do not know how
much the duties were reduced; I do know that there was a relaxation in trade restrictions, taking the whole field, to the extent that I have mentioned.


Arthur Meighen: No, just in part of that
field.

The Budget-Mr. Hudson


Albert Blellock Hudson: No, taking the whole field.


Arthur Meighen: No, just in part of the
field; no increase there at all.


Albert Blellock Hudson: To summarize what I have said:	In the first period, that is from 1868
to 1878, there was what was then called and what- might stall be called a revenue tariff, and there was a substantial increase in population and a moderate increase in trade. During the second period, that is from 1878 to 1896, there was what was called the protective tariff-what was adopted designedly as a protective tariff. During that period there was a small increase of population and an immense emigration, and there was stagnation in external trade. During the third period there was a slight lowering of tariffs, an immense increase in immigration and ia very large increase in external trade. The fourth period is the war period *with which I will not deal in detail. Now, my right hon. friend says "Do you mean to say that the slight decreases in the average duties in 1897 or 1901 had the effect of creating this immense increase in trade, this immense immigration?" I say that taking the figures as they stand alone I do not contend that it does. I do say this though, that one can easily underestimate the effect of a very slight marginal change in the price of a commodity. Sometimes a very slight change makes a tremendous difference 'in trade. My right hon. friend is probably familiar with the marginal theory of the mathematical economists.


Arthur Meighen: My point, which I think
the hon. member grasped, was this-that the increase of which he boasts took place with a country as respects which there was no decrease of duty at all; on the contrary there was a slight increase in duty.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I do not see that. You
cannot take trade with one country alone; you have got to take trade with the world if you are going to estimate the effects of tariff changes.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot do that. If
as a matter of fact the trade which we have with one country comes under a lower tariff while the trade which we have with other countries is under a higher tariff you get nowhere at all by lumping the results together.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Certainly you do. I will
leave with my right hon. friend the result of the facts I have given him. As I say, I do not contend that these changes in tariff were responsible for all the results. All that I
say is that at any rate, at the very least, the effect of those tariff changes was not to depress trade. What was the cause of the increased trade and increased immigration, apart from tariff? There are only two other causes that I can think of. The first is that there was a very vigorous and able administration in Canada. The second is that the world conditions were such that they encouraged the investment of large capital in Canada and therefore immigration to Canada.
That is all I wish to say in regard to tariff; but now our external trade has become more important to us than it ever was. Canada has become in trade matters a world nation, and one of the great nations of the earth, in regard to international commerce. From 1868 until 1916 our trade balance was continually against us, with an aggregate of two billion dollars. That meant that we were borrowing money in immense sums and were not even pajdng interest. So that now the aggregate debt of Canada to the outside world is variously estimated at from three and a half billions to five billions of dollars. That means that we have an immense interest bill to pay to the outside world, and how are we going to pay it? Heretofore, or prior to 1916, we paid it by borrowing more money. We cannot do that now. We have got to a point where we cannot afford to do it. We have to pay our interest bill. We have a mortgage on the farm and have to pay our interest bill out of our earnings, and we are doing it this year- probably we may do it in the future-by virtue of the farmer, the forest man and the fisherman. They are the people who are supplying us with eighty-five per cent of our external trade, and they are the people we have to consider in the future. We have got to have industries in this country, it is true, but we have got to have industries that can do a little more than pull their own weight in the boat. We cannot afford to have industries that can only survive by artificial support.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon. member mean by saying that eighty-five per cent of our external trade is from the farm and the forest?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Exports.


Arthur Meighen: Exports?


Albert Blellock Hudson: Yes. I think it is eighty-five per cent. Is that not correct?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the figures.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Somewhere about that.


Arthur Meighen: It is not. The hon. gentleman must mean goods that have originated
The Budget-Mr. Hudson

on the farm and have gone through many processes of manufacture.


Albert Blellock Hudson: It would certainly include flour, butter, and so on.


Arthur Meighen: But included in this class the hon. gentleman mentions alcohol, spirituous liquors and so on.


Albert Blellock Hudson: After all they do not amount to much.


Arthur Meighen: The proportion of those manufactures would be over half.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Of the exports?


Arthur Meighen: Of those things the hon. gentleman refers to as from the farm and forest.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Not at all. I have not the figures here, but I went into that two or three years ago, and the aggregate exports of agriculture, animal products and forest products -that is wood and wood pulp-amounted to eighty-five per cent. Yet the bulk of the agricultural products was wheat and flour, of course. Nearly forty per cent, if I recollect in the year I looked at-


Arthur Meighen: Of the agricultural products, yes.	[DOT]


Albert Blellock Hudson: And animals and butter
and cheese and all that sort of thing. I would include those in farm products.


Arthur Meighen: And manufactured products too. When you add them all in it comes to far more than half of the eighty-five per cent.


Albert Blellock Hudson: They are in the early
stage of manufacture. That stage of manufacture has a direct relation to the farmer.


Arthur Meighen: Every stage has.


Albert Blellock Hudson: It is not a very direct
relation sometimes. My right hon. friend referred to alcohol. I do not know what quantity of alcohol is manufactured in Canada and sold outside. I suppose there are a few million dollars' worth, but in the aggregate it would not be much.


Arthur Meighen: I only give that as an
example. There are hundreds of others.


Albert Blellock Hudson: What I say is that those
are the industries. It is the industries that are based directly on the products of the farm and the forest that we have to pay attention to first, and these are the ones that really supply the life blood of our country. We want other industries of other kinds, but they must not be exotic. They must be able

to pay their own way, or we will be paying out of our pockets for the maintenance of a luxury that we have no business to have.


Arthur Meighen: For example, what? Can the hon. member give us an example?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I will say this: that any
industry which is not able to support itself in the home market against competition from the outside world, providing that competition is not a dumping competition-


Arthur Meighen: Dumping?


Albert Blellock Hudson: That is, if it is brought
in at normal prices.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Not at slaughter prices?


Albert Blellock Hudson: No.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says
that any industry that ceuld not compete against German products, so long as those products are sold here at the prices at which they are sold in Germany should be allowed to die?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I say that it should not
receive any special consideration from this government. I say that there are a lot of things we can do in this country better than any other people in the world, let us do them and let the people of other countries, who can do certain things better or cheaper than we can, do their part.
I should like to say just a word in regard to the kind of industries we ought to have here, the kind that are suitable to our climate and to our products.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Before the hon. gentleman enters on that question, I thought he would touch upon the question of immigration, as to whether he had any idea as to why people left Canada and went to the United States during the period he was referring to. That seems to me to be an all-important question for solution to parliament.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I cannot do anything
more than guess. I presume it is because they have been going into the United States ever since we have had a Canada. Pethaps it is because they had a better opportunity there, or thought they had a better opportunity, or because the lights are a little brighter over there, or the fortunes a little larger, or a hundred and one different things. That is the reason they pull out from here and go there, and the pull was stronger between 1881 and 1891 than at any other time.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Climatic conditions.

The Budget-Mr. Hudson


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think my question is pertinent to his remark. Does the hon. gentleman know that during the period he is referring to-take for example the year 1880, one of the periods he mentions-while the average duty on dutiable goods coming into Canada was 26 per cent the duty on goods going into the States was 44 per cent, and in 1901, while the average duty on goods coming into Canada was 27.5 per cent the duty was 49.64 per cent on goods going into the United States? My question is this:	Would that
not have an effect upon the wages and therefore would the reason why the people left here not be that they could get employment and salaries elsewhere?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I do not know why the
Conservative party of that day did not raise the tariff to 40 or 50 per cent, if that were true.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They would not know that fact until after the event.


Albert Blellock Hudson: They saw those people
going away. There are one or two things that I would like to commend especially to the attention of the government. There are many industries that we have in this country and many that we ought to have which are based upon our basic productions, or which we are especially qualified to carry on and which ought to be able to compete successfully with the rest of the world. I think the government ought to give those industries all the support that it can in the way of providing for them markets, scientific research and support in other directions, and our Trade and Commerce department might very well be enlarged so as to provide for more and better trade commissioners in various parts of the world. We have an immense field for export trade in certain classes of manufactured goods, and those who undertake that work should get all the encouragement that the government can give them. I for one would be very glad to support an increased appropriation for the Trade and Commerce department for the purpose of doing what is being done by the Trade and Commerce department of the United States. Of course, we could not spend anything like the money they spend, but we could spend a great deal more with great advantage to this country. As regards our trade relations with the United States, that is a country where we ought to have people busy on the job day after day. The biggest and richest market in the world is there, and many opportunities might be available if we had the proper men there looking for them.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How many trade commissioners have we down there now?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I got a return a short
time ago showing that we had one trade commissioner in the United States and that the United States had in Canada ninety-eight representatives of various sorts, consuls, con-suls-general, trade commissioners and so forth -ninety-eight to one. Of course those men are not necessarily all engaged in watching trade, but they are all on the job looking after the interests of the United States in a commercial way.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that in 1920 we brought in a proposal to follow the same policy as respects Canadian trade representatives in the United States that they follow here and that his party most bitterly opposed it?


Albert Blellock Hudson: I am not concerned with
what was done by anybody in 1920. I do not care whether they opposed it or not. If the right hon. gentleman will submit a resolution supporting that, I shall be glad to vote with him. I think it is a necessary, useful and proper thing, and I do not think we can do anything better for the interests of this country.


James Alexander Robb: If I may make the record
correct, the policy brought in by my right hon. friend was to bring in the equivalent of an export tax, because the policy of the United States is to charge a consular fee on all exports.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we proposed to do
the same and to have agents in the same way. The hon. gentleman could not stand for it then. There is no other way of supporting them.


Albert Blellock Hudson: I have no authority to
speak for this government. I vote against them sometimes and I vote for them sometimes. If they wish to take advice from me, I am giving it. If they will not take it, I have done my duty.
As regards the United States, another suggestion I would make is that we ought to have a representative at Washington. That is one thing that we need more than almost anything else, and I hope the government will find a way to send somebody there before very long.
From every quarter of this House there have come suggestions that there ought to be more co-operation between the railways; that they ought to cut out duplication of service, advertising and competition in various forms. I am firmly convinced that some-
The Budget-Mr. Hudson

thing of that sort must be done, because we cannot afford to go on as we are doing. I will not discuss this matter any further because it has already been referred to by a good many speakers. In that connection, I would suggest that the special Railway committee which is to sit on the Canadian National finances, and which has amongst its members many of the ablest men of ail parties, should be specially instructed to take up that question and see what can be done. I do not think the government can be justified in standing still and saying:	We asked
these people to come together and they would not. It is up to the government to take a hand and enforce co-operation.
In conclusion, I think a high protective policy such as is advocated from some quarters is bad, because it failed before. It would be worse now than it was then because of our different position in the world, because we now have a great northwest filled with
2,000,000 people engaged in an industry which can be only impeded and not helped by any policy of that sort, because it has been abundantly proved that the Maritime provinces will be injured by it, because if such a policy were inaugurated, it would do more to drive a wedge between the different sections of this country than anything else that I can conceive of. For these reasons, I do not think the people of this country will ever support a protective policy.


Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, Canada to-day is in
urgent need of some solution to our economic conditions that will bring about an industrial and agricultural awakening. This' fact is forcibly brought to my attention by the condition in my own constituency.
The county of Northumberland, which I have the honour to represent, is engaged in various industrial pursuits as well as mixed farming. I regret to have to report that various industries have been compelled to close their doors owing to unfair competition from imports, and others are struggling on, holding by a mere thread. For instance, we have a shoe company located in the town of Campbellford of fifty years' standing, and in this connection I desire to read a letter addressed to me, dated March 7, 1925:
M. E. Maybee, Esq., M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-In view of the depressed condition of trade through Canada, and the increasing importation of shoes from Great Britain, we are writing to ask you to use your influence for the purpose of attempting to remedy this condition of affairs.

We have been in business for 50 years and up until a couple of years ago our factory was run continuously without loss of a day's time. During the last two years, however, a change has been necessary, and particularly during the year that has just passed, we have only been able to give employment to our help for four days a week, and sometimes not even that.
You will easily see that this not only makes our help dissatisfied but also makes the cost of production very much greater, as instead of having steady production and a full week's time to carry our wages and overhead expenses, we are compelled to divide it over the four days in which we are working, and conditions are such that it seems impossible to make any headway.
We assure you that none in the shoe business is making excessive profits. During the past two years there have been a larger number of failures, we believe, than at any previous time. We, ourselves, lost more money during the past year than ever before.
We believe that if something can be done to remedy the present conditions so as to enable our workmen to work full time instead of losing time, as is being done at present, it will be a benefit to the workmen, to ourselves, and the general public, as things can then be produced at lower prices than they can be produced under present conditions.
Perhaps there is no necessity for us to write this to you as there is no doubt your influence would be exerted in the right direction in any case, but there will probably be no harm in keeping you informed as to the real conditions in the shoe trade.
Yours truly,
Richard Weston for
Weston Shoe Co. Ltd.
This is a striking illustration of the condition of the shoe industry. The statistics show that the quantity of shoes imported from Great Britain has increased 355 per cent in two years and 155 per cent in the last twelve months; a large quantity was also imported from Germany. Twenty more shoe factories have failed since the 1st of January, 1924. The wages paid to employees in Great Britain and Germany are much less than those paid here, and that consideration almost offsets the fifteen and three-quarter per cent preferential tariff on goods coming from Great Britain.
Another instance of the failure of industry in my constituency is that of the Cobourg Felt Company. The Cobourg Dye Company and the Cobourg Matting Company have been seriously affected by outside competition. Then, in the town of Trenton, adjoining my constituency, a very fine fertilizer plant has had to suspend operations due to the reductions in the duty on fertilizer. The Dominion Combing Mills in the same town have also had to struggle against the import of tops. Tops were imported during the year ending March 31st, 1924, according to the last trade returns available, to the amount of $4,047,674, and these came in free of duty. This concern is of great benefit to the farmers

The Budget-Mr. Maybee
of this community who are engaged in the production of wool. The closing of these industries or the reduction of their output ha3 had a great deal to do with the unemployment situation in my county and is also seriously affecting the home market for our agricultural products.
With respect to agriculture we have one of the finest counties in the province of Ontario. We have a varied production, including dairying, fruit growing, bacon hogs, poultry' products, vegetables, and beef cattle. Much interest is taken in dairying; our county has a good reputation in connection with the manufacture of butter and cheese. I think it would be preferable to have the cheese inspected and graded in the factories, from the point of view of the educational feature if for no other reason.
A great many dairy products are imported into Canada. According to the latest available trade returns the following milk products were imported during the year ending March 31, 1924:
Value
Milk and cream	$	30,570
Milk, condensed	 45,907
Butter	 013,041
Casein	 53,354
Cheese	 541,279
Total	$1,284,151
I consider that the tariff on butter and cheese should be increased until it is at least equal to that of the United States, which is eight cents a pound on butter and five cents a pound on cheese as against four cents a pound on butter and three cents a pound on cheese coming into Canada.
Many of our herds are being tested for accreditation and are making a good showing. We have many splendid herds of pure bred cattle, and I regret the action of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in lowering the scale of compensation.
Our county is one of the foremost in the province in the production of apples, as well as of numerous small fruits, having secured a wide reputation in many international exhibitions. Here again we are labouring under a decided disadvantage, owing to climatic conditions, especially in small fruits, as the United States growers, under natural conditions, can produce fruits much earlier than we can and by the time our fruits are on sale the markets are surfeited with United States fruits and our growers never get the top prices. According to the trade returns for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1924, the imports of fruit during that year were as follows:
Value of Import
Apples (fresh)	$ 878,415
Apricots and quinces	 105,443
Bananas	 4,859,460
Wild berries	 13,393
Berries	 21,627
Cherries	 105,978
Cranberries	 220,013
Currants	 241
Grapefruit	 728,641
Grapes	 874,941
Lemons	 1,156,564
Melons	 379,467
Oranges	   5,871,752
Peac&es	 510,710
Pears	 782,464
Pineapples	 530,304
Plums	 374,450
Strawberries	 740,699
Other fruits	 89,235
The total imports of fresh fruits from the British Empire was valued at $169,153, and of fresh fruits from foreign countries, $18,084,294. Total fruits including dried and canned fruits from the British Empire amounted to $774,683, and from foreign countries, $25,760,319. A great many of these fruits we ourselves can produce. A sufficient duty should be imposed to safeguard the Canadian market until Canadian fruit is available. I believe the fruit growers of Northumberland and Durham, as well as other organizations, have made representations to the government for relief, and I trust that these will be acted upon.
As a sideline with dairying, bacon hogs are being produced in considerable quantities in Northumberland. I think in this the grading system is producing beneficial results and while not yet perfect no doubt it will eventually attain success. We can produce just as good bacon as Denmark, and while the education of our producers may be slow, it will eventually be completed. Another sideline with dairying is the development of poultry products. Some are specializing in this line. Here again we are under a great handicap, accentuated largely by climatic conditions and lack of protection. Recently seven car loads of eggs arrived in Montreal on one day, and the effect was immediately felt in our market. While we are producing poultry under winter conditions, these products are being shipped in here from the south where they are produced under summer conditions. We impose a tariff of only 3 cents per dozen against them, while they charge 8 cents per dozen against ours. We find at the same time that eggs were imported for consumption to the value of $1,975,707, which includes $12,679 worth from Hong Kong, China. Adequate protection should be given the production of
19S8
The Budget-Mr. Maybee

day-old chicks. I believe that something over
1,000,000 of such chicks came into Canada last year. Rigid inspection should take place at the border for not only the European fowl pest but for all contagious diseases affecting fowl. The grading of eggs is imposing considerable hardship on the producer. Many local dealers are refusing to handle them altogether, due to the extra labor entailed, thereby curtailing the local market, and as the salaries of the inspectors for the last fiscal year were $42,112, some real advantage to the producer should be shown.
A great many potatoes, vegetables and garden stuffs are produced in Northumberland, and here we find unfair competition from United States imports, due to their climatic conditions, American products flooding our markets much earlier than we can produce the vegetables. I find for the same period that I quoted before we imported the following vegetables:
Value
Cabbage	$ 273,933
Onions dutiable	 362,358
Onions free	 31,220
Potatoes	 576,046
Tomatoes	 1,033,154
Other vegetables	 1,586,603
The total value of fresh vegetables imported from the British Empire amounted to $154,375, while from foreign countries our imports reached the huge total of $3,777,881. All of these vegetables could have been grown in Canada. Total vegetables during the same period including dried, canned and pickled vegetables from the British Empire to the value of $574,816, and from foreign countries, $4,904,884. While the grading of potatoes generally may be advisable, I see no reason why a market gardener, selling produce on a local market direct from producer to consumer, where the buyer can see what he is buying and in most cases knows the seller, should be obliged to grade and tag the commodity, thereby entailing considerable labour and expense.
The conditions existing in the county 1 represent apply very largely to Canada as a whole. There is a general demand throughout Canada for a consistent application of the tariff; first, for the raising of revenue, thereby obviating the necessity of objectionable direct taxation; and second, sufficient protection to stabilize our industrial and agricultural activities. A policy to develop our own natural resources is urgently required. From the port of Cobourg alone in my constituency, according to an answer to a ques-

tion I placed on the order paper, in the fiscal years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 5 p.m. up to February 28, 1925, 264,239-cords of pulpwood were exported. At $10 per cord this represents a value of $2,642,390. If we had exported this pulpwood in the form of newsprint, we would have received $18,496,730, and at least $13,211,950 would have gone into the pockets of Canadian workmen.
We would not know of the excellent conditions prevailing in Canada if we had not been told by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during their meanderings up and down this country. We do not require any novel ideas for constructive legislation today. Conditions are very similar to those-of 1878, when the citizens of Canada decided by their franchise to inaugurate a National Policy to protect the industries and the people of this country. If they were wise in 1878, it does not take a great deal of acumen to see what would1 be wise in this present day. The depreciation of currency; the low cost of labour; the ruin of Europe-these things have exposed our markets in all directions, whether industrial or agricultural, to a competition that cannot survive under ordinary conditions. The question confronting us to-day is, what does Canada need to establish an atmosphere of confidence and prosperity? Something to encourage the investment of capital, primarily. Undoubtedly we need more population to assist us in our expenditure and produce commodities for railway transportation, but what folly to expend huge sums for immigration when we are unable to assimilate newcomers. British and American investors are awaiting the opportunity of consistent investments. But When thousands of industries have recently closed their doors, they do not appeal to these investors as consistent investments.
The present government is like a weather vane, constantly changing front according to the wind, promising all things to all people. As some of the people can be fooled all of the time, they have succeeded to that extent; but I believe the citizens of Canada are waiting for the opportunity to rise up in their might, as they did in 1911, and demand a sane policy for Canada. I do think that the situation in Canada at the present time is one which demands the most careful and earnest consideration of all classes of the people. I think we all agree that it is a grave one. There is a vein of discontent and of pessimistic feeling which is quite apparent as one travels through the country or listens to speeches made in the two Houses of Par-



S, 1925 19S9

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Brown
Lament; and there is also a buoyant and optimistic feeling, which refuses to lapse into pessimism-a feeling that if proper conditions are made to prevail the future of Canada is safe. The public debt has been increasing by millions since the war. Diminished indirect revenues mean greater direct taxation. The United States have greatly reduced their income tax, making this a greater incentive for investors to invest in United States. Other nations have reduced taxation and their indebtedness. We cannot live upon sentiment, and the average individual to-day does not believe he is prosperous unless he can see the actual returns for his labours. Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said in 1899 that if he became premier the people would not need statistics to tell them they were prosperous-"they would have the money in their pockets." The Prime Minister is trying to show we are wealthy by arithmetic, but all the figures in creation will not convince the Canadian people that they are prosperous because "they have not the money in their pockets." I think it was the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who said: "Our unemployed are crying for bread and the premier gives them statistics."
To sum it all up we must have protection for all our activities. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mackinnon) referred to the British embargo on potatoes, which he considered an injustice. Great Britain also had an embargo on cattle. But I would direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that that is the most effective means of protection. While Great Britain's fiscal policy is generally known as the nearest approach to free trade of that of any nation, she does not hesitate to protect her agriculturists or her industrialists if found necessary.
The tariff is a weapon to defend ourselves, or an equalizer of conditions; a means whereby we can demand and get consideration in our trade agreements. It resolves itself into one of two things, either protection or annexation. The reduction on farm implements has proven to be a fiasco so far as any benefit to the farmer is concerned. As has been shown in this House:
Binders are $2 higher now than in 1921; disc drills. $10 higher; cultivators, $3 higher; harrows, $1.50 higher; disc harrows, $4 higher.
Production of farm machinery is greatly reduced, fully 50 per cent in 1924, partially due to the tariff, and partially due to general conditions and the present buying power of the farmer.
The fact that the government in their budget are proposing to raise the duty on a certain class of coal, goes to show that they
recognize the fallacy of a free-trade policy, and the need of protecting our own resources, thereby admitting the wisdom of the national policy of protection. Canada is suffering from an impotent administration and until the sentiment of my right hon. leader's (Mr. Meighen) resolution is adopted will continue to suffer.
In conclusion, I wish to quote the words of Solomon in Proverbs XXIX, 2: "When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice, but when the wicked beareth rule the people mourn."
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my thought until a few minutes ago to take part in this debate at this time, but I thought that perhaps I might profitably, or unprofitably as the case may be, use up a few of the minutes that are left between now and six o'clock. There are a few thoughts that I would like to express on the budget that has been brought down, and on some of the questions that have been made matters of controversy.
In regard to the railway situation and the railway debt forming part of the debt of the country as a whole, it seems to me very desirable at the present time that there should be a distinction made in the two accounts. Some of us, of course, have very strongly advocated that the capitalization of the railways should be placed at its proper figure and the additional amount, of course, would be added to the ordinary debt of the country. Pending the coming of that time, it seems to me desirable that there should be a clear distinction made between our railway debt and the ordinary debt of the country. We all recognize that it really does not make any difference in the end, and it seems to me there has been a good deal of argument about things as to which there is in reality no difference of opinion. But still I can see some reasons why it is desirable that the two debts should be kept distinct. The railway obligations were incurred in a special manner, and apart from the ordinary financing of the country, and if the time comes when a portion of that should be put over against the consolidated debt of the country, I think it should be made very clear and distinct how much of the debt has been incurred because of our railway obligations. Therefore, until the time comes when we have done that, it seems to me very desirable that we should separate the two accounts. Indeed, I think it would be well if we could separate our accounts still further. I think it would be well if we had a clear and definite statement, or as near as possible as

The Budget-Mr. Brown
it can be arrived at, of the debt that properly should be attributed to the war. That would enable us and those who come after us to know just what sacrifices Canada made in regard to the war, and know just how much of the debt was incurred, because of the situation in which we found ourselves in regard to the railways.
As regards the other matter that has been in dispute, the question of the so-called surplus, I must say that notwithstanding all that has been said to justify the statement that was made by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance, (Mr. Robb), I cannot persuade myself that that particular account in regard to Roumania and Greece is anything more than possibly a good asset, possibly a better secured asset than it was before. Nevertheless that amount should not have been counted as either revenue or surplus.
There is one other matter that has been referred to and upon which I would like to express a few thoughts, and that is on the export of electrical power. I thought perhaps the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) would deal with a phase of the matter I have in mind when he spoke, but he did not do so.
So far as the exporting of power in itself is concerned, and the taking of a revenue therefrom, I would have no objection to that if it would not possibly involve us in difficulties in the future. I can well understand how the adoption of the principle of exporting power might possibly build up in the United States industries that depended upon that power, and if the time came, as we would all like it to come, when we would need all that power for ourselves, we might then very well find that vested interests had been created, and that we could not interfere with the export of power without creating a great deal of friction between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. I would therefore urge the utmost caution in that regard, for it seems to me that in this particular case we might possibly find ourselves involved in a situation that would be fraught with difficulties.
There are two or three things that I want to say in regard to the propositions that are being advanced by those who are traditionally the protectionist party. There have already been a good many gibes thrown at them over their panacea for every ill, but perhaps I may be pardoned for making another. About fifty yars ago or more, there was a craze in the Old Country in regard to the so-called curative properties of blue glass. It was supposed that if people could only live under blue glass they would be

cured from almost any disease. There was a popular comic song that went the rounds of the music halls about it; and I know it got as far as the prairies forty years ago through an ex-music hall singer. I can only remember a little bit of it, but one line went something like this:	"Put a single baby in
a blue glass cradle, and it's sure to turn to twins," and the refrain went like this:
Blue glass, blue glass, '
The great discovery sure,
If you ever get sick You can cure it up quick By trying the blue glass cure.
It seems to me some such thought is behind the idea of those who advocate that high protection will be a cure for all our diseases and a remedy for all our economic ills.
I w'ould like to pay a little attention to some of the things that were said by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). I am sorry he is not here, but as I may not have an opportunity of speaking in his presence, I will have to say what I have to say now. Some time ago, in the early part of this session, the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River undertook to prove that the tariff was not always a tax, and I should like to criticize some of the arguments that he used to support his contention. I only hope that the hon. member in question is a better doctor than he is a logician, and that for the sake of his patients he is more correct in his diagnoses than he is when he undertakes to handle some of these tariff matters in the House of Commons. You will remember that he undertook to prove that a tariff was not a tax by citing facts that were given by Mr. F. W. Stewart of Montreal. He cited the statement that certain articles of clothing were higher priced in the United States than they are in Canada. At the time I called his attention to the fact that a proper comparison would have been one made between the prices in Great Britain and in Canada. He certainly does not do anything to prove his point when he quotes the prices in Canada and compares them with prices in a country where they have still higher protection. So far as proving his point is concerned the hon. gentleman absolutely falls down. The tariff is a tax on us if the price that we have to pay is greater than we can secure the article for from the cheapest source of supply not from a country so highly protected as the United States. Therefore, from that standpoint the hon. member entirely failed to prove his point. He thought to further prove it by referring to the fact that steel rails at one



S, 1925

[Stage Direction]
time had been imported into the United States at $150 a ton. In 1872, he says, five years after, they raised the duty on steel rails and instead of costing $150 a ton they cost $112 and he asked:
Where in that case was the tax that the Prime Minister states the tariff is? In 1878, four years after that, steel rails cost only $39 a ton or about one-quarter of what they cost in 1867. In 1885, still under the same tariff, they were costing $27 a ton, at which price they practically remained until prior to the war.
Now when a person undertakes to deal with a problem he must take all the factors of the problem into account and unless the hon. member can show us that the prices in other places where they make rails were greater than in the United States-I have not the figures for the rails that migjht have been procured in Great Britain and Germany at the time-his argument fails. I contend it is up to the hon. gentleman to show us that $27 a ton, was less than steel rails could be procured for in other places, and until he can show that he certainly has not proved his point that the tariff is not a tax.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) was a little exercised over this matter yesterday and he instanced and just as illogically the duty that is levied by the United States against our wheat. He wants to know who pays the duty. Well, for practical purposes, there is no duty paid by anybody. When the wheat enters the United States there is a duty paid and it is rebated when the flour is exported with very few exceptions. In that case, however, there is no duty paid, and if under the present conditions of the grain trade with the prices prevailing in Canada and the United States a small portion of that wheat enters the United States for consumption the United States consumer undoubtedly pays the duty. But so far as wheat is concerned nobody pays the duty at the present time to all practical purposes because it is rebated. Personally I have never been one, certainly for very many years, who has argued that the consumer pays the duty under all circumstances. That will depend in the first instance very largely upon where the market is made. If we are in a position to fix the prices, if the market is fixed here on the things that we import, then possibly we may find ourselves in a position to secure part of the duty from those who export to us; but that simply is not the case in regard to the great mass of Canadian imports and speaking generally, and with very few exceptions so far as Canada is concerned, the consumer pays the duty, because we are not in a position to exercise any very great in-127
The Budget-Mr. Brown
fluence upon the market prices of any of the commodities we purchase.
There is another matter which the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River referred to in his address on the budget a few days ago, and that is in regard to the imports of produce that could be grown in Canada. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Maybee) who spoke just before me qualified the statement by saying that much of this can be produced in Canada; but as I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River in Hansard I do not find he made any qualification at all. He simply made the statement that these commodities could be produced in Canada. Now, I took only a few items from the list that he quoted at that time, I only had time to go into those although possibly I might have found something very interesting if ! had looked up some of the others. But if you turn up the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Manion) you will find that in the list of goods he quoted as goods which could be produced in Canada there were $25,000,000 worth of fruit. The hon. member did not make any qualification; he said "These can be produced in Canada." I took occasion to look up the trade returns from the same volume as that from which he quoted-the trade returns for the financial year ending March 31, 1924-and I find there were $27,285,773 worth of fruit imported, made up as follows:
Fresh fruits	$ 18,253,447
Dried fruits	 6,095,388
Fruits otherwise prepared	 1,936,938
Total	 ? 27.285.773
Then I examined the list further-I wanted to examine it fairly and see just how much of this amount of fruit we could possibly expect to be produced in Canada-and I took the list very much as the hon. member who immediately preceded me this afternoon did; as far as I have taken the figures we both agree, except that he read the figures of the imports of grapefruit, oranges, and all such things, which nobody contends could be grown in Canada and which I have not heard anybody advocate should be excluded. Now let me take the figures of fruits that can be produced in Canada:
Fresh fruits
Apples	 [DOT][DOT]
Apricots, Quinces, Nectarines..
Wild berries	
Berries	
Cherries	
Cranberries	
Grapes	
Melons

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. mourn
[Stage Direction]
Fresh fruits-Concluded.
Peaches..	..	*	 510,710
Pears	 782,464
Plums	 374,450
Strawberries	 740,699
AH other	fruits	 24,347
Total	 $5,040,858
Now, in that respect I contend that I have been very liberal, and I have included $379,000 worth of melons. Will anybody seriously contend that Canada could produce the melons that come into Canada, both in eastern Canada and in the northwest, in many carloads? It may be contended that we should not use them, that we should exclude them, but no person would seriously contend that we could produce them in Canada. We can produce melons in Canada; we know that, but not in the quantities in which they are imported. The same may be said in regard to grapes. I find here an amount of $874,000, and yet we know that the Canadian fresh grapes are only on the market a very short time; therefore I imagine that that $874,000 is in very large measure made up of fruit that simply cannot be produced in Canada. We might say the same thing in regard to the $220,000 of cranberries, and possibly some of the other things as well. That is, the fresh fruit.
Now in regard to dried fruits I think I have been equally liberal in this matter. The figures are as follows:
Apples	 $ 58,474
Apricots	 167,933
Peaches	 152,791
Prunes and plums	 971,290
All others	 96.664
Total	 $ 1,647.152
That is for fresh fruits and dried fruits a total of $6,798,000. I am almost disposed to use some of the harsh language in regard to the hon. member for Fort William ancf Rainy River that he used in regard to the Acting Minister of Finance. There was another item in the list I gave that goes to make up the total of $27,000,000, in which I could not very well segregate those that might be produced in Canada from the total, and that is fruits otherwise prepared. But the total was less than $2,000,000. No person would seriously contend that Canada should cease the importation of oranges, bananas, grapefruit and melons. These contribute to and are necessary for the health of our people and are imported in large quantities, and we would continue to import them in large quantities even if a protectionist party should come into power.

Another item which was referred to by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is particularly interesting. He referred to hides imported into Canada. The figure given by the hon. member for that year was
49,000,000 pounds. Instead of taking it in pounds, I have taken it in dollars worth, and
it is somewhat interesting.
The figures are:
Hides imported into Canada
Calf skins and kips (raw)	 $ 1,189,535
Cattle skins (raw)	 4,711,284
Sheep skins (raw)	 722,551
Other hides, skins and pelts, (raw) n.o.p. 674,117
Total	 $ 7,297,487
Then we have hides exported, because we cannot understand the matter by taking the imports alone. We must also take the leather that is manufactured from the hides.
The hides exported are:
Calf, etc	 $ 1,216,677
Cal tie hides and skins, (raw) n.o.p		3,918,986
Horse hides	 59,376
Sheep skins	 417,434
Other hides	and skins (raw) n.o.p	 41,686
Total	 $ 5,654,153
The excess of imports over exports of raw hides is $1,643,334. But we must consider the reason for the importation of these hides. What is the reason? Many of those raw hides that are imported are of varieties used only in the manufacture of such light leather wear as gloves, and so forth, which we do not produce in Canada. Then we must remember the situation as regards tanneries in the city of Kitchener. There are some large tanneries there. I am given to understand that those tanneries do not use a pound of Canadian hides. Now why? Because Canadian hides are not of a quality that suits their purpose. If Canadian hides were of a quality that suited their purpose, would these men go away down to the Argentine and bring hides from that country? It will be noted if these returns are examined that the great bulk of these cattle skins, the heavy hides, come from the Argentine and from the United States, and I think likely from the southern states, from the hot climates. I am given to understand by those who are familiar with this subject, that the cattle from the warm climates produce a heavier hide, more suitable for sole leather and heavy leather belting than our northern hides-that our northern hides are simply not suitable for this purpose. These tanneries import these cattle skins to the amount of $4,771,284. What do they do with the hides. They tan them and export them. It is surely good protectionist doctrine, is it not, to encourage industry, and to encourage

The Budget-Mr. Brown
manufacturers, and surely these gentlemen who would advocate the exclusion of the hides or the putting of an impossible duty upon them, would not go so far as to deprive their factories that they are so fond of talking about of their raw product which it is necessary for them to have in order to continue operations.
What about the unmanufactured leather they export? These tanneries export leather to the amount of $5,633,581, and we import leather to the amount of $4,170,628. That means that there is an excess of exports over imports of $1,462,953, and remember that in those imports of leather are also large amounts that are made up of dressed glossed leather of various kinds that is not produced in Canada at all. So that the result of putting an embargo or a high protective duty against these hides from South America and from the United States would be that the tanneries- and I am told there are two very large ones in Kitchener, I understand among the largest in America.-would be compelled to go out of business, because they could not get the raw product. That is the way our hon. friends to my right want to help some of our manufacturers.
But there is another figure here which is somewhat interesting. We exported to the United States $4,163,278 worth of leather and we imported from the United States $3,342,616 worth. That means an excess of exports over imports of leather to the United States of $S20.662. I would advise the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River and the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who is frequently harping upon this matter, to search into some of these things a little more closely afad just see what would be the result of the application of the principle that they wish to apply as a remedy for ail evils of the body politic.
Another matter I thought of dealing with has been dealt with so ably by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) that 1 do not think I will say much in regard to it. I refer to the question of the export of pulpwood and the placing of an embargo on the export of pulpwood. The hon. member who spoke on that subject has evidently given a great deal of thought to it, and I admit he is much more competent to speak with authority on it than I can be since he is intimately in touch with it, but he expressed admirably the sentiments that I hold in regard to it. The weakness of those who advocate the embargo lies in this that they tangle it up with the principle of conservation. They tell us, when we express opposition to an embargo, that new pulpmills coming in would take care of the products of 127i
the forests, of the interests of the backwood settlers, by the establishment of new mills. Then, as regards the conservation of the forests, it does not make a particle of difference whether that pulpwood is used by the mills we have in Canada or by the American mills where they are to-day. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) when he was speaking on this question the other night, and my attitude towards this whole question of forest conservation is intensely sympathetic. To me, there is no greater tragedy than to go through the great devastated areas that we see between here and Winnipeg, through British Columbia and along the Pacific coast. It is one of the greatest tragedies that we could possibly witness, and the generation that comes after us will hold as an account against us that we have been so prodigal in dissipating the tremendous timber resources that we fell heir to. So when I speak on this matter, I speak as one who cannot go to cut down a tree without feeling some qualms of conscience over it, because we live in a country where there are not very many trees. When I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo, speaking sometimes almost with tears in his voice,-and I sympathized with him-of the destruction of our forests on the one hand and then, on the other, speaking with enthusiasm of the great manufacturing plants growing up on the Pacific coast that would take care of all the logs that cou'.d be cut, I wondered where he stood in the matter. The only remedy that will be useful in the conservation of timber is simply to cease cutting timber, and there is no more important duty that this parliament is faced with than that of devising some well-considered policy of conservation, fire protection and reforestation. This is a duty for parliaments, for governments. It is true that here and there are individuals who have done a ereat deal of valuable work in reforestation. But it is only the exceptional individual who will plant a forest for the benefit of posterity. This is a work that must be done by governments, and for my part I am prepared to support a very much larger appropriation than has ever yet been made for the prevention of fire and for the reforestation of those areas of Canada that have been so sadly swept by fire.
William Charles Good: Does the hon. member know the proportion between the quantity that is destroyed by fire and the quantity that is cut?


John Livingstone Brown: I have seen the figures
given, but just at present I would not like to make a statement. I understand, gener-
The Budget-Mr. Brown

ally speaking, the quantity destroyed by fire is far in excess of what is used in all departments. If we are going to use export taxes or embargoes, since there are people who are so fond of advocating an export duty on wheat, I must say that it would not hurt us very much in the prairie provinces if they would put an export duty on rough lumber. I trust the Acting Minister of Finance will not misunderstand me as definitely advocating that.


James Alexander Robb: I was just going to ask that question to make the point clear.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not going to advocate it. To do so would be a violation of our principles and we must be consistent in those matters.


Arthur Meighen: It would not do to do that even if it was right.


John Livingstone Brown: If it had the effect, as it might well have, of enabling us on the prairies to get cheaper lumber, perhaps we might be forgiven. The other day the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) depicted the conditions in which the miners were living. I was thinking-and many of us can testify to this-that there are thousands of people in the western provinces who, because of the high prices of lumber, made high by the high freight rates, and because immense quantities of timber that we sometimes think we ought to have a share of, are shipped to foreign countries, are at present unable to buy timber to make comfortable homes for themselves or for their cattle. Therefore, if we are going to talk about the principle ol embargoes on exports or even export duties, we should take into account the question of export duty on rough lumber. After all, how much difference is there between shipping a log and shipping timber that has been sawn on four sides? I found out when I was at Vancouver a year ago that practically all the timber shipments to Japan are simply rough sawn. I am told that the logs are dressed down, sized a little. After all, there is not much difference between shipping a log and shipping a piece of timber sawn on four sides. The amount of labour involved in putting it into that condition is pitifully small.
There is another matter to which I should like some of our friends who are opposed to the exportation of raw material to give a little thought. A little pamphlet came into our hands yesterday, evidently sent to us by a good protectionist, and I wish to refer to this passage in it. It was pointed out that Canada exports to the United States five
(Mr. Brown.]
cents worth of timber and the United States takes that and makes a chair worth five dollars. Of course, the argument is that we should make all those chairs at home. It is like the old argument that we should turn a ton of steel into watch-springs and how much more valuable the steel would be if we would put enough work on it to turn it into watch-springs. The argument in this little pamphlet was evidently that we should manufacture all our lumber into chairs. When I read that I remembered what a former member of this House, a furniture manufacturer, told me a few weeks ago. He said that there were enough furniture factories in Canada to make furniture for twenty million people. If that statement is true, hon. members can see the absurdity of pointing out, as an argument against the export of our raw material, that the United States make $4.95 out of our five cents worth of lumber. These are some of the absurdities into which hon. gentlemen are led when they pursue their policy, as they evidently intend to pursue it, to the extreme.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Is it not equally true that there are enough lumber mills in Canada to make lumber for five times the farm homes we have?


John Livingstone Brown: But unfortunately we cannot get it.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not exactly the
argument he is using now to show that we should not have any export duty on lumber?


John Livingstone Brown: The question of export duty on lumber was only .introduced as a side issue; I did not make a serious argument on that point. I may say that another document came into our hands just a day or two ago, issued by a man named Seeley-I do not know whether he is the Seeley referred to in a former debate-


Arthur Meighen: It is not a question of
what power we have to manufacture; it is a question of the preservation of our raw material, and it applies equally to any irreplaceable material, whether it is for farm homes or for chairs.


John Livingstone Brown: There is where the right
hon. gentleman and his party fall down; they tangle up the question of conservation with the question of the export.


Arthur Meighen: It is the hon. member
who is tangling it up. I was straightening him out.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not at all tangled
in the matter. I insist that the one arg"-

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
meat contradicts the other. On the one hand my hon. friends come forward with a policy in regard to pulpwood which they say will tend to the conservation of the forests, and on the other hand they tell us that home industry will take care of an equal amount or perhaps more. That is the inconsistency of the argument.


Arthur Meighen: No, not at all-preserve
it for the future.


John Livingstone Brown: Any logical policy of conservation of the forests will certainly meet with my support.
On motion of Mr. Murdock the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule, until Tuesday, April 14.
Tuesday, April 14, 1925