1925-04-21

OCEAN SHIPPING RATES

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):: I beg to lay on the table of the
House a petition from the Montreal Dairy Produce Association in opposition to the Petersen shipping subsidy.



PRIVILEGE-MR. JOHNSTON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of
privilege. I wish to draw attention to an article appearing in the Financial Post of April 17, which reads as follows:
Ottawa had an interesting incident recently. The wheat market was nervous in keeping with the position [DOT] of the King government just at that time. Just a few days before its defeat was saved by the casting vote of the speaker. Another important division was at hand. A preliminary count by the whips showed liO Progressives missing. Their presence was needed to save the government. Some one volunteered the information that they were down town at a brokerage office watching the wheat market, in which they were said to be heavily interested. The name of the house they were at was not known, but its location was. An auto was hastily commandeered and a bareheaded member went after them. He rudely disturbed their mental deliberations of whether wheat would go back to $2 or not, by a summons to the house and returned to Parliament Hill with a dozen farmer-members hanging on the side of the car. The government was saved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Frederick Johnston: 

PRIVILEGE-MR. MANION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to a question of privilege. So many false statements have been made about me in this debate that I am going to correct one of them in the hope that in the future, when hon. gentlemen are criticizing me, they will stick somewhere near the truth. In the speech of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) yesterday, he made this statement, according to Hansard-page 2201.
If my memory serves me right it was in 1912 and 1913 that the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River, through the influence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. was chosen, not as the Union candidate, but as the Liberal candidate in his constituency.
The hon. member showed the same ignorance of my affairs in that statement that he showed on every other topic he discussed yesterday. That Statement, Sir, is false in every line and detail of it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had nothing whatever to do with my nomination, in any shape, manner or form. I was nominated at that time by the same Liberal party in Fort William which in 1917 united with the Conservative party to elect mo in opposition to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In fact, I was nominated, not in 1912-1913, as the hon. member states, I was nominated in 1915 when I was serving with General Castelnau's army, part of the French forces, in a humble position- serving that gallant France which my hon. friend is always so willing to claim as the home of his ancestors but which he was not quite so willing to serve when she was fighting for her very soul.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Will my hon.
friend allow me a question? Is it not a fact that he was first chosen as a straight Liberal candidate at that time, not a Unionist candidate?


Robert James Manion: If I am permitted to
answer, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing whatever to do with the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: The point is that I was
chosen by the Liberals, not, as my hon. friend stated, by the influence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or anybody else; I needed no influence; perhaps he does.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) in rising to a question of privilege cannot cast an aspersion on any hon. member of this House. He stated that the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) was not ready to defend France, the home of his ancestors. I say that that is not a matter of privilege and if my hon. friend would like to open the discussion when we are free to meet him on this ground, we shall be quite willing to meet him. Therefore I request, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I am talking now on the point of order. I move, Mr. Speaker-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I am speaking to the point
of order. I contend now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Let the hon. gentleman state his point of order.


Thomas Vien: I contend that the hon. member is not in order in casting a reflection upon another hon. member of this House, and that that part of his remarks should be expunged from Hansard.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Chambly and Vercheres cast reflections upon my character in his statement, which was false not only in that but in every other assertion he made about me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Archambault: You admitted I
was right.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members on both sides to refrain from using such strong expressions as "false statements." The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) rose to a question of privilege. He stated the question at issue and he should have stopped at that point and should not have gone into further matters. I hope that the House will proceed to the business and let this old issue of 1915 and 1917 remain in the background.
Australian Treaty


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Speaker has ruled.


Thomas Vien: The Speaker has not ruled on the point of order I raised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the hon. member raises another point of order. He should be allowed to state it.


Thomas Vien: The point of order I raised,
Mr. Speaker, is that that part of the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River to which I have referred should be expunged from Hansard.


Robert James Manion: May I speak to the point of order? If the false statement of my hon. friend, with respect to me is expunged from the record-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: What is wrong with my
saying that the statement was false? It was false, and I repeat it. There is nothing wrong about that.


Thomas Vien: It is not that part of my hon. friend's remarks that I am asking to be expunged. The question is whether or not part of the statement made by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River should be struck from Hansard.


Hewitt Bostock: I think a notice of motion would have to be given before that could be done.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is just as well to leave it there, Sir.


Hewitt Bostock: I would again appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to refrain from bringing up such acrimonious questions. The House is in a good temper now, and I do not see why it should be again disturbed.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)

I don't know to whom I should address my remarks -as to when some definite statement will be made in regard to the Australian treaty or trade agreement. I base my inquiry upon a telegram which unfortunately I have not

under my hand at the moment but which I received yesterday. It points out that the trade between Canada and Australia is seriously affected by the anticipation of changes in the tariff, which prevents the conclusion of contracts for delivery of goods and so forth. This uncertainty is interfering with trade and is becoming serious. I wish the Acting Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister could give the House a definite statement on the matter.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that it is difficult to intimate exactly when negotiations will be concluded. I mentioned the other day, in reply either to himself or some other member, that we were still negotiating with the Australian government with respect to changes to be made "in the Canadian tariff. The Australian government have made such changes in their tariff as will meet the situation as far as we and they are concerned. There is- no signed agreement; there is an understanding that on condition of certain changes being made in the Australian tariff and in our tariff the exchange of goods between the two countries will be subject to the rates so arranged. But until we have reached a point that appears to the government satisfactory with respect to the changes in our tariff we cannot announce a final agreement.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask if the Prime Minister has observed a despatch from Australia which appeared in the press about three days ago, and in which the Australian Prime Minister was reported to have stated that Australia had1 passed the agreement, or whatever it may be called, and that he knew of no reason why there was delay on the part of Canada in completing the arrangement. I did not call attention to the despatch at the time, but it seemed to me inconsistent with the information given the House. Does the Prime Minister think the report was wrong?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I saw the report to which my right hon. friend refers, but I do not think he is accurate in saying that the Prime Minister of Australia stated he knew of no reason why there should be delay on the part of Canada. What he did say was that so far as Australia was concerned the}' had changed their tariff. But he must know we are negotiating with his government because cables are passing between

Hansard-Members' Emendations
us. I think probably what he meant, if he used the expression, was that from his point of view he rather hoped we would accept the agreements as understood1 made by his government.
HANSARD-MEMBERS' EMENDATIONS On the Orders of the Day:


Joseph Archambault: 
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, what the
hon. member says is quite correct; his inference is quite wrong. The words I used were exactly the words as reported, " He is not a bit more anxious," and so on. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had just interjected a remark, and it was to him I referred. My emendation made clear my meaning. I made no reference to Sir Arthur Currie. However, I am not wanting to intimate that Sir Arthur Currie wishes to have an investigation even now, and if it will please the hon. member I will express right now what I did not intend to say then:	I do not think Sir
Arthur Currie wants an investigation.


Joseph Archambault: Does the right hon. leader of the opposition admit that he erased the word "he" and substituted the words, "The Minister of Justice?"


Arthur Meighen: Yes; and I may say I
observed that the hon. member (Mr. Archambault) had himself made similar emendations of his speech, and quite properly so.


Joseph Archambault: I should like the
leader of the opposition to point them out.


Arthur Meighen: I saw them.


Joseph Archambault: But the word
"he" cleariy referred to Sir Arthur Currie. I will read the transcript again:
Mr. Lapointe: Let Sir Arthur Currie tell us.
Mr. Archambault: Ask Sir Arthur Currie about it. Mr. Meighen: Have your committee and we will ask hhn, I will assure you of that. He is not a bit more anxious for the committee than you are.
Evidently referring to Sir Arthur Currie. Mr. MEIGHEN:	Read what went before.


Joseph Archambault: We know why
it was amended.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, 1 may say that my
right hon. friend did not speak to me and was not referring to me, and he knows it very well.


Arthur Meighen: I protest against the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I think I am the authority on what I said and what I meant, not the hon. member.


Ernest Lapointe: I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what t-he hon. member is so keen and anxious about.


Ernest Lapointe: I am keen for the truth.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he is a
bit more anxious than is the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Vien: Speaking on the point of order, Sir, I think that so long as the right hon leader of the opposition admits that he said "he" the report should mean "he" and nothing else. He erased the word "he" and put in the words, "The Minister of Justice" instead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I think that Hansard should
be corrected, and that the report should be "he" and nothing else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was so
struck by the remark of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) yesterday that at the time

Hansard-Members' Emendations
he made it I wrote down his words and I have them here on the order paper of yesterday.


Arthur Meighen: Maybe we can cure the whole thing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing to
debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: What are we troubling
about?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself commented at the time upon the nature of the reflection cast upon Sir Arthur Currie, There can be no possible doubt at all as to what the right hon. gentleman intended by the remark when it was made.


Arthur Meighen: I stand by it.


Joseph Archambault: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to ask for your ruling? The leader of the opposition admits that he never said the words, "The Minister of Justice."


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Joseph Archambault: He admits that he said the word "he." I submit that he cannot change that word and substitute the words, "The Minister of Justice," and that therefore the word "he" should be reinstated.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is a rule that what a member intends to say he can make clear in his words. The pronoun "he" may have several references. I say this because I intended that reference to be to the Minister of Justice, who had just before interjected a remark, and not because I wish in any way to get out from under any reference to Sir Arthur Currie. To show that, I have told the hon. member (Mr. Archambault) that I say now what I did not say then, that I do not think even Sir Arthur Currie wants an investigation. I appeal to the government to have an investigation. I will be there whoever else is.	'


Ernest Lapointe: It may be corrected in
Hansard to-morrow.


Hewitt Bostock: I should not like to
say that I am between the devil and the deep sea. I believe in the sincerity of the assertions of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I think the explanation which will appear in Hansard to-morrow will be clear to everybody.


Joseph Archambault: That serves my
purpose.
DAYLIGHT SAVING On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: I wish to ask what the intention of the government is regarding the hours to be observed in this House, bearing in mind the fact that daylight saving time will come into force in Ottawa on 3rd May?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been customary, I
think and has been found most convenient for all concerned, for parliament to follow the hours observed by the city. That is the intention.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: I
should like to call the attention of the government to the fact that on April 7, 1924, a question standing in my name, asking for certain information about agricultural products in Canada, was passed as an order for return. I do not think I can be accused of impatience if I ask when I may expect to receive that information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has
noticed, no doubt, that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat at the moment, but I will direct his attention to the inquiry. I may say that from the way in which questions similar to that raised by my hon. friend have come it looks to me as though hon. members were singling out for their inquiries days when the particular minister concerned happens to be a little late in coming into the House.
SOLDIER SETTLERS-MANITOBA On the Orders of the' Day:


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I had a question on the order paper which was passed as an order for return on Match 2, but the return has not yet been brought down. The question asked for certain information regarding the position of soldier settlers in Manitoba. I should like to have the information as soon as possible if there is any chance of getting it before legislation in regard to this matter is discussed.

Saddle Lake Indian Reserve


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration) :: Does the question refer to the Soldier Settlement Board?


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: It is just possible they may
have had to send to Manitoba to get certain information. I will ask the department in regard to it.



WESTERN FRUIT COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: May I ask the government if they are taking any steps with respect to the prosecution of the alleged fruit combine dealt with in the Duncan report?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: , We have no report to make on that subject further than that given to the House a few days ago.



NATURALIZATION OF WOMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: The Prime
Minister will remember that a few days ago I asked a question in regard to a debate which took place in the British House of Commons relative to the naturalization of women. The official reports have come to hand since, and I find what would seem to be a discrepancy between the cable despatch and the official reports. I should like to know if the government has received any further communication from the British government in regard to that matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of any
further communication from the British government. The government has the official report to which my hon. friend refers and. as I mentioned to him when replying to his former question, the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice are looking into the matter. No doubt they will observe the discrepancy to which he has referred.



SADDLE LAKE INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: I had some questions on the order paper which were answered yesterday, and since I got the information I am more bewildered than I was before. The first question I asked was:
Was a portion of the Saddle Lake Indian reserve reclaimed by the Crown?
The answer was:
Yes, about 18,000 acres recently surrendered by the band.
The next question was:
If so, how long did it remain in the possession of the Crown?
The answer to that was:
Surrender not yet approved by order in council.
This was absolutely contrary to the answer given to the first question. The third question was:
Is the title for said lands vested in the Soldier Settlement Board?
To this, reply was made:
Transfer not yet completed.
The fourth question read:
If so, by what authority was this land reclaimed from the Indians?
To that question, I received the reply:
By statutory powers provided in Indian Act.
My fifth question was:
By what authority was it transferred to the Sold'cr Settlement Board?
The answer given was:
Surrender was granted by the Indians in order that the area so released might be sold to the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no authority contained in that answer for transferring it to the Soldier Settlement Board. The sixth question was:
What was the consideration paid to the Indians?
The answer was:
Indians have received a per capital cash payment of $100. Balance will be placed to credit of band funds.
This would seem to indicate that the land had actually been taken over by the Crown, which was refuted in a previous answer. The final question was:
What was the selling price to the Soldier Settlement Board ?
To this, reply was made:
Ten dollars per acre cash.
So the statement is made that the land has been reclaimed, that it has not been reclaimed; that it has been sold, and that it has not been sold. Therefore I am more or less in the dark with regard to the actual facts.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: If my hon. friend is desirous of getting details which we are not in the habit of putting into answers to questions we will be very glad to furnish him with full information. As a matter of fact this is an arrangement winch is going through; there has been no settlement.
Reduction of Salary

As is usual, the Indians vote upon a matter of this kind. They did so, and part of the arrangement was that they were to receive $10 per acre, and that there was to be an initial payment of $100. As .my hon. friend knows, in any land deal there is considerable detail to be gone into before it is completed, and this arrangement is not complete yet. I think my hon. friend is confusing to some extent the crown with the Soldier Settlement Board. He will find the authority for the purchase in the Soldier Settlement Act, and, as indicated in the answer, he will find in the Indian Act the authority for the sale of the land. The usual procedure has been followed in the case of the sale of Indian lands either to a private individual or to some foody of individuals. In this case it is to the Soldier Settlement Board. If my hon. friend will go to the department he will be given full information with respect to the whole matter.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I may tell the minister
that I have made innumerable applications to the department to get the information and so far have been unable to obtain it.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
very glad to see that my hon. friend does get the information. If what he states is the case, I have no knowledge of it.



REDUCTION OF SALARY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: I desire to
ask the minister whether a certain salary has been reduced from $4,600 to $3,300? If so whether there is precedent for such a reduction, whether an order in council has been passed 'authorizing it, and ^whether the minister would remedy the matter by bringing in a supplementary-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask the
hon. gentleman to kindly give notice of his question. Members of the government are not bound to answer questions on the spur of the moment; notice must be put on the order paper. Of late the practice has grown up of asking questions before the orders of the day are called and it is degenerating into an abuse. Notice should be given in all such cases, otherwise we may witness a repetition of to-day's proceedings when nearly an hour was spent in petty warfare. I may remind the House also that a special committee is at present engaged in considering the revision of the rules, and that changes may be looked for with respect to the manner of putting these questions in order

to shorten the amount of time which they consume.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 20. 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 propoed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mr. Speaker, in the further consideration of the financial statement which was presented to the House this year it seems unnecessary to quote many figures. Already figures have been quoted at great length, and various hon. members have drawn different conclusions from their reading of the budget speech. To my mind there is nothing in that speech to indicate the hope that the government is taking serious steps to remedy the unemployment situation, to encourage immigration, to reduce expenditures or the public debt, or to reduce the income tax so as to equal the levy in the United States;-this in the face of the fact that nearly all the countries of the world are reducing debt and taxation. I think the. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in presenting the budget showed too much anxiety to declare a surplus. In his claim of five million odd surplus he included a four million dollar item of so-called revenue from Greek and Roumanian loans. He states that he has not received the cash but simply a virtual promise to pay. He had that assurance before. He says, "Our creditors give, as additional security certain of the revenues of these countries as guarantee." Do Greece and Roumania give Canada the right of entry? Or do they give the government the right to place an official in their customs houses charged with the duty of collecting the assured amounts? I do not see that they do. The matter stands just where it did before. The governments of these countries are responsible only in the same degree as before, and in my opinion will honour the obligation because it is an obligation and not because of any material change of record during the past year. These interest arrears can be credited to revenue account only when paid, and have no place in the calculation of a surplus. The additional interest accrued may be an asset, but it is certainly not an item of revenue for the year. As we stand to-day it would seem that if cash loans to the

The Budget-Mr. White
railways and to the merchant marine are considered-and they should be considered-we have a deficit of sixteen or seventeen millions, and if government-guaranteed 'loans to the railways are considered-and in the present condition of the National Railways I do not know of any reason why they should not he considered-we have a deficit of some sixty-four millions more, making something like a total of a hundred millions deficit for this year. I would refer the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in this House in 1923, when he explained the position clearly. He was not afraid to refer to the facts of the railway situation, and he was not afraid of the word "deficit," nor was he afraid finally to make a frank statement to the House as to what the deficit was, after expenses were considered, including the railway and the merchant marine situation.


Mr. EULER:: Would my hon. friend seriously say that guarantees made by the government to the management of the National Railways for the purpose of re-equipping or making capital expenditure on these railways should be included in the deficit?


John Franklin White: The country owes it and
has to pay it just the same.


William Daum Euler: Not at all.


John Franklin White: I think it is to be regretted
that the government did not produce a financial statement which could be understood by the people. Many members of this House, with all their advantages of securing information, have expressed their confusion and dissatisfaction with the statements which are partial and very much beclouded1 in their form of presentation. If the members of this House cannot arrive at a fair estimate of the position of the country how can the people who have not the advantage of a knowledge of the facts arrive at any fair statement of where we stand? We might take, for example, a departmental store or a business house having many departments. In the head office bookkeeping each department is charged with expenditure and credited with revenue derived from thfft department. Would it be reasonable for a great business house or firm, in making up its annual report and budget, to disregard one department which has not been a source of revenue but rather a cause of loss? A statement of that kind placed before a board of directors would not be a correct one, and would hardly be looked on as an honest statement of the year's business. That is the position in which Canada finds herself to-day. The
budget is delivered, a surplus is claimed without taking into consideration the Department of Railways. The claim of surplus or otherwise should be based on the entire business of the year, so that the Canadian people can understand the situation. If the National railways had overnight a year ago reached a position where they not only could take care of operating expenses but also received enough for fixed charges and a surplus besides, I wonder what the Finance Minister would do regarding that surplus. I think it would not be necessary to argue as to the propriety of including the result in the national statement.
This year there are to be some changes in the tariff, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister announced in Toronto that there would be no tinkering ;n regard to the tariff this year, but that he would wait and see how last year's changes worked out. In 1924 there were thirty-seven changes in the tariff schedule, this year up to date there are sixteen, and the Prime Minister has announced that there may be other changes when the trade agreement with Australia is under consideration.
I have referred on other occasions in this House to the situation so far as the iron and steel industry is concerned, and half of the items changed in the tariff schedule this year affect that industry adversely. The principal items in the budget which affect it are: the increased duties on coal, which I will refer to later; the replacing of certain products on the free list; and the changing back of the item of rolling mill rolls which was put on the free list last year to the former duty of 274 per cent;-during recess this last-named change was made by order in council; the concession, I understand, was made to the iron and steel industry on account of the reduction in duty on its products made last year. If the industry needed that help last September or October, it surely needs it now, and yet the minister says that it has since been represented! to the (government that these rolls are made in Canada. On that account it is proposed to repeal this order in council- and place the rolls back at the former rate of duty. The rolls are manufactured in Canada, but there is no Canadian concern making a specialty of that line of work, and the Canadian roll is inferior to that of American manufacture, not because the Canadian manufacturers are not as skilful as the American manufacturers, but because there is not sufficient market in this country to develop the business and to warrant a foundry making a specialty of that class of work and nothing else. It was represented
The Budget-Mr. White

to the government that rolls were manufactured in Canada, and therefore it was necessary to place them back in the 27 i per cent schedule. It surely was possible for the government in 1924 when they put so much of iron and steel on the free list, to find out that pig iron and bar iron and1 steel were made in Canada. Therefore why should rolls be placed back in the dutiable list and the pig-iron and bars provided for in last year's budget remain on the free list? In addition to that, by the present budget farm and log-' ging sleighs are placed in tariff item 591. That automatically puts the iron and steel bars used in their construction on the free list, and (the Acting Minister of Finance knows now that such goods are made in Canada. There is no other line of business in Canada which has been persecuted to such an extent as the iron and steel business has in the last few years. In the items in the customs tariff to-day, dealing with iron and steel, there are seventeen on the free list. Fourteen of them are subject to 99 per cent drawback; three others in varying amounts from 30 to 80 per cent drawback, which means that practically 32 items are on the free list, and there are only 18 items on which duty is levied. Taking into consideration the British preference and the dumping clause, there is an average duty of less than seven per cent on iron and steel rolling mill products which are on the dutiable list. By the changes in the tariff this year the industry is taxed 27^ per cent on its rolls and 23 to 40 per cent on its coal, and there also exists in other items, duties on machinery and1 supplies, 25 per cent to 30 per cent, and sales tax of 5 per cent on all materials excluding fuel. How can the government expect that industry or any other industry to flourish under such circumstances? In the eleven months ended February 28 of this year, we imported of iron and its products, $118,000,000 worth, $100,000,000 worth of which came from the United States, and our exports to the Unite ! States were a little less than $4,500,000. I would call attention of the House to an Associated Press despatch in the Globe of March 28 in reference to the exportation of pig iron from Ontario to the United States. The despatch reads:
Washington, March 27.-Anti dumping provisions of the Tariff Act were applied to-day by the treasury against the importation of pig iron from the province of Ontario.
While there was no official explanation of the action, it was understood that investigations preceding the order had shown that Ontario manufacturers were able, to sell in territory contiguous to the Great Lakes on

the south, at lower prices because of the cheaper transportation by water. Domestic producers serving the same region, it was stated, must meet that competition after paying freight charges by rail which added materially to the cost to purchasers.
It seems that Uncle Sam's idea of "balance of trade" is to prevent any importation of manufactured goods into the United States and to send out as much as possible to Canadian users, even to the extent, as in the steel business, of $100,000,000 per annum without allowing a ton to go into the United States, if it can possibly be excluded.
That is only one instance in which the government of the United States has acted in the same way. I can cite another of a firm with head office in Toronto, making special building brick, who were recently developing a good trade in the American lake coast cities. The matter was brought to the attention of the American treasury, the tariff was adjusted and increased; so that the exportation of brick from Ontario ceased immediately.
On the tariff the government has surely boxed the compass. When the Liberal party took office in the fall of 1921, the possibility, or the probability, of the adoption of the Liberal platform was the cause of a great deal of speculation. The sessions of 1922 and 1923 saw some small downward changes in the tariff and some compensating changes in the sales tax. A duty was imposed on artificial silk and bounties were provided on the production of copper bars and on binder twine manufactured from hemp grown in Canada. Thus encouragement was held out to three different lines of industry. In 1924, the abolition of the sales tax and the reduction in the duty of agricultural implements and on the materials entering therein, were the features. No encouragement for manufacturers was voiced in the budget speech delivered in that year by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). This year the minister proceeds on another tack. On the one hand he increases the duty on slack coal in an endeavour to encourage coal mining, particularly in Nova Scotia, I imagine, and on the other, he gives the iron and steel industry further discouragement and dismay. This is done by the increased duty on coal, the addition of more iron and steel products to the free list, and the withdrawal of the concession made last year regarding the duty on rolls used in the industry. That is the government's record. There is also the government's record with reference to the five per cent feature in the dumping clause. This was suspended in the early days of the 1924 session, and a few weeks afterwards, according to the words of the Minister of Customs and

The Budget-Mr. White
Excise (Mr. Bureau), "the government had decided to suspend the suspension." In this year's budget, another feeble effort is made to amend the same clause, followed by an announcement a few days later by the Acting Minister of Finance that, "after further consultation with officers of the department, it had been decided that the amending resolution would be withdrawn." In that respect the matter stands in about the same condition as the question in regard to land which the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner) was complaining about a few minutes ago.
The increased duty on slack coal affects not only the iron and steel industry, but many other lines of industry in Quebec and Ontario. This change in the duty on coal was made without any compensating changes being made in other tariff items to offset increased costs of manufacture in other lines of industry. I contend that this matter should have received a comprehensive study before any items were changed, as by changes being made in a few schedules, other items are thrown out of balance and the net result may be the relief of one hardship, only to increase it in another place or in some other line of industry.
Referring to the question of coal particularly, I have no desire to criticize an increase in the duty on slack coal, if the minister, after careful and exhaustive inquiry, satisfies himself and this House that it is necessary for the development of Canadian industry and the well-being of the Canadian people. The average price of bituminous coal, that is, run of mine and lump, at United States mines is to-day about $2.15 a ton. The duty on this coal is reduced 3 cents a ton and stands to-day at 50 cents. This duty reduced to percentage terms on the value of coal is 23| per cent. Slack coal is worth to-day from 90 cents to $1.60 per ton at the mines or an average of $1.25 per ton. The 50 cents per ton duty now levied is a duty of 40 per cent. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte) undertook to prove to this House a few evenings ago that that duty was about 13.77 per cent. He chose to go back to the year 1923 for his value of coal, and he took the duty of 1925 and arrived at those figures. If he wanted to make a really nice showing, favourable to his argument, he might have gone back two or three years more and taken the figures when coal was selling at $16 or $18 a ton. That would have made a very low duty; but Canadian users are face to face with the fact that they have to pay a duty of 50 cents a ton on dlack coal which is worth $1.25 a ton, and no amount of figuring
will get away from the fact that that duty is 40 per cent.
Some hon. members of both the Progressive and Liberal parties are wont to rail at the Conservative party as the party of protection, and some even say the party of high protection, but I never heard even the most enthusiastic Conservative advocate a duty of 40 per cent on coal. What party is it which now assumes the role of high protectionists? It is the Liberal party, the party which was to inaugurate a revision downward in the tariff, as the legend runs:	"In order to diminish
the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the great masses of the consuming public of Canada." Yes, they are lightening the burden by collecting, according to the minister's own estimate, just $1,000,000 more in customs duties in the coming year.
What is to be gained 'by this increase of duty? As regards the mines in Nova Scotia, and possibly Alberta, I think the gain is problematical in view of the reported move by the United States railroads to lower freight rates 36 cents a ton to points at which United States slack coal and Nova Scotia coal compete. If the railroad rates are lowered sufficiently to take care of the 36-cent increase in duty, the additional amount of Canadian coal solid will be small. As the business is now conducted, df freights are reduced, the coal will cost about the same at competitive points in the Montreal district, and it will cost users of slack coal further east in Quebec and the Maritimes and further west in Ontario, 36 cents per ton more as there will be no incentive to American railroads to lower freight costs, particularly to Ontario points. By the changes in coal duties, the Minister has placed a levy of 50 cents on an importation worth on an average $1.25, and the same duty on another importation of a value of $2.15. If it was absolutely necessary to make changes in the coal duties, in my vaew it would have been more just to discontinue the specific duties and levy an equitable ad valorem rate.
There is another item in the tariff changes dealing with bituminous coal, calculated to stimulate the production of coke by the use of by-product coke ovens. This item provides for 99 per cent drawback of duty under certain conditions, the idea being, I presume, to make coke in order to have that commodity take the place of anthracite coal. That wiil be of some benefit in so far as it promotes Canadian industry, and the employment of Canadians in the establishment of coking plants, and in the work of producing a material which will make us in some degree more independent of the American anthracite producer.
The Budget-Mr. White

The Budget-Mr. White

1924, will show; and it was not until December, 1924, that any further reductions in prices were made.
I am going to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to help me to prove this contention. In his speech on the Address on February 9, to show what great things had been done for the farmers, he gave what he called a representative list of implements which had been sold in Ontario before the budget of 1924 for the sum of $953.50 and, after the date of the budget, for $905.50. If the farmer had received the full benefit of the reductions of last year's budget, he would have been called upon to pay just $859.55; actually paid $905.50. That is to say, he did not receive the advantage due on account of the reductions of sales tax and duty, by $45.45. The Prime Minister also referred to a slightly larger list sold in the Regina territory before the budget of 1924 for the sum of $1,358 and after the date of the budget for $1,291. In the second instance, if the farmer had received the full benefit of the reduction, the price would have been $1,224.18. In other words, on the western list he did not receive the advantage due on account of the reduction of sales tax and tariff, by $66.82. In fact, in both these cases cited by the Prime Minister the farmer received just about one-half the advantage of the reduction in sales tax and duty. If the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) will make close inquiry he may find that there was a reduction on implements in the United States last year which was largely the compelling reason for the change in prices in December, 1924.
I am not criticizing the manufacturers of agricultural implements in respect to the conduct of their business. Their balance sheets for the last few years would indicate that they are in need of all they are receiving. So far as this budget is concerned, I am criticizing the action of the government in exposing the manufacturers and the workmen of this country to ruinous outside competition.
Another matter referred to in the budget speech of the Acting Minister of Finance was that of an export duty on electric energy. He announced that an order in council had been passed levying an export duty on electric energy which, according to his estimate, will produce a revenue of $400,000 per year. The matter of the principle of power exportation has been pretty fairly discussed, and I need not go into it at any very great 
length. In my own city the consumption has increased by leaps and bounds. Out of a population of about 63,000 the HydroElectric system is supported by 17,500 consumers, 4,200 of whom have electric stoves. Although the city contracted with the commission originally for 3,000 horse-power, the demand to-day is for around 17,000 or 18,000 horse-power and is still increasing. This is typical of the demand wherever electric current is available at low rates, and the prediction is made by hydro engineers that there will be a severe power shortage in two years' time.
I look on the exportation of power as the exportation of another of our raw materials, and I am opposed to a further enlargement of our exports of unmanufactured goods. If we could export it in the form of manufactured goodte made from the application of this power, or if we used it to manufacture many of the goods we now import, I think it would be of infinitely greater benefit to Canada.
As to the exportation now going on, for the year ending March 31, 1924, there were ten companies exporting current, six of whom exported less than 9,000 horse-power from various parts of the country. There is an exportation of about 65,000 horse-power from the Cedar Rapids plant of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company; I have no information about the contracts under which this exportation is made. The balance of our exports, 'about 140,000 horse-power, are from the Niagara district.
In the year ending March 31, 1924, there was exported by the Canadian Niagara Power Company some 53,000 horse-power; by the Toronto Power Company some 34,000 horsepower; and by the Ontario Power Company some 52,000' horse-power. The last two mentioned are Ontario Hydto Commission activities. It has been announced in the press that the contract which the Canadian Niagara Power Company has with the United States consumers provides that any duties imposed by the government shall be paid by the consumer. If that is the case it definitely fixes the payment on the United States consumer. Now, the contract of the Toronto Power Company also has the same clause fixing the duty on the consumer, and I am informed that this contract was for a five-year period, expiring on October 25 of this year.
The contract in the name of the Ontario Power Company is for exportation to the Niagara-Lockport Company and was signed in 1903, three years before the passing of the act to regulate the exportation of electric power.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
The contract originally called for the exportation of 60,000 horse-power, and under certain options might not expire until the year 2010. When the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario purchased the Ontario Power Company in 1917 the terms of the contract with the Niagara Loekport Company ware changed, so that the present contract expires in 1950.
The Dominion charter granted the Ontario Power Company in 1887 gives the Power Company the right to export power to the United States and makes no mention of the addition of a tax by the government. I am informed that the contract with the American company does not provide for the payment of any taxes. This long term contract is for' power at an extremely low rate and will mean probably a loss to the Hydro Commission of Ontario. On the basis of last year's exportation of 52,000 horse-power, the export duty would amount to $101,400 per year. If they export the full 60,000 horse-power of the contract the duty will amount to $117,000 per year. Now if the Hydro-Electric Commission is taxed to this amount, and is unable to collect from the American consumer, who pays the tax? It will be charged to the Niagara system of the commission's activities, and that charge will have to be met by those who are using current from that system. The reports of the commission show that 54 per cent of their revenue is derived from the sale of energy for commercial light and power and the balance of 46 per cent comes from the use by public utilities and domestic services, the domestic services being about two-thirds of the 46 per cent. Thus in the final analysis so far as this $117,000 per year is concerned the people of Ontario who are using Niagara energy will pay the tax.
This is only another practical illustration of the way the government is reducing the "very high cost of living which presses so severely on the people." Now I make these suggestions to the government; that the order in council be amended to provide that, if, in the case of an export contract, existing prior to the passing of the order in council, the duty cannot be collected from the American consumer, that contract shall be exempted from the duty. That the government revoke all export licenses as the existing contracts expire. While I am strongly in favour of curtailing export, if, under special circumstances it is deemed wise to issue any further licenses, I suggest they be for short terms only.
Considering the budget as a whole, if we judge by the contradictory opinions expressed by the members of the Liberal party, it is 145i
evident that the government is unable to advance a policy which meets the needs of the country, whether on account of these internal divergencies of view of the party or the fear of defeat in the House, I am unable to determine; but it seems to me that there is a worse fate than defeat in the House, and that is a loss of the confidence of the people. I believe the government by its vacillations has forfeited the confidence of the Canadian people and deserves the censure of this House.


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to all that has been said in this debate, but I must say that I find myself unable to agree with all of it; because I think the compass has been pretty well boxed, the wind has blown from nearly every direction, and therefore it would be impossible to agree with all that has been said. I might preface my remarks with the words of the old sailor who, when he was in danger, said, "Oh, Lord, I aint one of them chaps as is always bothering you, I don't often do it, I aint ever done it before, and if you listen to me this once it may be some time before I do it again." This debate, as I say, has been very varied, it has led us all over the country and treated of different periods of our history. I have endeavoured to take a calm, judicial and impartial view of the debate, and on the whole I think that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is to be congratulated on the budget which he has presented to the House and to the country. I remember very well some three months ago when our newspapers were full of rumours of the large deficit that might be expected. It was said that the customs revenue and the income tax had fallen off, and before the House met it was considered almost inevitable that the Acting Minister of Finance would have to provide for a large deficit. However, we had the satisfaction of hearing him announce a surplus-a surplus of $2,000,000 considered in one way, and of some $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 considered in another way. ,
I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who thinks that on the whole the budget is a fair presentation of the country's position. I say so for various reasons:	First, as far as I can
exercise my judgment on it; second, because I have a high degree of confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Acting Minister of Finance, whose record both in his public and in his private life is such that it will put to shame some of those members who have seen fit in this House to cast aspersions upon him; another reason that leads me to the con-
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

elusion that is now firmly in my mindi is the argument of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). He is an authority in this House on matters of finance, he is the ex-Minister of Finance, and consequently I listened to his argument with a great deal of attention. But there was one aspect of the debate that I thought deplorable; I could not apply any other word to it. The honour and dignity of this House, Mr. Speaker, is something which we all should do our best to preserve, and in view of the fact that it was hon. gentlemen opposite who constituted themselves the guardians of our honour and dignity, those hon. gentlemen have to my mind somewhat grievously trespassed upon it this session. I mean, for instance, that when the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in referring to the Acting Minister of Finance, said that the system of bookkeeping he had employed to arrive at the conclusion he did in his budget was such as men were "doing time"-I believe that was his expression-for having used. Now, I think such expressions are to be deplored. I thought that this particular expression would have constituted a breach of ,the rules of this House, but I suppose it was taken as many another word from that hon. member is taken, as a joke, a friendly utterance, for he is fond of making jocular remarks. But I think this remark was too serious almost to be taken jocularly. Besides, ,when statements are made in this House they are not made to the limited circle that listen to them here. An instance of that happened just the other day, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) found himself reported in the Chicago Tribune as having been in this House almost a champion of annexation and as having stated that one-third of our population were in favour of annexation. He was surprised himself when he saw the report. Now, supposing some member of a foreign country, or the representative of a foreign newspaper, were in the gallery at that time and heard the ex-Minister of Finance state that for methods of bookkeeping the same as were used by the Acting Minister of Finance people were "doing time," would not he be warranted in going .back to his own country and saying that when he was in the legislature of Canada he heard a man of experience, a man of repute, rise and state that its membership was composed of men who were no better than felons and convicts?
I speak with all respect, and all earnestness and I say that I deplore such an act. I think it is to be regretted, and I should like to see the hon. member for West York (Sir
	'
Henry Drayton) withdraw those words. I do not know whether he said them in earnest, or as a bit of a joke as he does sometimes. But when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) hurled such a frightful phrase across the floor as "moral obloquy" I felt certain, Mr. Speaker, it Was more or less harmless because nobody has ever seen the words herded together in just that shape before, and most of the House had a doubt as to whether the hon. member himself was really aware of the meaning of the words he was using, because we know that " obloquy " if it is taken in the sense of " abuse, detraction and disparagement " does not belong to the side of the House on which the Acting Minister of Finance is sitting; it belongs to the far corner of the House to your left Mr. Speaker. That is where "abuse, detraction and disparagement," which are given in the dictionary as the meaning of the dreadful word which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre used, come from; that is the comer of the House where such expressions emanate; that is the comer of the House where the three more prominent members I have referred to sit as the premier scholars in the school of scolds. They have copied-^with a degree of fidelity which would be admirable if it were for a better purpose-the manner of their great teacher, but they have been unable to appropriate or imitate bis attainments or his talents.
Now, I wish to show you, Mr. Speaker, and show the House, how it is that the hon. member for West York has induced me to think that this may be a very good and very sound budget. As I say, I take that view partly from my own examination of the figures, and partly also because of the high reputation of the hon. gentleman; but now I wish to confine myself more particularly to tfie slant that was given to my mind1 by the arguments of the hon. member for West York when the statement was made that the surplus did not exist, and when he attempted to prove that not only did the surplus not exist but that many of the items that were referred to could not possibly be applied to the account. He went on to add certain other items to the liabilities until he proved, entirely to his own satisfaction, that instead of a surplus there existed a deficit of some SI 10,000,000. I followed that argument with much interest because, as I say, he is a gentleman of very high financial repute; he not only knows all about [DOT] railways and shipping but he also knows all about finance, and some of his ardent admirers say that he even understands law-of course, to

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
a certain extent. But, Mr. Speaker, when, as I say, a gentleman of that high repute and that knowledge, and in whose judgment I have so much confidence, proved absolutely that there was a deficit of $110,000,000 I had, of course, to conclude that those were not the words of a mere-shall I say?-hon. member, not the words of a politician, but the words of a great statesman, the words of one to whom had been entrusted the financial management of this country, one who had been entrusted with its financial management just prior to the accession of the present government, mark you. He proved there was a deficit of $110,000,000 instead of their being a surplus of $2,000,000. That was the effect of his argument. And then we had the interesting spectacle of the way in which the statesman would remedy the deficit of $110,000.000. In order to meet that deficit what does he suggest? They say, Mr. Speaker, that "actions speak louder than words." Now, the hon. member's action was embodied in his amendment in which he says that the taxes should be still further reduced. What effect would that have? According to his amendment he would meet the deficit of $110,000,000, which he says exists, by still further reducing the sales tax, the stamp tax, the income tax, and other taxes by which revenue has been raised for a number of years back. Well, I could not imagine any spectacle much more ridiculous offered by a gentleman who claimed to have balanced the affairs of this country than in him to rise in this House and prove that there is a much greater deficit than the Acting Minister of Finance says, and yet to be so satisfied that it does not exist that he is willing to vote for a further reduction of taxes; whereas if he knew that a deficit of $110,000,000 existed the taxes would have to be increased in order to meet it. I say I cannot imagine a much more ludicrous spectacle unless the proposition was advanced as another of those little jokes which we have from my hon. friend from time to time and which we are always glad to have, because there is not a merrier sound in this House than the laugh of the hon. gentleman.
Following up the argument contained1 in the hon. member's speech, in addition to discovering a deficit of $110,000,000 and evincing a desire to still further reduce the taxes of the country, what does the hon. member propose further? He proposed in the course of his speech to keep out of this country some $700,000,000'-I think that was the amount- on raw materials, and so forth, which arc imported into the country and upon which
duty is paid, thus proposing to take away another $100,000,000 from our revenue. That was his proposition-that the tariff should be raised to keep those raw materials out. Tnat is to say no tariff would1 be derived from their importation, and another $100,000,000, or in that vicinity, would be added to the existing deficit of $110,000,000. That is the way in which my hon. friend would meet deficits. Is it any wonder that when the affairs of this country were in the hands of a gentleman whose mathematics would lead him in this peculiar direction, that when he left office we should find a huge debt of $2,500,000,000 upon this country? To me it is not in the least surprising. But it was somewhat surprising when the hon. member for London (Mr. White) followed in the same strain. These gentlemen must understand that if the deficit they speak of really exists it is impossible to carry out the amendment for which, I expect, the hon. member for London and others will vote-to still further reduce the taxes. On the other hand if we have such a deficit the thing necessary for us to do, it seems to me, is to raise enough taxes. We know that should be the course to meet such a deficit if it really existed, and the hon, member for West York knows it also. But the hon. member probably does not think it really does exist because, as I say, his remarks were simply uttered in that very pleasant spirit of jocularity which we all enjoy and which amuses us so much.
Now, with regard to the tariff itself there are just one or two items that I wish to allude to because they affect my own constituency. It is rather difficult to touch the tariff, Mr. Speaker, without affecting the constituency of Brantford because, as I stated before in this House, and which is known to most members, its manufactures go all over Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When a reduction was made in the duty on the articles manufactured there last year I was in hopes nothing more would be touched; I was in hopes that we would stand pat upon the budget-although that does not seem to please hon. gentlemen straight across the chamber; I hoped that the tariff would remain with some degree of steadiness for a few years until such changes as had been brought in by the budget of last year might have had a chance to work and enable us to see whether they would be a benefit. However, a further reduction is made this year on farm wagons and farm sleighs. The duty has been reduced, I think, from some-
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

thing like 25 per cent to something like 10 per cent. This reduction affects another Brantford industry-because not only did the wagons of the Adams Wagon Works carry the food of our gallant soldiers over the blood-soaked fields of France and Flanders, but they are used on farms in our own country in a peaceful way in a territory extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now this further reduction was made.
Was there one word of appreciation for the further reduction from the members of the Progressive party? If there was I failed to hear it. I heard most of what was said. I heard them complain that the budget did not suit them. They did1 not point out that this particular item did not suit them, and they did not point out that this item was adjusted for their benefit and in their interest. The thought that is in my mind at the present time, that was in my mind last year was this- and I am quite in earnest when I say it, and I hope that no offence will be taken for I intend none-that whatever reductions are made in the budget, whatever changes are made for the benefit of the Progressives, they will never be satisfied, they will ask for more, and will not wait to see how the changes made last year benefit them. But there comes this insistent demand for further reductions every session, and it reminds me of the story of the bear and the boy with the candy. The bear will eat the candy as long as the boy has the candy and will give it to him; then when the candy is gone the bear will eat the boy. That is the attitude of the Progressive party on the tariff, and I regret to say it. I do not wish to offend any member of that party, but I would like to see them come to a more reasonable attitude upon this question. Of course there are some questions which we naturally view from different angles. They are consumers and users of these goods that are made so largely in the city I represent, but it is their uncompromising attitude I complain of. They never seem satisfied. As I have stated, I have not heard one word uttered from that corner of the House complimenting the government or the Acting Minister of Finance on this very change in respect to the duty on wagons which was made for their benefit. That is a large and important industry in Brantford, and will be affected very seriously by the change. The firms in the western states that make wagons which go to the northwest are situated much closer to the people of the prairie provinces than we are- a good many hundred miles. Their freight rates are less, and consequently it will be very difficult for the manufacturer in Brant-

ford to compete with the American wagon makers andl keep their trade. Yet it is known that there is no better article of that class manufactured anywhere in Canada. It can only be put out of the market by a lower price, with the advantage in the freight rates that American manufacturers will have. These wagons are largely made in the vicinity of Minneapolis and that would make it very difficult for the Adams Wagon Works for instance to continue to compete against them.
This brings me to another point which I desire to touch briefly, which is not directly referred to in the budget, and I regret that it has not been mentioned. I think it should have been mentioned in some way. I refeT to the Crowsnest pass agreement which has created discrepancies and discriminations against many points throughout the whole of Canada, but I venture to say that no point has suffered more on account of the inequalities in the freight rates than the city of Brantford. Our complaint is not simply that the discrimination was put into effect by the Canadian Pacific Railway, 'because that is not the main railway serving the city. It is one of them, but not the principal one. Our complaint is that the Canadian National Railway should have granted a rate to the city of Hamilton which is discriminatory against the city of Brantford, and rival manufactories are located in the city of Hamilton. In order to give hon. members some idea of the enormous difference that this makes on some classes of agricultural implements that are shipped to the northwest, Brantford has to pay a rate of $1.28 per hundred, while the same goods are carried at the rate of 96 cents a hundred from Hamilton, and these goods are carried, not by a rival railway, but by our own Canadian National. That discrimination against the city of Brantford has been put into effect by the Canadian National Railways. Of course the excuse is that when the Crowsnest pass agreement came into effect and the Canadian Pacific Railway gave reduced rates from Hamilton, the Canadian National had to grant a reduced rate to meet it. Whatever excuse may be offered by the Canadian National Railways or by its officials, the feeling naturally will exist, and it will rankle in the hearts of shippers by railway in Brantford that this discrimination is made against them by the Canadian National Railways. The feeling in our district was growing greatly in favour of the Canadian National, and there was a desire to ship goods by that road. The railway had come into favour and was found to be giving

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
good service. People were satisfied with it and became proud of it. But there is a strong feeling there to-day, and they want to know why should the Canadian National Railways, discriminate against them when they are shipping their most important product to the west. Why should they have to pay $1.28 per hundred, when the same goods could be shipped from the city of Hamilton at 96 cents per hundred? In the case of the shipment of some agricultural implements it makes a difference of more than one hundred dollars a car. I think this state of affairs should be rectified, and the Minister of Railways should do something to provide a remedy.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How would the hon. member rectify the situation?


William Gawtress Raymond: I do not quite understand. How would the hon. member expect me to rectify it, unless I had the power to do so?


Leon Johnson Ladner: On the assumption that the Canadian National Railways would accept the suggestion of the hon. member who knows the situation and the difficulty, what would be the hon. member's suggestion?


William Gawtress Raymond: That the Canadian
National Railways should never discriminate against a city that has ever been one of its very best customers, and that it should give no better rate to Hamilton or any other place than it gives to Brantford. That is a fair answer.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand the hon. member to suggest that the Canadian National should reduce the rates from Brantford to the same level as the rates from Hamilton.


William Gawtress Raymond: I am not so much concerned as to what they do with regard to Hamilton as with reference to Brantford, and if they would reduce the rates from Brantford down to the rates charged from Hamilton I would be satisfied.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are they not obliged to reduce the rates from Hamilton?


William Gawtress Raymond: Why?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Because the Canadian
Pacific have been obliged to reduce the rates from Hamilton to the Crowsnest rates.


William Gawtress Raymond: That is a question. They did reduce them. I do not know whether they were obliged to reduce them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was there not an order of the Supreme Court of Canada?


William Gawtress Raymond: I do not know. My hon. friend is a lawyer and knows all about it but I am happily ignorant on that point.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am trying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am trying, Mr. Speaker, to get from the hon. member a statement of the facts which are important, because we in the west are much concerned in this proposition. Is it not a fact that if the reduction were made in the case of Brantford to the rates under the Crowsnest pass agreement, a similar reduction would have to be extended to every other city in Canada. Is that not the reason why they cannot make the reduction?


William Gawtress Raymond: I will answer my hon.
friend's question at a little greater length and explain the argument from the Brantford point of view. I am speaking now trom my own knowledge of it, because I happened to be there when the first connection was put through which gave us any communication at all with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or which gave Hamilton any connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, so far as my knowledge will carry me. The point I wish to make has not been developed at all. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway was built from Toronto to Hamilton, I think, about 1895, at all events before the Crownest pass rates came in. I say that it is through the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway that the Canadian Pacific Railway came to have any connection with the city of Hamilton. They had running rights at this time which they had arranged for with the Grand Trunk between Hamilton and Toronto. They never built a line from Toronto to Hamilton, but obtained running rights over the then Grand Trunk from Toronto to Hamilton. The city of Brantford withheld the bonus from the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway because they had not carried out the agreement which had been made to build a line from Toronto to Hamilton. That is the connection between the city of Hamilton and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway as I see it. If that is the connection then the city of Brantford is just as much entitled to the Crowsnest rates as ever the city of Hamilton was. Another contention I make is that whatever the Canadian Pacific Railway have done, if the Canadian Pacific Railway gave an unjust rate from Hamilton to the detriment and disparagement of Brantford and the business there, I do not think it is any excuse for the Canadian National Railways,
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

our own national railway, to give a rate that discriminates against that city. If the Canadian National gave the rate in Brantford, the Canadian Pacific would have to come down and give the same Tate, as now the Canadian National say that they have to give this rate in Hamilton because the Canadian Pacific gave it. I do not know that it is worth while to go into this at any greater length, but it seems to me it is very plain that Brantford is being discriminated against. Section 55 of the Railway Act states that there shall be no discrimination; but in violation of that section our own railroad has given this discrimination against Brantford that some of our cars have to pay $100 more in freight than cars going from Hamilton, and on many other goods the difference is something like 34 per cent more if sent from Brantford than if sent from Hamilton, because the difference is 'between 96 cents and $1.28. I should like to see this rectified.	It was
promised in the Speech from the Throne that transportation would take up the attention ,of the government during this session, and it has been promised by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who I know is a man who always keeps his promises, that this will be rectified. But months are going by and this is the time of year when vast quantities of agricultural implements are being shipped out. It will soon be the time of year when tons and tons of binder twine will be shipped out, and all these goods have to pay this excessive rate, which I claim is unjust. It is, therefore, the duty of the government and the Canadian National Railways to rectify this and to see that the disparagement against Brantford is done away with.
I was a little disappointed in the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke). Perhaps I had allowed my hope to rise a little too easily. When, last year, certain changes were made in the duties on agricultural implements, reducing them, I would say, to an irreducible minimum, I had hoped that these hon. gentlemen would be satisfied. But they were not, and that resolution showed that they were not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Gawtress Raymond: An hon. member says, "hear, hear". I quite understand' that there are hon. gentlemen over there who will never be satisfied until all the duty is taken off, and I do not know what they will then ask from the government. Their share of the taxes largely consists in the paltry duty they pay on what they use. I should not like to think they pay it grudgingly; I should like to think 	,	:! :|j|U
they pay it cheerfully and with a good heart, because in the amendment that the hon. member for Brandon desired to move, he took the ground that he regretted that the protective principle still1 existed' in the tariff, that is, the extraordinarily high protection of 10 per cent upon ploughs and the extraordinarily high protection of 6 per cent upon binders. I do not know any other country in the world where there is less duty on these goods where any is charged. The hon. member said in his resolution-I will not quote the words of it at length-that they believed rather in the revenue principle than in the protective principle in a tariff. If one wished to collect any revenue, what amount would one impose in duty less than 10 per cent or 6 per cent or the paltry amounts charged on these implements? I cannot conceive it; but I make this suggestion to the Acting Minister of Finance and for anyone who is interested in the finances of this country. If these hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere-and' I do not like to suggest that they are not; it is only that they do not thoroughly understand the matter-in their desire for a revenue tariff, thlat is whiat I have always wanted' and we are quite in accord. Then I understand why it was that the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) referred to some hon. members in this House as "Go-on Liberals." That is, according to my understanding, Progressive Liberals. I must be one of those because I believe also in a revenue tariff, but I believe that revenue tariff should be put on a regular and sound basis. More than that, if that was adopted on everything, if it was agreed: that there should be a certain minimum tariff of say-10 per cent on the imports of this country, I would suggest that when the tariff was reduced to that, it should be considered thiat it was reduced1 to the irreducible minimum and that there would be no further reductions. That would be my idea of a minimum tariff. My idea would be to impose that tax on all goods coming into this country unless there was some special reason why a tax ought not to be imposed or unless there was some special reason why a higher tax should be imposed in certain cases.
The hon. member for Brandon said that he regretted the government had not done more to reduce the cost of living. He should have been a little more concrete and definite. How would he proceed to reduce the cost of living? Let us take the items on the cost of living sheet and see which of them are the highest at the present time. You will find such items as butter, milk, cheese, poultry, eggs, meat, bread, all the products of the farm,.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
are at a higher rate than they usually are on the cost of living sheet. Are those the articles he wants reduced? I do not think he wishes to see any of them reduced. When we know that the few articles of clothes and tea or whatever else we use are not as high, it would have been more interesting, more pointed, if the hon. member had told us on what articles he wanted the tariff reduced in the hope of making the cost of living less.


Mr. GOOD:: What about automobiles?


William Gawtress Raymond: I do not know that in
the cost of living automobiles can be considered unless one had to live like a gentleman on a western prairie farm. I do not consider an automobile is an actual necessity of existence, because it is on the artioles that are considered necessary for existence that this table is based every year, as I understand the matter.
Let me continue my serious suggestion and it is this. The hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Thurston), I think, last night suggested that until we reduced the interest on our national debt, we could not hope very much to reduce the annual expenses of this country. We are met every year with a large uncontrollable expenditure, which varies a little, but which runs somewhere about $135,000,000 that we have to pay on our debt. Unless a direct and definite effort is made to reduce that debt it never will be reduced; it will stay about where it is. It is never going to come down until the attention of the people and the government is deliberately set towards reducing it. Do you think it will be reduced, when we have a deficit of $110,000,000, by still further reducing the taxes or by taking away the customs duties on $700,000,000 worth of goods that are imported, as was suggested by the hon. member for West York. (Sir Henry Drayton). That will not reduce the national debt. I should think it was due to his belief in such a course that when he left office he left us with the enormous debt of $2,500,000,000 or whatever it was in his time. The finances of this country should be considered in a serious and direct systematic way. Some system should be evolved as was suggested by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., whereby we should have something in the nature of a sinking fund or something that would be applied every year towards the reduction of the debt. It need not necessarily be segregated away in a sinking fund, but some definite portion of the revenue of this country should every year be devoted towards the reduction
of the national debt. Until that is done, it will never be [DOT] reduced, and until we reduce our uncontrollable expenses, it will be absolutely impossible for us to get along with less taxation. Therefore, I think that system either of a sinking fund or of apportioning a certain part of the revenue towards the reduction of this vast debt of ours should be put into effect. We could reduce the annual charge on interest and lighten definitely and satisfactorily the burdens of our people. If hon. gentlemen opposite believe, as they say they do, in a revenue tariff, would it not be a good plan to combine the principle of the sinking fund for the reduction of the national debt with the idea of a tariff for revenue?


Mr. IBODGINS:: The hon. member was speaking a few moments ago about the tariff on wagons. For my own information, I wonder what the tariff was on wagons last year.


William Gawtress Raymond: Twenty-five per cent.


Mr. HOEY:: There has been no change in the schedule at all.


William Gawtress Raymond: I think the hon. member asked what the tariff was last year.


Robert Alexander Hoey: It was the same last year as if is now; there has been no reduction at all in farm items.


Archie Latimer Hodgins: If I remember rightly, there was one item struck out of the tariff schedule last year. They were all put under the rates of five, ten and ten, but this year that item is in again and the tariff on it has been increased.


William Gawtress Raymond: I understood there was a reduction on farm wagons and sleds; that was the information I got from one company who evidently are under a misapprehension. I hope the hon. gentleman's interpretation of the schedule is correct, because I know that the company do not want to represent the position as it is not. Coming back to the question I was discussing a moment ago, of some gradual, systematic reduction of the national debt, hon. gentlemen opposite claim to be in favour of a revenue tariff, and I say that our revenue will be obtained through the medium of a tariff as long as most of us are alive; and so long as that is the case the main point for us is to see that it is fairly, reasonably, equitably and consistently collected. I think myself that by combining these two ideas, of a reduction of'the national debt, whether in the form of a sinking fund or not, with a revenue tariff, we should obtain satisfactory results; if a certain part of
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

the customs tariff were devoted every year to the reduction of the national debt you would get a proper system by which the tariff would be stabilized.


Mr. EVANS:: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of a revenue tariff entirely, or does he look for incidental protection along with it?


William Gawtress Raymond: It would be impossible
to have a revenue tariff without giving incidental protection. If for the sake of collecting a revenue we levied a duty of 10 per cent on any particular article, naturally there would be a certain amount of advantage in the way of protection to the implement affected. So that you could hardly separate a certain amount of protection from a revenue tariff. It used to be called "revenue .tariff with incidental protection," but I believe the phrase is a little old now. That was the tariff used more particularly prior to 1011 and 5 p.m. it was fairly successful in Canada, if you will remember. I do not think we have reason to regret that part of our financial history; there was a period of years during which that tariff was in force and I think the business of the country flourished fairly well then. I do not mean to say that this was because of the tariff, but business flourished while that tariff was in existence. To make it a rule that a certain part of the customs tariff should go to the reduction of the national debt would have the effect of stabilizing the tariff, and I feel that it would be quite acceptable to my hon. Progressive friends if they looked at the matter as I do. It would have the advantage of gradually reducing the debt, and further ft would be a means of collecting the money indirectly. I know that some people do not like the term "indirect taxation" and for that reason they object to a tariff. But there will always be some necessity for indirect taxes. And one difference, not the only one of course, between a direct tax, such as the income tax, and an indirect tax by way of a tariff, is that if a man is economically inclined, if he wishes to live, or if being poor he is bound to live, with the greatest amount of frugality, he can avoid using such articles as the duty is collected upon. But if from his salary there is a direct levy in the way of an income tax he cannot practise such economy, and this has a tendency to destroy thrift and frugality. If there were a duty, as we have a duty, on certain articles, those who wished to avoid expense in connection with them could do so by refraining from buying those things. If there .were a duty on tea and they did not w.sh to use tea, or if a tariff were imposed against tobacco and they wanted to economize in that direction, they

could refrain from the use of these commodities. I throw that out seriously as a suggestion; I think that a certain amount of the tariff might be used every year towards the reduction of the national debt; and as our hon. friends opposite believe in a revenue tariff I hope they will give the idea fair consideration. If they do so I flunk they .will agree with me.
Let me say a word now in reference to what has been said regarding the proposed board of tariff commissioners. I think that the hon. member who referred to the matter last night, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Thurston) I believe, icited a strong objection to it, and that was a reason, he said, why we would vote against the budget. I wondered when he said that if he were aware that this board of tariff commissioners will be practically no more than an advisory board of experts to the government. Neither this government nor any other government, nor this nor any other parliament, will ever place in the hands of any commission the power to increase or decrease the tariff as it might see fit, for that would be contrary to the whole theory and genius of our constitution. That of course is not the case in the United States; there the tariff board may put the duties up or down as they please. That could not ibe done in this country, inasmuch as it must rest with parliament to decide what the changes either upward or downward shall be in the duties. If the hon. member, as his remarks implied, was under some misapprehension in this regard, thinking that the matter would be left in the hands of the tariff commission to raise or lower the duties, and if that was what he objected to, I think he need have no fear, because the tariff commission is intended to be merely an extension of the present board that assists the government with advice from outside men who are experts in this matter or who have had business experience in the various questions that come under consideration. Full information upon all these subjects could be laid before the government, and in this way it would come from a free and unbiased source, from the hands of those who are neither prejudiced nor interested. The proper (placing of the tariff is a very delicate matter indeed, and those who have spoken in this House, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), besides several others on the opposite side who followed in the same course, have suggested a reciprocal tariff, a retaliatory tariff similar to that in the United

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
States. Well, such a tariff would not suit us at all; why should we want to imitate the United States? Surely to God we are a country of our own and do not need to copy any other. What we want is a tariff best suited to the needs of Canada, and we should frame such a tariff as the Canadian people themselves want. There are Canadian people who would not like such a tariff as is in force in the United 'States. Suppose for example we had a tariff on woollens, such as there is in the United States, so high that no woollens could be imported from Europe, from Great Britain or anywhere else. Are there not people who would object to that in this country? Yet that is the condition of the tariff in the United States. And would our shoe manufacturers agree to a schedule that levied no duty at all on shoes? But there is no duty on this article in the American tariff. Again, take agricultural implements; agricultural implements in the American tariff are free, and some hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with me that they never want to see these things free in this country. Certainly the city I come from, the constituency I have the honour to represent, would never think it fair, in view of the distance they have to send their goods, to say nothing of some of the disadvantages under which they have to make them, that they should all come in free. But I do not think we could ever expect to have a tariff that would be similar to the United States tariff or the tariff Of any other country; we want to have a tariff of our own that is suited to our own needs. Now, I did not intend to say much about the tariff, but somehow the debates on the budget generally seem to take that angle, and I have ventured to make these few remarks on the subject.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer before I resume my seat. We hear a great many arguments with reference to what would happen to this country if an extremely high tariff, a thoroughly protective tariff, was adopted. As I say, the manufacturers in the city of Brantford are naturally not free traders, and I do not think anyone in this House would accuse me of being a free trader either. But while they are not free traders I do not know that they want a tariff that would, so to speak, reach the sky, the kind1 of tariff that some people have suggested, as high as Haman's gallows. There is a motion on the order paper in the name of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen); I believe it came out in the newspapers even before it appeared on the order paper. It has been referred to in this debate,
and if I am not out of order I should like to refer to it for a moment. He first adverts to the depression that prevails in the country and attributes it to the tariff conditions as they at present exist; then he goes on to state in very glowing terms-it is a beautifully written motion-what benefits would accrue to the country if those conditions were removed. Now, on the very first premise we do not agree with the right hon. gentleman. I do not agree that all the misfortunes of this country, all the depression of business, all the unemployment that exists, come from the tariff. These conditions are found to an even greater extent, as was shown here by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), or at least to as great an extent, in the United States, which is regarded as a highly protected country. When the conditions exist there as they exist here, surely we cannot accept the suggestion that our troubles can be laid at the door of the tariff. I can remember thirty years ago when from 1893 to 1898 we had just as hard times, just as much unemployment, as we have now, though we were then under the old National Policy, which was passed in 1879 and continued from that year until 1897, I believe. There were just as many people out of work, just as many idle factories between 1893 and 1897 as there are to-day, so that I do not think the cause is correctly stated in my right hon. friend's motion.
Now, the results that are supposed to accrue from this imaginary policy-and the policy, mark you, is indicated only in the most general way-are extremely attractive; in fact, alluring -busy factories, happy homes, and all the rest of it. Holding the views that I do with regard to tariff, and coming from an industrial centre, Mr. Speaker, I should look at that suggestion, and I am sure every manufacturer in the city of Brantford would do the same, with a great deal of caution. They would be reminded of those words of Scripture:	"Surely in vain
the net is spread in the sight of any bird.'' Because they remember that the author of that resolution was the one who in 1910 was the first to moot the reduction on agricultural implements and ploughs. They remember that the right hon. leader of the opposition was the one who in 1919 in one fell swoop wiped the duty off farm tractors, of which some $20,000,000 were imported in two years, as a consequence of which the two factories making these articles in Brantford were put out of existence. They remember that he was the author of that; they have not forgotten it, and when they look at that notice of motion they wonder if he will do anything like that again.
The Budget-Mr. Raymond


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Gawtress Raymond: Certainly.


Donald Sutherland: Did not the people of Brantford at the last election vote in favour of the Liberal policy to remove the duty entirely on agricultural implements?


William Gawtress Raymond: I never knew that it was the policy of the Liberal party to remove the duty entirely, but they voted for me and it was not my policy.
Now, as I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question. To speak of the National Policy is but using vague terms; there is nothing definite about it. Let some definite statement be made as to what will be done before any such motion as is proposed by the leader of the opposition can be accepted by those who do not believe in free 
trade or do not believe in too low a tariff. I say they certainly will never believe in it until they see it more clearly set forth; and why should they? When I came to this House-and this is my fourth session-I was entirely ignorant of all public questions; I came here with a kind1 of ingenuous- guilelessness which caused me to believe that what men said they meant. Now, as I have said, you know, Mr. Speaker, that no one would take me for a free trader; in fact, I have some protectionist proclivities in my cranium. At the first session the tariff as brought down in the budget was not exactly a protectionist tariff or a free-trade tariff. An amendment was moved by the so-called protectionists, the effect of which was that the King government had not carried out its pledges given in 1919. Anyone reading the amendment would say that hon. gentlemen opposite wished to see those pledges carried out. Now, I did not wish to see them carried out, I am free to say.	At the next
session an amendment to the budget was moved, I think, by the hon., member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the respected leader of the Progressive party. All those gentlemen who had brought in this motion with reference to the pledges of the platform of 1919 turned ini and voted with the Progressive party. Again last year, I cannot remember the exact form of, the amendment, but it was not anything at all that would lead definitely to a protective policy. I stand open to correction if it was. Then take the amendment now before us. It avoids the question absolutely, and it merely speaks for a still further reduction of taxes in order to reduce the deficit of $110,000,000! That is the ridiculous position at the present time-a further reduction of taxes without any reference to protection or to anything else! While this may seem like a joke, to me it is a most serious question. It will stand forever on the records of this House, and cool-brained men will look it over and they will say, "Here was an ex-minister of the crown, one of the greatest financial minds in the country, who when, according' tp his own statement, there was a deficit of $110,000,000, proposed to remedy it by a still further reduction of taxes!" That will stand as long as the records of this House are preserved. There is nothing in this amendment. If the right hon. leader of the opposition were in earnest on this protective policy, and if he wished to get the support of manufacturers, I would expect to see him more definite. The first session I came to this

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
House I expected them to mail their protectionist colours to the mast and fight and die for them. But those colours are nowhere to be seen. We cannot tell how much is meant, or how little is meant, by this amendment. If they mean a reduction of the sales tax and .so forth, if that is the important thing in their mind, how are we to get at their attitude on the tariff? That such a state of uncertainty should exist is not by any accident; it is by design, Sir. The right hon. gentleman knows well the feeling in this country. He has agents from the Atlantic to the Pacific who keep him posted, and he knows just as well as I do that if he came before the country with a policy of high protection he would find that six of the provinces would not send him a single supporter any more than they did in 1921; he would find that in the Maritime provinces, he would find that in the prairie provinces; he would get no supporters there; and he would find that he would not increase his following in Ontario, in Quebec or in British Columbia. He knows this, and that is why, I say, he avoids the question. If I am wrong- which I may be, because I am not infallible -if I am wrong he will have an opportunity to lay before this House definitely in the form of pledges the policy which he intends to pursue. But to carry that policy into effect, if it were ever in the power of any government to do so, I say most solemnly that I believe it would shatter confederation to its original fragments. That is not what we want to see. We want to see the provinces each like a separate little nation, all happy and bound together in the great nationhood of Canada. That is what we have aspirations for. We want Canada to accomplish something in this world. It seems to me that Canada stands for something. There is a kind of genius in the spirit of this country that is illustrated in its history and in the Act of Confederation-it is, Sir, the spirit of conciliation. Before confederation there were warring provinces that were almost at each other's throats, and there was no possible hope of agreement. But first came the spirit of conciliation, then the spirit of compromise, then the spirit of co-operation, and finally confederation. Let us preserve that confederation so established. On the other hand, if, as some say, there is danger of its being wrecked and ruined now, if, as they say, one-third of our population seek annexation, or if there are those at either end of the Dominion who do not believe in confederation, let us set to work at the task anew, let us start a new policy of compromise and co-operation, let us get this country into the proper state
to be a united country. And we must do that if we want to have it become a successful country.
When I say the spirit of conciliation seems indigenous to the country, I think in all its history is no event we have more reason to be proud of than this, that it was on the soil of Canada that the warring English and French were united through the spirit of conciliation, of compromise, that spirit of conciliation and compromise eventuating in confederation, that [DOT] while still ,in Europe, with only the narrow channel dividing them, English and French were fighting and killing one another, they were becoming united in this country for the sake of confederation. That is the proud part of our history, because the two races were united here long before the thunders of Trafalgar and Waterloo had died away. That is the spirit we need to-day, the spirit of conciliation, the spirit of compromise, and then the spirit of co-operation, if we wish to solidify and consolidate confederation. And in thinking how this might be brought about; it seems to me that if there is one man whose early history, whose long devotion to public duty in the service of humanity, whose whole life has led him to consider this question, I think he sits at times in this House-I do not know whether he is here or not now-his works as they have been laid before the world in the treatment of capital and labour, the two most difficult things in our social economy to unify, show that he did more to unite them than any other man in any country,-a man of whom it was said recently in Ottawa by a citizen of the neighbouring republic, "The greatest difficulties we have settled in the United States were settled on the basis of a charter provided for by your Prime Minister, W. L. Mackenzie King.1" And I say that spirit of conciliation has been the study of the Prime Minister's life. If that spirit is to be carried out, if these rifts, which some say exist in confederation, are to be closed, if there is any hope of keeping together the provinces and having them united in a happy and progressive country, I certainly believe that the Prime Minister is the man. who in the spirit he has displayed throughout his life is most likely'' to be effective in bringing about that great national undertaking.
Mr. .10ESN MORRISON (Weyburn):	Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of criticism of the government on this budget, and I realize it is much easier to be critical than to be correct, especially when one is serving the public. I am disappointed at the tardiness of the government in not making more tariff
The Budget-Mr. Morrison

reductions this year. Hon. members to my right are chronic fault-finders; of course, it is impossible for a government to please them. It seems to be the duty of an official opposition to find fault, whether things are right or not. They will always cry, "Wolf! Wolf!" when nothing is wrong, and the public have learned to recognize that, and consequently pay very little attention to their criticism. They have been tried and found wanting. They ask the people to hustle these inconsistent Liberals out of office and to put them in; but they have nothing new to offer, nothing constructive. They still talk about the alleged virtues and sing the praises of protection, and attribute to the protective system any prosperity that we have attained in Canada. I submit that we have succeeded so far in spite of the protection afforded to the manufacturers which has borne heavily upon the rest of the people. The customs tariff is to the manufacturers and Conservative politicians a cure-all patent medicine. They claim it will raise our revenues by the duties collected on incoming goods. Yet they want it mule-high, bull-strong and pig-tight so as to stop all goods coming in. They decry free trade as ruinous, but they would go to the other extreme and have "no trade or truck with the Yankees"-Canada's best customers. That was their cry in 1911 when agriculture in Canada and all allied industries received a body blow from which this country has not recovered to this day. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we suffered a greater monetary loss through the defeat of reciprocity in 1911 than we did from the Great war.
I think the government should have taken the duties off automobiles and auto trucks this session, removed the duties on cotton goods, and lowered the duties on many of the necessities of life. I should like to buy a new car this year. Would the Finance Minister advise me to buy a Canadian-made car or an imported car?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Buy an imported car
and turn the duty into the treasury.


Mr. MORRISON:: If I buy an imported
car the price I pay is the actual market value, plus duty, and I turn a few hundred dollars into the federal treasury. Would that not be a more patriotic thing to do than to buy a car from a Canadian multi-millionaire and turn the tax into his private coffer? I find the idea spreading considerably in the west that if we cannot get the tariff duties lowered in any other way we shall have to start a propaganda in favour of buying imported goods in preference to the home made,

thereby helping the Finance Minister to balance his budget.
The United States have put a tariff of 42 cents against Canadian wheat for home consumption, but they admit it free of duty when used in milling for export purposes. Our wheat is required to be blended with the United States wheat for home consumption. That makes it expensive for the American consumer, and it is also a hardship on the Canadian producer. A restriction of this character injures both parties. Would the matter be improved any by Canada putting an export duty on wheat, thereby curtailing the ability of the American millers to compete with Canadian flour in the world's market? Would it not be a much better plan for Canada to send an ambassador or a high commissioner to Washington, accompanied by a competent staff, in order to keep American public men properly informed as to Canadian conditions instead of trying to fight them? I believe that if we had had an ambassador or a good Canadian representative, at Washington the Fordney tariff would never have been imposed against us. If we had had such a representative at Washington the Chicago drainage canal would never have come into use, and our interests and the interests of shipping on the'Great Lakes, both Canadian and American, would have been protected. Figures have been submitted to the House showing that millions of dollars annually are lost through the lowering of the levels of the Great Lakes. A great deal of this loss is passed on to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian farmers; as a matter of fact we all have to share it. Had we had a representative at Washington to present our case properly this loss might have been averted. It is much better statesmanship to make provision in advance and prevent a possible injury from being done than it is to try and devise a cure after the event has happened. The United States has been our best customer and Great Britain second. Our trade with the United States last year was over $900,000,000. Yet some people say we should have no truck or trade with that country.
The budget, I think, should be clarified by the Acting Minister of Finance. The estimates of ordinary expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925, amounted to $381,949,379.67. If we deduct the appropriations for railways, amounting to $56,000,000, it would leave $325,949,379.67. Now on page 32 of the Canadian National railway report we find that the amount of $8,491,553.57 was loaned to the system by the government. The

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
estimates for the last fiscal year as they passed the House amounted to $329,086,395.97. The Finance Minister estimated the expenditure for the same period on February 28, 1925, as $319,700,000, the amount saved or unexpended would be $9,386,305.97. The latter amount is an apparent saving on the year's expenditure, but the Acting Minister of Finance gives no explanation of the manner in which so large an amount has been saved or unexpended, and takes no credit for what is, if actually achieved, a remarkable performance. If this amount had not been saved or unexpended, instead of a surplus of $1,820,000 there would have been a deficit of $7,500,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask: How can Canada properly balance her budget? To this question I reply: By increasing production per capita; by increasing her population; by decreasing public expenditure; by getting nearer sound business methods for conducting the public business. I have obtained figures from the Bureau of Statistics as to yields of wheat in nine European countries and find that the average yield per acre for five years, from 1917 to 1921 inclusive, for the countries mentioned is as follows:
Bushels
per acru
Germany	 26.4
Austria	 15.4
Belgium	 35.6
Bulgaria	 13.4
Denmark	 43.9
France	 19.9
England and	Wales	 31.2
Norway	 24.6
Czechoslovakia	 20.8
This is an average of 25.8 bushels per acre. In those same years the average in Canada was 12.8, just half the yield per acre of these European countries. The average acreage in Canada in this period1 was 18,546,000 acres. At thirteen bushels extra per acre, this would mean 241,098,000 bushels. Other grains would double this total! of increased wealth. Acreage can and I think would be doubled1 if indbee-ments for profitable farming were held out in Canada. I would like our protectionist friends to consider what such production of wealth from agriculture would mean to industries generally. Suppose that they merely get their share of it, in the open competitive market, would it not be better for them to take a smaller margin ,of profit on a maximum output and keep their factories running to capacity? Would that pay our railroads to operate to maximum capacity? Would it not be better for our financial institutions and for all the people generally rather than that
restrictions should be put on the basic industries so that there is no inducement for people to work at these industries. The basic industries of the country have to be on a properly sound basis before real stable conditions can. be obtained for the dependent industries. It would be also better for labour. There would' be much work in the country. Our protectionist friends are very solicitous for the poor working man, especially coming near election time; but if we had: a maximum production and1 smaller profits, with a maximum turnover, there would1 be no idleness in the country. These poor yields of Canadian farms are not because the soil is poor or because Canadians are poor farmers, but there is a real cause for that How yield and I consider it is the excessive cost of farming ;n Canada. It is often impossible to farm profitably. Lumber and building materials generally, farm materials and farm supplies of all kinds are much too costly. It is a physical impossibility for men to carry the burden of somebody else and do their best in business. The same thing applies to industry. If an industry is burdened it cannot do its best. Every time tan unfair burden is imposed on a man you decrease his productive ability and the same thing applies to an industry.
At a meeting of the Brantford Board of Trade, held on March 14, 1911, the following resolution, proposed by Mr. Harry Cockshutt, at present Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, was adopted:
Resolved,-Our (1) material, (2) national and (3) empire interests will be best served by keeping entirely free of reciprocity entanglements with the United States at the present time. Carried 53 to 49.
About two years after this I was in Minneapolis and I saw the Cockshutt implements there selling in competition with American implements. I was in a wholesale implement warehouse., and I asked the manager how those implements compared in the amount of sales with the American implements and he said, "Oh they get their share of the trade" I was surprised to learn that the, prices of Cockshutt implements in Minneapolis were very much lower than they were in Winnipeg. Unfortunately I did not take down the figures and cannot quote them, but they were very much cheaper in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg. It shows that when the Canadian manufacturer wants to compete with the American he can do so. Some people think that the Canadian manufacturer pays the duty on his implements going across the line, that he is handicapped and prevented from getting into the American market. There is

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
no handicap whatever. But the American is handicapped by the tariff in getting into our market. The Canadian manufacturer has that one hundred and ten million American market on the same terms as he has the Canadian market. He has the drop on the American manufacturer to that extent. The Brantford people are really high protectionists. I do not know why they send a gentleman down here posing as a Liberal. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Raymond) was finding fault with the Conservatives for their indefiniteness in their statements about the tariff. I do not agree with my Conservative friends about their customs tariff, but I must say that they come out and say where they are at. They state what they believe with regard to the tariff and our Liberal friends are disappointing the country. They have a good policy. They have one policy to preach at election time, to get into power. They appeal to the public on a low tariff policy, and when they get here it would take a magnifying glass to find out the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative when it comes to the tariff. It cannot be done. It is all popycock. About three weeks ago Lieutenant Governor Coekshutt toured western Canada as an emissary for the high protectionists. He handed out a lot of fine stuff about a "get together spirit" between the east and west, just what the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) shot across the floor of the House a little while ago. He says "Let us get together, in a spirit of conciliation and good will"; but back in 1911 he did all in his power to take our natural markets from us. He has the same spirit yet, though he is a Conservative, exactly as the hon. member for Brantford is a good Liberal-no difference at all. I want to tell my hon. friend how we can have a good spirit of unity without going out west and waving the flag. That trip out west was only an admission that down in their hearts they realized that something is really wrong. The right way to overcome all this illfeeling which is growing, and this difference between east and west, between urban and rural, is just to give the common fellow a square deal, and there would be no need for flag-waving. The common people get no favours, and they should no longer be imposed upon. They are not satisfied to sit still and be imposed upon.
With reference to the tariff board which my hon. friend talks about, to advise the government as to what duties should be put on the different implements, I ask, has any manufacturer gone to any government, Liberal or Conservative, asking that duties be imposed on competitors, where the government have re-

plied, "All right, sir, put all your cards on the table and we will look into the matter?" Did hon. members ever hear of that? I .never saw it. It is time they got someone to inform them. I do not believe a tariff board in the hands of such gentlemen .would be anything more than something to hide behind. Certainly they will put on the board men who believe in a protective system, and they will get the report from these men and say, "Here is what is recommended' to us." They will make them the goat, and we will be the burden-bearers as usual.
A lot of this inability to compete with outsiders is due to difficulties of the home-made variety. For instance, not long ago I cut a clipping from a Montreal paper with reference to the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company having watered stock. They watered the stock in that company four times the amount they actually put in, and then they charged rates to pay dividends of seven per cent all these years. Here is the dope that the Montreal manufacturers swallowed. Their employees were charged four times the rate for their light bill, and it made living in Montreal very expensive. Whenever a new company started to supply heat, power and light, the old ring would get after it and give a good inducement to it to come into the combine. This was done until they got a combine capitalized at something like 1164,000,000. This was over capitalization all tacked on to the cost of the product of the factory, because it makes living expenses higher and the companies accordingly have to pay higher wages. Then they keep their competitors out with a tariff wall and the}' say:	Charge it to the farmers of the
west; they are making money; they can pay it. A few years ago when a Toronto manufacturer was trying to shake me on this tariff question, I asked him: "Why do you not even sell us your goods for the same price plus extra freight charges, at which you sell them to the Ontario and Quebec farmers?" He said: "Look here, Morrison, you know the way business is done-all that the traffic will stand. You fellows are making more money and you can afford to pay more than the Ontario farmers can. We have got you farmers down where we want you and we are going to make you pay. If the position was reversed, you would do the same." After talking about two hours, he got impatient, finding that he could not get away with his guff, and so he spoke out the truth.
Employers who enjoy special privileges either by protection, or bonus, can give a better inducement to labour than the farmer can, but they do so only at the demand of the labour unions. Their bonus is the farmer's burden,

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
as we cannot compete in the labour market. The result is that Canada's output per acre of farm products is only one-half of what it would otherwise be.
Canada needs more workmen to work and develop her basic industries, and care should be exercised in getting immigrants. Better inducements will have to be given in order to keep people on the land. To start immigrants farming the first year they are in Canada is a Serious mistake, because such a practice results in their losing their money. Then, of course, the country is knocked, and efforts at immigration abroad are undone. A man should be in this country for at least one season and acquire some experience, before he invests his little bit of money. It should be an easy matter to compel every immigrant to have in his possession as a part of his passport, a document in his own language, furnished foy this government, setting out clearly Canadian conditions, and the Canadian immigration law. This would do away altogether with the old cry of deception which so many immigrants put up when they lose their harvest earnings in a poker game. People coming to us from the British Isles are particularly faulty in this regard. This could easily be set right if some one seriously minded was interested.
Experience on Canadian farms is necessary, for one year at least, and settlers should be established or domiciled within already improved municipal areas, which now have railroad, roads, schools, churches and post offices, It is folly to put them away back too far from these conveniences. Conditions would be too bad for them and many of them would become dissatisfied. It is unnecessary to provide more public utilities to take care of the increased population until those municipalities which have those conveniences and have to pay for them are better settled. Conditions have changed much for pioneers within the past twenty-five years.
We need an agricultural credits' system as is recommended by Dr. Tory in his report. On page 12 of Dr. Tory's report, he states:
I have discussed the problem with many business men in the east and in the west, men who know the difficulties associated with the building up of successful enterprises and I have not met one who would say that he believed that any business-farming or other,- which did not have the advantage of a protected market, or of patent rights, which in some measure gave a monopoly, could continue to prosper, paying 8 per cent or 10 per cent for capital, and a like amount for current borrowings. With this opinion my own judgment is in complete accord.
Capital and labour must learn to cooperate and fairly to recognize their inter-146
dependence. Western Canada needs more of both, working harmoniously. Wasteful competition of our two big railway systems must cease. We can no longer pay rates to maintain public-utility corporations overlapping and duplicating services. Our banks, retail coal companies, retail lumber-yard companies, newspaper publishing companies, and others, are all meeting the new conditions by getting together, one firm closing in one town, their rival closing in another town. They have been forced to co-operate or perish. Let our railways do likewise, and cut down their unnecessary overhead costs, instead of moving heaven and earth to get higher rates. This country cannot prosper under higher rates. I have been enumerating some of the industries that have closed some of their branch offices, and I would submit that some of these institutions are amongst the 2,000 that have closed their doors in the last few years. I believe there will be a few more that will close on the same basis, but business is improving with it all.
Those of us who have to pay freight charges, Largely both ways, are very much interested in getting better rates. We have to pay the freight on our purchases of implements, twine, lumber and coal, and again we have to pay the freight on our live stock and grain going out. We are intensely interested in seeing efficiency in railway management.
I am going to mention a matter that is not altogether federal, but something will have to be done to remedy the situation. Last fall a taxation conference was held at Ottawa and the Dominion and provincial governments sent representatives. The object of the conference was to define more clearly the respective spheres of taxation, and to eliminate all unnecessary duplication. I do not know what measure of success attended their efforts, or whether they accomplished anything to benefit the heavily taxed citizen. I am about to cite a case in dispute between the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia and this case is typical of many others. A farmer from Saskatchewan moved to British Columbia where he died three years later. He had sold three farms on agreements of sale. The British Columbia government collected succession duties on those agreement-of-sale contracts, and to-day the Saskatchewan government is trying to collect succession duty on the sarnie agreements of sale. I am not accusing the Saskatchewan government nor excusing the British Columbia government. I know all the parties concerned, and I know it is very hard on the widow and

The Budget-Mr. Morrison

the children to have to pay -the succession duty twice. Succession duties on bequests outside of a province come doubly high at any time, but to have to pay them twice is very unfair. The federal government should call another taxation conference as soon as possible at which all the provinces should be represented. As regards any matters on which they cannot agree, let them decide at this conference that they will split the difference fifty-fifty until they get -from the Privy Council a decision on the matter. I spoke to our Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who, I know, is not responsible in any measure. Hie told me that he could no nothing and he advised me that they could take the matter to the Privy Council. What a privilege! The widowed mother would have a fat chance to take her case to the Privy Council. She would have no chan-ce at all. She will have to pay the duty twice if those men will not compromise and go fifty-fifty on this tax. I do not think that the governments of these provinces should be allowed to demand the tax a second time; that is getting down pretty near to what we might call tyranny.
On page 4690 of Hansard, volume V, 1924, the following question by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), together with the reply by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), is reported:
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. Good (Brant): Would the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the Alternative Vote bill, which had already received its first reading, will receive consideration early next session, and further that there will be no election, as far as he can guarantee that, between now and then?
Mr. Mackenzie King: In reply to the first question, I may say that if we are all here when parliament re-assembles, certainly this alternative vote measure will be one of the first to be brought before the House.
I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat to tell us why this matter has not been brought before the House. It is very necessary if he intends to bring it down that he should move quickly, if he does not want to put all the blame, in the event of its being deferred, upon the poor old Senate. The Senate has its own burdens to bear. I think the Prime Minister should have lived up to his promise and brought down this legislation.
On page 1475 of Hansard of the present year the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in introducing his budget gave notice of the following resolution with regard to the Special War Revenue Act.
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and to provide:-
1. That "cheque" shall be further defined to include any document or writing, not drawn upon or addressed to a bank, in exchange for which a bank

makes payment of a sum of money, except a coupon and a document used solely for the purpose of settling or clearing any account between banks, and that such a cheque shall be liable to the stamp tax imposed on cheques by the said act.
That I contend is singling out a certain class of people in the country for another extra burden-I refer especially to the creameries. We farmers know that when a man sends his can to the creamery he gets a receipt or ticket, and according to this proposed legislation he will be taxed on a dollar or two dollars receipt. We would not object if everybody were treated alike and if this provision read, " 'Cheque' shall be further defined to include any document for $10 or over." We do object, however, to being singled out for a tax like this, especially in view of the fact that the Acting Minister of Finance took care to retain the good will of those gentlemen who are fortunate enough to have the pleasure of clipping coupons, which are exempt from taxation. That is rubbing it in with a vengeance, and the government cannot expect Progressives, who are largely representatives of farmers, to stand for additional burdens. It is not a square deal; all should be treated alike. Why exempt the rich man and- tax the farmer engaged in the dairy business?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Morrison: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I had practically finished speaking. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the case of the Home Bank depositors. When the Prime Minister toured western Canada last fall he was interviewed by committees of the Home Bank depositors for a statement as to what the government intended to do for them. He promised them that the government would bring down a bill this session for the relief of the Home Bank depositors, but he warned them that the Senate had the last say, as they did in the case of the branch lines bill of the 1924 session. Since the Prime Minister and the government realize this, I would urge upon them the necessity for immediate action in bringing down- a bill for the relief of these depositors. The distress that has followed the failure of the Home Bank is widespread, and the government will certainly share the blame if the measure of relief that is proposed is not brought down in plenty of time to enable the Senate to deal with it.

The Budget-Mr. Dechene


Mr. AIME DECHENE (Montmagny) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the budget resolution and its amendment by the hon. members who preceded me in this debate, only tend to show, first, that no one gives a thought to the Tory amendment, and secondly that, for the greater part, the attitude taken by the government in the present circumstances is justifiable and is the only reasonable one.
In fact, the Tory amendment has been entirely lost sight of. Very few of the hon. Conservative members themselves have ever taken the trouble of discussing it. The public has a right to wonder if this amendment were moved in good faith to expound a programme and the policy of a party, or if it were not simply a means of obstruction, by which they tried to prevent the Progressive party from introducing an amendment themselves, which might have had for effect-although one may question the fact-to throw into the discussion new ideas which might lead to a policy productive of results and aiming to create useful developments in our trade and administration. The Tory amendment had as a result the setting aside of the one moved by the Progressive party and to prevent, to some extent, any move which might bring on a discussion capable of producing effective measures for the welfare of the country. It is not astonishing therefore, that the Conservative amendment was entirely ignored, and that even the press of the country paid no attention to it; the amendment was given a public funeral, as it well deserved.


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hearl


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear!


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The policy followed by the present government, purports to do away with this sectionalism and unite all parts of the country into one great whole, to Which all citizens will be proud to belong. With the success that the present government policy meets, we can hope in a nearby future, to see in our country more citizens proud of calling themselves Canadians, instead of calling themselves, English, Scotch, Irish or claim to be of any other nationality. To desire a united Canada, is to want to be a Canadian citizen who will be proud of his title of Canadian first. We must congratulate the government for striving to create a policy which makes for the unity of the whole country and which tends to infuse in all citizens a pride in their citizenship.
We have, unfortunately, noticed, in the course of the present session, that this tendency to sectionalism has gained a certain leader of a party. Have we not to regret to note such a feeling expressed in a resolution moved in this House, at the beginning of the session, by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Medghen)? In fact, if we consider the last paragraph of this resolution which, as it seems, aims at setting forth the policy of the Conservative party and checking in advance the effect of the budget brought down by the government, this is what we read:
That to enable the products of the western and Maritime provinces to reach more readily the markets so developed the special transportation burdens borne by those provinces should be shared by the whole Dominion either by contribution to long haul freight costs or by assistance in some other form.


Andrew Ross McMaster: This is
sectionalism 1


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: It is, therefore, fomenting disunion, which seems to have always been the principal aim of the Conservative party: Divide to govern.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear!


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: However,
I think that in the present circumstances, the Conservative party has been ill advised, and that the citizens of this country will greatly disapprove of this appeal to sectionalism, to narrow-mindedness, so as to fry to get into power.
The Budget-Mr. Dechene

Indeed, wdiat will the people of Quebec and Ontario think, when they hear that the Conservative party has in its platform, such a clause which endeavours to shift on to their shoulders the burden due to the remoteness of markets from the western and Maritime provinces? I do not think the farmers, the town's people or the manufacturers are willing to shoulder the whole burden of taxation- whether it be for railways or anything else- which results from the outlying position of the provinces occupying the four corners of this country'. The plain statement of this policy, Sir, makes us realize the danger that exists in fostering this narrow-mindedness, this sectionalism, a danger not only to individuals but a very great one to the country itself.
Another point that the debate has brought out clearly, is the stand taken byr a great number of citizens who expect the government to do everything, without any effort on their part and without their trying to obtain the best results possible with the means actually at their disposal. If we have a problem to solve or a difficulty to meet, immediately we come to the government, and the latter must find a solution to the problem. It often happens, I might even say it is always the case, that the best solution to a local problem is the one that a member himself, private, concerns or corporations can bring about, when they wish to take the trouble of utilizing the means at their disposal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear!


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I shall, in a short while, give you a. striking example of what can be accomplished by the initiative of a person or corporate body along those lines, however, for the moment my thoughts are concentrated on what is considered to be a more serious problem. Last year, if I am not mistaken, the government was criticized for a lack of consistency in the tariff. Our Conservative opponents were the most bitter in these attacks. This year, because the budget changes are not as numerous as last year we hear quite a. different cry: too much stability in the budget, too much stability in the tariff! How are we to please these gentlemen? If the government inaugurates a new policy, one hears: You should not touch this and that! If we get practical results, these gentlemen tell us: You should make changes here and there! It is difficult to find a solution which will be agreeable to them, and their own resolution is a proof that they have not found one, except by canying on obstruction. Some one whispers to me that we should ignore them. I think the country did well 
to ignore them. At the last by-elections, the country was called upon to judge between the government's policy and that of obstruction, and, I think, I can say with my hon. friend that these gentlemen have been ignored not only by the House but by the public as a whole.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear!


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: More than once, in the course of this debate, we have heard certain members demand new markets for our products. It is the proper time to examine what the present government has done to obtain more favourable openings for Canadian products. If we review the legislation already enacted, if we look into the treaties negotiated under the present regime, we may designate this government as: the government of trade conventions.
We notice in that sphere considerable activity. Indeed, never have there been as many trade conventions directly negotiated between Canada and other countries, as by the present government. These various conventions have brought us important business. That is a worthy achievement for which we must give thanks especially to the hon. gentlemen who negotiated the treaties. As a result, have we not noticed that our exports have increased in a most extraordinary way? If we consider one kind of products only, we are aware, for instance, that our exports of farm products amount to more than $500,000,000 which is equivalent- to more than half our total export trade of $1,070,611,616.
In fact, in 1922, we exported farm products to the amount of $532,820,457.
In 1923-a year after the present government came to power-our exports of said products amounted to $553,069,240, that is already an increase of $21,000,000.
In 1924, we continued our ascending march; our exports amounted to $598,729,385, in farm products alone, that is more than half of the total exports of this country. The result of this large exportation of our farm products has been of a twofold nature: first it brought considerable revenue to the country and, secondly it has stabilized prices in this country. Indeed, if our exports had not been greater than what they were during the last years of the Conservative government, I think that the price of farm products in this country would have been so low that most of the farmers would have been forced to abandon their farms; however, under the present administration, thanks to the trade conventions signed with various countries, we have noticed a great improvement. The

The Budget-Mr. Dechene
farmers throughout the country must be pleased with the results obtained in so short a time.
One of the tariff measures most criticized was the preference which Canada gives to the products imported from Great Britain. Often, when something goes wrong in a city, we hear: Oh! this is caused by the British preference. In the course of the budget discussion, which has been going on for nearly a month, very few speakers seem to have gone to the trouble of informing us as to what the British preference has cost us and what are its benefits. The British preference applies not only to Great Britain and Ireland, but it applies also to all the various colonies or dominions which make up the empire, when these dominions grant us a preferential tariff of a likewise nature. Our best client for farm products is, without any doubt, England herself. In fact, out of the $598,729,385 of agricultural products exported during the year 1924, our exports to England amounted to $337,813,146; this means that more than half of our exports to England consists of the products or by-products of the farm. This seems to be quite an excellent reason in favour of the preferential system; however, there is also the reverse side of the medal to look at:	What do we import? That is
especially what is considered ruinous for our country. If we stop a moment to consider the total products imported from England, we notice what others have observed before us, what Benjamin B. Wallace, of the United States Tariff Commission, has himself stated in the annals of the American Academy of the political and Social Sciences. This gentleman, who devotes his time to economic questions, tells us-I may state broadly-that the British preference granted in 1896 did not prevent the decrease of Great Britain's share of trade in the products which she exported to Canada. This is not a Canadian, or an Englishman, but an American who is struck by the fact that this preference did not prevent Great Britain losing ground and witnessing the decrease of her percentage in products exported to Canada. And he gives the following list: in 1883, our imports from Great Britain amounted to 42.3 per cent of the total imports; in 1893, the decrease had already begun to be felt and these imports amounted to only 35.5 per cent; in 1903, the downward trend continued, these imports amounting only to 25.2 per cent of the total imports; in 1914, we notice the same downward trend 21.3 per cent; in 1923, the English share of trade had still decreased and the British imports amounted to only 17.6 per cent of our total
imports; in 1924, after the tariff changes so much criticized, we still notice that the figures have again fallen, and that the imports which come from England amount to only 17.02 per cent of our total imports. According to the statistics of this American gentleman, I think that the British preference has not been so unfavourable to us as one wants us to believe.
However^ our imports from the United States have followed an absolutely different course, they have always been on the increase and the percentage of American goods corn-spared with that of goods imported from other countries indicates a continuous increase, and this notwithstanding that there exists no preferential tariff in favour of the United States. We quite often hear-we have heard it in the House on a number of occasions-members quote instances of industries being ruined by this British preference.
I shall myself give, as briefly as possible, examples of the conditions of some of these industries, and I think that the instances I shall quote to the House will suffice to prove that one tries to throw the blame on the Imperial preference for all the evils which we suffer, from wherever they may come from.
For instance, one often hears of the boot and shoe industry. The statistics in regard to this industry afford us a very striking example. For an industry "ruined", it seems to enjoy a most marked activity. From 1921 to 1923 inclusively, the number of boot and shoe factories in Canada has increased from 177 to 186. The value of the output of these [DOT] factories increased from $44,665,381, in 1921, to $45,596,012, in 1923. The 1924 figures have not yet been compiled.
There is, therefore, an increase of nearly a million dollars in the output of boots and shoes in this country for the said period. The absurdity of the assertion that this industry is ruined owing to an unfair competition by the manufacturers of Great Britain, due to the preferential tariff is clearly seen by comparing the imports of boots and shoes from Great Britain and the domestic output. Although the imports of Great Britain have increased somewhat owing to a higher preference, the total is not sufficient to seriously hurt the Canadian manufacturers. With a domestic output amounting to $45,596,012, in 1923, the British imports were only $604,472.
The increase in 1924 only brought up this figure to a little more than one million dollars, to be exact $1,018,082, or again one forty-fifth of the Canadian production.
The Budget-Mr. Dechene

On the other hand to counteract this increase, we have a decrease in the imports of boots and shoes coming from the United
States. The decrease, in 1924, amounted to $121,465 compared with the imports of 1923. The net increase of foreign competition, amounts to $292,091, this is therefore far inferior to one per cent of the total domestic expenditure and gives a smaller percentage in increase than the home production. I therefore, think that these figures are sufficient proof to us that it is not the British preference which causes trouble to the manufacturers of this country. They can hold their own against foreign competition in other countries where' they sell their goods; I therefore see no reason why they cannot face British competition in our own country.
Another industry that we often hear about and which is occasionally pointed to as ruined, is the woollen industry.
In 1924, Canada purchased nearly $2,000,000 less of wool and woollen goods, than in 1923. As it is stated that British preference has the effect of ruining the Canadian woollen industry, it is interesting to note that in regard to the wool bought from the United Kingdom, there has been a decrease of nearly $2,500,000 in 1924, compared with 1923. The figures are as follows: in 1923, the imports of wool from England amounted to $35,520,730; in 1924, the figures are $33,163,186. During the same period there has also been a decrease of $556,778 in the purchase of woollen goods coming from the United States.
The woollen industry in Canada has not been . the only one to suffer in the world crisis of woollen and cotton goods. I shall call as a witness Mr. Pierce, President of the American Woollen Company. The latter in submitting the yearly report of said company, stated that the depression in the trade of American woollen goods, in 1924, had been the worst since the year of the Civil war. The loss of $11,970,000 sustained last year, by that company is the greatest deficit which it has ever had to register.
I think that the statement of Mr. Pierce clearly indicates that the woollen industry was still in a worse state in the United States than it was in Canada, and that it is not the British preference, nor even the general tariff which is the 'cause of the depression Which we may have had to suffer from in this country, however, if there was quite a marked depression, in 1921-22, in 1922-23, we notice already an improvement. In fact, there were, in 1922, 137 woollen mills, at present there are 141; the capital invested in this industry

increased from $37,102,382, in 1922, to $43,148218, in 1923, that is an increase of over $6,000,000. The output which amounted to 29,062,751 pounds, in 1922, had increased to 33,472,087 pounds, in 1923, that is an increase of 11,000,000 pounds. For an industry which is being ruined, really I think it is very fortunate. There are many people who would like to be ruined in that way.
The cotton industry also suffered considerably, and the opponents of British preference delighted in spreading that it was due to that "bugaboo" and that English and American cotton goods were ruining us, especially the English cotton goods.
During the year 1923, the imports to Canada of cotton goods decreased nearly $4,000,-000-$3,849,689 to be exact. The imports from the United Kingdom, under the British preference amounted to $538,100 less than in 1923. This is only another proof that conditions are improving in our home industry, and that there is an increase in the purchase of raw cotton for our Canadian mills. For the following three years the imports are these: In 1922, $22,455,546; in 1923, $30,780,915, and in 1924, $25,576,764.
In a word, the cotton industry has always been improving in this country, and I do not think that there is cause to consider as serious the cry of alarm spread by the manufacturers who always seek more protection, without considering the true facts. The exact cause of the closing of cotton mills in this country, has not been the lack of markets, but is due to the bad cotton crops in the United States and to the high prices reached by the raw cotton in the countries where it is grown. These gentlemen seem to have reaped handsome profits. Their mills resumed work early in 1924; and I do not think they can claim that, if the 'business was not what they expected it to be, it is again due to the British preference. One of the general results of the British preference has been to serve as a lever or to stabilize prices in this country. Not only should the interests of manufacturers be considered, but also those of the consumer, of the masses.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear,
hear! It is the first word spoken on behalf of the consumer.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I hear the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) saying that it is the first word spoken on behalf of the consumers in the course of this debate. I thank him very much for the compliment, I fear, however, that is not quite exact, because, in the course of his splendid speech, he has given us proof that, he, him-

The Budget-Mr. Dechene
self, takes an interest also in the consumer, and with success.
It is flattering to be able to point out to tourists, in a city, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty homes of millionaires and add:	These
are the owners of the large mills of this country, the masters of the working classes, that live there, they are responsible for the good and bad times; we must not forget, on the other hand, that apart from the millionaire, there is the people, the consumer. The millionaire does not make the wealth of a country. It is not because there are in the United States 125 millionaires possessing to themselves, one-tenth of the total wealth of the country, that the American Republic is wealthy! No, it is because the wealth is distributed among the masses. The manufacturer has no vested right to exact a living from the consumer; the industry is established to supply the consumer, generally, what he needs. It is the consumer who is the mainspring of all prosperity, of all national wealth in a country. It is, therefore important that the government should endeavour, as much as possible, to supply the consumer, the middle class of a country, the means of living comfortably, even with a certain ease, without for all that ruining the manufacturer. What makes the manufacturer prosperous, Sir, is the wealth of his client; the client of the manufacturer, is the consumer. You find the proof of this truth in the daily incidents of our Canadian national life. If in the west, the crops are bad, if prices are down, the client the consumer in the west is not rich, he buys little and he becomes a poor client for the manufacturer; however, let a good crop turn up, let the time come, when the financial conditions of that part of the country improve, immediately our fellow citizens of the west become buyers, become good clients and the manufacturer immediately benefits thereby. I think that the government is wise to give the greatest encouragement possible to the development of trade, especially to that of the farm products, so that the town people may get these products with the greatest facility possible, while allowing to the country people, the farmers, a fair profit which will permit them to better their lot and become good clients for the manufacturers.
I see, Sir, that I am enlarging somewhat on the subject. I shall try and be as brief as possible. I stated, at the outset of my remarks, that among our population, there existed too great a tendency, in certain parts of the country, at least, to expect everything from the government, and not to rely sufficiently on one's personal initiative or one's
judiciously concentrated effort to obtain excellent results, and I shall give a more striking instance of what can be done by the concentrated effort of a few to obtain a beneficial result for the masses. You will recall, Sir, that from the very first days of March, a group of members were striving to improve the lot of the rural classes, which constitute the greater part of their electors. The members who thus united were those of lower Quebec. They chose a chairman and, under the direction of the latter they immediately settled down to the task of obtaining results which they thought would be beneficial to their electors. Briefly, this was the problem: The southern part of Quebec has to put up with the same isolation as that of the northeastern part of New Brunswick. These gentlemen met so as to consider if it was possible to improve the conditions of their people and to better the means of shipping the potato crop which they produce in large quantities in that region. The market seemed closed to them. They live in the most remote eastern parts of the country. There existed a large market in the west which they had to reach at all cost, and this is the letter which these members sent to the chairman of the railway commission.
Ottawa, March 4 1925.
Dear Sin,-As Chairman of the deputation that visited you this morning, I beg to express our feeling of extreme gratitude for the kindly hearing and courtesy you have shown to our delegation to-day.
This deputation was composed of the following members of parliament:	Messrs. Pius Michaud
(Restigouche-Madawaska); J. G. Robichaud (Gloucester); W.. B. Snowball (Northumberland, N.B.); Aim6 Dechene (Montmagny); J. F. Fafard (L'Islet); F. J. Pelletier (Matane); George Bouchard (Kamou-raska); J. F. Pouliot (Temiscouta); Sir Eugent Fiset (Rianouski).
The main object of our deputation was to expose to your Lordship the awkward and extraordinary situation in which we, the representatives of the lower part of the province of Quebec and the upper parts of New Brunswick, are placed. Geographically speaking, we are situated at the tail-end of the western market and at the head of the eastern market. Apparently, we are like orphans, who do not belong to the respective provinces in which our counties are situated, and that is the main reason why we decided to approach your commission directly on behalf of our own population.
The main points that we discussed with your Lordship were: freight rates on potatoes, freight rates on lumber and express rates on fish; but the most pressing part of our problems at the present time are the freight rates on potatoes. Our population faces not only ruin and disaster, but on account of the extraordinary crop that was grown this year in the counties above mentioned (between 15,000,000 to 19,000,000 bushels of potatoes) the farmers, on account of the exorbitant rates that are being charged by the Canadian National Railway for the transportation of this product, which is the basis of the economic life of our population, are
The Budget-Mr. Dechene


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, in the year 1891 I appeared as a candidate for this House of Commons to represent the then old-time constituency of East York. I ran there as one who believed in the National Policy, as a disciple of Sir John A. Macdonald, and I have supported that policy all my life. I ran in that constituency as a
rather young man against a very important opponent, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who had recently been Prime Minister. He had lost his seat in western Ontario. He carried East York and defeated me by a majority of 26. Within a year he died, and in 1892 I was elected to this House as the representative of that constituency. Ever since I have been in this House, and I have carried on pretty well the views I then held in regard to what I considered to be the proper tariff policy for this country. I came by my belief in the National Policy through my father, who was the first man in this country to organize the Manufacturers' Association, to develop what he called our "home industries," following somewhat the policy that had been adopted in the United States. It took a long while to build up industry there. They thought they were a sugar, cotton and corn growing country, but after a while the United States became the greatest manufacturing country in the world, largely because they adopted the policy of encouraging home industries. But in Canada it was rather hard work to get them going, and men like Isaac Buchanan-we do not hear much about him now-a Scotchman who had an idea that protection would be a good thing for this country, George Stephen, who afterwards became one of the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and others who believed absolutely in the encouragement of home industries preached their faith. I might say that George Stephen was one of the first members of the Manufacturers' Association. I happen to know where a little book is that contains the names of those early members. Then John A. came along and took up the National Policy proposition, perhaps as a political manoeuvre-I will not say; I do not think so-but he was a strong believer so far as I ever knew in trying to do for Canada what the United States had already accomplished, to build up home industries and so give work to the people in manufacturing as well as in farming.
When I first came into this House in 1892 my constituency of East York had not a population of 25,000 people. It was made up of what is now called Greater Toronto, a rim of suburbs peopled by market gardeners, butchers, hog raisers and dairymen-a very ordinary lot of people. What has happened since? That once despised constituency of less than 25,000 people will be represented in the next House by eight members, who will speak for over 400,000 people To prove what I say I am going to name the constituencies that have come out of that hive Of all the mother constituencies in this country East York is
2292	COMMON'S
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
the greatest. Out of that constituency the new House will have a member from South York with a population of 50,000. To-day I represent 120,000 people in this House, that being the population of only a portion of my original constituency. Next to South York there will be Toronto-Scarborough, another riding of over 60,000; then East Toronto, which I represented when it was called St. Matthew's ward-over the Don with only a few people living there but to-day it has a population of 60,000; then comes Northeast Toronto, which I represent to-day and where I hope my friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) will go, but they say he is looking in some other direction; that, too, is a great constituency. Then comes Northwest Toronto, which I represented for many years when it was in my original riding and was known as Toronto Junction, but which now comprises a great part of the city of Toronto;^ then I go over to Toronto-High Park, which I at one time represented in this parliament, another large constituencjr; then I come to that portion of West York which I represent to-day. ^ Under the adjustment that was made some time ago I am turning over probably some seventy polling subdivisions there that I represent in this House to-day. And lastly, and as the eighth of the lot, the township of Markham and her sister township, Vaughan, in West York go to North York taking with them the seed of the National Policy. That is eight constituencies that swarmed off from the original riding of East York that I represented. And I imagine that the feeling among that 400,006 people will be largely to maintain the policy which created the industries which support them, and which created and developed the great industries in many other parts of this country. Now you may call that part of the district suburban, it was only common township territory originally. What has happened to make this great change which resulted in one constituency growing into eight? It was the creation of a great many industries in Toronto and the establishment of those
400,000	people who believe in the National Policy. They believe in it for the reason- although my hon. friends the Progressives may object to it-that it builds up home industries. The Progressives say, and they are in favour of something in contra-distinction to the National Policy, that they do not want that in the west. Now I say and I challenge hon. members from the west to dispute it, that this is the view of the people in that part of Canada, namely-that the people of Winnipeg want their city to become a Toronto,

and the people of Edmonton also want their city to become a Toronto; and even the Progressives themselves, who profess a policy different from the National Policy adopted, do not believe in raising their families to become mere farmers. There is no farmer in the ranks of the Progressives that does not hope to see his sons have the opportunity to get into business, to get into industries, to get into mining, and all these other occupations. What they want in the west, and this is what I wish to tell my hon. friends-[DOT]


John Livingstone Brown: I should like to correct
the hon. gentleman on that point.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend will have lots of opportunity to correct me. I will stand any amount of correction and I hope he will carry out his intention. I am sure he must want to see diversity of employment in this country. I have not seen a farmer from the west who does not want to see the same thing. You may ask "How is Toronto interested in that?" Well, I will tell you. This great community, now to be represented in the coming parliament by eight members, has a population, with enormous industries built up in that old East York, who believe in the National Policy, and who believe in diversity of employment. And the thing that makes a country .is diversity of employment, and that is what the issue in this coming election is to be. It is to be whether we are to have diversity of employment, or whether we are to have the development merely of one or two industries in this country and, in the main, agriculture.
I want to say something more about the people who make up that population of 400,000 to which I have referred. The bulk of them live in the East York that I have described. There are thousands and thousands of men and women who live there-not in the city of Toronto but still in old East York [DOT]-men and women who are on the payroll of industries located in the city of Toronto. These people have grown up and have raised their families there and they want to see this industrial growth and development kept up. They do not want to lose their houses; they want to see employment continued, and I may say that unemployment is the problem before this House and the country to-day. We have got to deal with it; it is a problem which exists all over the world to-day. It prevails in England. So bad is that problem in England that Mr. Baldwin, and some other prominent men there, are preaching something in the direction of the state financing work and helping to provide wages for the

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
unemployed. Do not let my Progressive friends down the line run away with the idea that unemployment exists only in protectionist countries. Unemployment is worse in England than in many countries where they do not have free trade; and I may say that it. was free trade that first gave England diversity of employment. Perhaps, that raises an objection to my argument; but nevertheless the fact is that any country that wants to hold its own in the world to-day must not depend on one source of employment. There must be diversity of employment, there must be opportunity for every family. Every country now is up against this struggle for existence that is prevalent, and if there is to be diversity of employment it must be based on a policy of its own. In times of stress, and after the great war through which we have passed, the impelling principle is to keep your own work for your own people; keep your own markets for your own products and do not surrender them to other people. Germany is ready to raid our markets. She raided and fought us in war, and, now she is going to raid our industries. France feels the same way. The United States have got ahead, and I think would like to have possession of our markets.
On that line I want to tell the House another thing that happened. I went to a meeting last Saturday where they organized the new riding of South York and these questions came up. The most popular sentiment expressed there that day-and the audience consisted of the men and women who will make up the new South York, and who are living in that great community of 400,000 people-the sentiment that was expressed there, the sentiment that was applauded and was the predominant sentiment, was in regard to reciprocity of tariffs as between Canada and the United States. If they propose to bar us out and to take our markets, and if Germany purposes to invade our markets with a great cut in her prices, then we have to give treatment for treatment or we will be wiped out. There is a great new struggle going on now in the world between countries just to hold their own. It is a fight for existence; and the thought that is growing more and more among our people-it is growing in the minds of the
400,000	people who make up greater Toronto; the idea that impels them and comes home to every family; to the father who is employed, to the son and daughter who may be employed in these various industries or in other businesses-is how are we to keep our wages? More and more this demand is being made on the part of labour. You hear it all over
our country, you hear it in Montreal, you hear it in other parts of Canada, you even here it in the west. What we must do in this House, if we are to maintain the position of our country-I do not say that we have to go into an absurd system of protection-is to keep the work for our own people, and we will have to fight to do it. Our friends from the west want rather to reduce the little protection we have, and we have some protection. The issue I have described will be the fight in this coming election whenever it does come.
The members from the west will have to fight that very same question in their country. The people in the west have no intention of remaining a purely agricultural community. Towns there want to grow. You are building UP universities there. The farmers are sending their sons to the universities, and they will want the universities to be followed by scientific schools and to send their sons fo those schools; they will rvant to see the possibility of their having different employments. You cannot raise sons and make them all farmers. ^ That is the mistaken belief which my hon. friends down the line hold. You must have diversity of employment in order to provide occupation for all c.f your family Mv hon. friends to my left may find fault with the position I take, but I have been rather sympathetic with a great many of the things they advocate. I am entirely sympathetic with them in regard to their request for better ocean rates. I am sympathetic with what I have heard to-day in reference to reduced railway rates in this country, and the way to reduce those railway rates is to have an economic management of our railways and stop the awful competition. I am going to refer to that matter a little later on. We should also develop our waterways.


Mr. COOTE:: In regard to the establishment of industries in the west, does my hon. liend think we will be able to establish in-dustnes in the west without some protection from the competition of these large factories in Toronto?


William Findlay Maclean: That is a fair
question and I answer that I think so. I read in the Free Press of Winnipeg the other daj% the statement that new industries were coming in and the people out there were glad to welcome them. The farmers are developing new industries. They have gone into the business of (butter and dairying, and have made great advances in the live stock industry. They will have abattoirs and everything in that line. They are going to vary their occupations and their industries and build up
2294	COMMON'S
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
their country, as Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces have built up their country. In other words, you are going to see a revival of the idea that in order to build up a country you must have diversity of occupation and give encouragement to your own industries. If you like to give your industries away to other countries, you may do so, and your people will go away. However, 1 do not think that is the sentiment of the west. It is not the sentiment of British Columbia, or of the Maritime provinces. It is certainly not the sentiment of Quebec that they desire to see their industries go. Yet you would almost think that Quebec was ready to let her industries go. But that is not the popular view, and I am quite sure the province of Quebec will be heard from on this question before the next election is over.
I will tell the House now about the industries in my own comparatively small riding. Hon. members will ask, what are they made up of? Market gardeners started there years ago. There is a big market gardening industry in that district. I have lived among these market gardeners; they are constituents of mine. The industry does not look to be very much, but it gives homes to hundreds of them in that county. The next interest there is probably the berry and fruit industry. The fruit industry has developed largely. Next is the florist industry, developed by men who have greenhouses, glass houses and who do a great trade in flowers. The business has attained large proportions. It is a source of income and thousands of them are being supported by it. Hon. members talk about the export of poultry from the west. They ought to see the poultry and eggs that are raised in that small community now called South York, formerly called East York. It is an immense industry. They have also other associated interests of that kind, and all these people have an absolutely vital interest in remaining as they are in that district and having a chance to make their living, and they will only be able t,o make a living now if these home markets which they have at present are kept for them. I pointed out to the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) the other day that one difficulty these men in South York labour under is the seasonal advantage our competitors in the United States have, because their season over there is much earlier than ours and there are large importations from the States which are bought by the rich people of Toronto. Other towns of Ontario are in the same position. But that market is liable to be raided, and is raided as a matter of fact, by the competi-
tion of the United States. I think those people are entitled to some kind of protection. They are asking for it and I am putting in a plea that those industries ought to be protected and kept there. They have a right to have their interests advocated in this House.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) this afternoon said a great deal about compromise and co-operation. Well, there must be some kind of co-operation between the east and the west, and some day it will come. Some day the most pronounced protectionist in this country will come from the west and he will be in favour of great big interests and local interests being built up by some kind of national policy for protection, to keep a lot of work for our own people and a lot of our own products for our own market. What would I suggest? I am not speaking for one moment for the manufacturing interests. The manufacturers themselves have not many great friends in this country now. They are doing most of the talking themselves. They think of nothing but themselves, and some of them are very selfish. A great many of them 'made enormous profits in the recent war. Now they are enjoying games of golf and riding in great big cars, and people are making a clamour about them. I am saying nothing about this. Let them look out for themselves, but I speak for those on the pay-rolls of the industries of this country.
We have heard something about export duties, and we have those duties in this country. The government has placed an export duty on power. I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for London (Mr. White) who opposed it, or rather said it should not be brought into force until the present contracts ran out. That may or may not be true, but Canada to-day has enormous water powers, especially in the region of Hudson bay, and north of the western provinces. I believe all those water powers can be harnessed, and by means of long distance and high transmission, perhaps by wireless transmission, there will be great abundance of power development in that country which may be a great source of revenue to Canada and to all the provinces. There are other things we can accomplish by an export duty. Do you believe I would let one pound of nickel go out of this country to go to Mond's smelters in England or to the International Nickel Company in the United States? There is not a pound of nickel ore in any place but Canada, and I would not let a pound go out without being absolutely refined in Canada;

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
and yet through Sir Alfred Mond and the International Nickel Company-and they are the only people who got the ore-Germany got all the nickel she wanted during the war, and she got it from the nickel ore in Canada.
I have made that statement before, and have been condemned for it, but I say it again, and I appeal to the people of Canada through their representatives at Ottawa, to place a duty on the export, not only of power, if they are in favour of it, but on nickel, in order that it may be refined and made into metal in this country.
I would also put an - export duty on pulp-wood going out of Canada, which would help our revenues. The settler will say, "I have only one market for my pulpwood and it is the export market." That may be true, but let his own province establish a pulp mill to grind his pulp, and in that way we will have the business in our own country. We command the bulk of the pulpwood business of the world, and we can get the whole of the business, on account of the class of pulpwood we have in Canada. We have to take care of that pulpwood and I think we will take care of it. As long as we have it we can get a great revenue from it, and an export duty placed on pulpwood will help pay the taxes and debts of the country.
I am going to leave the tariff question with this brief statement of my views. I happen to come from that little constituency which has grown from 25,000 people to 400,000 people and that has the greatest collection of industries of any portion of Canada. That constituency is growing; the people are growing with it, and they have as much right to claim fair treatment as the people of any other portion of this country. When these conflicting claims arise, there is only one way, as was said by the hon. member for Brantford this afternoon, by which they can be settled. There must be some compromise, some adjustment, made and some patriotic view taken that we want to help our own people and our own industries in a time of trial such as this.
I am going to pass from that to discuss for just a moment the banking conditions of this country. I am an absolute believer in Canada adopting, as far as it can be adapted to this country, the national reserve bank system of the United States. I have already said in this House that the greatest public ownership proposition in the world today is the national reserve bank system of the United States. It is absolutely owned by the people of the United States and billions of gold owned by the people of that country
are behind it. They have also their own coinage systems, and the whole credit of the United States is behind the national reserve bank system. The way in which the United States is now and has been able for some years to encourage the farming industry and to expand it, is by providing a credit system for the farmers with absolute security and guarantee. That is done through this national reserve bank system. That system has been an immense success in the United States, and we in this country, and especially the people in the west, want a similar banking system. The Canadian banks, however, are opposed to this, for what reason I do not know. They should not have any objection to doing what has been so successful in the United States. The United States is going to do the reparation work of the world in the way of financing; she is doing it now for France and Germany; she has helped England immensely; she is ready to do this for all the world, through the fact that she has this splendid system of banking backed by the whole credit of that country. Our banks oppose the establishment of a similar institution in Canada and they say: Oh, we might get the system of banking they have in the United States and some money might be lost. Let me tell the banks of this country what I would like to see because of the failure of our banks to take advantage of the creation of a national reserve bank system in Canada. I would like to see fifty bankers from the little towns and villages throughout the whole of the United States come to Canada and ask for charters for small national banks to develop here. If our bankers saw such an influx into this country of the same system of banking as they have in 'the United States, backed by the national credit, there would be a wonderful improvement in our financing. Branch bank business, as far as we know it, is not a success. It is ending more and more in mergers. I wish the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) were here to-night so that I could tell him what is going on. Within five or six years, at the rate at which mergers are taking place, we shall have not more than five or six banks in this country. Let me enlighten the House and the country about three very surprising morgues that are maintained in Canada. A morgue is a place where dead things are kept. What do hon. members think these three great, big morgues contain? One, I think, is in Toronto and perhaps two are in Montreal. They are the storehouses of the banks' safes that have been discarded be-
2296	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
cause of the bank mergers that have taken place in Canada. Hundreds of agencies were closed, for instance, the Merchants Bank and the Molson's Bank, and in Montreal there were others besides these. There have been numerous mergers in Ontario. Now, owing to these bank mergers, there are nearly
20,000	of these safes stored in this country, and the banks do not know what to do with them. They are afraid to show them and they keep them hidden. That is a result of the bank mergers. But the bank mergers have not finished, and I am going to make this prediction that as soon as this parliament is over, there will be three great mergers in Toronto. They are all arranged now so far as I can gather, and they will go on. Let there be big banks if there must; but let there be little banks as well, and let the little banks have the same advantage of the national credit as they have in the United States and as the big banks have in this country. The big banks may say that I am making an attack on them. I am not. I want the big banks to make more money than they are making now. All I am asking is that they will give more service. If we have something like that in this country, many things will take place that will help to bring about a recovery m business conditions.
I should like to refer for a moment to the question of the revision of our constitution and of making our courts supreme. I heard an lion, member from the west speak this afternoon about a grievance that existed there in regard to tax duties on agreements of sale whereby an innocent family, that owned property in one province and that had gone to live in another, found that both provinces claimed the tax and they had to pay the tax in the two places. The provinces said to them:	You pay the tax
in the meantime and go to the Privy Council in England to have the matter settled. We shall never be a country until we interpret our own laws in our own country iby our own courts. That is a question on which all the Canadian people can unite. The greatest court in the world to-day is the Supreme Court of the United States and it was built up by American lawyers. They have become great jurists and they have a splendid system of law in that country. The crowning glory of the United States is probably its own Supreme court and the integrity of that court and many other courts over there. Canada will never be able to hold up her head alongside of the United States until she has at least as good a banking system and as good a final 
court system as they have there, instead of being, as we are, minors, wards, and having to go to the Old Country in order to have our laws interpreted. The people in the Old Country are quite willing that we should interpret our own laws and to allow us to make our own constitution. Speaking of these constitutional questions, I say that much headway was made in this parliament this session when the motion of an hon. member from the west in favour of Senate reform was accepted, went through and was recognized in Great Britain. Results will come from it in a very short time, and you will see Canada having a much better position amongst the nations of the world than she has to-day.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Are the people
of the United States entirely satisfied with their courts and the decisions of them? Is there not a great deal of agitation there for a change?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think
so. But the Supreme Court of the United States settled the question of slavery after the war; the action of Abraham Lincoln was upheld by the decision of the court. But even if there are disputes there, so are there disputes here, and it is for us to make the system perfect as far as possible. Personally I will trust Canadian judges any day for the final decision, and especially the Supreme Court when we have strengthened it. And to my mind Canadian lawyers are absolutely the best men to interpret the laws of Canada.
There is only one other question I desire to speak to and that is the question as to the demand for a merger of our railway systems in this country. Things cannot go on as they have done in the past. We have been rolling up a huge snowball of liabilities ii. connection with our National Railways, and the Canadian Pacific has also been meeting tremendous expenditures. Unless we do something to put a stop to the enormous waste which is taking place in connection with the Canadian National Railways, I cannot see anything ahead but disaster; and the only solution, as I have said before, lies in a merger of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National system. This I know is objected to by a good many newspapers, particularly in Montreal, where probably a chain of journals are opposed to it. It does seem to me however that the country is behind the proposal for the consolidation of the two railway systems as the only means of eliminating unnecessary competition and putting an end to wasteful and extravagant expenditures. If these two roads were consolidated to-morrow,

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
I would venture the prediction that the joint income, as a result of the savings that would be effected, would meet the liability in regard to dividends in connection with Canadian Pacific, and the merger would in my opinion prove entirely successful. We should then have a railway system that would really pay its way, instead of operating a huge company, not altogether to the advantage of the shareholders in the case of the Canadian Pacific, and not to the benefit of the public in the case of the National. system. The shareholders of the Canadian Pacific can no more stand competition than can those of any other railway system. I am sure the shareholders of this railway are not quite certain as to whether their 10 per cent dividend can last under this competition. As to the proposal itself, it was not even considered by some of the newspapers, not even by the Montreal Star. It was however intimated that it would be desirable to cut out the un-
10 p.m. necessary competition, and some of the press have been shouting in that respect. But they do not want to see any merger brought about. Now, competition will not be eliminated in any other way; there must be an absolute merging of the two lines if the full benefits of the elimination of competition are to be enjoyed.
Talking about the merging of railways, I might refer the House to what is going on in the United States. Hundreds of railways in that country were exploited to a marvellous degree by the men who controlled them, and the United States government has issued an order to the Interstate Commerce Commission to the effect that they compel all railways in that country to be merged into probably seven or eight systems. This will mean the wiping out of millions and millions of securities that were put out by those who have exploited these roads; and the Interstate Commerce Commission has further ordered that all these railroads, when they are merged, shall operate and take profits on a valuation made by expert actuaries on the actual values in the roads and not the capital issued. The same thing will come in this country unless we stop the rivalry that now exists between the two systems here. All that need be done is for the two roads to get together and take care of all the securities that are out; this would eliminate the waste that is now incurred through unnecessary competition. Just imagine two great headquarters in Montreal with two managing staffs, hundreds of offices and hundreds of men, where half the staffs, half the men and half the chief officers might serve equally well. This would mean an enormous saving.


Mr. HARRIS:: Would the same theory
apply to the merging of the banking institutions?


William Findlay Maclean: No, it would not; does the hon. member want to have the banks merged into one? Be that as it may, a merger of the railways in this country would solve our difficulties.
I might mention what has been done by the Northwestern Railway Company in England. That concern has issued a statement to the effect that its expenses must be reduced owing to competition. And they have not been extravfagant either. What happened in England has happened in Canada as well, and it is this: the automobile and the motor truck have taken away a good deal of the local business of our railways. Take for instance the city of Toronto. If a man buys a carload of manufactured goods he simply gives his order over the telephone; a motor truck will take a load of from three to five tons from Kitchener and deliver it in Toronto six hours after, unloading it there, and there will be no cartage nor railway freight. The automobile business has therefore seriously affected the profits of our railways. And the railways are menaced from another quarter in this country: the United States and Canada intend developing the St. Lawrence waterway, and that will cut into the profits of the railway systems. Still more are the railways threatened in their high class business, such as express and passenger services, by the aeroplane, which within three years will be all over America. The Canadian Pacific Railway, then, ought to pray God every night to be taken over by the Canadian National system so that its shareholders might be assured for some time to come of the dividends or a portion of the dividends they now receive. Instead of these railways fighting for business they should get together to stop the over-competition that now exists. I will close by reading an extract from an editorial I have received in the mail. This editorial is reprinted from the Border Cities Star, published in Essex, which is represented in this House at the present time by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and by the successor of a former member of this House, the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy. It is under the caption, "Duplications,' and I quote from it the following:
Mr. W. F. Maclean, M.P., has been commended for calling attention to expensive duplication of certain services at Ottawa. Mr. Maclean deserves commendation for he has placed his finger upon a condition that is almost criminal in its extravagance. Let us hope that he keeps on complaining and that his protests may not fall upon deaf ears forever.



The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
Mr. Maclean is also interested in eliminating another form of duplicated service-that of railways. He desires the. Canadian National to take over the Canadian Pacific so that great economies may be secured and the whole Dominion transportation problem straightened out. An ambitious thought, this, but one that is not likely to be worked out for the very good reason that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not anxious to be taken over and the business interests of the country are not keen on publicly-owned railroads anyway. Mr. Maclean may find it necessary to turn his argument around, that is to advocate the taking over of the Canadian National by the Canadian Pacific.
I want to tell you why I oppose that proposal. The Canadian National is owned by the people of Canada; the Canadian Pacific is owned about one-third in Canada, one-third in the United States and one-third in Great Britain. The control of that railway could be bought any day by English capitalists who went after it, or toy the New York Central or the Pennsylvania system of the United States. They could buy the Canadian Pacific tomorrow-and they may be after it; but they could not buy the Canadian National railways because they are owned by the people of this country. So I resent this doctrine propounded in the Border Cities Star. Yet this western writer admits the whole case when he says:
That there is an urgent need for the building of additional branch lines in the west is known to everyone familiar with that part of Canada. At the same time, there is a natural hesitancy to pass appropriations for such work for the simple reason that our present railway bills are so high. With amalgamation of the two great national systems, the saving of millions in expenses annually, and the lifting of the load that now reposes on the shoulders of the people, there would be money, opportunity and desire to proceed with those vital branch extensions.
The Border Cities Star favours the consolidation of the roads, but under the Canadian Pacific. I am against that; I am in favour of the consolidation of ;the roads under the Canadian National, which is owned by the people and which has sixty or seventy per cent of the railway strategy of Canada. I mean this: the old Grand Trunk was the greatest railroad system ever built on this continent. It got all the strategy at Montreal. It got all the strategy along lake Ontario, of the city of Toronto, of the Niagara district, of the Detroit river, to say nothing of a great many other portions of Ontario. The Canadian National has the strategical advantage in respect to the passes through the Rocky mountains and in the matter of grades. The Canadian Pacific has been made a great road by the contribution of the people of Canada, but we do not own it. I say we do own the Canadian National, and we must take care of it. When we consider the reduction in business and the increased competition involved in the waterway routes of
fMr. W. F. Maclean.]	>
the St. Lawrence we have got to get down to the cold-blooded business of doing something to merge these roads and eliminate unnecessary competition.
The farmers of the west see that things are improving for them; the prospects are that conditions will be better in that part of the country. Nobody wants to see the west go ahead more than I do. Some people say the representatives of the west are a class here, but what are we in the east but a class? They have as much right to be here and to state their cases as we have. From what some people say you would almost think they were bolsheviks, intruders; but the farmers of the west are Canadian citizens who elect their members to parliament and they have as much right to express their opinion here as anybody eJae Personally I speak here for 120,000 people whom I represent, many of whom are engaged in industries in my riding; rvho believe in diversity of employment and who want to see work provided for their own people. They believe, as I do, that extravagance of all kinds should cease. I want the Acting Minister of Finance to say to-day whether he approves of the unnecessary expenditure involved in the duplex system we have in this House, to which I referred on a previous occasion-two systems of post offices, two systems of messengers, and all the rest of it. Here is where economy could be practised, and the country demands it. When we begin to work it out in our own House then we can work it out in the country. Let us put an end to this unnecessary competition between the railways and thus make things better both for the railways themselves and for the country. Let us still have some respect for the principles that underlie that old, much denounced idea of a National Policy in this country for the encouragement of home industry, for the providing of employment for our own working people, for the maintaining of a home market for our own products.. Speaking particularly for the people whom I represent in this House, I say to-day that we do not want to see that National Policy abolished at this time, after the Great war and after the great losses in life and in money that our country has sustained.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, after the somewhat
lengthy discussion which has already taken place it is perhaps not necessary for me to say very much with regard to the details of the budget. We are told that there is no deficit; yet on the other hand we must con-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
fess that we have decreasing revenues and increasing obligations. Just how long this state of affairs can continue is a matter that surely ought to call for the most serious consideration from this House. I submit that increased revenues can in the long run be secured only on the basis of general prosperity. To-day without doubt we have low wages, unemployed workers, idle factories, and discouraged farmers. Under these circumstances how can we hope for any immediate change in the situation in the near future? And in this respect I am not thinking particularly of one party or the other; I think both parties are in the grip of the larger economic forces over which politicians have very little control indeed.
We hear a great deal about the necessity for greater economy, but I would urge that this economy is not to be gained simply by petty retrenchment, although this may be desirable. Certainly it is not to be gained by any reduction in the necessary services which the country is rendering. In all fairness to the government, I think it should be recognized that the greater part of the budget is uncontrollable, that is, it consists of fixed charges, very largely interest charges. On the other hand, it does seem to me as if the government should very frankly face the enormous debt and should take steps, as I think was suggested by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) this afternoon, to deal with this war debt. I do not know that I agree with his suggestion of a sinking fund; it seems to me that this would not be adequate to meet the needs of the country; but I do believe we will not get very far towards alleviating our taxation until we tackle the war debt. Earlier in the session I called attention to the fact that if we add together the federal, provincial and municipal expenditures on the basis of nine million people, we have an annual expenditure of $89 per bead. I do not think that at the present moment we have nine million of a population. So that, roughly speaking, we have a per capita expenditure of $100. Think what that means to an ordinary family of five-$500 per annum! As to the war debt, if we add together the federal, provincial and municipal debt we get a per capita debt of $547-an enormous load for our people to carry. It should also be remembered that the debt is owed to a considerable extent to people resident in Canada, which means that a comparatively small group who hold the debt are able to levy tribute of some one hundred million dollars a year on the rest of the Canadian people. That is, that amount 147i
is being paid to Canadian bondholders; and over half that amount is in untaxable bonds. As long as that condition of affairs continues we are bound to have very heavy taxation. Sometimes I have wondered just what would happen if we adopted the old Mosaic law and every fifty years instituted a year of jubilee under which all slaves and debtors would go free. I am not very sure that a very large proportion of our population would suffer very much if we had such a jubilee. I do know that it would be a wonderful relief to industry if these enormous overhead charges could be rolled off.
Now I pass to a consideration of our National railways, for we all recognize that they are the source of a very considerable part of the deficits which come to us from year to year, whether those deficits are formally recognized by the government or not. I take it that we are undoubtedly committed to the principle of government ownership; there is no going backward, we must go forward. Sometimes the impression is given that we are in difficulties over the Canadian National because of the very high wages paid to labour Let me say that in 1920 there were 185,177 employees receiving $290,510,518. I am speaking now of railway employees as a whole. In 1921 the railway employees of Canada, numbering 167,627, were receiving $247,756,138; in 1922, 165,635 railway employees were receiving $233,294,040; in 1923, 178,052 employees were receiving $253,320,005; in 1924, 159,030 employees were receiving $231,517,862. I might say that the latter figures are hardly complete ; they are the latest available but include only the operating departments. Now, the higher salaries account for a considerable portion of the expenditures on wages and salaries. The salaries of the general officers amount to a little less than five million dollars a year. In 1923 the general office superintendence class numbered only 20,828. I would point out that although there has been a bigger volume of trade, this increased business has been handled at less expense. I note in the Canadian National Railways operating expenses that, although there was an increase in the salaries and expenses of the general officers from 1892, when it was $693,271.03, to 1923, when it amounted to $947,576.89, the payroll of the operating departments was cut by $7,714,263. Thus, although the higher officials have increased the expense in connection with the whole operation, wages have been steadily cut notwithstanding the larger volume of business handled.
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

There is another point to which I should like to draw attention; it has come up again and again in this House, and so far no action has been taken towards remedying the unsatisfactory condition. That is the overcapitalization of our railways, and I want to speak especially as to how this affects wages, or may react on wages. In this respect I think I cannot do better than read a few paragraphs from an article which appeared in the February number of the Canadian Railroad Employees' Monthly:
The fifty-eight railways in Canada operate a total mileage of 54,580 (including sidings and yardage) and have a total capitalization, according to government statistics, of $3,264,000,000 or nearly $60,000 per mile. The C.P.R. with a total mileage of 19,103 has a capitalization of $623,960,000, or about $32,800 per mile. The C.N.R. with a total mileage of 26,751 has a capitalization of $2,207,000,000, or $84,500 per mile. The capitalization of the Canadian National system is made up as follows:
Canadian Northern	 $ 872,492,000
Grand Trunk	 599,226,000
Grand Trunk Pacific	 265,639,000
Government Railway	 447,643,526
Last year the C.N.R. operated on the average 20,419 running miles of road and the C.P.R. 13,878 miles. On the basis of miles operated (not including sidings and yardage) the capitalization was:
C.N.R	 $ 109,000 per mile
C.P.R	 44,500 per mile .
According to figures given by the Canada Year Book, published by the government, the capital liabilities of the various units composing the Canadian National system, on the basis of the mileage operated in December, 1922, were:
Government Railway.. ..	$	105,000	per	mileCanadian Northern	
46,000	per	mileGrand Trunk	
102,000	per	mileGrand Trunk Pacific	
80,200	per	mileThe former private railways were presented with vast areas of land and enormous subsidies. The Dominion government made land	grants to	railways	of31,684,000 acres, and the provincial governments 15,200,000 acres-a total of 46,886,000	acres.	A	part	of
the public domain nearly equal to the area of the three Maritime provinces was thus turned over to railway promoters and their political friends. More than half of this great area was presented to the C.P.R. and its subsidiaries, that company on most of its main lines being permitted to make selections of the land likely to prove the most valuable. When the Grand Trunk Pacific was projected the policy of making large land grants was discontinued, and that road only obtained 11,800 acres from the Dominion government.
In addition the Dominion, provincial, and municipal governments gave cash subsidies to the private railways to the amount of $230,000^00 and guaranteed railway bonds to the tune of $442,000,000. Of these bonds $370,000,000 are still outstanding, and mostly form a liability against the national system. The high .capitalization of the Canadian government railways {Which includes the old Intercolonial, the Transcontinental and the Hudson Bay railways) is partly explainable by the fact that they did not receive cash subsidies or land grants. Again, successive deficits have been added to their capital liabilities.
To the old I.C.R. capital account, too, was charged the construction of important harbour works at St. John and Halifax, whereas the C.P.R. and Grand 
Trunk have had the benefit of fine port facilit* *s at Montreal with little capital outlay in that conm ction. If the government roads had been credited with subsidies and land grants equivalent to those given other roads, their capitalization would have presented a different figure.
The old Intercolonial itself only represents a capital investment of $120,220,000 according to the public ^accounts of Canada for 1923 (schedule F. to balance sheet). But in the great railway building age the politicians in the east as well as the west got charters and subsidies to build small branch lines to open up forest areas or mining districts. Then when these lines had served the purpose of stripping the more acceptable and valuable timber areas, they, in many cases, managed to persuade the government to buy the line and add it to the government system. There was much log-rolling in those days. And thus in the construction of the government system its capitalization was augmented by practices, legal enough perhaps, but hardly justifiable from a moral point of view. The railway history of Canada is replete with stories of railway promoters amassing snug fortunes, for which they rendered no adequate service to the country.
It is scarcely fair-
And this is the point I should like to press in this connection and the reason for reading these figures-
-that the burdens of the sins of the politicians and the promoters should be visited upon the railway workers to the third and fourth generations.
The article goes on to point out that according to the public accounts for 1923 in the national balance sheet there are the following assets:
Government railways	 $423,000,000
Railway accounts (old loans)	 88,000,000
Railway non-active loans	 558,000,000
The billion dollars which the government counts as assets, are liabilities of the C.N.R.
Included in this we have guaranteed bonds to the amount of $296,000,000, and debenture stock (outstanding in 1923) amounting to $216,000,000. The article proceeds:
The sum of these accounts is $1,581,000,000, and that is the sum on which the C.N.R. is expected to pay interest,-a matter of nearly $75,000,000 per year.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I should like to ask the
hon. member a question. Does he read from that paper that the amount which the government railways cost is charged against the Canadian National Railway system in their overhead?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is the-


George Perry Graham: I mean the government owned railways.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is the sense of the article.


Milton Neil Campbell: It does not say so; it
simply refers to the capitalization. The statement is not very explicit.

[DOT]2301
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


George Perry Graham: I should imagine it just referred to the capitalization. It does not go so far as to say that the Canadian National annual overhead is debited with the interest on this capitalization so far as the Canadian government railways are concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement is not explicit; I am not quite sure as to that.
I am quoting this as an authority on the subject of over-capitalization. The statement concludes with this paragraph:
The sum of these accounts is $1,581,000,000, and that is the sum on which the Canadian National Railway is expected to pay interest, a matter of nearly $75,000,000 per year. That sum is $300,000,000 greater than the capital valuation of all the railways in Canada would be if they represented the same proportion of the national wealth as the United States railways do of the national wealth of the republic.
I will not go into this question in detail; it simply suggests a line of reasoning which I am glad to say, is very frequently met with across this country; and I am very sure that if the government could see its way to write off some of this over-capitalization as simply bad debts we would be in a very much better position to carry forward our national lines to success.
There is just one other point I should like to mention in connection with the railway situation, and in doing so to take my place beside the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) who has been a veteran advocate of public ownership. In the first session of this parliament I can remember advocating the unification of our two-company system. At that time the whole idea was regarded as absolutely impracticable, and apparently there was no use in urging it upon the House. I am glad to think in the last four years we have come a few steps nearer that veTy desirable development; and this year when the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr Euler) came to the support of the hon. member for South York, I am sure that we all felt that perhaps the time might not be so remote as some of us imagined, when this unification would take place, and place us in a fair way towards the solution of one of the most important problems which confront us in Canada to-day.
With regard to the question of free trade and protection, the discussion of which has occupied so much time up to the present, I might say that the labour movement does not regard this as by any means a fundamental issue. Later in the discussion I should like to deal with some aspects of this question a little more fully, but at this time perhaps I might be permitted to comment very briefly
upon a few of the arguments which have been advanced. A year ago we found the government making a great deal of the fact that it was granting certain reductions on agricultural implements. We have had from the opposition a great deal of criticism and the supposed adverse effects of these reductions have been pointed out. I think one hon. member has already referred to some statistics as to what these reductions really amount to. I hope that some of the Progressive members will take this matter up more fully. I shall content myself at this stage with calling attention to the bare facts of the case. On imports of all dutiable agricultural implements valued at $3,156,986, April 1 to October 31, 1924, there was a reduction of 4.7 per cent or an actual reduction of duty paid by the farmers of the whole of Canada of $148,378. Dividing that amount by the acres in field crops we find that the saving to the farmer amounted to only 83 cents per half section.
Mr. MoMASTER:	Would it not be fair
to surmise that the reduction of duty would tend to lower the price of the home-produced article by an equivalent amount?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly it would.


An hon. MEMBER:: It did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question was,
would it tend to do it? I do not know that we have any evidence that it has done it, but even if it did, 83 cents is such an inconsiderable amount for a half section, I do not think we can believe it has accomplished a great deal in actually relieving the situation which faces the farmers of this country. As far as western Canada is concerned, the figures are very much the same as those for Canada as a whole.
On the imports of all dutiable agricultural implements entered for consumption in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, April 1 to October 31, 1924, the reduction of the duty as compared with 1923 was an average of 4.5 per cent, or a reduction in duty paid of $98,099.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has the hon. member
any figures to show what amount the importations bore to the same production?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not.
Mr. McMASTER- Does it not strike the hon. gentleman, with his acumen and' spirit of fairness, that these are very unfair figures?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be very
glad to have the unfairness pointed out, but
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

I really cannot see that the reduction has involved a tremendous saving to the farmer.
Mr. McMASTER- If the home production, let us say, is twenty times the importation, then the figures should be multiplied by twenty.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that is quite
true. I have not the figures. I think it is perhaps for some of the hon. members who advocate this policy to show what these figures actually are. I recognize that these figures only point out one aspect, and if they can be offset, they may show a very considerably increased amount of savings, but we have not had that evidence before us.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Does the hon. gentleman think the comparison between the western farmers and the eastern farmers is just as to the proportional cost of agricultural implements per acre? Do not the eastern farmers require to use more machinery and therefore to incur a larger expenditure per acre?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The first figures
which I gave apply to the whole of Canada, and the second set of figures applies merely to the western provinces. There is not a great variation in proportion between the two. I have the actual figures before me as to the amount in 'both cases. Although I do not offer this as absolutely conclusive proof, it seems to me it gives an indication of the very small amount of relief which was afforded to the western farmers or to the farmers throughout the whole of Canada. I am inclined to think that perhaps the confession of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McTaggart) was a very honest one and well based. He said the other day:
I find that on two occasions in the life of this parliament I voted confidence in the government's promise to reduce the tariffs, but if appearances be not too deceiving, I am prepared to admit that perhaps I may have been flim-flammed.
I take it that the actual operation of the reductions quite justifies the opposition of some of us last year to the government's budget.


Milton Neil Campbell: Were these figures just for the cultivated land? In that case the saving to the half-section farmer would be considerably less than 83 cents, because the average farm has not 320 acres of cultivated land on it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: These figures were for the acres in field crops.
The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) the financial critic of the opposition, made quite a bid for labour sup-

port in his speech advocating protection. In the course of his speech he stated that prices of manufactured products to consumers embody labour costs equal to 60 per cent, and in some cases 80 per cent of such prices. The inference would seem to be that under protection high enough Canada would manufacture $700,000,000 worth of goods now imported, and pay labour 60 to 80 per cent of that amount.
Now, according to the Bureau of Statistics for 1922, at the point of production the gross value of Canada's manufactured products was $2,439,000,000. The combined salaries and wages amounted to $497,800,000. The ratio of salaries and wages at factory valuation was therefore 20.2 per cent; the factory value of a hundred dollars, plus wholesaler and retailer and transportation, would make the consumer's price anything above $130. Assume the average consumer's price is $140, which would be very conservative, then the factory labour cost would be $140 divided by 20.2 or 14.3 per cent, instead of 60 or 80 per cent. I might call attention to the fact that in many industries labour costs form a very much smvalleT proportion than this. In the flour mills they represent something like 3 per cent of the consumers' flour prices. If we cut out salaries, the average wage labour costs of all manufactured products would be about 11 per cent of the consumer's price. Of course, labour costs are embodied in raw material, but the producer of raw materials in Canada would have the same wage bill whether the raw materials are manufactured in Canada or elsewhere. Similarly, consumer's prices embody wage bills of transportation companies and merchants; but from the wage point of view, whether they handle Canadian or foreign manufactured articles is immaterial. The statements of the hon. member for West York refer only to factory labour costs. I would say that, in view of these considerations, decidedly they are not convincing. Further than that, the hon. member for West York rather gave us the impression that our salvation economically would be along the lines of following France. It is most unfortunate for him that the recent developments in France took place so very soon after his speech was made. I think I cannot do better than quote from an editorial which appeared in the issue of the Grain Growers' Guide of April 15:
Fairness to France demands recognition of the vast outlay she has had to make for the restoration of the devastated districts, but if comparisons of national welfare are to be made it is also necessary to recognize that the outlay has been by way of currency inflation, and to such an extent that the franc has depreciated

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
74 per cent. The financial position of the country now is such that the government of M. Herriot is staking its life on a financial proposal involving the issue of two billions of currency, and a forced loan of 100,000,000,000 francs for 10 years at 2 or 3 per cent. The currency issue is necessary to meet issues of the Bank of France in excess of those already authorized by law, and it is stated that these unauthorized issues of the bank have been concealed from the people.
On her foreign debt France is paying neither interest nor principal, and it is very questionable whether the French war debts will ever be redeemed. France, as Sir George Paish stated in his recent speech in Winnipeg, is on the verge of bankruptcy, and if the inflation continues it will mean the complete wiping out of the internal debt. Protection has nothing whatever to do with the condition in France; if anything it is making a bad situation much worse.
I take it that we should be very careful in making comparisons between two countries that differ so very widely in their general economic development as do France and Canada.
I should like to pass to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) with regard to protective duties in Canada and the United States. The hon. member in referring to the tariff of the United States spoke of:
A 4.000 mile boundary and a tariff three times as high as ours.
I have before me a very carefully prepared table which, with the consent of the House, I should like to place on Hansard. The table is as follows:
Comparison of Average Rate of Tariff Duties Canada and United States Duty collected per capita
Duty Population Canada U.S.A
1921 ..	.. (g) $179,667,683	8,738,483 $20.44	1921 ..	.. (a) 308,025,102	107,833,284 .	$2.861924 ..	..(h) 135,134,894	9,226,740	14.65	1924 ..	.. (b) 545,012,115	112,078,611 .	4.88Average rate of duty on dutiable	imports	Per	PerDuty	Imports	cent	cent1921 .,	, .. $179,667,683	(i) 847,561,406	21.20	1921 ..	, .. 308,025,102	(c) 1,517,000,000	20.301924 .,	. .. 135,134,894	(j) 591,299,094	22.85	1924 ' .	. .. 545,012,115	(d) 1,535,000,000	35.51Average rate of duty on total imports	1921 .	. .. 179,667,683	(k) 1,240,158,882	14.49	1921 .	. .. 308,025,102	(e) 3,654,000,000	8.431924 .	. .. 135,134,894	(1) 893.366,867	15.13	1924 .	. .. 545,012,115	(f) 3,554,138,268	15.33
Explanatory notes:-
U.S.A. For items (a) and (b) see annual report of U.S. Secretary of the Treasury 1923-24 p. 391.
For items (c), (d), (e) and (f), see U.S. Trade Information Bulletin No. 276 p. 2.
Canada. For items (g) and (h) see Canada Year Book 1924, p. 455.
For items (i), (j), (k) and (1), see Canada Year Book, 1924, p. 452.
It would seem that, in view of these figures -and the authorities are given in the table
which hon. members can study at their leisure -the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre about the United! States tariff being three times as high as ours hardly seems to be warranted.
May I refer also very briefly to a statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in reply to a line of reasoning which the other day had been put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine). The minister accused him of the rankest kind of heresy from the standpoint of labour in suggesting that combines are not necessarily evil.


James Murdock: May I correct my hon.
friend? I said no such thing. I have always held the opposite view. Would the hon. gentleman kindly quote me correctly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I am
quoting correctly when I state that the Minister of Labour criticized my colleague and accused him of the rankest kind of heresy because my colleague made the statement that combines are not necessarily evil.


James Murdock: Would the hon. member please go a little further?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was the statement I made a moment ago.


James Murdock: That is not correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my reading of Hansard.


James Murdock: If my hon. friend will
turn to page 1998 of Hansard he will find what I said. I criticized the hon. member for East Calgary for saying that "combines cannot be broken, and even if they could be broken, it would be very bad business." I said that was rank heresy so far as I understood the claims of organized labour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I am
trying to say. That is the statement I wish to discuss. Let me say this much in defence, if necessary, and explanation of the position taken by my colleague. He had said that combines are the natural outcome of the processes which had1 been going on for the last century. He had been showing that we had long since passed beyond the stage of unrestricted competition, unrestricted free trade. He showed that in that sense combines really represented progress; that they were inevitable. He says further:
I have been suggesting, not the breaking of a combine but the control of a definite monopoly in Canada.
And he went on further to say in another place:

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
The control of a world combine is only possible by a world force.
All I should like ito call attention to is that the words against which the criticism was levelled, if taken by themselves, might readily be regarded as making my colleague justify combines as they exist, and might suggest that he would leave them alone with all their evils, whereas he wtas simply showing that we cannot do away with combines buit that we should control them. That is altogether a different matter. I wanted to make it clear to the House that this is what my colleague and I stand for.
The Minister of Labour also took issue with the member for East Calgary regarding a particular case of an immigrant who came to this country and who was out of work. A letter was read in the House from the immigrant. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) took the trouble to make an investigation and read a somewhat lengthy statement according to which this immigrant was a very unworthy character. I may say that the statements made in the memorandum submitted by the Minister of Labour have been definitely denied by the man in question but I have no way of determining whose statement is correct, that of the Minister of Labour or that of the immigrant. But it does not in the slightest degree matter, for the purposes of the argument which my colleague was making, which was simply this, that the government had evidently brought out people who were not satisfactorily located on the land. That was the argument, and this particular case was merely incidental. I call attention to the matter in passing.
Now a few remarks with regard to the question of free trade and protection. I think the hon. member for West York was quite correct when he pointed out that there no longer existed in this country the conditions which would seem to afford ground for the belief that free trade as such would offer a solution to our modem problems. The conditions have absolutely changed since the old days when there was unrestricted free trade between individuals. We are living to-day in the age of trusts and combines of various kinds and as a matter of fact we have no longer the kind of free trade that existed in the days when this fiscal doctrine 'became popular through the Manchester school of economics. In Great Britain protection was the policy of the land-owners who wished to keep out agricultural products and other raw materials which were produced in England. This became the political gospel of the Conservative party, which was the party

of the land-owners. Free trade on the other hand was the political gospel of the trading and manufacturing classes of Great Britain and became the recognized policy of the Liberal party, which was very largely the party of the traders and manufacturers. We are often accused these days of advocating something new in suggesting group representation in parliament. The two old historical parties originally represented distinct groups in England, one the group of landed proprietors and the other the group of traders and manufacturers. In Canada the situation has been quite different; protection in Canada has been the policy of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and of whatever party happens to be in power, while free trade has been to a considerable extent the policy of the agriculturists. To-day there is really no such thing as individual competition. We may still have the competition of rival groups, those 'groups are sometimes located in a single country, sometimes in different countries, in which case the rivalry tends to become an international dispute. We see on all sides the emergence of these huge trusts, and this development entirely alters the situation and should alter our attitude towards the whole problem. I remember a very interesting treatment of, the question of the tariff from the standpoint of the restriction of production. I read a paragraph from a little pamphlet On the Nature and Uses of Sabotage by Professor Thorstein Veblen:
The great standing illustration of sabotage administered by the government is the protective tariff, of course. It protects certain special interests by obstructing competition from beyond the frontier. This is the main use of a national boundary. The effect of the tariff is to keep the supply of goods down and thereby keep the price up, and so to bring reasonably satisfactory dividends to those special interests which deal in the protected articles of trade, at the cost of the underlying community. A protective tariff is a typical conspiracy in restraint of trade. It brings a relatively small, though absolutely large, run of free income to the special interests which benefit by it, at a relatively, and absolutely, large cost to the underlying community, and so it gives rise to a body of vested rights and intangible assets belonging to these special interests.
I	suggest that the economic developments of recent years are rendering the older political divisions obsolete. These great industrial,
commercial and financial concerns
II	p.m. reach across our international
boundaries and we can no longer carry on the affairs of any one country as if we were or could be self-contained in our business activities. Let me put it this way: Capital is international; why therefore should we attempt to make industry and commerce hational? I should like to have that question answered by some hon. gentleman. Let

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
me emphasize it. Capital itself has become international, and capital is recognized as the great driving force, superior to either the commercial power or the industrial power of to-day. Capital is international; why should we attempt to make industry or commerce national? To do so is to attempt the impossible. The labour solution lies neither in the direction of free trade, which under present conditions is not possible, nor in the direction of protection, which so far has meant the protection of industry and not the protection of the worker. I can conceive of there being developed an altogether new kind of protection, a protection not of industries but of standards of living. That would place the matter on a different basis. In our labour unions we frequently make use of the union label which placed on goods guarantees that they have been produced under fair and reasonable conditions with regard to hours, working conditions, and wages. I would suggest that we might apply that principle in the larger field and insist that all goods should be produced under standards of living that measure up to a certain level. For that reason we in the labour	movement are interested in the
maintenance of the standards in Europe. We are interested in raising the standards in the Orient. If we are to have goods imported from Germany or other parts of Europe where their standards have been forced down since the war we will inevitably have our standards here forced down, and in some way we should be protected from goods of that character. If we are to have huge quantities of goods shipped in from the Orient where their standards have never been as high as our standards, we will meet with difficulties; we will be ousted in this country. It is no solution simply to say, "exclude the orientals;" we need to go further and see that the standards in the Orient are raised. The British Labour party has been dealing with this matter in recent weeks.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask how the goods in this country are to be protected, if cheap German or other goods are not wanted here?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was just coming
to that point. The British Labour party has been facing that in the importation of large quantities of German goods in recent times. A good deal of pressure has been brought to bear from the Conservative section of the British parliament. On March 17, for example, in the British House a Conservative resolution was presented declaring that free import of goods produced under sweated conditions was inconsistent with the principles
of British trade unionism. Now, that argument, presented by a Conservative, was answered from the Labour standpoint. I have not been able yet to read that copy of the Hansard, but a similar position was taken a little earlier. On February 16 a debate took place in the House on a motion submitted by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald declaring that the policy of the government with regard to the safeguarding of industries and the methods by which it was proposed to carry this policy into effect must lead to a system of general tariffs which would not enlarge the volume of trade and safeguard the interests of workers as regards employment, wages and conditions. In the course of that debate Mr. MacDonald asked:
Would not the government instead of trying to put up a wall against "sweated" goods that experience showed could never be fully effective, take steps to eliminate "sweated" goods altogether, bo that they would not be available either for home or for foreign consumption?
In the International Labour Office-
Mr. MacDonald said:
-they had an instrument for co-ordinating labour conditions in all industrial countries, but he would be very much surprised if the Conservative government and the Conservative party had recently "lifted a little finger to increase the authority of the International Labour Office in order to raise the status of labour throughout Europe."
Undoubtedly we should extend and strengthen the conventions of the Washington conference following the principles laid down by the Versailles treaty, and should insist that we should not have dumped on us goods that came to us from countries which maintain a low standard of living, and refuse to ratify those conventions. I may say that the only practical objection to this policy lies in the fact that Canada herself has not ratified most of those Washington conventions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
think it possible to figure out what countries have the low standards ol living to which he refers? Can you make a general rule applicable to any nation like France or Germany, or does not the cost of living enter into it as well?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course, but if we had the eight-hour day, for example, as a world condition; if we had proper conditions of work applying the world over; if certain minimum requirements were insisted upon all along the line, I would say that if our boasted superiority means anything we should be able to compete with the people of other countries. If not, we sihall go down and I am sure we shall deserve it.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there any nation which has these conditions to which my hon. friend refers-the eight-hour day and so on?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A number of
nations have already ratified those conventions. If the hon. gentleman cares to read the document from which I am quoting-Industrial and Labour Information as published at Geneva by the International Labour Office, he will find a record of the ratifications made by the various nations. It is very gratifying tc find how many of them have been ratified, but it is not very creditable to Canada that so few of them have 'been ratified by Canada. Our practical difficulty in urging this policy might very well be that other nations that have already ratified these conventions might boycott our goods because they are produced under sweated conditions.


Mr. SHAW:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Talking about the subject of protection with relation to working conditions generally, is it not true that some years ago the low-paid workmen of India, who had a very low standard of living, asked for protection in order to keep out English manufactured goods, made by workmen at higher wages and with a very much higher standard of living?


Andrew Ross McMaster: And working the eight-hour day.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe that is
so, and I have every confidence that if the conditions of labour are what they should be, this will prove to be of immense advantage to the industry. It has 'been clearly demonstrated, I think, that from the standpoint of output the eight-hour day is better than the ten or twelve-hour day; that reasonable standards of living and working conditions are at least as effective as the slave-driving that sometimes has been prevalent in our factories. Decent treatment of the workers is surely good business. I throw this out. I simply call attention to this constructive suggestion which has come to us from the British labour movement as it seems to me to be quite practicable. It may be necessary for us in this country to adopt some measure of protection for the workers-protection, I say, not of the industry in order that it may profit by special privileges, but protection against goods that may be manufactured under low grade conditions and by sweated labour.
Just in passing I would say that one of the worst features of the present Dawes plan is that it would seem definitely to lower the

conditions of the German workers, reducing them to a position very little short of industrial serfdom. If that takes place we may rest assured that the condition will be reflected here in Canada, as we shall have to come into competition with goods manufactured under those conditions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But in the long run,
would the hon. member not think that goods produced under wholesome conditions would be produced cheaper than under unwholesome conditions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think so, because in the long run the general intelligence of the people would more than counteract any supposed advantage resulting from the production under unwholesome conditions. It is just a question of time.


William Charles Good: Why, then, should we need to protect ourselves against these poorly paid workmen?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, there is the
immediate effect, and this might become a permanent condition if there is an almost unending supply of cheap labour. Men will become prematurely worn out between thirty and forty years of age and allow fresh workers to take their place. Thus an abundant supply of workers might carry on by mere brute force. I do not believe that ultimately people of lower standards are going to ride over us, but in the meantime I say it may be necessary to afford protection for our workers. As a matter of fact, nearly all our professions, as well as our labour unions, are built up on the principle of protection. My friend from Brome (Mr. MoMaster) belongs to one of the most highly protected unions in Canada-the lawyers' union. I am quite confident that he and his fellow practitioners would be well able to hold their place with the whole world in interpreting the law, certainly with those of us who are mere laymen and still the lawyers think it is necessary to maintain certain standards to protect their profession.


Andrew Ross McMaster: To protect the public
against irresponsible practitioners.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The medical profession in the same way say, "We need to protect the public."


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What about preachers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I presume preachers would be in the same class, and as far as I know school teachers are also. Theoretically, undoubtedly in the long run, innate intelligence-shall I say?

and the general intel-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
Ieetual level of the country will tell. But I think we are all agreed that a certain measure of protection might possibly be necessary to meet special conditions. I should like to say to my hon. friend from Brome, who has put forward this question, that we have passed-absolutely passed-the stage when free trade can be offered as a solution, because the conditions which lay behind the doctrine of free trade have long since been passed by in the development of industry.
Mr. COOTE^ Can the hon. member suggest any way by which we can protect the wheat producers of this country against the cheap labour of India, one of the competing countries against us in the export markets of the world?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is the very
problem I have in view when I urge that we must face the fact of world competition. In my judgment we must advocate, as the only ultimate solution, the raising of the standards even of the so-called backward races. It will take some time. For a while we may retain our lead because of superior advantages in the country itself, superior educational facilities, and so on, but sooner or later we shall have to face the fact that the world is a unit and that no part can retain a low standard without its adversely affecting the other parts.
With regard to the motion now before the House, Mr. Speaker, we shall be inclined to support. the amendment, because we believe that in one respect at 'least this very carefully drawn amendment, which does not go very far-


Andrew Ross McMaster: And is quite self-contradictory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be in some
respects, but at least it does call attention to one of the evils, the sales tax, and in a general way it advocates economy, which is a good thing, only as I have said we ought to go much further than these petty economies to which referencei is often made. It may be difficult for us to decide how to vote on the amendment but we shall vote without any hesitation against the budget, because it does not offer any solution whatever to problems which face us to-day. Now I should like to pass to another topic altogether, that is-


Mr. BIRD:: Before the hon. gentleman
leaves his theory of protection, he will understand that any policy which eoulld be adopted by this House would have to be a general policy, it would have to cover the wheat
producer as well as the working man. Could he define just a little more clearly how his theory would apply to the wheat producer, as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) tried to elicit, because it is important?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think I
have anything further to add to what . I have already said. I was simply suggesting this as a principle that we might attempt to work out. If there are countries producing wheat where the standards are very low, we might refuse to trade with those countries.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They would not be
shipping wheat in here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But we are shipping things to them, and we could use a certain amount of pressure, because if we want to ship wheat out we must get something else back in return. We must constantly remember that every export must be balanced by an import, and I take it that even the threat to boycott any country because of its low standards will have a very material effect in enabling that country to raise its standards. I am just giving the general principle. I know it opens a large field, and I have no idea of being dogmatic; I am merely suggesting a possible line of advance.


Mr. HUGHES:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me a question? He says that we ship large quantities of things to these low priced, sweated labour countries that are producing goods under conditions adverse to labour. How can we ship goods to those countries under such conditions when we have much higher priced labour here, higher standards of living, and all the things that go with that? I am asking for information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon.
gentleman will recognize that very frequently the goods we ship to those countries are of a different character from those produced there, and the fact that we can send in such goods is owing to our efficiency in production.


James Joseph Hughes: Exactly; then what have
we to fear?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I simply repeat
what I have said before, that temporarily we may have to fear them because of their great mass of human labour and their low standards under which labour can be simply poured into their productive machine without any thought as to the effect on the labour itself. We had that exemplified in the old days in the Panama canal zone, where they simply poured labour in without any sanitary conditions whatever, and men died by the thousands and tens of thousands. I might point out however that

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
it was not until the sanitary conditions of the zone were improved that they were able to put the canal through.


James Joseph Hughes: That was a different thing entirely.


Mr. CANNON:: Can you export sanitary
conditions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but I think
we might insist on sanitary conditions. I am sure the hon. gentleman will remember that such provisions are already included as part of the Peace treaty itself.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I point out that
the raising of the standard of living of the farmers of India, for instance, and the raising of their general standard of intelligence as well, would mean that they would be producing with more efficient machinery than they are using to-day. They are threshing their grain by driving their oxen over it; we thresh it by very efficient machinery. Consequently we are able to produce wheat cheaper and compete with them on the export markets of the world.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And they probably
gamer their wheat with a sickle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A large question is raised there, Mr. Speaker, which I think it would not be wise to enter upon at present. I am one of those who believes that the present system of production cannot ibe indefinitely prolonged, and that the only solution is to alter the motive that lies behind-the motive of profit-and to substitute the method of cooperation for that of competition. But I am sure hon. gentlemen do not want me to go into that question to-night.
Now I propose to pass to the discussion of the coal situation, but I see it is already very late, nearly half past eleven, and I should like very much, if the House would permit me, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid that if we
adjourn at such an early hour we shall not be able to close the debate for another two months. I believe the understanding was to sit a little later to-night.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall take nearly an hour yet in discussing the Nova Scotia situation. I should therefore like to move the adjournment of the debate if there is no objection.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It has been moved by Mr. Woodsworth seconded by Mr. Shaw that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion negatived.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The budget proposes to increase the duty on slack coal. I feel that I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without referring to a matter which is in the minds of a great many of us at the present time, the situation in Cape Breton. May I again call the attention of the House to the history of this company which is again asking for special favours. According to Poor and Moody's Manual Consolidated 1922, at the merger of the British Empire Steel Corporation the total issues of component companies were:	[DOT]
Common	$ 63,000,000
Preferred	 19,000,000

At the merger the old issues were increased and transmuted thus
Common	$ 24,000,000
Preferred	 77,000,000 $ 101,000,000

There was thus an actual stock watering by the merger of $19,000,000. Also note that, $63,000,000 common was reduced to $24,000,000 and $19,000,000 preferred was increased to $77,000,000. Thus water is turned into wine. A fact finding commission would disclose whether the preferred or common stock represents any equity 'behind the funded debt or whether all such issues went to promoters, exploiters, legislators, and bondholders as bonus.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Have you got the
funded debt?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me call attention to this: the Annual Financial Review -Canadian-of June, 1923, has evidence that the Nova Scotia legislature authorized Besco to issue $500,000,000 in capital stock. I find on page 181 of this Review with regard to the reduction of capital:
That the president moved as a special resolution of the shareholders of the corporation:
"That the capital of the company be reduced from $500,000,000 to $250,000,000,"
In this connection I might read the following quotation from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of July 29, 1924:
There has been issued in addition to the foregoing $101,750,000 and so far as evidence appears in this regard, this amount appears to have been entirely in the nature of a bonus distribution to the bondholders and the parties promoting the merger.
Now, the miners themselves have been trying to express their view with regard to this proposed bonus, and in view of the history of the corporation I should like to present the miners' own view in this connec-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
tion. I find in the Labour Herald of March 7, this statement:
McLurg was asked: "If the miners accept a reduction in their wages, will the company reduce the selling price of coal to the consumer?" His reply was "No, we require the money for our bondholders and shareholders."
According to that statement even although the miners were forced ultimately to accept a reduction in wages it will not mean one cent of benefit to the consumers but simply an added profit to the company on distribution to the bondholders. The article continues:
Their annual statement shows that they paid out in dividends for the five year periods ending 1921 on preferred shares $5,350,000, and on common shares $7,786,376.12. They also laid away in reserve funds $9,500,000. Since then they got from the Dominion government $4,500,000 for a plate mill they erected. They own both the mill and the money now.
In the last issue of the Canadian Railway Employees' Monthly is an article by Mr. J. B. McLachlan, the editor of the Glace Bay Herald from Which I take the following statement:
Besco was organized in the year 1920, for the primary purpose of eliminating all duplication of production costs then existing because of independent coal companies operating in the same areas. Besco has either cut down that cost, or it has not. The miners claim it has. It is a matter of record that the separate companies that existed before the merger did compete successfully in the Montreal market for two generations-and if the old companies with their greater overhead costs could do that, then Besco can do better under the more favourable conditions of the combine. Here is what Col. Thomas Cantley said on this point the other day when speaking of the ability of the old Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company to compete in the open markets previous to the Besco merger:
"From 1884 until December 31st, 1920, a period of 36 years, the Scotia Company earnings were $33,307,329.96 and as stated above, in only one year, 1897, was there any loss in operation and in that year the amount was trifling, being less than $5,000. The total dividends paid during the company's operations were $7,452,758.32-the balance of earnings being put back into the property."
Besco did cut out all duplication of production costs, and to-day is in a far better position than the old Nova Scotia companies to market coal in Montreal against all comers.
Then what is behind all this idleness and hunger? Are these just the results of a common industrial depression felt more or less everywhere? The game that Besco is playing is to secure a cut wage rate so that Besco can get cheaper coal for its steel works, its steamers, its ore mines, its lumber mills and for its boilers at its coal mines. The second phase of the game is to secure a higher tariff so that every other user of coal on the Atlantic sea-board from Sydney to Montreal shall pay more for their coal, and the idleness and hunger are the weapons being used to hold up the government and the country and the miners.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who writes this?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. J. B. McLachlan in the last number of the Canadian Railroad Employees' Monthly. In substantiation of this statement that the present merger ought to be aible to enter the Montreal market, Mr. McLachlan quotes from another statement, found on pages seven and eight of the annual statement of the Dominion Steel Corporation and constituent companies for the year ending March 31, 1921, as follows:
" In this connection," said Mr. Wolvin " I wish to call the attention of the holders of preferred shares to the fact that the statement for the fiscal year shows that dividends on your shares for the three companies named were earned five times over. I need not, of course, emphasize the fact that business is most unsatisfactory at present, and in view of this it is all the more gratifying to be able to say that for the first quarter of the current fiscal year ending June 30, the Dominion Steel Corporation after providing for depreciation, sinking fund, and bond interest, has earned at the rate of over three times the amount required for payment of the combined dividends on its preference shares, and on the preferred shares of its constituent companies."
The miners charge that Besco has deliberately refused to sell coal in the Montreal market during the past year, and has, and is, using the idleness and hunger of the miners as a means to cut the wages of producers and increase prices to consumers of coal. The miners in their misery are nothing more than pawns being used by Besco to force the hands of the government and the country. A ten per cent cut in the miners wages would net Besco annually an additional one and a half million dollars, an increased tariff will result in millions more for Besco out of the buyers of coal. By cheaper coal for its own concerns Besco would net at least another half million.
Nor do Besco's tariff delegations to Ottawa end with a mere tariff revision upwards. Here are some of the things that Besco also wants, before it can give the country and the miners any assurance that idleness and starvation shall end in Cape Breton: that the government subsidize coal converted into coke to take the place of anthracite; that the government increase the subvention on coal hauled on the railway, the subvention to aipply to sea-borne coal also; and that greater protection be given Canadian steel and steel products. In a word, Besco is holding up the country and trying to put across the biggest blackmailing scheme that this country has ever seen.
It is not merely the miners and the east who are protesting against the situation and asking that this government should do something.	I should like to read a few paragraphs from an editorial in the Winnipeg Evening Tribune of March 28, which discusses the proposed duty under the caption, " An incomplete solution." The editorial reads:
It is stated that the proposed increase in duty on American slack coal from 14 cents to 50 cents a ton offers a solution to the troubles of the Nova Scotia mining industry.
The article goes on:
Even if the proposed wage cut is not enforced and the present wage scale is continued, it will not compensate the miners for irregularities of employment, and even with more regular employment their condition would be none too good. Wages of coal miners in Nova Scotia are substantially lower than in
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Alberta, for instance, as the following figures of daily wages published recently by the Department of Labour clearly show:
Alberta Nova Scotia
Contract miners (average)..	..	$8 33	$7	25Hand miners	
7	02	4	60Labourers underground	
6	03	3	65
No reasonably permanent solution of the industrial unrest in Nova Scotia can be hoped for until the workers, the lower paid ones especially, receive both higher wage rates and more regular employment.
Canadian public opinion will not be satisfied to let the present situation be smoothed over by the mere granting of a higher duty on imported coal. The British Empire Steel Corporation can hardly be said to enjoy the respect of the people of Canada. Proof is needed that the duty is really necessary.
I would like to impress this on my hon. friends on the other side:
Proof is needed that the duty is really necessary. It has been charged by the miners that the wages have been kept down in order that dividends might be paid on watered stock. If the increased duty is really necessary to enable Canadian coal operators to compete in Canada with American producers, the country has the right to know who is to benefit by that increased duty. Such facts can only be satisfactorily ascertained by a factfinding commission.
If the Dominion government has the legal right to impose 'a duty in the interests of a Nova Scotia industry it has an equal moral right to first institute a complete investigation as to whether that duty is necessary.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: What does
my hon. friend say to the request made by Premier Greenfield of Alberta to this government that this duty shall be put upon slack coal? What has he to say also to Premier Greenfield's position when he protests against the duty on round coal being reduced


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope before the
evening is over, or the morning rather, if we must go on, to come to the matter of the Alberta coal situation. In the meantime perhaps it is sufficient for me to state that I am not at all responsible for the statements of Premier Greenfield.


An hon. MEMBER:: Doubtful if he himself is responsible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not say if he
is or not, but the Alberta members can look after that matter. This editorial concludes:
If the federal government is weak enough to impose the duty without investigation on the mere say-so of the Nova Scotia steel and coal combine as a solution of the present industrial unrest, it is establishing a dangerous precedent for the solution of other industrial disputes by the same means.
I do not think we are taking an unreasonable attitude in asking that before any such concession as is proposed in the budget is granted the coal company, there should be, as this editorial points out, a fact-finding commission. I am quite aware that the government may say that it has no power, but I

should like to read a paragraph here from a letter by the Minister of Labour sent recently to the International Association of Machinists, Montreal. The Minister of Labour states:
I assume that you would expect, as a prime consideration of dealing with the Nova Scotia dispute that an investigation vrould be held to fix responsibility, and you should know that the federal government has no authority to go into Nova Scotia and summons one single individual before it to give evidence and to produce books, so that any attempt made by the federal government to carry on an investigation would be a simple farce, as the president and others connected with the British Empire Steel Corporation could simply decline to co-operate and to appear when summonsed or to produce books and documents.
This is an extraordinary statement from a minister of the crown.


James Murdock: Does my hon. friend say that it is not a correct statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I presume that the minister stands by his statement.


James Murdock: No, not necessarily. It does not matter whether-
Mr. WOODSWORTH- I presume he stands by his statement.


James Murdock: Of course, but does the hon. gentleman suggest that that is not a correct statement, and that the federal government can go into Nova Scotia?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Most decidedly I
do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


James Murdock: Could the hon. member get any legal gentleman of note in the country to sustain that view?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a very novel doctrine. As a matter of fact throughout the history of Canada we have had commissions making investigations iD every part of this country in connection with all sorts of questions. We have had- royal commissions making investigations into the ptilpwood question- a travelling commission investigating pulp-wood.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But these
investigations have been made in regard to subjects where this parliament could follow up the recommendations of the commission by legislation. Does the hon. gentleman not know that only two months ago the Privy Council held that this parliament had no power to provide for investigations in regard to labour disputes, and that they held that the Industrial Disputes Investigations Act was ultra vires.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the Minister of National Defence will hardly press that point of view. Surely the decision of the Privy Council simply held ultra vires the Industrial Disputes Investigations Act. It did not touch other matters of this kind whatever.


James Murdock: I do not believe my
hon. friend would make that statement if he would read the decision of the Privy Council carefully. The Privy Council decided that this federal government had no right to send a board or to authorize a board to go into the domain of the provincial government, summon one individual before that board and compel him to give evidence


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under the Industrial Disputes Act with a view to settling certain disputes?


James Murdock: Under any regulation.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about the Combines Act?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, what about
the Combines Act? Have we any right to summon witnesses here under it?


James Murdock: I am glad my hon.
friend raises that question, because that is exactly what we are trying to find out now. With the decisions before us I fear that we have no authoritty.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then we had better get the authority.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite agree with
the hon. member for Brome that we had better get it, or if we cannot, we had better go out of business as a federal government. It seems to me the height of absurdity for responsible ministers of the crown to assert in this House that we have no right to inquire into conditions pertaining to the welfare of citizens in any province of this country. Does the Minister of Labour mean to say that under present conditions we could not make an inquiry such as was made a few years ago into the cost of living? Is that an impossibility? Does he mean to say that we cannot make an inquiry into present conditions on the Great Lakes in the way of combines?


James Murdock: The Privy Council decided in the Board of Commerce case that this federal government had no authority to make those inquiries into the cost of living. My hon. friend should read up the legal decisions in order to understand the position we are in. I -wish his view was correct and that we could do some of the things he wants. But we are
confronted with a reality, not a theory that the hon. member is talking about.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This parliament, by a
committee, did conduct an inquiry into the cost of living.


James Murdock: Exactly, but my hon.
friend will recall that after that was inquired into, when a somewhat similar matter was taken to the Privy Council the Privy Council decided that this federal government had no right to invade the "property and. civil rights" jurisdiction of the provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Privy Council never decided anything of the kind.


James Murdock: The record speaks for
itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not so far as this parliamentary inquiry is concerned.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the hon member
for Centre Winnipeg will proceed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are just two observations which I should like to make at this point. If conditions are really as they have been stated by members of the government, that is an excellent reason why we should abolish any appeal to the Privy Council. Further than that, I do not know of any greater service that I could render to the people of Canada to-night than to place before the public at large the attitude of the government in a crisis of this kind. I am quite willing to let the strictly legal aspects take care of themselves. The other day I came across a clipping with regard to the situation in Europe. This is an article by Rothay Reynolds in the Montreal Standard quoting from the great industrialist Herr Arnold Reoh-berg, the oil magnate. He said of conditions over there:
The captains of the coal and iron industries are more absolute masters of Germany than was William II.
I think we can almost say that of the captains of the coal and steel industry in Canada if the contentions of ministers of the crown are correct. I should like to ask: After all, who are these people that are holding up the country? We have talked about the responsibility of the government here and I think it has responsibility. We have talked about the responsibility of the government of Nova Scotia and I think it has responsibility. But I would say that the first responsibility lies immediately with the directors of this corporation. Who are they that thus defy the whole of the people of Canada? It is of interest that the people of
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Canada should know this. Who are the directors of the British Empire Steel Corporation? They are:
R. M. Wolvin, President, Montreal, Que.; Major General Sir Newton J. Moore, K.C.M.G., VicePresident, London, Eng.; J. E. McLurg, Vice-President, Sydney, N.S.; Hon. C. P. Beaubien (Senator), Montreal, Que.; Sir Trevor Dawson, Bart., London, Eng.; Hector Maclnnes, K.C., Halifax, N.S.; W. D. Ross, Toronto, Ont.; J. F. M. Stewart, Toronto, Ont.; Galen L. Stone, Boston, Mass.; J. P. Middlesboro, Glasgow, Scot.; Right Hon. Lord Invemaim, Glasgow, Scot.; F. W. Ross, Quebec, Que.; Geo. F. Downs, New York, N.Y.; Hon. J. P. B. Casgrain (Senator), Montreal, Que; R. F. Hoyt, New York, N.Y.; Lome Webster (Senator), Montreal, Que.
I would note here that three of these directors are residents of Great Britain; three are residents of the United States; only two live [DOT]in the province of Nova Scotia. One of these is the company's attorney and, according to the papers, one of the men implicated in the bribery of the ex-premier of Newfoundland. Three of these men are senators, distinctly responsible at this crisis. I would say that all except the vice-president, Mr. McLurg, are absentee landlords. What is the spirit of McLurg, the vice-president? We have read bis words:
They cannot stand the gaff. We hold the cards. Let them stay out for six months. It matters not, eventually they .will come to us.
Here we have capitalism stark-naked and unashamed! That statement of McLurg's in future years, I have no doubt, will be placed side 'by side with that other characteristic statement of Mr. Paton, who was more truthful than some of the other captains of industry when he declared that "These mills were not built for the glory of God, but for the profits of the shareholders." These men hold in their power the destinies of large numbers of our fellow Canadians. This morning the relief authorities in the city of Ottawa received a telegram which states that to-day there are in Nova Scotia 27,200 individuals absolutely dependent upon the public for relief.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Might I re-, mind my hon. friend that Mr. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers of America, has stated that that organization is financing the strikers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Whatever may be
true of the future finances that may come from the United Mine Workers, I think we must accept the word of the relief agents who are absolutely disinterested and who only this morning sent this telegram to Ottawa:
Red Cross nurses report serious malnutrition. Local relief committee $11,000 in debt with the situation growing worse.

We cannot as a House pass by such a situation as that. Surely we have responsibility. The responsibility may rest primarily upon this board of directors whom I have named. There may be responsibility upon the labour organization over in the United States to come to the help of their comrades in Canada. But this federal government cannot escape the responsibility of taking action at this time. We have in our hands certain powers that, I think, will be admitted even by members of the government. We are proposing to grant still further concessions to this company at the very time that this outrage is being perpetrated. The least this government can do is absolutely to refuse further concessions until we have some settlement of this dispute along right lines.


Mr. PUTNAM:: , Does the hon. member
suppose that the change in the coal duties is responsible for the present strike?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not suggest
that but I do suggest that we have no right to make any change in the duty favourable to the corporation until the corporation safeguards the interests of its employees.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the hon. member not aware that there are a large number of independent coal companies in Nova Scotia outside the British Empire Steel Corporation? In my county there are three other companies operating.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite aware
that there are some other companies, mostly very small concerns, as the minister knows very well.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the
county of Cumberland there is the Maritime Coal Company, a very large concern, which has its own independent line of railway; and along the line of that railway there are at least four or five other companies operating successfully.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to pass now for a short time to another field. Sometimes Nova Scotia members ask us why we confine our investigations to the eastern coal fields and have little to say with regard to the west. I have tried on several occasions to call the attention of the House to the situation prevailing in Nova Scotia because it is more acute than the conditions obtaining elsewhere. But the situation in Alberta has recently been developing at so alarming a rate that I feel, even although the hour is late, since apparently it is not the wish that the matter should be carried over till to-morrow, that I should deal as briefly as I may with the larger aspect of the

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
situation as it affects the province of Alberta. First of all may I say to my farmer friends that perhaps they have not quite realized the importance of the coal industry in Canada; they have hardly realized how essential it is that this whole question of the development of our coal measures should be settled on some permanent basis. May I then quote a few statistics with regard to the general importance of the coal industry. In the first place, I should like to give the words of Mr. C. V. Corless with regard to agricultural areas. He says:
Adding together all these areas, suitable in surface, soil, and climate for profitable cultivation, including the cultivable valleys in the highlands, we find a total of rather less than 15 per cent of the area of Canada suitable for profitable agriculture. This leaves 85 per cent, of which the principal or only permanent basic industry is or will be mining. But fully one-third of even this agricultural part of Canada is known to be enormously rich in minerals.
Here now is a statement of the figures given by Dr. Dowling in the report of the Twelfth International Geological Congress. Referring to this, Mr. Corless says:
From the latter striking report, which is the best estimate yet made, I cull these startling figures for Canada's estimated total coal reserves.
Unit, one billion tons.
Maritime provinces (chiefly	Nova Scotia).. ..	10Prairie provinces (chiefly	Alberta)	
1,132British Columbia	
76Yukon Territory	
5
North West Territory (Mackenzie river basin,
north of Alberta)	 5
Arctic islands	 6
Total	 1,234
This inconceivably large figure, 1,234 billions of tons roughly 35,000 times Canada's present total annual consumption, baffles the imagination. It is nearly sixty per cent greater than the total estimated reserves of the whole of Europe; nearly equal to those estimated for the whole of Asia; and one-sixth of those of the entire world.
I would urge that we should not continue to allow this vast natural inheritance of ours to be developed in any haphazard, wasteful, uneconomic way as we have done up to the present time, and that altogether aside from the unsatisfactory relations that have so far [DOT]existed between operators and employees. Many of you will recall the fact that a few years ago Great Britain made a serious investigation into the production of coal in that country, and we have the report of Mr. Justice Sankey which declared that-
Even upon the evidence already given the present system of ownership and working stands condemned and some other system must be substituted for it, either nationalization or a method of unification by .national purchase or by joint control.
When we hear so much about private ownership and vested interests it is well for us to read some of the evidence submitted before that very important commission. The replies given to the labour men, Mr. Smil'lie, Mr. 'Hodges and Sir Leo Money, are worth being pondered by the people in this country, where we have thought that vested interests have not secured so strong a foothold.
Now with regard to the Canadian situation, some of our mines are privately owned while others are under the control of 12 m. various provinces, and others again are in the control of the Dominion. Among these the chief field is in Alberta, and so I have a perfect right, I should take it, to bring this question before the federal House, inasmuch as the House has jurisdiction in the province of Alberta, at the present time, seeing that it controls the natural resources of that province. Now let me sketch very briefly the condition that prevails out there in the industry itself. I hold in my hand a list of the names of individuals and corporations who are recorded as the owners of coal mining rights acquired from the crown under the provisions of the coal mining regulations in the province of Alberta, and these individuals and corporations number 802, I have here also a list containing the names and addresses of individuals and corporations operating coal mining areas in the province of Alberta, numbering in the year 1923-the last figures available-353. We in the west hear a good deal of over-development, but I do not know of any figures that could: be more eloquent than this 353 as to coal development in Alberta.
Regarding the general position of the industry I quote from a memorandum prepared by the Coal Mining Lands branch of the Department of the Interior:
Coal mining rights were disposed of by sale up to the year 1907, and after that year by lease only. By an order in council dated the Oth May, 1907, the form of final title was changed from patent to lease Royalty at the prescribed rate is collected on all coal mined from lands acquired from the crown under the regulations since the 6th April, 1901, but no royalty is collected on the output of mines acquired prior to that date, and no returns of the operations of such mines are furnished the department, so that no information respecting the output of mines which were not acquired subject to the payment of royalty is obtained.
The output of coal mined from lands in the province of Alberta, acquired under lease from the crown during the calendar year 1924, was 1,694,172 tons, and the total output of coal during the same period from lands acquired by purchase under the regulations was 710,899 tons, making a total output of coal subject to the payment of royalty during the year 1924 of 2,405,071 These figures, however, do not include the quantity of coal mined from the 28,000 acres of coal mining lands



The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
sold by the department prior to the 6th April, 1901, the date upon which the royalty provision of the regulations came into force, nor do they include ohe output of coal from school lands. As the operators of the above area of about 28,000 acres are not required to furnish returns or pay royalty the quantity mined from such lands is included only in the total output of coal from the province.
The total output of coal mined in the province of Alberta, as supplied by the Dominion Bureau of
Statistics, is:-
Year	Tons
1920	the quantity mined was	
6,907,7651921	"	"	"	"	
5,909,2171922	"	"	"	"	
5,990,9111923	"	"	"	"	
6,848,5381924	"	"	"	"	
5,175,226
The total quantity of coal mined in the province of Alberta during the calendar year 1924, according to the figures which have been furnished this department, was 5,175,226 tons, and the quantity of coal mined in the said province during the year, subject to the payment of royalty, was 2,405,071 tons. Therefore, the quantity of coal mined during that period from privately-owned lands was 2,770,155 tons, which latter quantity also includes coal mined from lands acquired by purchase from the crown under the regulations, prior to the 6th April, 1901, as well as coal mined from school lands.
According to the coal mining regulations, the payment of royalty at the rate of five cents per ton is required, as well as an annual rental at the rate of one dollar an acre. Coal mining lands were disposed of under sale up to the year 1907, at the rate of ten dollars an acre for the surface and mining rights, and seven dollars an acre for the mining rights only, subject to the payment of royalty at the rate of seven cents a ton.
Let me read further a few salient facts taken from a pamphlet called "Coal Statistics for Canada," the data given in which have been collected by the Dominion Bureau oi Statistics. The capital value employed in coal mines in 1923 was made up as follows:
Buildings	$44,408,155
Supplies	1,214,629
Cash and	bills receivable	 6,020,628


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is in Alberta? Mr. WOODSWORTH:	Alberta, yes. I
quote:
Value of output, 1923	 $28,018,303
Wages, 1923	 16,749,909
Number of wage earners,	1923	 9,917
Here, may I call the attention of hon. members to this statement: the wage earners' average per 227 day year, 1923, was $741. A great many wild statements are being made as to the enormous wages which are being earned by coal miners. We have here official statistics to show that in 1923 the miners worked only 227 days and that the average wage was $741. According to information furnished me by the chief inspector of mines for the province of Alberta on March 16, 1925, in 1923 the miners worked only 209.95 days and in 1924 only 190.21 days, which, would seem to show that the figures submitted by the Bureau of 
Statistics are high on this point, and that would correspondingly reduce the average wage paid annually to the workers. Salaries in 1923 amounted to $1,618,042. The number of salaried employees was only 675. Again may I pause for a moment to note the very large number of highly paid officials in these mines, as you will see by working out their average salaries as compared with the average salaries of the employees.


Mr. SHAAV:: What does it amount to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not worked
out the average, but I would note this: that during 1923 there were 140 fewer salaried employees but there was an increase of pay of $132,519. Now, let me finish this statement :
Miscellaneous operating expenses	$6,692,295
Total output of bituminoiis and lignite short
tons, 1923	 6,854,397
I would also like to call attention to the fact that of the quantity of coal produced 73 per cent was consumed and 27 per cent was lost. The detail of the 27 per cent lost is as follows:
Per cent
(a)	Through absenteeism	
1.2(b)	Lack of orders	
18.4(c)	Car shortage	
3.2(d)	Mine disabilities	
0.7(e)	Other causes	
3.5
27.0
Just in passing may I also note-the term "short tons" calls it to my mind-that there is a common practice for the operators to pay the men on the basis of what is known as the long ton or English ton and to sell the goods on the basis of the short ton oi American ton-again a very unfair thing Surely if we have standards of any kind in this country which must be adhered to, we ought to have a standard of measurement in regard to coal.
We have at the present time in the province of Alberta a commission sitting on this whole question of the operation of the coal mines in that province. Their findings, ol course, are not yet available, and failing these I would like to quote a few sentences from a report with regard to the coal mining industry of the province of Alberta made as early as 1919, which indicates pretty much the difficulties that confront the miners in that area. It says:
Many mines only operate one-half of the year or less. If more continuous operation is obtained, the result will be a reduction in the price of coal to the consumer and steadier employment to the workman.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
Again:
Provisions for making working agreements, the settling of disputes and such matters that employer and employee deal with, are not satisfactory.
Again:
At many mines the living and housing conditions, and matters pertaining to health and sanitation, are not in a satisfactory condition.
Again:
In some camps the educational facilities are inadequate.
Again:
Much capital expenditure has been lost on account of failure to obtain reliable information about properties and marketing conditions before operations are commenced; and also owing to lack of sufficient capital being provided to carry on operations to a successful issue.
Again:
A considerable loss of market has been sustained owing to: cessations of work; shortage of railway cars; misrepresentation as to size and quality of coal.
Still again:
Your commissioners are of the opinion that considerable saving would be attained if owners would establish some central purchasing agency, thereby standardizing equipment; also that a considerable saving would be attained if the power used were obtained from central powei plants located in the various fields. The carrying out of these suggestions, in the opinion of your commissioners, would decrease the cost price of coal, and would not only be a saving to the consumer, but, in addition, would tend to increase the market. As this province has within its borders the largest known coal resources in the world, the conservation of this heritage should be zealously guarded. Your commissioners therefore recommend that you obtain authority from the federal government for the same commission to be given full powers for the safeguarding of this national asset.
So much for the industry. Now let me turn for a few moments to what the miners think about their present situation. I should gladly have brought this matter to the attention of the House at an earlier date, but owing to our rules of order it has been impossible to do so, and I have felt that I could not pass the first opportunity of giving to the House and to the country some little idea of the almost desperate situation that prevails among the miners in Alberta. As early as March 2 of this year I received the following telegram:
Members and families destitue-credit cut off-many not worked since March 19, 1924-remainder only a few days during eleven months. The agreement consummated October 18, yet operators attempting further reductions and open shop conditions. Want to know if federal government will make some effort to solve this problem.
I have been sent a large number of the actual pay sheets of the company. A study of these sheets-which I shall not take the trouble to read to the House-clearly shows 148i
that the stories which have been told about exorbitant wages being paid are absolutely fairy tales. It may be true that in a few instances contract miners under very favourable conditions earned large wages, but they are unemployed for a very considerable portion of the year. Then my correspondent said on March 12:
This company-the Hillcrest Collieries Limited-in ordinary times employ about four hundred men, with an abundance of petty bosses, including three general managers, also a managing director. Its financial yearly report showed enormous profits in 1924.
Again let me read a communication which I received! from Nordegg on February 23:
The unemployed situation in District 18 is very bad. In Nordegg alone 150 men are unemployed and 400 men on two days a week. Poverty and suffering through lack of clothes and food in this cold region is much in evidence.
A few days ago I had this further communication from the same district and from the same writer, and I would ask the House to pay careful1 consideration to it:
There are within this province ten thousand unemployed, and the miners of Alberta wbo are working are not earning enough to keep themselves owing to the company keeping the pay for strike rent; there is much poverty and destitution, and no help from anywhere; women and children starving; and the coal operators taking advantage of the situation and violating the agreement arrived at between District 18 and the Western Canada Coal Operators Association.
Listen to this:
We have exhausted all methods within the law of the country. We have adopted Murdock's method of going " to the foot of the throne." Nothing has been overlooked to try and get some food and clothes in full accord with the law, but every time we have been met with the same answer of No. Now for the last time we are asking the government, through you, to bring in some measures whereby the people of this country can eat. We do not want to take the law into our own hands, but the women and children have to be fed. Therefore on behalf of the five hundred organized workers of Nordegg, and in the interests of the starving people of Alberta, I ask you to try and get something for our fellow beings. The whole situation is more serious than is realized by the King government and the opposition in the House.
We have been told, Mr. Speaker, by tlhe Minister of Labour and by the government that Nova Scotia owns the coal mines of the province; we have been told that Nova Scotia receives royalties on every ton of coal taken from those mines; we have been told that Nova Scotia leases the coal mines to the British Empire Steel Corporation. I want to point out that in Alberta it is the Dominion government that leases the coal mines, it is the Dominion government that receives the royalties, and I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-I am sorry he is not in his seat- ivhat excuse he is going to find now for inaction?

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. IRVINE:: The British North America Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think the British North America Act applies in this case. Surely, since the natural resources of the province of Alberta are still retained by the Dominion government, and the Dominion government is receiving the royalties, the Dominion government has the right to act in this regard.
One or two quotations only from the miners' standpoint, and I am done. I want to emphasize that to-night I am trying to place before this House what has not frequently been placed before it, that is, the position of the actual working miners in Canada.	The
secretary of the United Mine Workers of America makes this statement on March 30:
You will find enclosed herewith miner's family budget of prices compiled from information received from various mining camps in District No. 18, which you will readily see is far in excess of the earnings of the miners in this district. The average number of days worked in District No. 18 for the past three years have been 125. Contract miner's average rate, according to the Labour Gazette from the Department of Labour, Ottawa, was $9.08 per shift, making a total for 125 days of $1,135. All day wage labour average earnings, inside and outside the mine, are $6.89, making a total for 125 days of $1,040. On October 10, 1924, the miners suffered a reduction of 12J per cent, which by combining the average earnings of contract miners and day wage rates together, would show the average earnings of the miners throughout District No. 18 at $958.
The family budget issued by the Department of Labour is taken from five cities in the province of Alberta, namely, Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Drumheller. The average is $21.09 per week for a family of five, making a total for 52 weeks of $1,082.12. This budget does not include clothing and sundries, so it is evident that the budget issued by the Department of Labour is far below the one I am enclosing, which was taken from the cost of these items in the camps in District No. 18, and according to that budget we have a total, including clothing and other items, of $1,865.51.
Now with regard to the proposed alterations in the duties I think it is only fair to read the statement of the United Mine Workers of Alberta. The Minister of National Defence asked1 me a question a little while ago and I should like in reply to him to give the statement of the miners in Alberta:
You will also find enclosed statement of cost of coal transportation from the mines at Pocahontas, West Virginia to Winnipeg and also from Youghiegheny, Pennsylvania, to Winnipeg which averages at $7 per ton, and we are informed by the Secretary of the Western Canada Coal Operators' Association that this coal is being sold at less than the cost of transportation to the consumers at Winnipeg. It is evident to me that this coal is bein^ placed on the market at Winnipeg at this price for the purpose of keeping coal mined in Canada from getting the market in Winnipeg and east of that city. The freight rates from Crcwsnest pass to Winnipeg are $5.20 and the

price of coal f.o.b. at the mine is $4.50 making a total of $9.70 per ton sold in Winnipeg, so you will readily see that it is impossible for the Operators of District No. 18 to compete against the American coal now being shipped into Winnipeg.
I have one other communication from the miners with regard to this same matter of duty:
The officers and members of District 18 United Mine Workers of America strongly protest against the action of the federal government in revising the duty on bituminous lump coal from the United States to Canada due to the fact that this will cause a further increase in unemployment throughout the mines of District 18.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one more quotation this *time from the president of the United Mine Workers of Alberta. It says:
The Miners' Executive of District No. 18 recognize that the coal industry in the west is in a serious state [DOT] of over-development. This situation has been admitted by the Minister of Labour and also conceded by all those familiar with the affairs of the coal mining industry but in spite of this deplorable condition new corporations are continually developing and opening up coal mines in western Canada. In spite of our appeals to the authorities to take action in the matter this wildcat development still continues with the final and inevitable result of more slack time and unemployment for the miners already settled around the industry. Government action to prevent the further exploiting of the natural resources of the west should be taken without delay if serious developments in the future are to be avoided. The miners are of the opinion that some tribunal should be appointed by the Dominion government and that said tribunal should have the authority to investigate the records and the books with a view of ascertaining the profits of all coal companies in this district. We believe said tribunal should have power to look into every phase of the industry with a view of preventing the further exploitation of the coal fields by various coal operating firms. In fact it appears to the miners that the only complete solution to the difficulty would be a practicable plan of nationalization of the coal mines, said mines to be operated under the direction of practical mining men.
I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, some of the evils of the existing system of production. We have very heavy overhead expenses; we have numerous officials; we have watered stock; and side by side we have inefficiency. There must of necessity be inefficiency in small scale mining. Anyone who has visited the mines of the west will know that when you have a very small area with a dozen or twenty mines trying to carry on operations you must have inefficiency; in some way they should be organized. We have over-development and let me remind you that it is the Dominion government that is responsible for the granting of these leases to these various companies; and above all we have what is of importance to the workers, and of great importance I should think to the country at large, unemployment. At this late hour, I do not propose to attempt to point out the solu-

Questions
tion. I had hoped that if I could have reached this subject earlier in the session I would have been able to discuss at some length a resolution which I had on the order paper to the following effect:
That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines which are now being exploited in the interests of private corporations rather than for the needs of the public.
I would simply leave that resolution with the House, suggesting that it is along those lines and along those lines only that we can hope for the solution of these urgent problems which are pressing upon us at the present time.
On motion of Mr. Marler the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 30, to correct a clerical error in chapter 166 of the statutes of 1924, intituled: "An Act for the relief of James Henry Kitkwood."- Mr. Anderson.
Bill No. 33, respecting "The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company."-Mr. Michaud.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, April 22, 1925