1926-05-03

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Return showing the amount of customs duty collected in each province during the year ending March 31st, from 1921 to 1925 inclusive-Mr. Boivin.
Annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine-Mr. Dunning.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 94 to amend the Divorce Act (domicile of married women).
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Mr. WARD:: The purpose of the bill is to establish equality of domicile as between man and wife. I think, probably, that no further explanation is required at this time. We are all quite familiar with the spirit of legislation of this kind at the present day. This is in keeping with the Women's Franchise Act, other divorce laws, and legislation pertaining to man and wife. The present bill is intended to " round out ", so to speak, equality of domicile as between man and wife.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The Attorney General is not here. There may be a Divorce Act but I really did not know we had one.

Civil Service Salaries


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I may say that I am familiar with this legislation, and have discussed it with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. It seems to me that if this bill should be given its first reading we could, on the second reading, make such explanation as will enable the House to be seized of the whole circumstances.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question, but seeing that he is not in his seat I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Some time ago I asked the government to advise the House with regard to the report on the revision of the salaries of the civil service. I have asked that question on numerous occasions, but nothing definite has yet been brought down. I now have a telegram from Mr. C. Gardiner, general secretary of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, dated from Regina and addressed to myself, which reads as follows:
Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada request immediate publication of the Civil Service Commission's report on salary revision and personnel boards. Request also staff side representation on Civil Service Commission when present vacancies are feeing filled.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister is ready to make a statement to-day, but as to the first part of this telegram, regarding the Civil Service Commission's report on salary revision, I think the House is entitled to a statement pretty soon. That matter has been standing for some considerable time.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think my hon. friend is mistaken in saying that this matter has been standing for some time. It has been standing a few days.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite a number.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A committee of council has been considering this report but unfortunately it is difficult to get a complete meeting of the committee just at the moment. I think I can promise my hon. friend that during the present week there will be plenty of opportunity to consider it. I would not like to say that the report itself will be published for some days to come, but the government will make an effort to have it considered forthwith.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a word of explanation. I do not wish to appear as being too unreasonable, but I would direct the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that it was, I think, in March that this question was brought up first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was in March that the question was brought up, but I think I am right when I say that it was only within the last fortnight that the report itself was made.



FISHERY AND FOREST AIR PATROLS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I be permitted to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether he is aware of the strong objection which has been aroused in British Columbia to the abandonment of the air patrol of the British Columbia salmon fishery areas. I would direct the attention of the minister particularly to a leading article which appears in the Vancouver Morning Star of 27th April, last. The Star, by the way, is a paper which supports the government. I will not attempt to read this article because it is quite lengthy, but I would crave the indulgence of the House while I read the headlines. They are as follows:
Salmon Fisheries in B.C. imperilled by lack of planes
Enforcement boats outstripped by fishing vessels of double speed-Poachers use unchartered waters-Lack of communication, with inexperienced crews on patrol boats, leave great areas at the mercy of violators-Replacement of three planes by seventeen additional seaboats boosts cost from $18,000 to $30,000, while service rendered is not comparable.
I should like to ask whether the minister is considering replacing the air patrol service? I can assure him from my information that that patrol service has been very effective.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: Before the minister answers I should like to add my confirmation to what the hon. member for New Westminster has said. The seaplane service was by far the more efficient.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the matter has not come directly to my attention, but I will be only too pleased to investigate it and consider it most favourably.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: More or less in the same connection may I ask the Minister of National Defence if it is a fact that the air station at Jericho, in Vancouver, is being closed, and the cruising of timber in British Columbia also abandoned?
Forest Air Patrols


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the hon. gentleman answers, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question in regard to the High River station about which I received a telegram only yesterday. There seems to be very great apprehension on the part of many citizens there that the forest protection service, which has been so efficient in days gone by, is going to be abandoned.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: The whole question of the air service for Canada during the coming season is now under consideration. It is being given careful attention by the department.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: We have not heard anything at this end of the chamber of what has been going on; we do not know anything about it. I suppose we shall find by reference to to-morrow's Hansard what has happened.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The hon. member has not missed much.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, to incorporate the Canadian Dexter P. Cooper Company-Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Hanson).

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

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many bushefls of wheat of each grade were there in storage in the Dominion government elevator at Edmonton at the beginning of the crop year 1924-25?
2.	How many bushels of wheat of each grade were there in storage in the Dominion government elevator at Edmonton at the end of the crop year 1924-25?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Nil. The elevator commenced operations in October, 1924.
2.
Dried one northern	 4,590-50
Dried two northern	 7,759-50
Two northern	9,012-30
Three northern	 7,000-00
No. 4 wheat	57,605-50
Feed wheat	 737-00
Rejected wheat	 1,236-20
Smutty wheat	 661-20
No grade wheat	 6,297-10
Total	 94,900-50


STEAMSHIP SERVICE BETWEEN CANADA AND CUBA
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Are the following ships: Emperor of Havana; Emperor of St. John; Emperor of Fredericton; Emperor of Montreal; Emperor of Midland; carrying on a service between Canada and Cuba?
2.	Were these ships formerly the property of the Canadian Merchant Marine? If so, what were their respective names at that time?
3.	What was the cost of each, and the price at which each was sold?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes. These ships have been utilized in a service between Canada and Cuba during the past winter.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Emperor of Havana, formerly Canadian Sailor; Emperor of St. John, formerly Canadian Warrior; Emperor of Fredericton, formerly Canadian Sower; Emperor of Montreal, formerly Canadian Trader; Emperor of Midland, formerly Canadian Adventurer.
3.	Canadian Sailor, cost $690,409.84, sold for $40,000; Canadian Warrior, cost $819,671.26, sold for $40,000; Canadian Sower, cost $716, 856.63, sold for $40,000; Canadian Trader, cost $686,905.38; sold for $40,000; Canadian Adventurer, cost $717,467.49, sold for $40,000.


SHIPMENT OF HORSES FROM SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. ROWE:: 1.	Was an experimental shipment of horses made from the province of Saskatchewan to any other country during the year 1925?
2.	Where were the said horses purchased?
3.	By what government official were they purchased?
4.	What prices were paid for said horses and what were the names of the parties from whom they wrere purchased ?
5.	From what point were they shipped?
6.	What was the point of destination to where they were shipped ?
7.	In whose charge was this shipment made?
8.	Is the man in whose charge they were placed a neighbor of Honourable Mr. Motherwell?
9.	Have all the horses been sold?
10.	If not, what has become of the balance of said horses?
11.	What is the name of the man who was sent in charge, and his present address?
12.	What was the total cost of transportation and all other expenses connected with the said consignment?
13.	What was the total amount received from the sales of said horses?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes, an experimental shipment of horses, largely for advertising purposes, was sent to Europe in 1925.
2.	In Saskatchewan and Alberta.
3.	Mr. Jack Byers and Mr. R. E. Wilson, assisted by the provincial veterinarians of Alberta (Dr. Talbot), and of Saskatchewan (Dr. McLellan).
4.	From Mr. D. J. Wylie, Maple Creek, Sask., 36 head at $35 each; from oiaf Olafson

Questions
of Mortlach, Sask., 7 head at $35 each; from Jas. Jackson of Orion, Alta., 1 at $75, 1 at $70, 1 at $35; from Fred Goodner, Orion, Alta., 1 at $52.50; from H. G. Rogers, Orion, Alta., 1 at $55; from Pete Cra'bb, Orion, Alta., 2 at $70, 2 at $50, 1 at $40, 1 at $55, 1 at $90, 1 at $75; from Pete Strand, Orion, Alta., 1 at $55; from Harry Peck, Orion, Alta., 2 at $75; from J. P. Biesterfeldt, Manyberries, Alta., 2 at $70; from Lawrence Biesterfeldt, Manyberries, Alta., 2 at $75; from Rex Peacock, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $70, 2 at $75, 1 at $65, 1 at $60; from H. H. Fauquier, Maple Creek, Sask., 2 at $55; from Geo. R. Hammond, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $45; Jack Redhead, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $40; Bridge Hartley, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $65, 3 at $70; E. Birchell, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $70; Harry Dowkes, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $70: J. J. Wilson, Maple Creek, Sask., 1 at $55, 1 at $50, 1 at $30, 1 at $25; Olaf Finneteg, Maple Creek, Sask., 2 at $65.
5.	Moose Jaw, Sask.
6.	Rotterdam, Holland.-It should be stated, however, that when it was first decided to undertake this experimental shipment of horses, it was intended to land them at Hamburg, Germany. After the ocean space had been booked, however, Germany announced the imposition of a duty on horses of 500 gold marks per head, Which, at 24 cents, amounts to $120 per head. It was felt that this duty was prohibitive, but, inasmuch as the horses had been bought, and space contracted for, that the shipment should go forward, but to a different destination, and Rotterdam was, we were advised, probably the next best market. Arrangements were therefore made to Ship the horses from Hamburg on arrival, to Rotterdam, Holland.
7.	Mr. Jack Byers.
8.	No.
9.	Yes.
10.	Answered by 9.
11.	Mr. Jack Byers, Valjean, Sask.
12.
Freight	$	5,426	50Feed en route	1,342	59Insurance, marine	319	00Salaries and wages	1,500	35Living and travelling ex-	penses	3,922	86Feed, stabling, drugs, extra	help and sundries in	Germany and Holland.	11,411	57Sundry Supplies in Canada	220	02$	24,142	89Buying price of 84 horses	4,032	50Total.. ..$	28,175	39
13. Disposal:
Sold in Europe .... 82 $7,181 00 Sold in Canada.. ..	1	80 00
Died in Europe.. ..1	-
Total.. .. 84	$7,26100
Notes :
1.	The figures given in the replies to questions 12 and 13 are subject to revision, as some of the accounts are still being adjusted.
2.	The low prices at which these horses had to be sold and part of the expenses are attributable to several causes, the principal being:-
(a)	The putting into effect of the new duty of 500 gold marks on horses entering Germany as at October 1, 1925, the anticipation of which had caused the German market to be overstocked with horses from all sources of supply previous to the date of going into effect of the new' duty.
(b)	The failure of forage crops in German territory adjacent to the Dutch and Belgian frontiers, with the result that horses in this territory were thrown on the market owing to lack of feed.
(c)	The smallness of the shipment made it hardly worth while shipping the horses for marketing to Czedho-Slovakia or Russia where there seems to be the greatest demand.
(d)	Shortly after arrival epidemics of ringworm and influenza broke out among horses, and practically closed off all sales, at same time running up expenses. Nevertheless, much advertising w7as done and Mr. Byers visited various countries getting in touch with governments or horse men, and induced many prospective buyers to visit the stables in Rotterdam with a view of giving them some idea of the type of horse available in Canada. As a result of this advertising, a number of inquiries have come forward from European countries, and one firm in Canada has several contracts under consideration for a large number of horses for delivery this year and next.


MOTOR TRAFFIC BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	According to provinces, what is the total number of American motor cars that crossed the Canadian boundary from the United States to Canada in 1925?
2.	According to provinces, what is the total number of Canadian motor cars that crossed the Canadian
. boundary from Canada to the United States in 1925?

Questions


Georges Henri Boivin: 
MARKING OF ENVELOPES
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has anybody lodged a complaint in regard ito the Post Office Department allowing on envelopes, which are in circulation throughout the country, the following words in 'both French and English: "Help to stop forest fires"?
2.	If not, why does the said Department not take advantage of the new postage stamp issue in order to make them 'bilingual; thereby putting into practice the official use of the .two languages in this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 and 2. Dies bearing the words, in both French and English:	"Help prevent forest
fires," are in use at Montreal, Quebec and Trois Rivieres. At other points throughout the Dominion the die is in English only. The Post Office Department is not aware that any complaint has been lodged in regard to these arrangements.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Henry Lumley Drayton: For a return of all orders in council passed in the calendar year 1925.
He said:	I suggest that the motion pass
subject to an arrangement to be made between the Prime Minister and myself. I have gone partially over the list, and will take it up and complete it later.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No; I should
like the order to issue subject to an arrangement to be made between ourselves as to what orders in council will be covered by the order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Carried in
respect of those.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
EMr. Woodsworth.j


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 30, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton) [DOT] Mr. Speaker, the debate was adjourned by the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) and I did not expect to be called upon at this early hour in the afternoon. However, before discussing the matter which is now engaging the attention of the House, namely the budget and the amendment, permit me to offer a few observations with regard to an address delivered in this House last Tuesday evening by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). The manner in which the words were used would leave no doubt in our minds that the hon. gentleman expected a reply. Lest there be some misunderstanding with regard to what the hon. gentleman stated, let me read into my address the record of what was said by the hon. member:
Mr. Edwards (Frontenac): My hon. friends should not say "hear, hear", because if they were at all generous they must have recognized the fact that a large part of my time was taken up in what I believe was a fruitless effort in trying to force some common sense into heads which, so far as we have been able to judge, have shown no sign of possessing that desirable quality. I have not much hope that what I have said, and the instructions I have given, will have any effect, because you have to plant seed in fertile ground if it is to produce anything, and there is no fertility over yonder; there are no brains to furnish the necessary soil to produce results. I can only leave the matter with them, hoping against hope that Providence, which has done so much for the Liberal party, will still exercise its beneficent influence and furnish some of the gentlemen of the kindergarten school with what they so much need, a little common sense and ordinary brain power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the word kindergarten naturally associates itself with infancy and youth, and as I listened here with some patience, and I must admit with some degree of irritation, mjr mind went back to my college days, and I remember committing to memory the reply of William Pitt to Walpole, and the words so aptly suit the present occasion that I may be permitted to repeat them. The reply was:
The atrocious crime of being a young man, which the hon. gentleman has with such spirit and decency charged upon me, I shall neither attempt to palliate nor deny, but content myself with wishing that I may

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
be one of those whose follies may cease with their youth, and not of that number who are ignorant in spite of experience.
Whether youth can be imputed to any man as a reproach, I will not assume the province of determining: But surelly age may become justly contemptible, if the Oippontunities which it brings have passed away without improvement, and vice appears to prevail when the passions have subsided. The wretch that, after having seen the consequences of a thousand errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults.
Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy, and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of bis country.
The late Joseph Howe, the great Nova Scotian statesman and orator in his fight against the old, entrenched, aristocratic family compact of his day had to put up with taunts similar to those which we have been subjected to and in replying to an hon. gentleman this is what he said on one occasion: The hon. gentleman appears to have leaned over the Castalian spring.
The spring in fable that served a double purpose for the shepherds; they could mirror their fa'ces in the water and also drink the water. Howe continued:
And the hon. gentleman appears to have leaned over the Castalian spring not to slake his thirst or arrange his robe to set off the harmonies of nature, but to fall in love with his own image and die with admiration of himself.
The hon. member for Frontenac-Adding-ton is a Tory in the true sense of the word. He believes absolutely in the principle of protection, political and otherwise. Hon. gentlemen remember the other evening when he was hurling his insults across the floor of the House at us, one of our members asked you, Mr. Speaker, to intercede and prevent him from continuing in that strain. What was his reply? It was: "I want you, Sir, to protect me." Protect him for what? To protect him, to close our mouths, so that in a protected field he might hurl across the floor of this House at us the putrid broth of his distorted imagination.
Now let us proceed with the matters under discussion.
Mr. HOCKEN:: Having got that off our
chest.


Mr. McPHEE:: We will get a little more off before we are through. Since the House opened on 7th January, there have been several inconsistencies on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: More quotations.


George Washington McPhee: You will get more quotations too, that is if my hon. friend will understand them. There have been several inconsistencies since the 7th January. In the first place you remember that in the debate that featured the early portion of the session, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who is the chief financial critic of the opposition, in addressing this House, made this dramatic pronouncement:
I submit that no member of this House should look beyond the question in the resolution; but if we are tempted to go beyond it, if we are tempted to consider ulterior results, then let me say this in the presence of my leader and with his authority, that if this motion carries, if this government resigns, and if he is called upon to form a govenment in this House, he will undertake the task. He will undertake to carry on that government from session to session without dissolution.
That was the statement made by the hon. member for South Wellington at the time he was asking the support of our good Progressive friends to turn the government out of office. But what did he do a month afterwards? We find the same hon. gentleman making this pronouncement:
I ask the Progressives whether they will join us and send the whole question back to the people for a solution at a general election.
And when I heard the hon. gentleman make that statement I said to myself, " Consistency thou art a jewel." The amendment which is now before the House is another of these inconsistencies. We all remember that on January 18, of this year, in speaking on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and in discussing the question of a tariff advisory board the right hon. leader of the opposition made the following remarks:
Whatever may be said for a tariff commission, there is need-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


George Washington McPhee: -of no tariff commission to inform this House, or to inform any fair-minded man or woman, that agriculture to-day, in respect of the tariff, labours under a disability, and a disability which it is the duty of this House at once to remove.
If that principle is true with regard to the disability which my hon. friend pictured in his mind that agriculture suffered under, why is it not true with regard to the automobile industry? In this House a whole afternoon and an evening were spent in discussing the question of the reduction in duty on automobiles, and the figures quoted are sufficient to prove to any reasonably-minded man that this House, according to the dictum of my hon. friend in regard to the' duties on agriculture, should

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
at once have taken the step and reduced the duties on automobiles instead of waiting for a tariff commission.
The figures quoted by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) v/hen the resolution with regard to reducing the duties on automobiles was before the House, showed with respect to the profits made by one manufacturing concern in this country that an enormous toll was paid by our people to one protected industry. On an original investment of $62,500, without any addition of capital, this company in twenty years paid to its stockholders in dividends $12,851,238. But this is not all. The statement which they have given to the public shows that they have invested in their husiness $31,275,530 and not one cent of additional capital except what the company earned was put in. Therefore, instead of the profits being $12,851,238, the total profit made amounts to $44,126,768 on an original investment of $62,500. I am not one who would criticise any industry on any profit it can legitimately make; but when an organization of this kind in supplying a commodity so largely used as the cheaper priced car is protected by a protective tariff of 35 per cent and is thus enabled to bleed users and purchasers of these cars to such an extent as to make the profits which this company made, I rise in protest against that tariff being continued.
Supposing there was no duty on automobiles coming into Canada, what would be the cost to us? The Ford coupe in Detroit costs $500. If you add $12 for excise tax that makes a total of $512. The Canadian sales and excise tax would then add 10 per cent to the value, or $51.20, bringing the total cost up to $563.20. The Canadian selling price before the reduction in duties was $714.88 according to the booklet distributed by the Ford Motor Company among members of this House. That is, before the duty was reduced we were paying $151.68 extra price on the same car. That amount of $151.68 left in the pockets of every owner of a Ford car in Canada wouid be a nice contribution to the prosperity of this country as it would result in an increased purchasing power amongst a widespread number of people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Those opposed to the reduction in the duty on automobiles point to the pay-roll and they make the bold statement that if the duty is reduced these companies will go out of business. Will they? The same argument was used twenty rears ago in 1897 when the Fielding tariff was brought in placing 160 articles, including binder twine,

barbed wire and cream separators, on the free list. Have these companies gone out of business? Statistics to-day show that these companies have increased and their business has increased during those twenty years. I think it is a safe statement to make that the cheaper you make a commodity the more extensively it will be purchased. A demonstration of this principle is to be found in the history of the Post Office Department. Hon. members will remember that in 1897 when the then Postmaster General reduced the rate of postage from three cents to two cents there were those in this country who said that our revenues would be crippled. But the result was that previous annual deficits of three-quarters of a million were at once turned into surpluses. Five years afterwards, in 1902, the Post Office Department had the first surplus of more than $5,000 over its operating expenses, and these surpluses went on increasing until, when the Liberal government went out of power in 1911, the annual surplus was upwards of $1,000,000.
The same principle holds true in regard to all the great business enterprises in the world. Henry Ford realized that himself in the great industry which he established1. He was, of course, a pioneer in his line; he believed in the principle that lower prices would increase production, and as production increased, Ford's prices were reduced. The latest statistics we have show that in 1924 we had 653,121 cars in operation in Canada. The proposed reduction on motor cars if applied to that number would mean a vast saving to the people, a saving that would materially increase their purchasing power, and that increased purchasing power would add much to the general prosperity which is now in evidence from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Did the hon.
gentleman say that the production of Ford cars in Canada was 600,000 in 1924?


George Washington McPhee: I made no such statement. I said that statistics showed that 653,121 cars were in operation and the reduction proposed if applied to that number of cars would mean a great saving to our people.
That brings us down to the question of protection and I am sure my hon. friends across the way will relish the next morsel which I propose to give them. A year or so ago the Canadian Manufacturers' Association circularized the manufacturers of the Maritime provinces with regard to the question of tariff duties and I wish to quote the reply which they received from Mr. Angus McLean of Bathurst, New Brunswick. We notice that

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
our friends the Canadian Manufacturers' Association did not spread this letter very freely throughout the country. He was circularized with others to find out his opinion with regard to this matter of tariff protection and this is a portion of Mr. McLean's letter:
"The principal difficulty we have to face," said Mr. McLean, "is the high cost of protection, brought about by too much tariff protection on Canadian-made goods."
Mr. McLean by the way is one of the largest lumber and pulp men in the Maritime provinces.
We find that almost invariably the Canadian manufacturers charge the Canadian consumer the foreign price plus the protection they enjoy under the tariff. Until the Canadian manufacturer is brought to realize that this is taxing the consumer in the most unfair way and changes his ways we are going to have to struggle and work hard to carry on business in the Maritime provinces. Our chief products are from the farms, forests, mines and seas and we must find a market for those products outside Canada.
What we must have to become prosperous is an opportunity to buy our requirements cheaper than we can under a protective tariff; and, next, we need broader markets for the things we produce.
Commenting on this letter the Manitoba Free Press had this to say:
What the busy and devoted secretary of the Manufacturers thought of this communication can be left to the imagination; doubtless he rent his clothes and put ashes on his head. Mr. McLean is, it may be accepted, regarded as an economic heretic, a lost soul.
What did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) himself say with regard to this matter of high tariff and protection a few years ago in this House? Turning back to Hansard of 1920 at page 2708 we find that he is reported as having used these words:
We never can have a high tariff in Canada. We cannot have a high tariff in Canada for the most obvious reasons. In the first place, a high tariff is unsound in principle in that it tends to eliminate one of the factors of competition, namely, foreign goods.
And further on:
So I say we cannot have any immediate or high tariff for the reason, first, that it tends to exclude that healthy element of fair conditions, namely, foreign competition; secondly, we have in Canada a territory of wide extent. We have one portion of Canada, newer than the other portion, a more predominatingly agricultural country, newer to manufactures and industrial development, and consequently the advantages of the tariff do not accrue to them as 3ret as they ultimately will accrue to them. They come more immediately to one portion of this country than to* another. On account of these two reasons we must always have in this country nothing more than a moderate tariff under any conditions whatsoever.
In view of that pronouncement of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) six years ago in this House, on what ground does he advocate to-day a tariff wall in this country
brick for brick with that of the United States, the most highly protected country in the world? A few days ago the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) made the statement that the industries of Canada were going down, and he instanced some in his own province which had gone out of business entirely. He left the inference that the people engaged in the textile industry in the Maritime provinces had emigrated to the United States and that the United States so far as textiles were concerned was in a flourishing condition. Now I have here an article which appeared in a western newspaper a few weeks ago and which analyses the textile industry in the United States so convincingly that I cannot do better than place a portion of it on Hansard. It is headed "Textiles under High Tariff." Within quotation marks there appears the following slogan:
What are we striving for? More bread and butter, more bread and butter.
The editorial then goes on:
This is the chant of the striking textile workers in New Jersey. All day long the refrain comes from the throats of pickets. Imagine such a condition of affairs in one of the highest protected industries in the United States! How could there be a strike? Do not our Conservative friends tell us that a high tariff wall insures plenty of employment and big wages? We heard a good deal of that gospel during the federal election campaign last year. Nothing could save the textile business of Canada unless this country imitated our neighbour and increased the duty on the imported article. The fact of the matter is the textile workers in the United States are not on full time and have had tlieir wages reduced because the selling price of the commodities they produce is too high for the consumer to pay. There is no other explanation.
Tariff protection for any business is a sort of legal permission for the manufacturer of articles so protected to add the amount of the import duty to his own catalogue figures and put the additional profit into his own .pocket. The worker may get a little of it for a time. But as soon as the limit of the consuming public's purchasing power 'has been reached the demand drops. So there is no benefit at all to the worker and the slump hits the producer fairly quickly. This has happened across the border. Protection is running true to .form-it is not protecting.
What about Canada's textiles under a low tariff? Take the case of Penman's, Limited, of Montreal and Paris, Ontario, on the strength of the firm's annual statement just issued. This concern operates a string of factories in Ontario and Quebec and the year which has just closed is described as one of the most satisfactory years in its history. It is a well managed and conservatively financied company, and, as a matter of fact, a similar state of affairs in industries which are complaining of conditions, as a contemporary points out, "might be productive of a rather different tone to that from which so much political capital is being made."
In the year reviewed by the statement referred to the Penman company has increased its sales by over a million dollars, increased its operating profits by nearly $50,000, and, after laying aside a substantial
The Budget-Mr. McPhee


James Dew Chaplin: What paper is that?


George Washington McPhee: The Manitoba Free Press.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh.


George Washington McPhee: I presume if I quoted from the Mail and Empire or the Telegram or the Orange Sentinel my hon. friend would say Amen. However, to proceed:
By tradition low tariff men, they became, in 1920, protectionists overnight. They were told, and apparently believed, that high tariff duties on agricultural produots would bring them boundless prosperity. Now, after five years of experience, they find agriculture almost on the verge of collapse.
The farmers in the com belt have an enormous surplus of corn and are many of them in real distress. Of what avail to them ds the tariff duity on com? No com ds likely to be imported into the United States in the course of a century because domestic production far exceeds domestic consumption. A considerable portion of the com crop is exported either as corn or meat, and the domestic price seldom rises above the export level.
And what is true of the com grower is true of the cotton planter and the great bulk of fanners in the United States. They are less concerned about the theory of protection than they are about their present condition. High tariff duties were to make them rich, and after five years of experience they find themselves poor.
The big farm organizations are unanimous in saying that whatever benefit may be conferred upon the farmer by high tariff duties on agricultural products is taken away from him threefold by the higher prices which he has to pay for everything he buys, from aluminum to zinc. They blame this, not so much upon the tariff duties themselves, as upon the monopolies which have grown up under protection.
. It is a revival of the Iowa idea which led to a wholesale revolt of the farmers against the Payne-Aldrich tariff law some 15 years ago. This present day revolt of the American farmer against the tariff 4is not to be under-rated. It is not under-rated by men like Senator Capper, of Kansas, a lifelong protectionist, who voted for the Ford ntey - Me Cumber Tariff Act. He warns the manufacturers of New England that the whole protective system may be swept away iby a western tornado unless the east consents .to an immediate downward revision of the tariff.
So much for tariff protection to the farmers of the United States. I hope this information

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
will not be lost upon those in this country who would like to inflict similar disabilities upon our agriculturists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some time ago I gave certain figures in regard to the loss sustained by the Winnipeg Hydro-electric system in relation to their plant, and I wish to place on record the editorial that I then had reference to, because my remarks were questioned by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson), and I want to put him right. The editorial reference is headed "A theory bowled over by the facts":
Persons who listened during the late election campaign to the argument that a higher tariff would not mean an increase in the cost of living in Canada will be interested in what took place at the meeting of the Winnipeg city council held last Monday night. If they came out of the federal election campaign with an idea that the Argument advanced by Mr. Meighen and his friends was well founded they might put the theory up against the facts as they came out in an actual business transaction. The Swedish company which tendered on two generators for the city of Winnipeg's hydro plant offered to supply them at a price that was $15,000 lower than the tender of a Canadian firm. Sweden, of course, is a long way from Canada. Before it can get its generators into Canada the Swedish firm will have to pay duty to the Canadian government at the rate of 27 per cent, or a total in thiis case of about $30,000. The Swedish firm will also have to pay transportation on the ocean from Sweden to Canada and on a Canadian railway from the port of entry to Winnipeg. The firm is to do all these and yet is able to effect a saving of $15,000 to the people of Winnipeg.
Was there any doubt in this case about the benefit cf outside competition? By buying .this particular machinery outside of Canada at the price quoted the people of Winnipeg are saved $15,000, the Canadian government gets $30,000 duty to help in tax reduction and the railways get the benefit of the long haul from the port to Winnipeg. Faced with these facts, one of the aldermen, a supporter of Mr. Meighen, too, said that he could not vote to keep the contract in Canada under the circumstances. To bar foreign competition, he said, would be to leave the city in the hands of the Canadian manufacturer.
A' tariff that would bar foreign competition would cost every Canadian citizen more money to live just as in this case the barring of foreign competition would have cost the city of Winnipeg an extra $15,000. If the council had gone back on the principle which the majority stood for on Monday night it would mean that every time the city went into the market for machinery it would pay the highest instead of the lowest price. Over a course of years this would run into thousands of dollars which would come out of the pockets of the consumer and the taxpayer. Most of these will agree that they are already paying about all they can stand.
On that occasion the hon. member for Victoria immediately contradicted me. He said that this machinery was not manufactured in Sweden at all, 'but in Canada. I was not in a position to dispute his statement, although I was aware of the integrity and reliability of the newspaper from which I quoted. My hon. friend spoke last Friday in this debate, and no
doubt in the interval he had ascertained the facts, and I think he should have had the decency to put those facts on record in his latest speech. After his contradiction I endeavoured to get in touch with the parties concerned, and knowing that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was a former member of the Winnipeg council I asked him to write and ascertain the facts for me. I have before me this letter in reply written by the chief engineer of the city of Winnipeg hydro-electric system:
Replying to your telegram of the 19th instant, the list given below shows the tenders received for 2-6500 K. V.A. generators for the Pointe du Bois Plant:
Swedish General Electric Ltd	$143,700,000
Canadian General Electric Co., Ltd	 159,200,000
Canadian Westinghouse Co., . Ltd	 161,000,000
C. A'. Parsons Co., Newcastle-on-Tyne.. .. 159,200,000
The contract was awarded to the Swedish General Electric, Limited, on November 30th, 1925, and the machines will be manufactured in Stockholm, Sweden.
If there is any other information you would care to have in connection with this contract we would be pleased to let you have it at once.
Not content with that, I wrote to the agency of the Swedish General Electric Co. in Toronto, and the letter which I received from them, dated February 19, confirms the information given to the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Now I put these figures on record and repeat the statement which my hon. friend from Victoria contradicted, and 1 ask him to make whatever apology he deems fit in public decency for calling in question the facts when I first submitted them to the House.
Before dealing with the budget, Mr. Speaker, let us consider briefly the legislation which has been before the House for some time. It has been said by some members that this is sectional legislation. Let us examine some of it. Old age pensions-is there any one in this House who will say that that is a sectional matter? Every province will benefit by this legislation provided it takes advantage of it. I know cases in my own constituency of men who were pioneers, who cleared the land and raised large families, and who now in the twilight of life, through no fault of their own, find themselves almost the subjects of charity. Is there any reasonable, sane citizen to-day who in this country of prosperity, individual and collective, would deny to these unfortunate people the right to have their declining years made as happy as possible? Revaluation of soldier settlers' land-surely that cannot be termed a sectional matter. It is applicable to every soldier settler from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Settlement of crown lands-that possibly is somewhat sectional, for the Dominion crown lands are largely in west-

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
em Canada. Those are fertile lands and simply require to be cleared. Cut in the western country the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have seen fit to invest, I should judge, in the neighbourhood of one thousand to fifteen hundred dollars on certain quarter-sections of their land to convert them into what they call " ready-made farms." They build a small house and a small stable and fence the quarter-section. These improvements make the "ready-made farm" attractive to the settler. AVell, if it is good business for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do that, is it not equally good business for the Dominion of Canada to spend a similar amount of money in making our crown lands more attractive to settlers?
The next matter I wish to discuss is the Hudson Bay railway, with regard to which we have had some very conflicting statements. I have in my hand some of the statements made by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) at his nomination convention in the city of AVinnipeg last fall. He said that increased immigration and the completion of the Hudson Bay railway were two of the needs of western Canada which the Conservative party would remedy. The right hon. leader of the opposition, speaking in Regina, said that Canada is too vigorous, too virile and too proud to see the Hudson Bay railway carried to within seventy or eighty miles of completion, and then left, a spectacle to the world. We were told, during the campaign in Yorkton, that the Conservative party should be credited with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; my opponent said the railway was started by a Conservative government, and made the boast that it would also be completed by a Conservative government. Bearing that in mind, Mr. Speaker, it was rather disquieting to read in the newspapers during the recent by-election in West Middlesex a statement made by the hon. member for 4 p.m. South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland).
He is a good stalwart Conservative, and in regard to the Hudson Bay railway is reported to have said:
That >is the whole substance of this by-election and it is up to the electors of West Middlesex to decide on this change of platform which has as its main plank the expenditure of some $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 on a Hudson Bay railway, which can be of absolutely no use to us and which may not be a particle of use to the people of the west. We must not be selfish, but, until Ave are satisfied that this project and its great expenditure is feasible, it should not be started at this time of heavy tax burdens. If you vote for J C. Elliott you are committing yourselves to the spending of nearly $3,000,000 for over ten years for Mr. King's special little railwav 
On the platform with the hon. member for South Oxford was the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), a colleague of the hon. member for South Winnipeg, but the newspaper account makes no mention of any protest by the hon. member for Marquette.


Mr. MULLINS:: AVould my hon. friend say what paper he is quoting from?


George Washington McPhee: I do not know; it was in all the newspapers of eastern Canada.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I would like to know.


Mr. BROWN:: Did I understand the quotation from the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford to be that he questioned whether the road would be of any use to-the people of the west?


George Washington McPhee: Yes.
Mr. BROAArN: I can hardly understand that, because at a picnic m my constituency he made the statement that the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway had been proven for a. hundred years.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I would like to ask the hon. member to name the paper from which-he is quoting. I will abmit being on that platform.


George Washington McPhee: That is sufficient for my argument. My hon. friend will have an opportunity later on to make a speech.


Henry Alfred Mullins: If my hon. friend would wait for my statement in regard to my stand on the question of the Hudson Bay railway, he might find it as explicit as his own.


George Washington McPhee: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to have my hon. friend interrupt me for the purpose of making a speech; I do not mind answering a question. However, that is not all. We have the Ottawa Journal, a Conservative newspaper, making some statements in regard to the Hudson Bay railway which are rather at variance with those made by the hon. member for South Winnipeg and by his leader, which I would like to make a matter of public record. My first quotation is from an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal under date of March 17, 1926:
The first monetary instalment upon the Progressives' price for keeping the King ministry in office was paid in parliament on Monday. It was in the form of $3,000 000 in the estimates for the Hudson Bay railway. It is $3,000,000 thrown at icebergs, seals and wolves.
Some hon. MiEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


George Washington McPhee: I think I had better read the rest of the editorial.
Canada is still burdened with railway deficits. Our Transcontinental, built specifically to haul grain, gets

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
comparatively no grain (to haul. Our ports of Quebec, Halifax, and St. John, into which we have put millions, are largely unused. Most of tbe wheat of Alberta, and some of the wheat of Saskatchewan, now goes through the port of Vancouver. In addition we are putting more millions into the harbour of Prince Rupert; rebuilding the harbour of Quebec; propose spending $55,000,000 more on the Welland canal; and talk about [DOT]deepening the St. Lawrence waterway.
Nine million people, with a debt of $2,300,000,000, plus staggering provincial debts, plus war-peak taxation, are faced with these realities. Yet here we have a government, just returned from a smashing at the polls, brazenly proposing to extract $3,000,000 from the taxpayers for an insane railway project, so that it may mock the public will and purchase retention of office.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Winnipeg and the hon. member for Marquette stand as dumb as oysters and permit this Conservative organ of eastern Canada to make that statement unchallenged.
At a time when debt reduction is vital, when decrease of taxation is our more challenging need, we are being plunged further into a morass which has already swallowed twenty millions and which, on a conservative estimate, will swallow thirty millions more.
The "patient oxen" of the Scripture had nothing on the people of Canada. Yet there is a limit. And the limit has been reached, we think, when a government begins using the public's money to scoff at the public's verdict.
Again I ask if the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. member for Winnipeg will endorse that editorial. I have another editorial from the same paper under date of February 12, 1926:
Of all the asinine reasons advanced for complotion of the Hudson Bay railway-and their number is legion -the lowest in intelligence is that it was begun by the Conservatives. As a matter of plain record, it was begun by the Liberals. In 1910 the Laurier government started it by building the swing bridge to The Pas, over the Saskatchewan river, and in 1911, just prior to the general election of that year, let to J. D. McArthur the contract for the first section of the Hudson Bay railway, 185 miles. It was largely to pay for this work that the Conservatives were called upon to vote over $3,000,000 in 1914.
But what does it matter now who started it? Is it to be seriously argued that just because Liberals and Conservatives sanctioned something years ago that has since been demonstrated as folly that the folly must be persisted in ?
The people of Canada are not now much concerned with the Hudson Bay railway's origin. They are concerned to see that thirty millions of good money is not thrown after twenty millions of bad money; and their concern will not be appeased by tu quoque arguments about the parties responsible for the evil.
Again I ask those hon. members if they assent to those statements which appeared in this Conservative paper. The Hudson Bay railway is by no means a sectional proposition. It is a necessity, and time will demonstrate that it will work to the benefit of Canada as a whole. I have here an article reporting certain statements made by Senator Robertson in the city of Toronto some little
time ago, which sets out fairly the facts in regard to the future of that road. The article is as follows:
The senator said it hat completion of the line would make it 'possible to tap the iron ore deposits of Belcher island and would proviide a route whereby that iron can be taken to the coal fields of Alberta. Belcher Islands are on the east side of Hudson bay, north of James bay. Their iron mines, says, the story in the Toronto Star, "furnish ore that is said to be higher in quality than the mines that furnish the ore for Bessemer steel. It has a 62 per cent content of hematite as compared with about 50 in the American mines. It can be economically handled in Alberta, where there is coal, gas and oil (in large quantities, making the sort of industrial proposition which made Great Britain an industrial nation. The climate of Alberta is also milder and conditions are ideal for industrial development."
In the course of the interview, Senator Robertson provided an answer to the question: "Is another outlet needed?" He is quoted as saying that when the big tracts of northern farm land are opened up there will be more grain than existing routes can handle. Then "the Hudson Bay route will be imperative." The senator predicts also the development of a water route between Port Nelson and Moose Factory, at the south end of James bay, "which will connect the heart of the west with Ontario and Quebec with cargoes moving both east and west."
One could go on and enumerate the advantages of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway to the people of the whole of Canada, but the matter will no doubt be threshed out more fully when the resolution dealing with the Hudson Bay project is before the House.
The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), in addition to criticizing the Hudson Bay railway, had some things to say in the House a few days ago with reference to western Canada. Here is what he said on that occasion:
This 'budget as a .whole is what might be 'termed a Saskatchewan budget. That statement deserves "a little explanation. The general policies in Saskatchewan seem to be policies of annihilation and assassination rather than protection-
What did the hon. member mean when he made that statement. What are the policies in Saskatchewan that are policies of annihilation and assassination?


Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford):: Free trade.


George Washington McPhee: We have in Saskatchewan a province that is second to none in Canada from	an agricultural point	of view, and	inevery other way. Let me give my hon. friend a few statistics. I will quote from the Monetary Times, and I do not suppose the hon.	gentleman will offer any	objection	tomy authority. That paper says:	That thegross	debt per capita in	the	province	ofSaskatchewan is $66 and the net debt $33. The gross debt per capita for Ontario is $87, and the net debt is $30. In	the	province	of
The Budget-Mr. McPhee
Saskatchewan we spend per capita $4 on education. Only one province in Canada spends an amount higher than that, and that is the province of British Columbia. The per capita expenditure of British Columbia for that purpose is $6.64; in Saskatchewan it is $4, and in Ontario $3.38. We have an educational system in Saskatchewan that is equal to any in Canada. No other province in the Dominion, no state in the American union, has on its statue 'books more advanced legislation for the general benefit of the great mass of the people than has the province of Saskatchewan. How, then, does my hc.n. friend get away with the statement that the policies of Saskatchewan are those of annihilation and assassination?


Donald Sutherland: The hon. gentleman has enumerated provincial policies. I have no objection to them; it is when you come down here with your national policy of free trade that I object.


George Washington McPhee: We will analyze the
statement a little further. There is one species of human being in Saskatchewan we do annihilate and extinguish; it is the species of Tory we see down in this part of the country. The former hon. member for Regina, Mr. Darke, in the address he delivered here before he resigned his seat, made the statement that there are Conservatives in Saskatchewan, but added that if you want to see a real Tory in action you have to come to this House. That is one species that we in Saskatchewan absolutely desire to exterminate, a species of Tory that is unknown to the zoology of Saskatchewan or the good common sense of her people.


Donald Sutherland: You exterminate them with a political steam roller.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: No; the Tory
just naturally dies out there.


George Washington McPhee: The hon. member for
Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hoeken) in a speech last week advocated the imposition by the government of an import tax on American publications coming into this country. For what purpose? There are good American magazines. Personally, I have taken the National Geographic Magazine for the last ten years and find it a splendid magazine. Why does my hon. friend want these magazines prohibited from coming into Canada?-because that will be the effect if the duty is increased. If my hon. friend and his associates would advise the Canadian people to get good material for reading instead of spreading throughout the country 
reckless Tory propaganda that is so obnoxious to a large proportion of thie Canadian reading public, it would not be necessary for them to come to this parliament and ask for an increase in the duty on American publications. Here is an example of the kind of sentiment the hon. gentleman is trying to spread throughout the country. I have here an editorial taken from the Orange Sentinel of February 23, 1926, and I will read it slowly so that my hon. friends can drink in the full effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are all teetotallers.


George Washington McPhee: This is how it reads:
Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King was elected in Prince Albert, Sask., with a majority of over five thousand. That did not startle the country. Anything less than five thousand majority would have been surprising. Mr. King has the honour, if it be such, of representing a constituency sit retching up to the Arctic circle, and with a voters' list that reads like a directory published in some city of the Ukraine. One poll which The Sentinel had an opportunity to examine contained 178 names, only two of which were English, and about seventy-five per cent of them ended with "sky." It is rumoured that the Eskimos voted solidly for the Prime Minister, and the "sky's" were ninety-nine per cent in his favour. There was great rejoicing about it in Ottawa on the night that his success was announced. But in the quiet midnight hour, when W.L.M.K. finds it hard to get to sleep, it must be somewhat depressing for him to think that he had to go to the last north and find a constituency on the northerly boundary of the northern province of Saskatchewan in order to get a seat in the House of Commons, whence he can give leadership to the sixty-one French-Canadians who form two-thirds of his party in the House.
And yet the editor of the newspaper that published that libel on the people of Saskatchewan and on the people of Canada comes here and asks the government to place an import duty on American literature and keep it out, in order that he may spread such kind of propaganda as this through his advertising columns. I should like to make a fitting reply to such action, but	in	the	mood in	which
I find myself I am afraid I might say something for which I might afterwards be sorry.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do not worry.


George Washington McPhee: Instead of doing that I
will give the well-considered opinion of a newspaper editor of high standing in this country, the editor	of	the	Saskatoon	Star.
Here is his reply to this editorial, and to other articles of a similar nature, which have appeared in the Toronto press:
Saskatchewan has many citizens who were born in foreign countries and is proud of the industry they have shown in their private	affairs and of the	publicspirit they have shown	in	their	relations with the
people of native or British stock. In Saskatchewan

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
no distinctions are	made, so harmoniously do	thevarious dements an	the	province's	population	livetogether. Here all	are	Canadians,	citizens of	the
Dominion.
Elsewhere in this country no such broadminded and tolerant notions prevail. Since the Prince Albert byelection which sent	Mr.	Mackenzie	King back to
parliament, certain newspapers published an central Canada have repeatedly sneered at the character of Saskatchewan's population and insulted the intelligence of Saskatchewan electors. One writer referred to the "middle-European aspect of the voters' list" in Prince Albert riding. Another said the significance of the by-election was that Mr. King had to go to the least British of all the constituencies to find a seat. These, however, are mild statements, comparatively speaking. One Conservative journal published in Ontario was kind enough to say that the vote of a bull moose or jack rabbit would be as intelligent politically as the votes cast by some Prince Albert electors.
It may appear superfluous to answer this sort of thing with statistics, but a few numerical facts may be illuminating if they reach the notice of the scoffers at Saskatchewan. Census bulletins published since 1921 deal with such matters as school attendance and literacy in that year. Here are some census findings: The percentage of children between seven and fourteen attending school was 88.85 in Saskatchewan, 91.87 in Ontario. Of the whole population over ten years old 93.47 per cent in Saskatchewan and 96.55 per cent in Ontario could speak English. Of the whole population over five years old 87.85 per cent in Saskatchewan and 92.99 per cent in Ontario could read and write.
There is a small difference in Ontario's favour in each instance, but Ontario has centuries of history to Saskatchewan's decades, Ontario is more densely .populated, it contains fewer remote and new settlements. The insults to Saskatchewan occasioned by recent political events are not justified by the facts of the situation. But they are more than mere errors of statement. They show a contemptibly mean and narrow concept of Canadian! sm.
And I wish, Mr. Speaker, that some of our editorial writers in the editorial sanctums of Toronto would take this article to heart. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) in the course of his address the other day, made the statement that nobody would invest a dollar in Canada under the present government. He said:
The two things we require in Canada in order that we can make out of this country what it is designed to be is, first, people and, second, capital, but this whole plan is devised to make it impossible for any man who has money to put it into Canadian industry because he is penalized the moment he does so whether he is a Canadian or not.
Before replying to that statement permit me to read another statement which he made. He said:
Why, one industrial city the size of Hamilton consumes more beef cattle in a single year than the whole Dominion exported last year, and that was the greatest exporting year we have ever had.
Let us reason out the last statement before we undertake to analyze the first. That is the statement that the city of Hamilton or a city of that size consumed more beef cattle in a single year than was exported from Canada during last year. What are the figures? For the year ending March 31, 1926, we exported beef cattle, one year old and upwards to the number of 228,107. By packing house experience and by butchers' methods, I am told by the statistical branch that the average weight per head of these is 450 pounds dressed beef. Then 228,107 cattle at 450 pounds each dressed beef would make the amount of 102,648,150 pounds of beef. The population of Hamilton was 114,151 at the last census. That would mean, if my hon. friend's statement was correct, that each man, woman and child in the city of Hamilton used per year 900 pounds of beef. There are 365 days in the year, and I suppose in Hamilton, as in other places, they are not all meat eating days either. Therefore each man, woman and child in that city would consume per day on an average two and a half pounds of beef Just imagine, if you can stretch your imagina tion to that extent, in the city of Hamilton the aged man and woman in the twilight of their days, the middle-aged man and woman, the sun-kissed maiden and the stalwart youth, the babe on its mother's knee, all vieing with one another, munching beef in this meritorious task of extending the home market in Canada. That leads me to the conclusion that the author of this statement of the beef eating proclivities of the citizens of Hamilton will go down in the public records of this country as the greatest beefer in the political life of the Dominion.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Would not the number of pounds consumed per head be greater, if we accepted the statement of the hon. member who said that our artisans are moving away by the hundreds?


George Washington McPhee: Yes, and I think it would also do away with the egg market in Canada. Bearing that statement in mind, let us examine the other statement by the hon. member, that nobody would invest a dollar in industries in Canada under this government. What are the newspaper reports for the last two months in that regard? Let me put a few of them on record in answer to my hon. friend. The first I put on record is of April 15, 1926, from Fredericton, N.B.
April 14.-The agreement under which the International Paper Company will develop Grand Falls, on the St. John river, was completed here late this afternoon, and now bears the signatures of the presidents of the International Paper Co., and the Fraser Companies, A. R. Graustein and Archibald Fraser, respectively.
Under the provisions of the agreement a block of 20.000 horsepower-13,000 primary power and 7,000 secondary power-is reserved for the Fraser companies,

The Budget-Mr. McPhee
who will embark in the newsprint business with the construction of a 200 ton daily capacity mill on the Restigouohe river, at or near Campbellton.
The International Paper Company will also take out a paper manufacturing charter in New Brunswick. These and other industrial developments now scheduled for immediate undertaking in New Brunswick involve expenditures running, it is estimated, to from twenty-five to forty million dollars.
Another quotation, from Sudbury, Ontario, March 29-and if I mistake not Sudbury is not far from where my hon. friend from East Algoma comes. It reads as follows:
Sudbury, Out., March 29.-An important announcement respecting the future development of the nickel industry in Sudbury district was made at the Rotary luncheon to-day by J. L. Agnew, president of the International Nickel Company, who said that the development of the Frood mine, situated one and a half miles from Sudbury, would commence July 1 next with a force of 250 men, which would be gradually increased until the peak production, for which hoisting equipment is to be provided, will engage from 1,800 to 2.500 workmen. The total expenditure called for is $8,000,000. The speaker said it was not the intention of his company to build a townsite at the mine, but rather that it was the wish that they reside in Sudbury where all facilities in the way of public utilities and educational institutions are already available. It would, however, necessitate a considerable home-building programme and add several thousands to the town's population.
Let me read a few more. This is from Hamilton under date of February 9:
Indication of improved industrial conditions in Hamilton was given to-day by the National Steel Car Co., here, in announcing that the plant was working upon the largest single order ever received. The company is building for the T. and N.O. railway three steel coaches and six steel baggage cars. The C.P.R. has ordered fourteen steel coaches, ten first-class coaches for smoking cars, eight buffet parlor cars, ten tourist cars, and 315 freight refrigerator cars. Both orders are for delivery early in the summer.
This is dated New York, February 8:
The ou*right sale of the ten million dollar bond issue recently floated here for the Manitoba Power Company, by Kissel, Kinnicutt and Company, was reported today.
Proceeds of the sale are to be used by the Canadian concern for the erection of new projections in the western province.
This is dated Montreal, February 8:
Confirmation of the coming establishment of a new artificial silk industry at Drummondville was given today by two organizers of the Canadian Celanaese Limited, Dr. Rene Clavel, of Basle, Switzerland, and Charles L. Auger, president of the Dominion Silk Dyeing and Finishing Company, of Drummondville, Quebec.
The building and plant equipment will cost $7,000,000, it is said.
This is dated Port Arthur, March 28:
Announcement is made that a 60-ton per day sulphide plant is to be added to the Thunder Bay Paper Co., here, supplementary to the 400-ton paper mill announced, would be built in consequence of timber limits having been obtained from the Ontario govern-

ment. Work is to be started on the sulphide plant as soon as ground conditions are suitable this spring. Construction will give employment this summer to between 300 and 400 men.
This is dated Quebec, March 28:
The sale of 4,200 square miles timber limits at the legislative buildings on Saturday brought an additional revenue of $500,000 to the province.
The next one is dated Montreal, March 28:
The annual financial statement of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, Limited, for 1925 shows, after all charges properly applicable to earnings before dividends, net profits $11,215,316, or nearly one and one-quarter millions above the highest of recent estimates.
The last one I will cite is dated Toronto, April 28:
Announcement was made here to-day that the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company, Limited, had been granted a provincial charter for operations af and near Kapuskasing, Ont., involving an investment of $25,000,000.
And so on all along the line. These are only a few of the statements appearing in the public press showing that this country is going ahead industrially and agriculturally and that all along the line we have prosperity and progress. The beacon lights of general prosperity are burning from the Atlantic to the Pacific, while in this House of Commons of Canada we find some of our Conservative friends fiddling and the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nidholson) engaged in the Herculean task of trying to drive down the throats of the unsuspecting citizens of Hamilton the whole exportable surplus of Canadian beef.
Just a word or two with reference to the budget and its provisions. Is there anything in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) anything that would injure any portion of Canada? The reduction in the duty on automobiles, the reduction in the postal rate, the reduction in the income tax-all these are for the benefit of the whole population of Canada. Our hon. friends from the Maritime provinces have this further advantage under the budget, namely, that the preference extended to Great Britain can be taken advantage of only if the trade comes through Canadian ports so that this will benefit more materially the Maritime provinces. Can hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces, who realize in their hearts that the budget proposals are in their best interests, vote for the amendment which is after all the shadow while the budget is the substance?
What do the people of Canada think about the budget? Let me read a few brief editorial

The Budget-Mr. Barber
references from east t-o west. This is from the Vancouver Province:
Among post-war budgets, the one presented yesterday is notable for several reasons. It shows a country swinging upward on a wave of prosperity. It shows increasing trade and buoyant revenues. It indicates an honest and successful effort to meet and clear off a portion of our accumulated obligations, and it gives evidence on the part of the government, of a desire to meet the wishes of the Canadian people for reduced taxation. . . . Altogther, the budget is one which does credit to the government and the Minister of Finance, and should prove highly popular in the country.
This is from the Calgary Herald:
The Herald repeats that the government has taken a step in the right direction. The immediate effects of lower taxes will be appreciated. The new policy will probably not affect the national revenue, as more money will be released for productive activity. That has been the experience of both the United Kingdom and the United States.
This is from the Winnipeg Tribune and I am sure the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) will appreciate anything that appears in the Winnipeg Tribune:
The budget produced by Mr. Robb yesterday is excellent in some respects. It provides the taxpayers of the Dominion with much needed relief, and in direct form so that the relief can be appreciated.
The article goes on to enumerate the reductions and then it says:
All these are reductions of which the country will most heartily approve. The budget is obviously a bid for popularity and in a degree a successful one.
This is what the Edmonton Journal says:
Mr. Robb's budget was full of agreeable surprises. He was expected to reduce the income tax, but on nothing like so extensive a scale as he has done, while in addition we are to have two cent postage again, beginning with July 1, the receipt tax is abolished, the automobile duties come down, and relief is given to the taxpayer in numerous minor respects. . . . Under the circumstances, the ministry is to be especially commended for doing the right thing. The benefit accruing to the country will be far-reaching. ... As for the general effect of the lowering of taxation, in developing a better spirit throughout the country, in encouraging fresh enterprize and in making the Dominion more attractive as a field for settlement and investment, it is bound to be very great.
Just one more quotation. This is from the Vancouver Sun:
With the first real, Liberal-minded budget since pre* war days, the Mackenzie King government is to-day sitting on top of the world in Canada. Reduction in income tax, two-cent postage, elimination of the receipt tax, further exemptions in the sale tax and the reduction of automobile tariff will create a great wave of public approval throughout the Dominion.
In conclusion let me say as regards some of my hon friends across the way: Around them at the present time the political black robe is about to be wrapped; their funeral requiem is being sung; for some of them the wake is being held, that i3 for those who will vote
against the provisions of the budget, and there will be for them no political resurrection when they go to the country and when the public intelligence of the electors of Canada will carry them and what remains of the old Tory party to the grave of their political incapacity, infidelity and imbecility, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.
Mr. HARRY J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) must feel better. I know if I had that much cn my chest I would certainly feel better after having had an opportunity of relieving myself of it. We have listened patiently to the arguments advanced by our friends opposite in support of the budget as brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) a few weeks ago, and if the government's case is no stronger than the hon. member for Yorkton has presented it, then I am afraid they will fail to convince this House and the people of the country that the present budget is in the general interests of Canada.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the budget itself I want to refer for a moment or two to some remarks made by the hon. member. He told us that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had experienced some trouble in Prince Albert, but he did not mention the fact, as rumoured, that the right hon. gentleman had desired the constituency of Yorkton but had found the price a little too high. That is what we understand.


George Washington McPhee: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No such proposition was ever made by the leader of the government as the hon. member seeks to imply. No suggestion of the kind was ever discussed or even thought of.


Mr. BARBER:: The hon. member himself referred to a lot of rumours and this one we believed was well founded. However, I am quite ready to withdraw the remark.


Mr. ROBB:: I do not want to break the thread of the hon. gentleman's remarks, but 1 must point out that he has said either too much or too little. If he cannot go further than he has gone I would suggest that he withdraw the insinuation entirely.


Harry James Barber: I am quite willing to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. But there are so many reports current, and this was one of them.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: It is absolutely without foundation.


Mr. ROGERS:: He only gave it as a rumour.

The Budget-Mr. Barber


Harry James Barber: The hon. member for Yorkton brought up the question of bargaining between groups in this House, and I shall refer to the matter later on. For the moment I may observe that the budget now before us has been described variously throughout the country as a Robb budget, an election budget and a Forke budget. As I see it, it seems to me that portions of it may well be termed an election budget, while m other respects it may be described as a Forke production. What have we witnessed in this House since the seventh day of January? We have seen a government which was defeated at the polls bargaining with groups in parliament and even sacrificing the principles of the Liberal party as laid down by its great leaders, in order that hon. gentlemen may retain office. And the present budget I consider another bid on their part for support. The hon. member for Yorkton denied that there was any significance in the talk about bargaining between groups. I have here a clipping from a Toronto paper dated Toronto, March 28, which reads in part:
J. S. Wooclsworth, Labour member of parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, in a speech at a labour gathering here Saturday night, stoutly denied that Labour's representatives in the federal parliament had entered into any agreement with the Liberal government.
Mr. Woodsworth said the fact that the Conservatives and Liberals at Ottawa were evenly balanced had helped labour tremendously in getting what it wanted. If, he sand, there were 12 Labour members at Ottawa, instead of two, the Labour men would be in a position to get almost any legislation they wanted.
Claims Credit for Pensions
Mr. Woodsworth considered the old age pensions bill was a Labour victory.
I do not intend to deal with the question of old age pensions, and as a matter of fact I had little opportunity to discuss the bill when it was before the House. But I may tell the hon. member for Yorkton that he is no more anxious to see the aged of Canada cared for than we are on this side, although I fear that a host of them will have passed to the great beyond before there is any relief from this piece of legislation now before parliament.
The budget, I say, is another bid for support. The reduction in income taxation and the favourable trade balance are heralded by the government as evidence of prosperity in Canada at the present time, but I think the Prime Minister would find it difficult, if he made a tour -of Canada, to convince twenty-five per cent of the people that they are enjoy ing prosperity at this moment. We have had ample testimony to the contrary from farmer

members who have been deploring conditions during the session. Indeed, all the evidence goes to show that tihe farmers as a class are not prosperous. Furthermore, thousands of labourers are leaving the country, and that is no indication of prosperity among the workingmen. The firm of Penman's has been referred to; it is about the only textile industry which has been mentioned in this House. But if any hon. member will go through some of the smaller towns in the province of Ontario he will find numerous mills which have gone behind over $40,000 during the past year. So that there is no great, prosperity in that direction either.
That part of the budget providing for a reduction in income tax cannot, in my opinion, be called a Forke budget if what I read in the press is anywhere near correct. I have here a clipping which reads:
When -the Canadian Council of Agriculture met the Cabinet the other day the members, expressed themselves strongly against the reduction dn the income tax.
Last year according ito recent figures there were exactly 3,061 farmers in Canada paying income taxes, and the sum total they paid was $162,000. This chicken feed was contributed by 530 Ontario agriculturists, to the amount of $19,351. In Quebec 42 paid $3,775, which was just about half the sum 'that British Columbia farmers paid. In the Canadian west farmers appear to have a reasonable view in respect to their responsibilities. In Saskatchewan 1,492 farmers paid $70,956. In Alberta 663 farmers paid $49,894, though Manitoba fell down with only 171 farmers paying $6,303, but this was nearly twice what Quebec paid	
In 1925, 168,000 persons employed in non-agricultural occupations contributed to the income tax collected $13,973,000.
In 1924 Ontario and Quebec paid $44,000,000 out of the total of $56,000,000 paid in income and war taxes.
And this brings up another question. If the government proceeds to rip the vitals out of industry who is to pay the taxes? Where is the government to find that six or seven hundred million dollars necessary to meet the yearly liabilities? Land taxes look to be in sight.
The budget, in so far as it affords relief in connection with the income tax and postage, has been well received throughout the country. The reduction in income taxation is welcome even though it is rather late in coming; the fact is that the people have been anxiously looking forward for four long years to some relief in this respect. If the people have been obliged to practise economy in order to make ends meet and to discharge their obligations to the state, they are perfectly reasonable in expecting that the government of the country shall also economize. Has there been any attempt on the part of the government to retrench? The government last year spent-more than they did the year before, and according to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance, with the legislation before the House and the supplementary esti-

The Budget-Mr. Barber
mates, the expenditure will be still greater this year. In the last four years millions of dollars have been expended on unnecessary public works, abortive royal commissions, worthless immigration schemes, and if present reports are correct, millions of dollars have been lost through the lax administration of the Customs department. All these unnecessary expenditures have been incurred in spite of the statement in the Speech from Throne:
Every effort will 'be made to reduce expenditures.
We are certainly not disposed to bestow much credit on the government for the taxation relief announced in the budget. Without doubt the most important factor in our financial success of the last fiscal year has been the bountiful grain crop. I think the hon. member was right when he said that Canada had been blessed with a kind Providence during the past year. This enormous crop, in addition to the very large exportations of raw materials, has no doubt accounted for the surplus.
What have other countries been doing while Canada has been standing still? Let me quote the remarks of President Coolidge in presenting the 1925-26 budget to congress:
The establishment of a system of drastic economy in public expenditure which enabled us to pay off about one-fifth of the national debt since 1919 and almost cut in two 1 he national tax burdens since 1921 has been one of the main causes in re-establishing prospertiy.
The Australian commonwealth in four years reduced its income tax by forty-seven per cent, calculated on a per capita basis. New Zealand for the year commencing April 1923 reduced its income tax by 20 per cent, except on incomes derived from debentures; in 1924 this reduction was increased to 33| per cent. Its net debt was reduced in the three years from 1921 to 1924 by about $55000.000. Then we have Great Britain struggling under her enormous war debt. Let me quote from the budget as brought down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago:
Mr. Winston Churchill was able to fcelil that British trade was improving, that the nation was richer than last year, that the exchange rate was being maintained, that return to the gold standard had made for stability, that the bank rate was no higher than before the war, and that prices were not increasing. More than that, England, during the past six years, had reduced her floating debt by over $3,000,000,000.
I also note that the excise profits tax put on in 1915, with an assessment ranging from 50 to 80 per cent, was terminated in 1921. During all this time no great effort has been made by this government to reduce our na-14011-1921
tional debt or our taxation. On the contrary, after increasing the sales tax from three to six per cent, they merely reduced it to five per oent. They imposed a new tax on receipts, and increased the cheque stamp duty.
No doubt the return to penny postage will be popular with all classes, but I regret that do provision is made for a corresponding reduction in the rates of postage on drop letters and postcards. I have always understood that the Post Office was never intended to be a revenue producing department. Therefore I hope the reduction in the postal rates will not interfere with the continued efficiency and further extension of rural delivery, and that the department will not be forced to continue its policy of employing underpaid rural mail carriers.
The Minister of Finance points to a large and favourable trade balance, but he does not. add that large numbers of our people have not been able to share in the wealth produced by our expanding trade. Naturally, our raw materials figure largely in these exports, for instance, agricultural products, the products of our forests, pulpwood and pulp, and the products of our mines; these make up the bulk of our exportations. I will not attempt to analyse all the figures relating to our export trade, but will confine myself to our exports to one country. I do so because this branch was referred to particularly by the Minister of Public Works in the course of his speech last week. I mean our trade with Japan. It is very noticeable, Mr. Speaker, that whenever oriental matters are mentioned at Ottawa, immediately oriental propaganda is set in motion at the coast. I have before me a clipping from a Liberal paper in the city of Vancouver, of a report which appeared in its issue about two weeks after a certain resolution was placed on the order paper. It is all the more remarkable that the statistics quoted by the Japanese consul are similar to those used by the Minister of Public Works the other day. I am sorry he is not in his seat, for I should like to know from him why he did not quote the figures for 1925. No doubt he confined himself to those for the preceding year because 1924 was one of the biggest years of business we have ever had with Japan. In 1924 our exports to Japan were $26,991,860; whereas for 1925 they had dropped down to $22,046,486. 1 have received from, the department of Statistics a copy of the figures sent to the Japanese consul in Vancouver, and they are
The Budget-Mr. Barber

for 1925. The Vancouver paper to which I have referred headed its report in this way: Japan spends $25,163,278 in Dominion-Vast Trade Growth Between Two Countries Shown-Consul's Statement-Country	Favours Canadian Products,
Figures Reveal.
I have analysed the figures sent to the Japanese consul in Vancouver, and the larger items appearing as exports comprise the following :
Wheat	 | 6,735,859
Cattle hides	 192,089
Cedar and other logs, shingle bolts.. ..	1,545,422
Wood ipu:lp		2,421,824
Aluminum in bars	 1,517,814
Lead in pigs	 2,504,952
Zinc spelter	 1,988,139
Raw asbestos	 321,322
Total	$17,227,421
So we have this substantial proportion representing raw materials out of a total of $22,050,721, As to wheat, I see by a report from Japan that the Japanese are now raising about 25,000,000 bushels per year, and every* effort is being made to increase the production. An application was made to the governing board this year by the agriculturists of Japan to impose a higher duty on foreign wheat, and it was explained that the day was not far distant when they would be in a position to raise sufficient grain to supply their own requirements. Included in that list of exports is an amount of $104,137 for flour. That is all the flour manufactured from our wheat which was exported. We find the list of imports largely made up of foods and supplies for the Japanese who reside in the province of British Columbia including ale and beer $9,810; spirituous liquors $52,661; fruits $167,615, as well as items such as dried fruits, beans, corn, peas, rice, and vegetables in cans. We also imported from this cheap labour country $65,244 worth of incandescent lamps, an import which I believe materially affects one of the industries in this province. I have given this simply as a sample of what the balance of trade really means. We are exporting our raw material in order to make up this so-called favourable trade balance.
One of the main points of the budget is the reduction of the tariff on automobiles, to which the last speaker devoted a considerable time. I believe the term I mentioned earlier in my remarks might well apply to this subject-the Forke budget. The credit for this resolution goes not only to hon. gentlemen to my left, but also to hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan. We admit that Saskatchewan should receive some special consideration at the hands of this I Mr. Barber.]
government; having produced not only the
largest crop of grain but also the largest crop of cabinet ministers of any province in this Dominion. They have no doubt promised their constituents that they will bring back the bacon, in the shape of cheaper automobiles; their speeches fairly bristle with automobile statistics. We are of the opinion that the Prime Minister allowed himself to be swayed by the third party which has everything to gain and nothing to lose in these tariff reductions. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is only the beginning; it has already been intimated that other cuts will follow, and we may expect the boot and shoe industry, the cotton goods industry, the furniture industry and others to receive similar treatment to that accorded the automobile industry.
I stated that the government was forced into line by the Progressive party. They were apparently forced by some 5 p.m. party, because we find that during the last election campaign the Prime Minister stated on numerous occasions that there would be no further reduction in the tariff until a tariff commission had investigated those industries likely to be affected by such reductions. When this House met we were presented with a Speech from the Throne, in which the government expressed themselves very clearly, as follows:
-thait changes in the tariff should be made only arter the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation and report by a body possessing the necessary qualifications to advise the ministry with respect thereto. A Tariff Advisory Board will accordingly be appointed forthwith. This board will be expected to make a careful study of the customs tariff, the revenue to be derived therefrom and the effect of the tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture.
The Prime Minister kept his word and appointed a tariff commission, whose duty it would have been to advise the government on this very matter. Then came the budget, with its drastic cut in the import duties on motor cars and accessories, affecting one of our greatest industries. Did this tariff board inquire into the matter before action was taken? No; this was one time the Prime Minister broke his word and did not keep his promise to the people of this country. He failed to have the board investigate this industry. That should have been done, and if it weTe found that the automobile industry was making too great a profit, a reasonable cut in the tariff could have followed.

The Budget-Mr. Barber
The Minister of Finance, in introducing this portion of the budget, said:
There is a pronounced sentiment throughout Canada that the automobile industry enjoys more protection than is .needed to maintain it on a reasonably profitable basis, and in deference to that sentiment we propose a downward readjustment of automobile, motor truck and motor cycle duties.
The minister seems to have acted altogether on sentiment, and I believe he is mistaken in the sentiment of the people of Canada. He may know what the people of the praire provinces think, but the pronounced sentiment of the people throughout Canada is not that the automobile industry enjoyed too much protection. In my own province, where I believe we pay more for Canadian cars than in any other province of Canada, owing to the long freight haul, the feeling is that Canadian cars are altogether too high in price as compared to those across the line. The feeling in my province is that the government should have investigated this industry long ago; its books should have been thrown open to a body of experts and the report of that body acted upon. The people of my district, and of many other districts as well, have suffered under the tariff policy of this government, but they are loyal to the core; loyal to Canada and to Canadian industry. For the sake of a few dollars on a car they do not want to see one of our greatest industries closed, thousands of workers driven to the United States, and cars imported into British Columbia from Seattle.
Many of the speakers opposite and to my left have been very unfair in their arguments in support of this budget. I would like to refer to one statement made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). He quoted the price of the McLaughlin Buick sedan as given in an American magazine, which price I believe to be correct. If the hon. gentleman will make inquiry he will find that the advertised prices of all American cars cover the bare car at the factory. To that price must be added taxes, freight and equipment. The price of this same car manufactured in Canada was also given correctly, but why was not the hon. member fair enough to state that the Canadian price included taxes and equipment? Included in that price were the following items: extra tire $25.20; tube $4.65; chains $12; bumper $15; sales and excise taxes $135.75; freight $40; tank of gas and handling charge $10, making a total of $242.60. It must also be remembered that 40 per cent of the parts of this same car had to be imported from the United States, under a duty averaging 30 per cent. It is also admitted that the trimmings and finish of the Canadian car are
very much superior to those of the American car.
It has been charged that these big firms, in their protests against this cut, have been bluffing, but I think we find as a rule that big business firms do not resort to very much bluff. The General Motors Corporation has been singled out. This is a big concern, and I find that the Canadian factory is one of twenty-eight branches. I am advised that so far as profits are concerned this branch has always ranked twenty-eighth, with the exception of one month when it ranked twenty-seventh. I have made inquiries concerning the export business and I find that this end of the industry is handled for the twenty-eight factories of General Motors through a New York organization, and that in spite of the British preference this branch lost over $200,000 on their export business last year. This is accounted for by the immense mass production of the United States, and is the reason why you can buy a McLaughlin car quite often in London for less than you can in this country. In spite of the preference, which is in our favour, the immense production in the United States enables them to sell cars more cheaply in the Old Country than can be done through this Canadian factory. I do not think there is any bluff in the matter as far as these people are concerned, because I have noticed already that a trainload of Buicks has arrived in Winnipeg from their Flint factory. There has been considerable argument advanced as to what the position of the Ford Company will be. They are not worrying, for the simple reason that the American Ford car will not be placed in the Canadian market. This is provided for by an agreement entered into at the timie of the establishment of the Canadian factory when the parent company agreed not to enter the Canadian field.
Mass production accounts for the lower priced car in the United States. Here is one fact which is responsible for it: Very expensive machinery is required to stamp out several parts. On account of the cost of this machinery a certain addition to the cost of each oar is made. At the Flint factory $1 is charged for the use of this machinery, Whereas in Canada the charge is $60 for each car. The executives of many of these automobile concerns have unanimously reported that they cannot carry on if these tariff reductions continue in effect. From what I have mentioned already, I do not think that we can consider their representations as bluff.
The Budget-Mr. Barber

Furthermore, we must take into consideration the appeals from the labour people. I have here a copy of The Labour Leader, which calls itself Canada's National Labour Weekly, and it contains an appeal addressed to the members of the House of Commons. The appeal reads as follows
An Appeal to the Member of House of Coan/mons of Cauada
Representing, as you do, the citizens of this great Dominion, "The Labour Leader,'' on behalf of the men who work (in the Canadian automobile factories and the various factories that make /parts and accessories, numbering about 25,000, with about 100,000 women and children dependent on tfiem, earnestly request you ito refer the clause in the budget that deals with the tariff on motor cars to the new tariff commission, so that these workers may have an opportunity of placing their views before them. Gentlemen, forget your political parties, and lend a hand to these hard-working toilers.
Then we have a statement from Controller Joe Gibbons, Business Agent of the Toronto Street Railway Employees' Union. He says:
"I believe that the Dominion government should appoint a tariff commission of, say, five men-one to be a representative of Labour, and one a manufacturer. This commission to (have the power to examine the books of Canadian motor car manufacturers, and as a result of their finding, to determine the tariff on imported cars and parts and to name a fair selling price for the respective Canadian-made cars."
Then we have a statement from Mr. Lew Lewis, president of the Toronto Typographical Union, in which he says:
"While the reduction in the price of small cars looked good to the worker, I believe it only fair to the workers in automobile plants that the whole question should be held for twelve months and given to the tariff commission, so that the workers of Ontario could appear before them and state their views. It is an awful thing to, with one stroke of the pen, jeopardize the jobs of 25,000 men overnight!"
The following press comment is also of interest in this connection:
The Reid Press, a largo printing house in the city of Hamilton, on Monday last placed their employees on half time owing to the cancellation of some $70,000 worth of printing orders that they had on hand from the General Motors of Canada and another Toronto automobile plant. This shows the far-reaching effect of the recent tariff revision, and is another good argument to show that more careful study should be given this subject before a change is made.
What do the American people think of these tariff reductions? I have here a special wire to a Canadian newspaper from New York which says:
The proposal of greatest interest to this country, however, is the reduction of the 35 per cent duty on automobiles to 20 per cent on cars valued at $1,200 or less and to 27^ per cent on cars of greater value. To American manufacturers who have no factories in Canada the prospect for increased sales there will be welcome, but in a larger sense it ia gratifying to note Canada's willingness to lower her 
tariff barriers against American products at a time when our own tariff policy embodies the quimtessimo of selfishness.
Now this is a very important industry boasting a total production last year of $110835,380, an increased production over the previous year of $22,000,000, an industry which paid $17,249,270 to employees during the year 1925. I should now like to quote again from what the hon. member for Sherbrooke said on Friday night. The hon. member gave the following quotation as an indication of industrial prosperity.
There were manufactured in Canada during 192S, 124,000 cars, worth $82,000,000. . . . Export shipments from Canada were the highest on record, the total value of automobiles and parts exported during the year being $39,000,000.
This is pointed out as one of the indications of prosperity in Canada, and still the intention is-according to the budget, and according to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite-to wipe this industry out. I cannot consider the representations made to the government and to parliament a bluff. I consider there is something to the appeal made on behalf of the automobile industry, enough at any rate to satisfy us that the case should be investigated before taking such drastic action. I have a suggestion to offer in this connection; I should like to carry the bacon home just as well as the members for Saskatchewan. The suggestion I should like to make is this: that the government amend this resolution by leaving the tariff as it was, and immediately have a thorough investigation into the whole industry commenced by the tariff commission. Let the government strike out the sales tax and the excise tax. By eliminating these two taxes, equal to ten per cent, you will have almost if not as great a reduction in the price of cars as you will have under this tariff reduction, and the industry will have a chance to survive. I have not been able to compare the new prices with the old prices of automobiles, but I have noticed the price reduction in Fords, which runs from $15 to $40. This is certainly not equal to the ten per cent reduction which would be given by the elimination of the two taxes referred to.
Now, I wish to refer to the question of immigration, one of the big problems of Canada. In this country we have a railway system, an industrial skeleton, and vast areas of vacant land, sufficient for a population twice the size we have at present. We need more people; there is no doubt about that: this government during the last four years spent millions of dollars on scheme after scheme of immigration. They spent over $3,000,000 in one year to bring in 110,000

The Budget

Mr. Barber
people. What has been the result? The emigration was greater than the immigration. The policy of the government might be termed a minus instead of a plus one. It is a negative quantity; it is one of loss, not one of gain in population. Under this policy we have been unable to hold our own people. Ever since this government came into power in 1921 there has been a steady drift of population from this country to the United States Over half a million people have had to leave their own country. They had no chance here; they loved Canada; they were the very best of our population, industrious, self-reliant, progressive, bent on making their own way in the world and providing for those dependent upon them. The half million the United States gained from Canada in the last few years are worth more to that country than four times as many people drawn from central Europe. I do not hold out any more hope for success under the present scheme of the government than has been achieved under the policy of the government for the past four years.
I wish to refer to the opinion given in the British House of Commons, by Lady Astor on April 26, as follows:
In the House of Commons to-day Lady Astor appeared as an advocate of British settlements in the United States instead of Canada. Colonel Amerv said the government had no official confirmation of the statement that the new American quota system would increase the British admissions to the States from 34,000 to 85,000. He added it was British policy to encourage migration to empire countries, but most of the emigrants to the States were indusitnailasts, for whom there was little or no demand in Canada.
Lady Astor, "Are we not most fortunate in getting our industralists into America," (cries of "Oh") "so long as there is no work for them an Canada?" 6he asked.
Kinflock Cooke, M.P.; "We don't want them to go to America."
That is the present situation and the opinion in regard to these new schemes.
There is another immigration in regard to which I should like to see the tables turned. I refer to the oriental immigration on the Pacific coast. A resolution on this subject was placed on the order paper of the House some time ago, but owing to the curtailing of private members' day it was withdrawn so that an opportunity might be given those from British Columbia to discuss this question along with the general immigration policy of Canada. For the information of those who were not in the House in 1922 when this question was thoroughly discussed and very ably placed before hon. members by the various representatives from British Columbia, I just wish to say that oriental immigration dates back to 1886. The first Chinese eame into British Columbia in that year,
and 90,328 had entered up to the end of 1924. Japanese immigration commenced in 1905, and up to the end of 1924 the immigration amounted to 21,706. Furthermore, 5,381 East Indians entered Canada during the same period so that up to the end of 1924 the Asiatic immigration amounted to 117,415. Consider the source of this supply-800,000,000 facing us on the Pacific slopes of this country. There are 60,000.000 in Japan, 340,000,000 in India, 400,000,000 in China. It is estimated that we have in British Columbia 50,000 to 60,000 orientals, or one in ten of our population. We cannot afford to absorb many more from such a source as this. The improved transportation facilities make this problem all the more serious. We cannot afford any longer to leave our door ajar. This is not all. What about the increase? First remember that there are twenty Chinamen to every Chinese woman, and only two Japs to every Japanese woman. The number of Japanese will soon outstrip the Chinese. The increase is hard to discover, because the white people have to register the birth of every child, while it is difficult to get a record of all the births of orientals. Oriental children do not come into the world like our own children do. We have nursing homes, doctors and nurses, but not so with the oriental: A baby is born in the gloom of Chinatown or in the solitude of a Japanese home and scarcely anyone knows anything about the event. During the ten year period from 1910 to 1920 the estimated Chinese increase was 172 per cent, and the Japanese, 218 per cent. Our best guide is the growth of the school population. I have here a report from the Minister of Education for British Columbia which reads:
The minister stated that whereas there were 1,422 young Jaips attending public schools in 1923 and 1725 in 1924 there are no less than 2,414 enrolled in 1925. The Chinese attendance, on the other hand is going down slightly. It was 1.346 in 1923 and 1,423 in 1924, but this year it is 1,313. Of Hindu children there are 26 as compared with 30 last year and 16 in 1923.
The white school population, which would naturally be expected to be increasing at a greater ratio, is relatively standing still. It was 92,120 in 1923 , 93,156 in 1924 and is this year 94,228. In other words, the number of white children attending the public schools of British Columbia in 1925 has increased by two and one-third per cent over 1923, while the attendance of Japanese children has increased by seventy per cent.
I present the figures of one man who has made a great study of this problem, and as to the matter of increase he states:
With 60,000 orientals at present in our province, estimating at the present rate of increase, in thirty years from now we would have 34,882,643 orientals in British Columbia. This is not taking into account the fact that we have oriental young people growing up and that many of them will marry.
The Budget-Mr. Barber

I cannot agree with this gentleman that these 35,000,000 odd orientals will remain in British Columbia. They will drift east and enter into competition in all lines of business, with the result that white labour will gradually be squeezed out in your great industrial centres. That peaceful invasion of the east has been taking place during the last few years; orientals are doing business in many of your towns and cities to-day. It is estimated that in the city of Toronto last year two million dollars was paid to Chinese laundries. I was surprised to see in Hansard of 1922, when this subject was before the House, an hon. member stated that in the city of Ottawa at that time there were 65 Chinese laundries, 4 grocery stores, and 21 restaurants, conducted in such a way they could not be recognized as Chinese.
As I have said, the number of orientals in our province number one to every ten of the whites. After a few years of marriage these young orientals will increase with amazing rapidity. In California there are 150,000 Japanese with 40,000 children, and they say that in 1949 at the present rate of increase there will be enough to outvote the white population in California twice over. I am citing all these figures, not to scare hon. members with the "yellow peril", but I want the House to be impressed with the seriousness of the situation from a racial standpoint. The Americans brought the negroes over from Africa and when it was too late they tried to get rid of them, but it cost them a bloody war of four years among their own countrymen while the black man looked on. They could not send them back to Africa after they had made such increases in population, and to-day there are approximately 14,000,000 of them in the United States where they are increasing by leaps and bounds. We do not want a race war. This is more than a British Columbia problem; it is a problem that must be dealt with by Canada. We must deal with the oriental problem before we are inundated, crowded out and displaced by the flood of orientals.
One man has said:	"Why not follow the
example of China and build a wall around our country?" We are not asking that a wall be built; we are not asking to keep out the oriental who wants to vist our country or to do business with us, but we want the gates of immigration closed so that they cannot come here, settle and become citizens of Canada. A race which you cannot assimilate, you cannot associate with geographically. Oriental and occidental cannot successfully mix. If the oriental had been on this continent first, well 	;
and good; but it is a fact that the white man was here before the oriental. White people pioneered the great Pacific province, endured many hardships and made many sacrifices in order to build up our country. The white man developed our rich valleys and laid bare the rich resourecs of our great province. The orientals are not pioneers. They come into our developed valleys, buy land, settle, multiply, spread and cause the original settlers to sell their property at low prices and leave.
This brings me directly to the economic side of this problem. The white man cannot compete with the oriental. The oriental can stay and stick; he is the hardiest of all races in God's world; he has been hardened by
8.000	years of heartache and history. You can see the 8,000 years in their very gait. You have seen them walking in single file along the street and their gait shows that for 8,000 years they have walked the narrow passages. They have been trained to suffer hardship; they can stand extreme heat and work long hours; they have a lower standard of living, and yet the white man is put alongside the oriental and expected to compete with him. Is it any wonder that it was estimated that
18.000	Britishers left British Columbia in 1924 for the United States, while 50,000 orientals remained and partook of the inheritance that rightly belonged to our kith and kin? They have not hesitated to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them in this country. Their activities threaten the very life of the Anglo-Saxon on the Pacific coast.
One is simply astounded when the Japanese complain of their treatment by the white man in view of the treatment they mete out to the white man. Canadians are much more generous to the Japanese than the Japanese are to the Canadians. We have no sacred rights in Japan; in fact no white man has any sacred rights in Japan. Japanese in Canada have every agricultural, mineral, industrial commercial and financial opportunity enjoyed by native-born Canadians, but no reciprocal privileges are extended to Canadians in Japan. We cannot own farm land or forests or mineral resources there. In only a few cities can we own anything and even this privilege tends to be swept away rather than to be fortified or extended. We cannot get justice in Japanese courts; Japanese jurisprudence operates in such a way that white litigants prefer to settle all cases out of court. We are discriminated against by Japanese freight boats. For example, if a white man and a Japanese ship from Yokohama to Vancouver the same quantity of rice of the same quality on the same Japanese boat, the white man will be

The Budget-Mr. Barber
charged twenty per cent more than the Japanese.
It is estimated that at the present time the fishing industry is 75 per cent in the hands of the orientals. The milling industry-that is saw mills-is 75 per cent in their hands. Pulp-wood, barrel staves, shingle bolts and cord-wood production is almost entirely in their hands. They control and operate about 35 per cent of the logging industry. In one case in my riding a mill had been supplying the Japanese with cedar in clear cut timbers from selected logs at about $80 per thousand. They no longer purchase these timbers; they export the logs for which they pay about $18 per thousand, ship them on their own boats to Japan, manufacture them by cheap labour and export to the countries of the world. A large quantity of our best cedar is in this way being permitted to be exported to Japan anr in 1925, for instance, $1,325,713 worth of choice cedar logs was taken out of our province by Japanese boats to Japan.
Truck gardening is almost entirely in the hands of the orientals. They are entering in a large way into all lines of mercantile business. They compete against our white people in the grocery, tailoring, barbering, restaurant hotel, taxi and other pursuits. They are eating the heart out of our industrial and commercial life, and more especially our heritage, namely, our basic raw materials such as fishing, lumbering, logging, farming and mining. In the agricultural industry a census was taken and the returns are accurate, being supplied by the Farmers' Institute of British Columbia. It shows that in 1920, 500 Japanese owned some 8,000 acres. 116 Chinese owned some 5.600 acres, 103 Japanese leased nearly 1,800 acres and 368 Chinese leased over 11,000 acres.
A report of the British Columbia berry growers shows that in 1920 there were 234 oriental growers occupying 97(H acres and in 1924 this had increased to 366 oriental growers with 1,4651 acres. They have penetrated our best agricultural districts. In my own riding there is one of the finest districts in Canada where the chief industry is small fruits and mixed farming; it is an ideal spot for the Canadian or Britisher to make his home; but as you pass along those roads you would imagine you were traversing one of the highways of the Orient. I am told that there are about eighty Japanese on one rural mail route in this district. As you drive along the road you will pass groups of little blackheaded children wending their way home from school. Every one of these families is taking the place of a good Canadian or British family and every oriental holding an industrial job
to-day has chased a white man out of the country and across the line. If you replace these with white men we will retain in this country the $15,000,000 that is being remitted every year to the Orient and we shall have people who will contribute to building up healthy communities in this Canada of ours.
What is the remedy? Four years ago this question was before the House with the request that the government grant us exclusion from British Columbia of Japanese immigrants. The government at that time told us that they would give us "effective restriction" which we were assured would give us the same results as exclusion. How has this worked out? Since that year we find a steady increase in Japanese immigration. In 1923, 369 came in; in 1924 , 448 and in 1925, 501. Of these 501, 182 were males, 269 females and 50 children. These are the details according to the report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925.
Males
Class	 ^82
Fanning	 93
Labouring	 51
Mechanics	 ?
Trading	 16
Mining	 [DOT][DOT]
Female domestic servants ..
Unclassified	 15
As to provinces: Ontario, 3; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 3; Alberta, 12; British Columbia, 481; Yukon, 1.
What we ask for is some provision similar to that enacted in the amendment to the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 as respects Chinese. Under the provisions of that act the admission to Canada of persons of Chinese origin upon the payment of the head tax was abolished and the entry of such persons restricted to the following classes:
(a)	Members of the diplomatic corps, or other government representatives, their suites and their servants, and consuls and consular agents;
(b)	Children born in Canada of parents of Chinese race or descent who have left Canada for educational or other purposes on substantiating their identity to the satisfaction of the controller at the port or place where they seek to enter on their return;
(c)	(1) Merchants as defined by such regulations as the minister may prescribe;
2) Students coming to Canada for the purpose of attendance at any Canadian university or college authorized by statute or chapter to confer degrees.
During the fiscal year 1924-25 no Chinese immigrants were admitted to Canada: we ask for precisely the same regulation in regard to Japanese. To show what the Americans have done, the following extract from the report on immigration will be of interest: The new United States immigration quota law was passed by congress May the 15th 1924, after going to
Females Children
269	50
41	7
95	13
10	2
18	2
1	2
11	
93	24
The Budget-Mr. Bother

conference, where an effort was made, and later repudiated, to extend the time of the going into effect, of the Japanese exclusion clause from July 1st 1924 to July 1st 1925: The vote in the house wus 308 for and 58 against; the vote in the Senate was 69 for and 9 against:
President Coolidge had requested this postponement of the date so that a suitable treaty might be negotiated with Japan. Congress refused; the President signed the bill May 26th, 1924.
This question is one that affects British Columbia particularly at the present time, but it is one in respect of which we feel that we have a perfect right to appeal to the federal government for action. We do not want to create any racial hatred or any invidious discrimination against any people in Canada, but we do want both parliament and the country as a whole to have an intelligent grasp of the oriental problem as it exists today. We should be delighted to follow the example of our friends to the south. They appointed a commission to inquire fully into the whole question, with the result that an exclusion regulation has been introduced there. We would urge the government to appoint a commission to study the problem here, to have all the facts placed before them, and to report their findings. If this is done we have no doubt the proper remedy will be applied. I can assure the government that such a commission would have the heartiest support of the people of British Columbia. We would welcome orientals to such an inquiry. The government and the House might hesitate at the cost of a commission, but I wish them to bear in mind that the federal government has collected in head tax and registration from Chinese immigration the sum of $22,523,921. There is therefore some consideration coming to British Columbia in this matter.
I wish now to refer to a matter which has been mentioned on several occasions and which interests my riding particularly. As I have already stated, there is without doubt a certain amount of satisfaction over the budget, but I know of one class that is greatly disappointed. I refer to mixed farmers, dairymen, poultrymen and fruit men. The government failed to recognize the necessity for protecting this class of producers. They have failed to give the necessary tariff protection, their interests not having been consulted in the negotiating of treaties with other countries. Appeals have been made to the government on behalf of these industries by almost every representative from the districts affected, and there has been pointed out quite clearly the disastrous effect that must ensue from the policy outlined in the budget so far as this par-

tieular section of the community is concerned. This is an important industry and one that should undoubtedly have received the very best consideration at the hands of the government. A large amount of capital is invested in these forms of production. The following table will give an idea of the importance of the dairy business:
Invested in Dairy Business:
Dairy Herds	 $193,989,000
Plants	 41,585,586

Production:
Total dairy production estimated for 1925, $300,000,000.
Egg production, 1925, 224,778,867 dozen.
Value, $57,950,340.
Total value of products from these industries, $357.950,340.
The total imports of dairy products for the calendar year 1925 amounted to $2,409,233. In the same period we imported 2,721,606 dozen eggs at a value of $957,780, of which quantity 2,577,400 dozen came from the United States. Butter comes in from the United States under a tariff of four cents per pound, while the United States tariff against us has recently been raised from eight cents to twelve cents per pound, /gainst Australia and New Zealand we have only one cent per pound protection. Eggs come in from the United States under a tariff of three cents per dozen, but their tariff against us is eight cents. We import cheese from the United States under a tariff of three cents while their tariff against Canadian producers is five cents. I notice from the report issued by the Statistical branch that we received from the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia for the three months ended March 31 of this year, a total of 6 755,732 pounds of butter at a value of $2,552,000. In the same period we imported eggs from China and the United States to the value of $863,269. This makes a total importation: of these commodities for the three months mentioned of $3,415,269. In view of these facts surely the dairy industry should receive some concessions from the government. But the fact is that the budget now before parliament ignores our producers altogether.
The government apparently has not given any consideration to the fruit growers, whose market is not protected. This matter has been very fully discussed, and while I am not going to enter fully into it I wish to point out to the House that this industry has been discriminated against. For example, the American tariff on apples is 25 cents per bushel of fifty pounds; on dried apples, 2 cents per pound; on berries 1| cents per pound. All the protection we have is 25

The Budget-Mr. Barber
per cent. The government inflicted a hardship on the fruit growers as well as on the dairy industry of Canada in the concessions they made to Australia and New Zealand in the treaty that came into force last fall. Canned fruit, canned vegetables and fresh fruit were admitted free, while perhaps the most serious injury was the placing on the free list of fruit pulp for canning purposes. Our growers always depended on this market for their surplus product.
Speaking of the Australian treaty, I am reminded of the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) who expressed the following view:
I am safe in saying, I believe, that there is not much butter manufactured in Canada in winter, the vast bulk of our product being made when the cows are in full milk in summer. The milk and cream offered for' sale in Canada in the winter months goes directly to the dining tables of the land as such. The fact is that, our butter is being made in summer when cream is plentiful and being stored by the creameries and the cold storage plants, if anyone suffers through the admission of Australian butter it cannot be the primary producer.
I am very sorry the hon. gentleman is not better informed on winter production. The department of Agriculture has spent a large amount of money and done a lot of work in order to encourage our farmers to carry on winter production. In this connection, allow me to refer to the report of the Finch dairy station, Ontario. Among the objects aimed at in establishing this station, I find:
(c) encourage the production of winter milk.
I find the report contains a table showing the amount of milk received from December to March, inclusive, and following it is this comment:
The production during the winter months of 1922-23 shows an increase of 828 per cent as compared with the winter months of 1912-13.
This paragraph I have no doubt will interest hon. members:
The operation of the Finch Dairy Station on a commercial basis has demonstrated among other things that an increased output means lower manufacturing costs and permits of dual equipment being installed without unduly increasing the overhead charges. The dual equipment enables producers to reap the advantage from turning out either butter or cheese, whichever happens to be the more profitable for the time being. It is possible to operate the large factory continuously throughout the year and fthus encourage winter dairying.
I wish also to direct the attention of the House to the report of the Superintendent of the experimental farm at Agassiz, B.C. The dairymen in the surrounding country are spending large sums of money not only to provide for winter dairying but also to improve their herds. The record of 22 cows
which have completed lactation periods during 1924 is interesting as showing the improvement that has taken place in the dairy herds. The following summary I desire to place on Hansard:
Average number of days lactation periods
	days	344.0
Total amount of milk produced	lbs. 296,567.4
Amenage yield of milk	per	cow	lbs.	13,480.0
A'merage yield of milk per cow per day..lbs. 39.19 Average percent of fat in milk produced
	per cent	3.355
Total amount	of	fat	produced	lbs.	9,951.84Average yield of fat per cow	lbs.	452.3
Average feed cost to produce 100 lbs. of
milk	cents	111.16Average feed cost to produce 1 lb. of butter	cents	28.11
It is apparent that Canada has made great progress in establishing and encouraging winter production of dairy products. The same remark applies to poultry. It is impossible to carry on profitably either the dairy industry or the poultry industry for only three months in the year. Every effort is made to keep up winter production. To show what perfection has been reached, let me cite the experiment-made at the Agassiz experimental farm commencing on November 29, 1921. For the third period dating from December 1, 1923, until September 30, 1924, two pens of Barred Rocks were chosen, comprising ten pullets in each pen. The following table shows the results of the leading pen:
Eggs	Value of eggs Cost of feed	Gain1,778	|44 45	$21 67	$22 78Now, my hon. friend from St. Boniface seems to think that it would be only right to import butter from New Zealand.	It must be
remembered that during the winter months it costs our farmers a great deal more to produce a pound of butter than it costs their New Zealand competitors during the same season. Therefore, the competition is very unfair to Canadian dairymen, and naturally they expect some protection.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the only policy which will tend to solve the problems of Canada is the policy of the Conservative party. That policy was fairly and squarely placed before the people by my right hon. leader, and from coast to coast the electors accepted it wherever it was not beclouded by other issues. The Conservative party is not a high tariff party, as has been charged in Liberal propaganda. The Conservative party stands for a protective policy, which, without permitting the exploitation of Canadian consumers, will protect Canadian markets for Canadian producers, be they manufacturers, agriculturists, or wage-earners. It
The Budget-Mr. Barber

stands for a policy that will give goods produced alt home preference at home; that will build up Canada instead of the United States or some other country; that will develop Canadian resources; that will as far as possible have Canadian raw materials manufactured in Canada; that will provide work and wages to keep Canadians at home; that will build up Canadian communities instead of American or other foreign communities; that will provide home markets for Canadian farmers, purchasing power for Canadian artisans, and traffic for Canadian railroads. In a word, it is a policy that will provide a measure of prosperity for all.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the third week of this debate. I do not know why it should take so long to discuss a question of this kind when, as anyone listening to the debate will have noticed, nine-tenths of the speakers seem almost unanimous in their expressions of opinion. Apparently there is only one question which has so far divided the various parties, that of the reduction in the tariff on automobiles. I do not know whose are the unseen heads which determine how long this discussion shall last, but I believe they would confer a favour upon a great many members of this House if the debate could" be closed this week. We have had cited on many occasions precedents established in the British parliament; I do not know of any British precedent for a debate of this length. In the English House of Commons the debate begins and finishes within a few days, and I think this House would be doing a good thing if it followed that custom.
After listening to the discussion which has gone on for the past few weeks one begins to realize the ramifications of the tariff policy of Canada. We have had to listen to a discussion on our trade relations which took us into practically all the corners of the globe. Canada exports her goods to not only the various European countries but to the Orient and Australia, as well as other parts of the world. As a result we are brought into direct relationship with all these various countries. After all, trade is barter pure and simple; international trade is international barter. When we send goods to Great Britain they are bound to send goods to Canada in return; when we send goods to oriental countries we

must receive goods from the Orient. That is a fundamental economic axiom which most people who have given thought to this question realize and admit. We could not, even if we so desired, become an exporting country alone. If we attempted to do so, refusing the imports of other countries, it would not be very long before Canada ceased to be even an exporting country.
One of the main questions I wish to deal with to-night is one which has not been touched at any great length by previous speakers. For a short time I would like to deal with the question of the tariff as it affects wages. A great deal has been said about the workingman, how he is affected by the tariff and so on, and I would like to speak in that particular phase of the question. I claim that a high tariff does not mean high wages; on the other hand, neither does a low tariff mean low wages, nor does a high tariff mean low wages. I claim that the tariff plays a very small part in the question of wages, and when we begin to look into the question of wages from the purchasing standpoint we realize the truth of that statement. What determines wages? I contend that wages, speaking in a general way, hover around the subsistence level; that is, an employer is going to pay his employees the amount of money they can subsist on, and not much more if he can help it. If there are certain places which have a higher standard of living, that standard has come about through other causes than the tariff. One of the main reasons why some countries have higher wages than others is the organization of the workers themselves; if there had been no organized labour movement I really hate to think what would be the standard of the workers to-day in some countries. The worker, whether in a protected country or a free trade country, has only one thing to sell; that is his labour power, and as a rule he gets the most he can for it in the market where it is sold. Although it has been provided in the Peace treaty in the past few years that labour is not a commodity, it is just as much of a commodity to-day as it was -when that provision was framed. We find countries to-day in which wages are very low. They are very low in the Asiatic countries. They are low in India, China, Egypt, and Japan. In these countries a very low standard of living exists. Now, the British worker and the Canadian w'orker in the textile mills have got to compete with the workers of the textile mills in China, Japan and India where the wages are extremely low. What is the international view-

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
point of labour to-day on that particular question? It is one of trying to raise the standard of living in those countries where a low standard prevails, because it realizes that is the only hope there is for the workers. We have had a recent example of that in India where the textile workers were on strike in the city of Bombay for many weeks, and where British capital and the employers were engaged in trying to beat down the standard of subsistence among the Indian workers, although it is ait present very low. What was the reply of the British workers in that case? They took up subscriptions in Great Britain for the strikers in India because they realized that if the Indian worker was beaten a time might come when there would be an attempt to force a reduction of wages in Great Britain.
We find another very important factor at work to-day in connection with the international relationship of labour. Within the last few weeks a conference was held in London on the invitation of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. This conference was called for the purpose of establishing an eight-hour day in five of the European countries, namely. Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy. Even the employer in Great Britain realized the necessity of the movement. On account of the strong labour movement in Great Britain the employer there was compelled to give to the employee the eight-hour day. But having done so he found himself at a disadvantage in competing with the products of longer hours of labour in some of the other European countries. The consequence was that an agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the five European countries named and they recommended back to the various governments for whom they were acting that they should enact an eight-hour day in their respective countries. The trend of events is such that, as I view it, the same policy will have to be pursued in other countries where the conditions so far as labour is concerned are favourable, because the workers in countries where there is now a higher standard of living is not going to see -that standard lowered gradually in other parts of the world; rather they are going to work for a raising of the standard of living where it is at present unduly low. That improvement is not going to be brought about by any tinkering with the tariff.
What were the conditions of the Indian workers? Mr. Tom Johnson, one of the Labour members of the British House of Commons, was sent to India to investigate
conditions in the textile industries and report back. I shall quote now from a report, taken from the Daily Herald, London, England, of February 17 last, in which Mr. Johnson says: Forty 'millions go to bed ait night having eaten only one meal during the day, and twelve millions perish in an influenza epidemic (because their bodies are so emaciated that they cannot resist the attack.
But where is the evidence that when Brownface supplants Paleface in the governorship (as he must soon do), the ryot and the artisan will be freed from the toils of the landlord and the money-lender? When, recently in Bombay, 150,000 cotton operatives struck bravely and without strike pay for 11 weeks against starvation wages, neither Swaraj nor British raj lifted a finger to assist them.
Indeed, when Mr. Bose moved his resolutions in the Bombay Assembly for a public inquiry into the conduct of the cottom mill industry and for a lak and a half of rupees grant for rice to the starving women and children, he was turned down with emphasis by a combination of Indians and English. What help the strikers received was from their own class overseas, and I am specially commissioned by the workers of Bombay to .thank the British trade unions who sprang so readily to .their assistance and made a successful issue possible.
Now, the average wage of the worker in India at the present time is about $1.25 per week, and India is not a free trade country. The policy of protection is in force there, and yet the product of that country has to compete with the product of Dundee, Scotland. At the same time, whilst the wages of the worker in India were so low-so low in fact that they can only be termed a miserable pittance-the jute companies in India in ten years made $300,000,000 of profits, which is equal to eight and one half times the wages paid in the same period.
I turn from India and come to a consideration of the conditions in Japan. Now Japan is one of the the most highly protected countries in the world. Why, the United States has not got a look-in when it comes to protection. I have in my hand a copy of the revised tariff of the Empire of Japan, with classifications dated 1923. The new tariff was put into effect on July 8, 1924, and the duty under it was increased by one hundred per cent.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Is not that a lovely country?


Abraham Albert Heaps: What do we find subsequent to that? In the report of our trade commissioner, published in the Commercial Intelligence Journal of May 1, 1926, I find this with respect to the Japanese anti-dumping law. The report says:
In the supplementary budget for the fiscal year 1926-27, the Japanese government has asked the Diet for the approval of an appropriation of 12,825 yen as the initial cost of the establishment of an antidumping investigation commission. This commission
The. Budget-Mr. Heaps

is empowered to deal with all matters concerning the prevention of the dumping o*f foreign goods which act to the detriment o>f domestic industries. Concurrently with the putting into operation of the new tariff on March 29, the anti-dumping law is to be promulgated by an imperial ordinance and become immediately effective.
There is an anti-dumping law now on .the statute books, but it has never been put into operation. It is anticipated that the revised law, details of which are not yet published, will .provide for the prohibition of the importation of those commodities sold in Japan at the low production cost of fair market price in the country of origin, or when the industry producing these goods is receiving a government or state subsidy, or when they are sold below cost as a result of trade competition.
Competition by foreign firms in iron and steel, dyestuffs, sulphate of ammonia, soda ash and pulp will probably be the first subjects of inquiry by the anti-dumping commission.
I wonder if hon. members of this House realize the significance of a statement of that character. Here we have a nation whose workers are among the lowest paid in the whole world. Yet its government passes an anti-dumping law against nations whose employees receive wages five, six and ten times as high as the wages paid in Japan.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And in the name of labour I suppose?


Abraham Albert Heaps: of the protection which the manufacturing industries have had, the workers have had no protection at all. The point I wish to stress to-night is the fact that protection gives no protection to the workers.
This is rather an interesting article dealing with a tender that was going to be let by the United States Naval Department. This is what it says:
Shall a contract for building the engines and machinery for six American gunboats be let to a British firm in China employing coolie labour?
This question has been put squarely up to Secretary Wilbur of the Navy department, who comes from California, where the Chinese labour question has been an issue for many years, resulting in >the exclusion of Asiatics from entering this country as immigrants.
The last Congress enacted a measure providing for the construction of six gunboats to be used in patroling Chinese waters and fixed a maximum expenditure of $700,000 for each vessel.
The Navy department made plans *to have the hulls for the gunboats built in China, where they are to be put into service, but to build the Deisel engines to propel them in the Brooklyn navy yard. Later the department decided to install reciprocal engines and have them built in China.
Engineers of the Navy department claim that a sav;ng of something over a million dollars would be made by giving the contract to a British firm in China employing cheap coolie labor.
Of course the Navy department will not permit the Chinese to man the gunboats. American citizens will be called upon to do the fighting if there is any to be done.
We find further how the highly protected steel industries of the United States can actually sell their goods in Great Britain at a lower price than they can be manufactured in Great Britain and about $4.50 per ton less than they sell them to the people of the United States, at the same time paying freight rates over to Great Britain. What happened when in the city of Glasgow not long ago this same United States Steel Corporation put in a tender for steel rails? Who was it that protested against the United States Steel Corporation sending their goods over to Great Britain? The Conservatives and some of the Liberal members of the Glasgow city council were anxious to have the goods imported from the United States, but the Labour members of the council rose from their seats and protested against the dumping of goods which were produced under sweatshop conditions and in the end they won out.
I wish to deal with something which has been dealt with by many other speakers, but possibly not from the same angle. I wish to deal with the budget, and to get away for the time being from the question of tariffs. Some hon members have called it a "prosperity" budget; some have called it a "poor man's"

budget; some have called it a "people's" budget; others have called it a "rich man's" budget. I do not know which of these fit, but anyone can have his choice.


An hon. MEMBER:: A popular budget.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Some have even called it a "popular" budget. I wonder what the average workingman has to look forward to in this budget. It is said there is going to be reduced postage on letters, a reduction in the income tax and the receipt tax is to be abolished. I do not know how much benefit the workingman is going to get from the abolition of the receipt tax. It is not often that he has to buy stamps to put on a receipt. If his saving by the reduction of the postal rate from three cents to two cents is taken into consideration, he might save five cents a month or possibly sixty cents a year. This is not much of a poor man's budget. When it passes this House the worker will have to work just as hard as he did before; he will have to fight his employers just as hard as he fought them before; he will still have the same struggle to exist as he had in previous years.
Some 'hon. gentlemen have stated that to increase the tariff will provide more work. I do not think that is sound economics. High tariff does not of necessity mean more work. What the worker wants is not merely work; the worker should not be classified as a kind of horse who has to work whenever he is called upon to do so, be given a certain quantity of fodder for his day's work, and then go back into his stable in the evening. He ought to be given a higher standard of living rather than to be merely a machine and have profits wrung out of him. The workers want a higher standard of living; they want more of the goods they produce, and the only way in which we can have some prosperity in Canada and other parts of the world is by giving the workers a wage by which they can have that higher standard of living.
Let us see what the worker produces and what he gets in return for his labour. In 1917 there were employed in Canada 552,968 persons in industries of all kinds. In 1923 this number decreased to 446,994, the largest percentage of reduction having occurred in the year 1920-21. In 1920 the number of persons employed in industry was 526,571 and in 1921 it took a sudden drop to 391,203. Why did not my hon. friends opposite put up a high tariff in 1921 when they saw work in Canada gradually dwindling? They did not for the very good reason that they knew

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
very well that the tariff at that particular time could not have served to increase the amount of work available in Canada. There were causes altogether apart from anything connected with the tariff, which contributed to that huge drop in the number of workmen in Canada in that period. The principal factor was the deflation that set in, and no government, at any rate no government as governments are constituted at the present time, could possibly have attempted to settle a question of that nature.
What was the volume of goods produced by the workers in that period? In 1917 the total production was worth $2,873,268,183, and that amount of wealth was produced by 552,968 persons. In 1923 the total production amounted to $2,781,165,514. The figures for the years from 1917 to 1923 inclusive are:
Value of products manufactured
Gross Products
1917		 $2,873,268,183
1918		 3,289,764,146
1919		 3,290,500,585
1920		 3,772,250,057
1921		 2,576,037,029
1922		 2,482,209,130
1923		 2,781,165,514
It will be observed from the figures I have given that the total value of manufactured products was greatest in 1920, but we must not forget to take into consideration the value of the dollar at all times. In 1920 the purchasing power of the dollar was quite low; it increased considerably in 1923. It will be interesting to compare the years 1917 and 1923 from the standpoint of the value of our dollar. In 1923 the dollar stood at 153 as compared with 178 in 1917, so that the index value was 25.5 less in 1923 than in the former year. This means that the total value of manufactured products which I have given for the year 1923 as $2,781,165,514, if based upon the value of the dollar as it stood in 1917, would be in reality $3,244,693,100. On the other hand, if we take into account the fact that the wholesale index figure of prices was 243.5 in the year 1920, when our production was largest in dollars, the total value of our output in those twelve months; based upon the 1923 cost of production, would be $2,370,243,362. Perhaps I may put it in this way: In the year 1923, with 446,994 persons engaged in industry, as against 552,968 employed in 1917, there was a tremendous increase in production over the previous period. And if we exclude all salaried persons working in offices we find that in 1917 the production per individual was $5,196 as compared with $6,222 in the year 1923. Now what wages did the workmen receive in those periods respectively? In 1917 the average 14011-193
worker engaged in industry-exclusive of salaried officials-received $760; in 1918, $878; in 1919, $938; in 1920, $1,109; in 1921, $1,002; in 1922, $939, and in 1923. $959. These figures will give us a good idea of what the workers actually produce and what they actually receive in return for their labour, and in view of these disclosures I claim again that no tariffs, whether they are high or low, can greatly affect the situation.
A good deal has been said about the reduction in automobile duties. I cannot help contributing a word or two to the discussion of this question, having interviewed some members of the very large delegation that visited Ottawa a week ago. It is quite true that most of these workers who came to Ottawa did so at their own expense. This is true with very few exceptions. I did the best I could to understand their problem and to ascertain their grievance. Some hon. members went so far as to look into their eyes. I did not do that but I went right up amongst them and spoke to them, trying to gat their point of view. But what interested me was the amount of wages they were getting; I wanted to know what they were paid, seeing how upset they wrere over the reduction in the automobile duties. I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who knows more about the trials and tribulations of the average w'orkingman than I do. I have lived amongst them all my life and I understand something of their problems. The first question I put to these men therefore was as to the amount of wages they received. I found that in the Oshawa factory the great majority of the employees were getting an average wage of between $80 and $85 per month. Later on, moving amongst others of these workers. I was informed that some of them earned from 70 to 75 cents an hour: that would be in the more highly skilled and more hazardous occupations. Work is fairly steady with these people, as I ascertained, but apparently they do not know what the tariff means. "What do you know about the tariff?" I asked; and the general answer was, "We don't know anything about the tariff, but we know that we have had a dirty deal." I then wanted to know what was the nature of this "dirty deal". The answeT I got was that, whereas they had been working overtime before the reduction was made, when they came to work on the morning following the budget they found the gates closed against them. "Who closed the gates?" Well, they held the government responsible for it; they considered that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was to blame for the gates having been closed against them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that when an employer



The Budget-Mr. Heaps
shuts out his employees in this way he is exercising a function which in my opinion is far beyond his prerogative; and he is doing something equally unjustifiable in influencing people bo action such as they might not otherwise take. I do not personally believe that the reduction in the tariff on automobiles will have any great effect on the industry in Canada, and I say that, advisedly.
I have here a clipping from the Montreal Star, which paper I am sure no one will claim is in any way biased in favour of tariff reductions. It appeared in the issue of the Saturday following the announcement of the budget and is as follows:
In conservative quarters where Canadian industrial developments are watched closely, the opinion was expressed that the proposed reduction in the Canadian automobile tariff, if adopted by Parliament, would not necessarily mean the end of the manufacture and assembling of American automobiles in Canada. The only direct result of such a change, according to the opinion, would be to reduce their profits. Assembled United States cars, it is explained, have been sold to the Canadian public plus the tariff, thus adding to the profits of the Canadian subsidiaries of the United States companies.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter, and it is quite possible that other members from Winnipeg and vicinity also received a similar communication. I have not yet obtained the sanction of the firm to give its name, and consequently I must withhold! it for the present, but I may say that the firm employs about one hundred people. It has threatened to close down if it does not get increased protection for the particular commodity which it manufactures, the tariff protection on which has been reduced by the budget. Let me read this very illuminating portion of the letter:
In addition to the reduction in tariff, we wish to point out to you the handicap we would be working under in endeavoring to meet the United States competition-with the protection on pig lead of one cent per pound as follows:
Canadian pig lead, as j'ou no doubt know, is mined and smelted in Trail, B.C. by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and they base their price- not on their cost-but take advantage of the one cent per pound duty; and simply base their price on the foreign market, plus one cent per pound, less five cents per hundred pounds f.o.b. Montreal.
Mind you, although the lead is manufactured at Trail, the price is figured at what it would cost to ship the commodity from Trail right to Montreal, which is the port of landing for this class of goods from England and other parts of Europe.
The five cents per hundred pounds is deducted from the imported f.o.b. Montreal price, to assure them the Canadian business.
Further, when we purchase our requirements (as we must do) from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, they charge us the Montreal price, plu3 the

carload rate of freight to Winnipeg- which is fifty five cents per hundred pounds; for example, if the imported f.o b. Montreal price, less five cents per hundred pounds, is eight cents per pound, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company will charge us $8.55 per hundred pounds delivered f.o.b. Winnipeg, although the lead is shipped from Trail, B.C. They will not sell to us at price f.o.b. Trail, B.C. Such price to be the Montreal price, less the carload rate of freight from Trail to Montreal, and then let us pay the freight from Trail to Winnipeg.
Now, if anybody can beat that I s-hould like him to come forward.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: There are
lots of similar examples, though.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: He is an actor?


Abraham Albert Heaps: A bad actor.
-and there is a resolution on the books of the council refusing admission to anyone connected with The Labour Leader.
I do wish some of my hon. friends opposite, before quoting from such newspapers, would find out something about them.
This man Heavy was at one time a member of the Cigarmakers' Union and represented that union in The Trades and Labour Council. The Cigarmakers' Union withdrew him from the council on account of his disloyalty to the Trades Union movement. Through a friend, who was about as bad as himself, he got into the Stage Clearers' Union, which was affiliated with the Theatrical Stage Employees' Union. He was then an advertising solicitor and had no connection with the theatrical business.
So he was not even a bad actor.
It was one of those shady deals sometimes put over in the labour movement, by a bad gang who eventually come to their end. The London Trades and Labour Council has also a resolution on their books refusing to give him admission to meetings of the council, although he was born in London and was a resident of that place. His only connection with the labour movement is his connection with the Theatrical Stage Employees, and that union has been told that under no circumstances will the District Labour Council accept him as a delegate. The Labour Leader has been several times condemned as the enemy of the workers. It is a paper which is run by two private individuals for the money they can get out of it. They supported the Conservative party at the last election and opposed the Labour candidates everywhere. They made their advertising rates prohibitive to Liberal candidates at the last election because the Conservative party had them controlled body and bones.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And soul.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They have none.
The paper is regarded as the friend of the Manufacturers' Association and profits considerably financially because of its support to that association. Heavy is a member of the Conservative party and is regarded by the Tory machine in Toronto as one of its strong supports. He has no influence in the Labour movement, but on the contrary is regarded as one of the worst traitors we ever had in the Labour movement. It is a matter of court record in Toronto that Brigadier-General Gunn and Mr. Roden, ex-president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, appeared before the metal trades employers in Toronto at the time their employees were out on strike to ask them to vote $5,000 to Heavy to assist him in getting out a Labour paper. At that time Heavy was the secretary of the Trades and Labour Council. It was because of this act of treason while in the Labour movement that he was thrown out of
The Budget-Mr. Heaps

the Trades Council and Cigarmakers' Union. John W. Bruce, general organizer of the Plumbers' and Steam-fitters' Union, openly charged him with being on the staff of the Milwaukee Detective Agency, while operating in the Labour movement. Heavy started court action against Bruce but dropped the case after it had gone -through its preliminary stages. This Charge was based upon the fact that while Heavy was in the bar of one of the Toronto hotels some years ago a card dropfped out of his pocket, was picked up (by one of the men who was with him, and afterwards read. It was a card connecting him with .the Milwaukee Detective Agency.
One recent incident will reveal -the -type of the man. His paper has -made a lot of money because of dts attacks upon Communists and the Red element, but at the last convention of The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Tom Moore, the president, was opposed by a Communist. Heavy voted for the Communist. This can only be explained on the ground of Tom Moore's refusal to be used by Heavy and his paper to -further their financial gains.
You can tell Hugh Guthrie for me, as vice-president of The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and secretary of the Canadian Labour party, that every time he quotes from The Labour Leader or mentions the name of W. J. Heavy in support of -his theories or party he is insulting every decent trades unionist in Canada. Everything I have mentioned in this letter can be supported by documentary evidence.
Sincerely yours,
James Simpson.
I also have further references to this man Heavy which appeared . in the London, Ontario papers, made by some of the officials of the London Trades and Labour Council. These are very much along the line of what I have already quoted.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley dealt with the question of the income tax, and quoted certain figgures to show what the actual reduction was. I am also interested in the income tax question, although perhaps in not exactly the same way as other hon. members who have already spoken. I have given figures which show that the average
worker cannot pay income tax because his wages do not come within the income tax limits. I have here the figures published by the Bureau of Statistics in that connection, and I want to read some of these figures because they show some rather startling facts in connection with the concentration of wealth in Canada. In 1923 there were 1,181 persons who paid income tax, and who might be termed the highly favoured few. I wish I was in that class; I would never complain about the income tax I had to pay. These 1,181 persons paid $12,022,219.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was
the total number?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will give you the total
number in a minute. What I am saying now is that in 1923, 1,181 persons paid $12 022,219. The balance, numbering 280,000, paid between them $19,845,149. Had I time to work the figures out on a percentage basis I believe it would show that these people-I refer to the 1,181 persons mentioned-paid betweeu thirty-five and forty per cent of the total amount of income tax in Canada. In 1924 we find that 1,898 persons paid income tax totalling $11,357,039, and 237,138 other persons paid $14,476,976. In 1925, 1,804 persons paid $11,559,666, and 223.710 persons paid $13,586 836. In other words less than two thousand people paid approximately- I am speaking now without having given the matter very close thought-forty-five per cent of the total income tax paid in the Dominion. The analysis made by the Bureau of Statistics gives these payments in much greater detail. I do not wish to quote all the figures, however, and I will ask permission to have them placed on Hansard. They are comprised in the following table:
Number of Individual and Corporate Taxpayers, by Size of Incomes and Amount of Taxes Paid, Under the Income War Tax Act, Fiscal Years Ended March 31, 1923, 1924 and 1925.
Individuals
Income-Class	1923	1924	1925	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount$1,000 to $ 6.000	
2.000	to 6,000	
6.000	to 10,000	
10.000	to 20.000	
20.000	to 30,000	
30.000	to 50,000	
50.000	and over	146,178 113,359 13,030 6.069 1,365 801 380	3,411,475 4,616,287 3,603,536 5,212,937 2,997,914 3,810,107 8,122,112	127,718 94,580 10,140 4,700 1,047 | 851	$ 3,066,580 3,934,537 3,187,012 4,288,847 2,521,615 8,835,424	126,481 80,864 11,129 5,236 983 821	$ 2,993,574 3,324,746 2,904,996 4,363,520 2,413.905 *9,145,761Total	281,182	31,867,368	239,036	25,834,015	225,514	25,146,502Unclassified amount	490,046	-	533,799	350,379Total	_	32,357,414	_	26,367,814	_	26,496,881Refund	-	667,997	710,478	-	340,113Total	-	31,689,417	-	25,657,336	-	25,156,768

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
Now, Mr. Speaker, I generally like to limit anything I say to the hour.
Some non. MEMBERS: Go on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have already transgressed a self-imposed rule, and I do not wish to go much further into some of the matters upon which I have dwelt. But I wish to say this: We find as a result of the facts which I have given that in the production of wealth the portion which the workers, both men and women, receive out of that which they have produced is extremely small. We find, according to our income tax returns, that the wealth of the country is concentrated practically in few hands. Here in the Dominion of Canada we find a quarter of a million people paying income tax. If that is the case, taking five to a family, it will mean that a million and a quarter people, men, women and children, may have benefited by the reduction of the income tax. But what about the other eight millions of people? What are they getting out of the budget? That is the question that has to be answered, and I do not expect either the Liberal party or the Conservative party to give us much more than they are giving us at the present time.


James Dew Chaplin: Why don't you answer your own question?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am trying to show my hon. friend, and I hope the points I have made will reach his mind and stick there. I have been showing to-night how little the worker gets for what he produces. I have been Showing that wealth has been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands; and if the hon. gentleman wants to know what I think, I have no hesitation in saying that I think labour is entitled to that which it produces. The person who is performing a useful function in society is entitled to something more than a mere pittance in life, and to receive when he reaches the, age of seventy a pension of $20 a month. This old age pension should not be necessary in any country. But why is it necessary? Because men and women when they have toiled throughout their lives find themselves in old age without sufficient to live on. I suppose hon. members, like the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me, would be the first to oppose measures of that character. 'Let me quote to my hon. friend an authority which, perhaps, even he will accept. Sir Alfred Mond, speaking on April 17th in the city of Birmingham, England, said:
Our whole industrial system is being challenged, not merely by wild and foolish people, but by serious thinkers and economists.
I will leave the matter there.
. Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St, George): Before proceeding to discuss one or two of the questions raised in this debate. I wish to allude to a reference made to myself recently by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). I submit to the House that in the discussions into which my Progressive friends to the left have entered since the House opened, I have been present upon almost every occasion and been an interested listener-because I have sought and really and sincerely desired to be informed with regard to the views of the gentlemen who compose the Progressive party-and I do not think that in any debate I have gone beyond the bounds of extreme courtesy in dealing with and in referring to these gentlemen. But my hon. friend from Nelson, although I have called his attention to the fact, has not seen fit to revoke a remark which he made in reference to myself the other night, and that was that in the course of the debate I had referred to members of the Progressive party as "ignorant trash." Mr. Speaker, I am quite incapable of using such rude and discourteous language. I certainly have not used any such language in this House. I only wish to saj*' that I called the attention of the hon. member for Nelson to his error, made in the heat of debate, and that he had not yet seen fit to correct it on the record.


Mr. BIRD:: Will the hon. gentleman finish the sentence that I used?


Mr. CAHAN:: If I remember correctly,
you alluded to me as saying that I had referred to the Progressive party as "ignorant trash or something of that kind."


Thomas William Bird: tIf the hon. gentleman will
allow me I will read to the House what particular statement I had reference to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You can refer to it after-
' wards. Certainly I made no statement of that kind, or anything in the nature of such an insinuation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the statement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I called the hon. gentleman's attention to it, and he has not yet seen fit to revoke it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


Thomas William Bird: May I not on a question of
privilege refer to the statement which I had in mind?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, read it.
The Budget-Mr. Cahan


Thomas William Bird: On page 2439 of Hansard,
April 14th, in answer to a question put by Mr. Garland, the hon. member for St. Law-renceHt. George said:
I should (think hon. gentlemen would have known very much better than to have said many of the things which they have said this afternoon, but there is no limit sometimes ito ignorance.
That is the statement I had reference to when I said "Ignorant trash or something of that kind," and I had' not reference so much to the exact words as to the tone in which they were uttered.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman would
have been far more frank and candid to this House if he had referred to the fact that before I made the statement in question, the hon. member for Bow River, referring to another hon. member whose contentions I was disputing said:
I do not (think he said that.
Referring to his friend of the Progressive party.


Mr. SPEAKER:: What is the page?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: tripled and in some cases quadrupled before the income of the enterprise reaches the shareholders by way of dividends.
There is also, as I have said, a discrimination against any industry or trade which is carried on 'by a corporation or company instead of by a private individual, in that the tax on the incorporated company is doubled or otherwise increased. The Canadian investor in shares of a foreign company pays only one tax, but if he invests his money 'in a Canadian company, as I have said, he pays at least a double tax and 'possibly a triple tax. The obvious result is to render it more and still more difficult to obtain funds for investment in Canadian companies carrying on corporate enterprises in this country.
I think the taxes as now imposed are prejudicial to a certain extent to the individual. The wage-earner who saves up out of his income a certain amount for the protection of his wife and children when he is gone, or for the protection of himself against old age or other disabilities, finds that by investing the proceeds of his thrift in a Canadian company, perhaps the company by which he is employed or in which he is an official, he thereby seriously impairs the amount of revenue which he, in case of incapacity, or his wife or children after him. would receive froo^ the fund which he has laid up against such possibilities.
There are many anomalies in this income tax as we have it. For instance the rural resident who owns his house or his farm pays no tax whatever upon his investment nor upon the value or user of his house or farm. In the cities where we cannot afford to own houses, but where a naan instead of investing $20,000 in a house might invest $20,000 in bonds. or shares or other investment, he has to pay an income tax on the income of that $20,000 which he invests. we will say, in bonds of a Canadian company, and in addition he pays for rent or user of his house. Therefore, under the most favourable circumstances to him, he pays a tax on the amount of his rent or for the user of his house, which fax the man who has invested his savings in a house does not pay at all.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Could that naan no.t afford to buy a house?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose 'he could, but
where we live in cities nine-tenths of us do not own houses.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?
fMr. Cahan.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We cannot afford to own
houses. What I am saying is this, that a man escapes taxation by owning a house. He avoids paying taxes if he invests his $20,000 in purchasing a house and lives in it, whereas if he invests that $20,000 in the stock of a Canadian company and uses the income to pay the rent, he has to pay income tax upon his income, including his rental vollue, while you gentlemen who live in the country and own your houses pay no tax whatever upon the user of your house.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Not $20,000 houses.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, if you put it at $10,000 my position is just the same, or you may put itt at $5,000. But I have travelled through the northwest quite a bit and I have seen many houses that could not be purchased for $20,000. Some of those houses may be occupied by hon. members of this House, if not by Progressive members, certainly by hon. gentlemen on the other side.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Is it Cheaper to pay rent than to own your own house?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think it is; when I pay rent I pay the whole annual cost of the house.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In that case you might as well own the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly; it might be just as wol 1 for me to own the house. But I say that when I am not in a (position to buy the house, or if I do not buy it, the present law discriminates against me. It discriminates against every man who pays rent instead of owning his property, and therefore it discriminates against every leaseholder in large cities where people cannot afford to own the land.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This law does not prevent a man from owning his own house, and eve^ man is to that extent a better citizen who does own the house he lives in.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so; I am sure we should be better citizens if we owned our houses. The fact remains, nevertheless, that this income tax is full of anomalies.


Mr. BOURASSA:: May I remind the hon. member that that has always been the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly it is the case, but I am suggesting that if the Minister of Finance undertook to remove these anomalies under the guise of reducing the income tax his work has resulted in a still further increase in the anomalies and not in any reduction in <tihe amount exacted from the

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
people in income tax. In my opinion-and I have a perfect right to my opinion although it may differ from hon. gentlemen's-a more unfair, prejudicial and discriminatory readjustment of the provisions of the income tax law could hardly be conceived than this presented for the approbation of parliament toj day.
Apart from the income tax, certain reductions in customs duties have been proposed, as for instance in the case of sugar, which I understand are made to comply with the provisions of the West India treaty. I think we are entitled to know why there should be any general reduction under present conditions in sugar duties. If we are to give a preference to the West India producers certainly we are in a position to raise the general tax so as to preserve the income which comes to this country from sugar. The tariff does not affect the export trade because in the export trade there is an almost entire remission of the duties paid. It seems to me that before this budget is considered in committee we should have some further explanation from the Minister of Finance of the particular provisions relating to the West Indies.
With regard to the further provision in the case of automobiles, that there shall be paid from the treasury by way of drawbacks of duty, refunds to The importers of component parts entering Canada for the manufacture, the construction, or the assembling of automobiles here, I would suggest that the whole system of drawbacks is wrong. It is simply a covert way of removing a fair protection from one of the great basic industries of the country. I consider the production of iron and steel in Canada as much a basic industry as the growing of wheat; it is the industry upon which a great number of our large industrial interests are founded and sustained. And since this government came into office, by its preferences in favour of Great Britain, by its preferences in favour of Belgium and France and other countries, by its repayment of drawbacks in favour of the United States 

by all this discriminatory legislation it has weakened and impaired the great iron and steel industry of the country. That is entirely borne out by the facts which have been brought down in various government returns. For instance, in the year 1920 we had 1,475 plants engaged in iron and steel production, and in the manufacture of the products of iron and steel. In four years, up to 1924, the last figures available, that number has been reduced to 1,003. That industry in 1920 had a capital of $624,000,000, which in 1924 had been reduced to $535,000,000. It paid salaries and
wages to 115,700 workmen and employees in the year 1920 and by 1924 that number had been reduced to 78,000, while the amount paid out to these workmen in the respective years was $158,000,000 and $99,000,000. The industry employed materials to the value of $321,000,000 in 1920. I have not the corresponding figure for 1924, but the selling value of the products, all of Canadian manufacture, produced by Canadian workmen, was $640,000,000 in 1920. reduced in 1924 to $370,000,000. The value added by Canadian workmanship and machinery, exclusive of material, was in 1920, $318,900,000 and in 1924 only $174,000,000. So that in the annual production of wealth in the iron and steel industry there has been a loss of $144,000,000, and this is due to tihe insidious and deceptive yet complete manner in which the legislation and the government policy of this country is undermining and destroying a great industry.


Mr. EVANS:: If the hon. gentleman would permit me-would not the 1920 total be due to the inflated prices of that period?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They may be to a certain extent, but we have inflation in this country to-day; by the standard of 1914 or 1915, our dollar is only worth 65 cents.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is it not a fact that in the same time and on the same basis the American figures are very much greater now than in 1920?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am prepared to show, if necessary, that this diminution in the productive activities of our own people is made up by the large importations which we are making of the same class of goods. That is the reason why although we were employing 115,760 men in 1920, we are employing in 1924 only 78,000-a very considerable reduction, due to 470 odd plants having been entirely driven out of business by the policy pursued by this government.
Now, I do not wish to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the promises and pledges made to the country by the right hon. leader of the government. The first time that his pronounced views on tariff policy came to my special notice was when he was entering upon his campaign in Nova Scotia in October 1921. There his policy was one of protection to the iron and coal industries of the province. On that pledge of protection to those industries he secured the return of a Liberal member for every constituency of Nova Scotia; the electorate believed him and voted for his can-
The Budget-Mr. Cahan

didates. There he said, according to the reports in the press:
Free trade is not the policy of the Liberal party. If dt were, I would oppose it because I believe it would bring disaster to our industries and remove from the farmers the home market, which is practically the only market they have left.
He continued:
Free trade may be all rig hit tfor the wealthy grain growers of the west whose wheat goes to the foreign markets and who do not have to worry about selling their products at home, but it would mean paralysis in the Maritime provinces.
Because of that pledge of the right 'hon. leader of the government he was supported by nearly all the constituencies east of the Ottawa j-iver; they returned an almost solid phalanx behind him in the last parliament. But our anxiety was aroused when we read his address on May 15, 1924, in discussing the budget before the preceding parliament. There he declared that the policy of the Liberal party was:
No more tariffs based on the principle of protection. That is our policy to-day, the policy of the Liberal party, proceeding stop by step towards the goal of greater freedom in matters of trade, never imposing a duty for protection's sake, but always acting on .the principle or the basis of a tariff ifor revenue, and revenue only.
In 1925 there was such a tremehdous reaction throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion-I refer particularly to British Columbia, Ontario and the eastern provinces -against that pronouncement that he broached an entirely different policy to the country. We have his own statement of the grounds on which he appealed to the governor general for a dissolution in December last. We have his pronouncement made at Richmond Hill, where he said that his policy was that of appointing a tariff advisory board so that no manufacturer need feel afraid of sudden reductions in duty until he had had a full opportunity to have his case investigated by the proposed board. He declared then:
I believe the people should be given an opportunity to .pronounce upon a ipo'l icy as far-reaching a3 that which is involved in this method of dealing with the tariff and other problems of taxation. This is another reason why I feel the time of general election should not be postponed.
You have all read in this House the pronouncement which he made in Oshawa on October 19, when he declared:
There .must be groat care and caution used in adjusting the tariff to safeguard the industries of the Dominion. The only way to 'handle the matter of tariff is that a board of advisers, containing officers of the different departments of government, gather information that will be of service to the government in determining a tariff policy. In our opinion this is the only fair and just way to deal with the question.

We returned to Ottawa last January, convened by His Excellency as members of this House. There was very considerable anxiety on the part of the leader of the government on maeting the House as to whether he would be able to secure the support of a majority of the members, his party representing only 101 votes and the Conservatives representing 116 votes. He again approached His Excellency and through him made an address to this House dealing particularly with tariff issues. He knew, just as well as I and other members of this House know, that there are a number of hon. members representing the same province which I have the honour to represent who in their public and private utterances freely and frankly declare that they are in favour of adequate protection for the industries of this country. While he was angling-if that is the proper term to use-for the support of the Progressives of the west, he was anxious to retain the support of the members on his side of the House representing Quebec constituencies where important industries are employing large numbers of men and need a safeguarding tariff for their protection. Therefore the right hon. leader of the government came to this House and through the address from His Excellency the Governor General made a solemn pledge to the House and to the country that changes in the tariff would only be made after the fullest examination of their bearing upon primary and manufacturing industries. That pledge gave some assurance to those people whose money was invested in industry, and to those who were employed in industry, that their interests would not be suddenly dealt with. But it became necessary, 'because of my hon. friends to my left and the leader of the Progressive party, who possesses the entire political authority of this country with no political responsibility except to his own constituents, that a blow should be launched at the automobile or motor power industry of this country. The right hon. Prime Minister had no alternative but to bow the knee to Baal and repudiate every solemn pledge he had given to this country through the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General.


Robert Forke: Might I be allowed to ask
the hon. member what proof he has for his last statement?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend deny
that he and his friends demanded it?


Robert Forke: My hon. friend is like a
Scotchman, who tries to answer one question by asking another.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have some Scotch blood,
and that is the only way I can deal with a Scotsman. I think that condition is pretty well understood in this House and in the country; the actual conditions disclose that the right hon. Prime Minister dare not introduce a single measure that has not first been reviewed by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). Further than that, he dare not introduce a simple resolution until the whip of the Progressive party or some other prominent member has been interrogated as to whether or not the Progressives will support it.


John Evans: Very good.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am glad my hon. friend
admits it. It is recognized by the whole country, and by my hon. friends also. But that is destruction, that is an end to responsible self-government in Canada. It is impossible for the leader of a government to give any pledges to the country or to bind his honour with respect to any proposed programme, because he knows that he is utterly unable to carry it out unless those few gentlemen at my left subsequently endorse it.
We have a clear cut distinction between the tariff and fiscal policies of the right hon. Prime Minister and those of the Conservative party. It is discussed by the members of the House, and clearly recognized, that all measures which have been introduced by the government during the present session and all the changes proposed in the tariff or in taxation are for the purpose of binding to the support of the Liberal leader and the Liberal government those who are not fully convinced of the wisdom of his general policy, and those who are not prepared to give him support on general political grounds. The result has been to undermine public confidence in the government from one end of this country to the other. There are many men who are not so closely interested in the tariff as to care, individually, as to whether a protective policy or a free trade policy is best. But they are suddenly discovering that stability of tariff and stability of commercial and industrial conditions affect tens of thousands of men who thought they were not interested in the tariff, and t-hat they were not effected by it.
It must be admitted that our production is decreasing. I have statistics galore which show that during the last five years we have been ceasing to produce those commodities manufactmed by the industries of Canada; year by year as we produce less we import from abroad those commodities manufactured
The Budget-Mr. Cahan
elsewhere which are taking the place of commodities formerly manufactured in Canada.
If hon. gentlemen will examine the trade returns for last year or for the previous year they will find that of approximately one billion dollars of imports brought into this country, five hundred million dollars represent commodities Which could be produced in 'Canada by Canadian labour, Canadian capital and Canadian machinery. This would and could give employment to at least a quarter of a million people in addition to those already employed, giving sustenance and a livelihood to at least a million more Canadians than we have in this country at present. In other words, if we had what the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) referred to the other evening, a tariff adequate to our needs, we could bring back the half million people who in the last five or six years have gone away, and we could bring into this country and employ at a rate of wages corresponding to that prevailing in the United States and higher than that in England or in continental Europe, workmen and their families numbering five hundred thousand more.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we never can build up this country; we never can develop it-except for wheat growing-unless we safeguard industry so as to produce in this country those commodities now imported, carrying to the final processes of manufacture the raw materials and other commodities which enter into our factories as raw materials. We must develop all along the line. It is utterly ridiculous to say that you can place this country in a sound and prosperous financial, commercial and industrial condition simply by bringing in farmers from England or somewhere else to grow wheat on the western prairies. Grow wheat? Yes; let us give every possible inducement to the growing of wheat, but let us not forget that if we are to have a general expansion of trade and business; if we are to increase our population to enable us to sustain and pay off our national debt and to reduce the individual burden of taxation, we need a million people, and a million people cannot find places on western farms for at least ten years to come. We now purchase commodities from abroad, thus giving employment to foreign labour. We bring them into this country and pay for them by the raw products of 'Canada which we send abroad, thus exhausting the natural resources of the Dominion for that purpose. If we reverse that policy and manufacture at home we can place this country in a position

The Budget-Air. Cahan
of prosperity unequalled by any other country on the face of the globe. Because we have still in Canada the natural resources, at present unexhausted, which are the very foundations of industry and which will enable us, if we decide to manufacture our own commodities in Canada, to bring them, through the highest processes of manufacture, to a completed state.
Now there is a clear distinction to be noted. I have talked to some of my Progressive friends in this House. I have talked to many of my Liberal friends from the province of Saskatchewan. I am attracted by their complete sincerity in dealing with this trade question, and I think that they realize that many of us on this side of the House are equally sincere. But I wish to say to them that our position is this: The policy of this government, which, to use their terms, is to develop primary industries and to export primary or raw products to foreign countries for the purchase abroad of manufacturing commodities, will show, as it has shown last year, an enormous expansion of export and import trade; but every dollar that we send out for the purchase of commodities abroad which we could produce in this country represents one dollar of value which, if put into circulation in Canada to employ labour and to manufacture commodities here, would be worth five times as much or five dollars, in the domestic trade of this country. Now such a policy-


Alexander MacGillivray Young: How are you
going to sell your goods if you are not prepared to buy goods? Will the hon. gentleman explain that to the House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only goods that we
want to sell abroad-and it will be a diminishing quantity as the years go by-are the products of the wheat fields in the northwest. For all other products we can, by providing a million more people, find an adequate market in this country.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Why not
eat the wheat too?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because the wheat is produced in such quantities that we cannot at present consume it in this country. Perhaps it is a fortunate thing that we cannot, because no matter how much we produce in this country we must have a certain amount of foreign trade, and we must be in a position to purchase.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
my hon. friend would say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We need the wheat ifl order to purchase abroad such raw products as we require in Canada which are not produced here. But every dollar that we send abroad unnecessarily-not for the purpose of purchasing cotton, tin, or certain other raw products which we do not find in this country, but to purchase manufactured commodities-is detrimental to the highest well being and welfare of the whole industrial classes of this country.


Mr. EULER:: Is the hon. gentleman advocating that we should not export manufactured products?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, after we have supplied our own country to its limit there may be a certain surplus of production which we could possibly afford to send abroad. But the object and purpose of the present government is to neglect, to undermine and to destroy the industrial activities of the eastern provinces of Canada, and to use the surplus products of the west for the purchase of manufactured products abroad, which are being brought in month by month and year by year to take the place of commodities previously manufactured at home, thus driving our own people out of employment and giving work to the people of central Europe and other countries.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You advocate
a tariff sufficiently high to prevent the importation of manufactured goods of a class that we produce in this country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am going to expound my theory in a moment, and I think that exposition will fully answer my hon. friend. If he does not think so and will repeat his question at the close of my speech I will endeavour to answer him. I say we ought to give every encouragement and assistance to the production of wheat and other grains of the middle west. Do not misunderstand me with respect to that. I say that at the same time we ought not to neglect and discourage, we ought not to discriminate against and destroy, the industrial life of these eastern provinces and of the province of British Columbia. We of the Conservative party, I think, should be prepared to co-operate in giving essential assistance and supervision to the incoming immigrants in the west who are now being located chiefly on these western farms. We should be willing to assist in every way in increasing the supply of farm labour until that supply is fully met; we should assist in every reasonable measure to consolidate settlement in the western railway belt, to ensure reasonable freight raites for the transportation of surplus products of grain from the west to the

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
seaboard-either east or west-and even assist it in its transportation overseas. But the farmers of this country are not the only body who contribute by their labour to the productive activities of this country, and my contention is, because it is my sincere belief, that the men who produced $465,000,000 in 1923 and $640,000,000 in 1920 of the products of iron and steel are adding just as much, dollar for dollar, to the wealth, the prosperity and the wellbeing of Canada as the workmen of the west who produced $640,000,000 worth of wheat.


Robert Forke: I suppose the bon. gentleman has paid particular attention to the conditions of agriculture in the United States. Has he any explanation to give as to why agriculture in the United States finds itself in the position _it is in to-day?


Mr. SPENCER:: With a high tariff, too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will tell my hon. friend
one reason for the conditions in agriculture in the United States, especially in the grain trade.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend is doubtless
aware of the Capper Bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I sat the other night by a
member of the Senate of the United States, the very able and representative member of one of the western states, and he said, speaking of the relative situation and the condition of the farmers in the western United States as compared with the farmers in our own northwest, that we had conceded to the Canadian farmer reduced freight rates, reduced cost of transportation, which placed him in the most enviable position of any farmers in any country of the world to-day. That was his view; I do not profess personally to know sufficient about it.
I quoted the other day the sworn evidence given before the railway commission as to the cost of carrying wheat. I will not repeat, but I am waiting, as my hon. friend doubtless is. with considerable anxiety the production in this Houses of the actual figures to show whether or not that wheat is bearing the cost of its transportation to Atlantic ports.
I am convinced also that my Progressive friends from Alberta and Saskatchewan must and do recognize that their position is exceptional in this country. Theirs is a branch of farming carried on under special conditions, requiring special encouragement, to be made prosperous by special forms of legislation and co-operation in government administration. So far as I am concerned, and so far as most intelligent people whom I represent in the city of Montreal are concerned, I believe they are prepared in every reasonable and effective way to give what assistance they possibly can. I know that some hon. gentlemen have referred to me as representing St. James street. Now St. James street is not in my constituency.


John Evans: Will the hon. member explain what special legislation and what special encouragement the western farmer from Saskatchewan and Alberta has received?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: K the hon. member will
look at the legislative programme of this government he will find that it is designed for that purpose. Whether or not it will be effective in achieving that purpose I cannot say.


John Evans: Will the hon. member tell
us what it is?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the first place, it is
proposed that we should reduce, to the extent-suggested by those who have made a careful estimate-of $50,000,000, the mortgages outstanding on a certain body of farmers in the west called the soldier settlers.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the soldier settler not
also located in the east?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Very few indeed.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are they not a federal
responsibility?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I do not understand
so. However, I am getting off my subject. The large appropriation which has been made for soldier settlers was not directly and ostensibly for the purpose of settling them because they were soldiers. I understand the country was taking advantage of the fact that a large number of Canadians were willing to go on the land, and some preference was given to them rather than to foreign settlers.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Is the hon.
member objecting to that?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Will the hon.
member permit a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I told the hon. member
I would answer his question when I got to the end of my discourse. I am convinced that, as they enter more and more upon diversified farming in the west-


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Do not
tell us how to farm.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not telling my hon.
friends how to farm; I am not even suggesting it. But all the wisdom of the world is
The Budget-Mr. Cahan

not concentrated in western constituencies. I have great respect for the hon. member who interrupted me, because I realize that he knows more about farming than I can ever hope to know. But I can state the grounds of the faith and the confidence that is in nle, and I say that when the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will undertake, in a duly protected market, to raise wool, for instance-


Robert Forke: I do raise wool.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And sheep and lambs-


Robert Forke: I raise them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And sell them in the market


Robert Forke: Yes, I do that right along.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When my hon. friend undertakes to raise these products in a properly safeguarded market he will increase his inr come ten times what it is to-day, and that trade would be far more profitable to him than all the wheat and grain grown on his farm.


James Alexander Robb: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, and I know what it is before the hon. minister asks it.


James Alexander Robb: Would you put a duty on wool?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, certainly I would put a duty on wool. My hon. friend has asked that question time and again in this House, as if he were questioning some ignorant class of scholars who did not understand the basis of that industry, and trying to make them think they dare not place a duty on wool. I would put a duty on wool and assist every farmer who is raising sheep and lambs. I would produce wool in this country as far as it could be consumed by our factories, and make Canada deal independently of every foreign country as far as possible. I think this country in its wisdom will soon find it is unprofitable to send out its wool in car loads for manufacture in other countries into clothing, to be shipped back in bales and parcels in finished form to keep us warm in winter. The sooner we produce within our own boundaries every commodity which is natural to the country, and manufacture it here in all its processes, the sooner we shall enjoy industrial activity and commercial prosperity such as has not been known in this country during the last twenty-five or thirty years.
For my part I say-and I say it clearly- that I do not believe the industrial prosperity of Canada can be maintained by a government which is not prepared to challenge every hostile tariff which it finds opposed to the admission of its own products. It is abso-
lutely necessary that we Should pursue a policy of tariff stability so that Canadian industry will know exactly where it stands and not be subject to these interminable changes of tariff such as hon. gentlemen opposite have introduced within the last five years, changes whidh have only one result, namely to destroy our manufacturing industries, send people out of the country, and, as I said before, undermine the entire confidence of those who have money to invest in our own undertakings.
Situated as we are in close proximity to the United States, it is absolutely necessary that we should take conditions which prevail there into consideration in dealing with the question of tariffs. I do not wish to discuss at length this automobile question. ( have read every document which I have received through the mail from those who advocate a lowering of the duty and also from those who advocate the retention of the duty I have read the addresses of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House dealing with the matter. I am accustomed to deal with facts and figures; I am accustomed to deal with statements of account, and I say that I am not yet able to form an opinion as to whether there is any just cause for reducing the tariff on automobiles a single one per cent. I do not believe there is a gentleman on the opposite side of the House who really knows all the facts.
I find that located within the limits of the city of Montreal, a place where I did not imagine any person was interested in the production of automobiles-I thought that was confined to Ontario and to a few towns in Ontario-there are twenty-eight establishments which have put before me their claim that the automobile industry should not be prejudiced or destroyed because a large proportion of the products of these various concerns find their way ultimately into finished automobiles. The matter has equally broad ramifications throughout the entire length and breadth of the country, and I repeat, hon. gentlemen are pledged, before they make such a reduction, to have a thorough public investigation before their tariff commission.
I quite agree that any industry which is protected and safe-guarded by public legislation of any kind, by tariff legislation or otherwise, becomes to that extent quasi-public in its nature and it assumes special obligations to the public as long as it enjoys that safeguarding provision or protection. It continues in many cases to be privately-owned and privately-managed, but it becomes subject to certain limitations arising from the equally fundamental rights of those to whose well-being its products contribute. It exists

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
and it must exist as a profit-making enterprise; otherwise it cannot exist under our modern industrial conditions because unless it yields a profit it will not continue to function in this country. But the public has the essential right to receive from that enterprise or industry the most effective service possible at prices which, providing a stable and certain profit for the investor, will nevertheless stimulate home consumption and tend to improve the general standards of living in this country in which its products find their market. Such an industry should be in a position and should be required by the public and the government to take advantage of all improvements in art and science in order to extend its operations as reasonably required and in order to produce commodities of the best quality at prices commensurate with those which are paid in other countries operating under similar conditions.
All this requires ample funds and credits and that no industry can obtain if it is to be the victim of rapidly changing tariffs and values which are the bane of all manufacturing industries. Therefore this country owes, I think, due protection to its industries, but no industry has the right to use the public protection which it receives through the tariff or otherwise for the purpose of profiteering at the expense of our domestic consumers.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What did Mr. Ford have to say on that very thing the other day?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Hon. members do not like to hear that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will deal with Mr. Ford in a moment, but I want to lay down the general conditions as they appear to me. I am speaking simply for myself and giving my own view. Therefore it has been admitted by successive leaders of successive governments of this country that if the stability of an industry is threatened it has paramount right to a full inquiry before some independent or semi-independent tribunal before final judgment and condemnation is passed upon it. Such full inquiry, such independent investigation has never been accorded to the automobile industry of this country.
The tariff changes which 'have been proposed are admitted by the Minister of Finance to be due to public sentiment and not to a public inquiry into the fundamental conditions surrounding the industry. If public sentiment is to prevail in a country such as this in preference to a judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry, there is no innocent man who would be kept out of the penitentiary. There is no place in Canada for public sentiment which is another word for individual or general prejudice. You must deal fairly with these men whom you have invited to come into this country, and establish factories here.
In ease profiteering is established, I wish to repeat what I stated the other day that in my opinion a reduction in the tariff is not the efficient and advantageous way of dealing with the problem. The removal of the protective principle, whether that principle is embodied in a tariff or other legislation, serves only to destroy the domestic industry and to transfer to foreign competing countries the employment and the profits which should be retained by Canadian labour and Canadian investment. It sends our expert workmen out of the country to obtain employment. It ruthlessly destroys the capital invested in those industries. It paralyzes the home industry, renders thousands of our people homeless, causes the abandonment of our towns and villages, and the destruction of civic life and property. It is burning down the house to cook the pig. It is absolutely essential for the well-being of this country that the government should devise other ways and means for preventing profiteering. I am convinced that on the part of 90 per cent of our industrial establishments there is no profiteering, and if there is profiteering among the other 10 per cent, then it is the duty of the government to devise other ways and means of defeating the profiteer than by destroying the town and village life in the places where such industry is conducted.


Mr. POWER:: What means would the
hon. gentleman take?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I made a suggestion to
the House the other day, that where a company was found upon examination to be profiteering there should be immediately imposed upon it an excise or a business tax which would render it impossible for that company to make a larger profit than might be considered reasonable.


Charles Gavan Power: That is a matter of appreciation, is it not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It always is a matter of
appreciation. Now hon. gentlemen refer to the case of Mr. Ford. They say that from an original investment of $125,000 or thereabouts his company has now a capital of some $6,000,000 representing assets of between $8,000,000 and $9,000 000, bringing in a profit of $6,000,000 annually. I think that, in round figures, that is their contention.
The Budget-Mr. Cahan

What disadvantage would it be to Mr. Ford to remove the tariff on automobiles? Why, the removal of the tariff is the very thing which Mr. Ford and his associates are anxious to obtain, for tariff removal would enable them, by increasing their production in the American factories by five per cent, to supply all the requirements of Canada for Ford automobiles annually at any price that Mr. Ford might be prepared to fix. There may be a reduction in the price of automobiles, because a number of dealers have automobiles on hand, which, as a matter of fact, they are advertising at lower rates in order to get rid of them. But while I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet I venture to suggest that within a year American factories will be supplying these same automobiles to the Canadian consumer at relatively higher prices than they are now supplied by Canadian factories. Furthermore, I have not seen any statistics-although I have tried to read them all and examine them fairly-which indicate that any other factory than thie Ford has been making an undue profit out of the automobile industry in Canada.
An lion. MEMBER:	That is due to organization.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, but it is due as well
to patents and a thousand other things. It is due chiefly to the fact that Mr. Ford controls a market in the United States of 110,000,000 which he is supplying with 2,000,000 cars of a standard size every year. In addition to that he has the advantages of mass production, so that he can undersell any competitor or raise or lower his price as he sees fit. But if the Canadian government were to impose a proper excise tax upon the Ford company in this country it would stop the profiteering complained of. I would impose such a tax as would prevent that $6.000 000 from reaching the pockets of Henry Ford. I would put on such a business tax as would make it unprofitable for him to charge the consumers of this country a price higher than would yield him a reasonable profit.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member wish to return to the business profits tax?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have a business profits
tax in this country at present. Whether we might amend that provision or levy a special excise tax I am not suggesting at the moment.


Charles Gavan Power: A tax based on profits.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Based on undue profits. I
would take away the extravagant profits from industrial concerns which make use of the

Canadian tariff for the purposes of profiteering. I would discharge my public duty to the consumers of Canada by thus dealing with the ten per cent or five per cent of the factories that make that improper use of our tariff. We are, I believe, sufficiently intelligent in this country to devise ways and means of preventing profiteering to any undue extent, and certainly we can devise means of limiting the profits of a company such as the Ford.


Charles Gavan Power: The moment we applied any such excise tax, does the hon. member not think that we should hear a wail from certain towns and villages in which these concerns were situated to the effect that we were putting them out of business?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly, but I am not dealing with wails of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: What have you been doing
all evening?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a fair retort,
although I think it is a discourteous one. However, I accept it as courteous.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry if the hon. member thinks it was otherwise.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are living in proximity
to the United States and for years we have been endeavouring, Liberal governments as well as Conservative, to induce large producing manufacturing industries across the border to come into Canada and establish branch factories here. They have come in and given employment to thousands and tens of thousands of our people; new towns have been built up; new municipalities and cities have been established with all the various forms of municipal and civic life. Now we find one man profiteering unduly, and the only remedy that the Minister of Finance can suggest is to reduce quite materially the tariff which safeguards that industry. If carried to its logical conclusion that tariff reduction will result in the destruction of the automobile industry in this country, enabling the parent Ford industry in the United States to supply all its products to this country at prices which Mr. Ford may choose to fix.


Charles A. Stewart: I am interested to know how my hon. friend arrives at the conclusion that interference with the tariff here will affect the fixation of prices in the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with the Ford Company, which is charged with undue profiteering. Mr. Henry Ford can fix prices in Canada just as he sees fit if the tariff is removed.

The Budget-Mr. Cahan


Charles A. Stewart: Why should the tariff have any influence on the fixation of his prices either up or down on the American side? I am referring to the American prices.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hon. gentlemen have said
that allowing for the extra sales tax and for the fact that every man in this country pays 25 per cent of his entire income from productive activities to the federal, provincial and municipal governments by way of taxation-


Charles A. Stewart: I take issue with the hon. member on that point. However, that is not what I am getting at. How does my hon. friend argue that our interference with the tariff can affect prices in the United States?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hon. gentlemen are saying
that, making allowance for everything in his favour, Mr. Ford is profiteering and charging an unreasonable price for his automobiles manufactured in Canada. You meet that by reducing the tariff. I say that has certain disadvantages to this country which I have enumerated, such as lack of employment and the transferring to the United States of the manufacture of the Ford car. Hon. gentlemen may laugh-


Charles A. Stewart: I am laughing because that is not an answer to the question I asked my hon. friend. I am interested in his argument that the lowering of the tariff would permit Henry Ford and other American motor manufacturers to fix whatever prices suited them. I want to know what particular effect the tariff would have on the price of the car manufactured in the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Either I am very stupid
or the hon. minister is not stating his case very clearly. I do not say that it has any effect upon the price at which the car can be manufactured in the United States; but Henry Ford can fix any price he likes, either in the United States or Canada, his company will manufacture the car in the future in the United States, possibly assembling the parts in Canada, and he will fix the price in Canada within any reasonable limit that he sees fit.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that the Canadian price will be greater than the American price? If so, why?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know, but I say
Henry Ford has it entirely in his hands to fix the price.


Mr. KAISER:: What did the Belgians do
in the matter of glass?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a dozen such cases
before me if it were necessary to go into them, but I will take only one. Before the war Germany was producing dyes and selling them in the United States at certain prices per pound. The United States put up a tariff and thereby encouraged the domestic manufacture of dyes. The Germans thereupon lowered their price to such a level that it enabled them to overcome the American tariff and destroy the American dye factories. As soon as that was done they not only raised their price to the old level but added a fraction to make up for the profits they had lost while the American factories were functioning Take any similar case and you will find it so.


John Power Howden: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that the American manufacturers would demand a greater price from Canadians than from their own people?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the facts, but I have from as trustworthy authority as that of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to many of the statements they made about the Ford car that the Ford company does discriminate sometimes as between different cities and districts. Naturally, you say, cost of transportation may account for this, but I believe there is that discrimination. And if you take down the tariff I can see no reason why, so far as the Ford car is concerned, the price should not be fixed in Canada at any figure Henry Ford sees fit to demand.


Charles Gavan Power: Cannot we apply the hon.
gentleman's business tax in that case?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not see how you could. Mr. POWER: Apply the sales tax here.


John Arthur Clark: Then you would pay it.


Charles Gavan Power: You would pay it, anyway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Now, my suggestion is that we should not admit we are so wanting in intelligence as not to be able to devise ways and means for putting an end to profiteering without burning down our industrial establishments.
As it is nearing eleven o'clock and I wisn to conclude, let me say I regard it as absolutely necessary for the proper development of our industrial life that we should have a wise and vigorous government policy that persists in the single aim, year in and year out, through one administration after the other, no matter what political party may command a majority in this House-the single aim of maintaining a stable tariff which is not subject to sudden change for the pur-

The Budget-Mr. Cahan

pose of helping the friends of one political party or of injuring the friends of another political party; a policy which is not subject to change except after due inquiry and careful consideration and a report to the government and to this House in justification of the change proposed. The changes which have been made under present conditions have unsettled the whole country. Gentlemen opposite may smile and think they are proposing something which is accepted generally from one end of the country to the other. That is not so. The cheerful smile which pervaded their countenances on the day the Minister of Finance announced his budget has entirely disappeared-


Charles A. Stewart: When?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: From the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not from these faces.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Furthermore, it has created throughout the country such lack of faith in the pledged word of honour of hon. gentlemen opposite, that if they went to the country tomorrow or a week hence, so long as the memory of that breach of faith is in the minds of the electorate, they could not succeed in retaining two-thirds of the support which they now have in this House.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the various speeches on the budget it would almost appear that there was nothing further to be said, but every hon. member seems to be able to rarse something new. I intend for a few minutes to speak in the hope that I may be able to disabuse the minds of some hon. gentlemen of the wrong impressions that have been conveyed to them.
Let me say, though, that I have no doubt hon. members on both sides of the House are anxious only to assist in legislation that will be in the interests of Canada as a whole. We cannot all see things alike, and we are all prone to take a different view of the same set of facts. But we do hope that a thorough discussion of any subject may enable us to arrive at a conclusion that will give us a proper solution of our difficulties. We are somewhat prone to stress the importance of our own constituency or our own province, but I think we all realize that no matter what part of Canada we come from we all belong to this great Dominion and must assist m legislation which is in the interests of the country as a whole.

It must be a matter of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb)-indeed, to everyone-to see that we are at last emerging to some degree from the clouds of debt with which we have been surrounded. We know the Great war entailed a tremendous expense, and that we had to assume tremendous obligations after the war during the period of reconstruction. An enormous debt was then piled up, and it is now our duty to see that debt liquidated. Our favourable position, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget address, is to no small extent resultant from the bounteous crops with which we have been favoured for the past two years, but our bounteous harvests are not sufficient without other means by which use can be made of them. The Minister of Finance was able to announce that Canada's favourable financial position is due in part to the trade treaties into which Canada has entered. Those treaties, together with the wonderful harvests, have enabled us to bring forward the budget which was presented the other day.
Since this session opened I have at times been alarmed by the statements made from opposition benches as to the dire straits in which Canada found itself. During the early days of the session particularly, we were almost convinced that we were on the verge of bankruptcy; from what various hon. members opposite said we might almost have thought our own conclusions wrong. We had been led to believe that Canada was in a fairly prosperous position, judging from newspaper reports, statements of financial institutions, market reports of various kinds and agricultural conditions generally. Imagine then, how we looked on the situation when we heard what hon. members had to say in this House. We were also surprised to learn, coming from a province which has been developing its dairy industry, that the dairy and poultry industries were being destroyed by the Australian treaty; we could scarcely believe it. I believe that suggestion has been dissipated by the speeches since made in this House, and I do not intend to deal with that question. We were also surprised to learn, from the speeches of hon. members opposite, that there was no legislative programme in favour of the farmers of Canada; now we hear that the legislative programme is all in favour of the farmers of western Canada.
The Speech from the Throne held out hopes of a legislative programme in the in terests of Canada from shore to shore. It is true that Maritime conditions were such as to make it a difficult matter for any government to bring down legislation which would satisfy the people of the Maritimes. I have listene 1

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
to the speeches in this House dealing with Maritime rights, and I must confess that I do not yet know definitely just what Maritime rights are, nor do I know what legislation the Maritime righters require in order to have their claims satisfied. We are told of promises made when the Maritime provinces entered confederation; those promises, . so far as I know, have been fulfilled. Then we are told of understandings reached between various parts of Canada at that time, and judging from some of the speeches there were some such understandings. If it is possible for the people of Canada to carry out not only those promises but the understandings as well, that should be done, but I believe we will know '' at those understandings and rights are **' ugii the commission appointed to inquire into this question. Surely that commission can bring recommendations to this House which will result in legislation to relieve, to some extent at all events, the people of the Maritimes.
It is claimed that immediate steps should be taken to encourage and foster the coal industry in the Maritimes. We expect the commission to go into that question and make recommendations, but I do not know whether the claims made for the Maritimes would be permanent solution of those difficulties. I hardly know whether sufficient stress has been placed on the condition of the coal industry, not only in the Maritimes but throughout the world.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? Would he, as one of the representatives of western Canada, be in favour of giving the Maritime provinces freight rates on a parity with those fixed under the Crowsnest pass agreement and subsequent legislation?


Charles Edward Bothwell: If the Maritime provinces were placed in the same position as western Canada in connection with their shipments, I would be quite willing to concede them the same freight rates. I believe, however, that there is possibly a considerable difference, so far as shipments are concerned, between the Maritimes and western Canada. I think it would be the duty of this commission to inquire into this very matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to ask what difference there is. Is it not a question of getting the products to the markets?


Charles Edward Bothwell: There is a difference, as I see it. In spite of the quotations and citations made in this House to show that the rates on shipments of western grain to 14011-194.J
the east occasion a loss to the railways, I believe-and in fact we know-that when great shipments of grain are moving east the railways are making their big profits, and I believe the grain coming from western Canada pays its way and leaves a reasonable return to the railways. If that commission finds, in studying Maritime conditions, that the freight rates from the Maritimes to central Canada should be reduced, I would say they should be reduced, and I believe there are two commissions inquiring into that matter at present.
I was speaking of the coal industry in Nova Scotia and the changing world conditions so far as coal is concerned. From the Daily Mail Year Book of 1926 I take the following statement, made by F. H. Rose, member of parliament for Aberdeen. He says:
It is difficult (to conceive a more serious and thought-compelling prospect for a great industrial nation, than the chronic decline in one of its major activities and this we have to face and deal with. The facts are clear enough. Before the war, unemployment in the sense that it now exists was an unknown element in colliery work. Men were temporarily out of work through defects in their working places, odd individuals were employed for various personal reasons, but a mass of colliers without employers and without jobs was unknown. To-day there must be at least as many chronically unemployed as shown in the table appended.
I will not read the table. He goes on to say:
It is not without serious thought that I submit the proposition that the coal trade is declining, and it will continue to decline as years go on, until it ceases to be major industry-here and elsewhere in the world. For the phenomena of a current transition are apparent all over the world. The rapid development of the motorship and the motor tractor are not entirely accountable for the conditions. The use of hydro-electricity by Italy and the Scandinavian nations has closed or is closing our middle coal markets (our distant markets were never very important). Our iron and steel manufactures are steadily passing from coke to electricity and their processes. Every effort of the modern scientist and inventor is directed now to economizing coal and the production of cheaper and cleaner and vastly more effective agencies for raising power, light and heat.
The effect of these innovations bears so heavily upon the industrial and social life of our people that an industrial writer may well be excused for emphasizing it. No reflective person can avoid the inevitable implications which arise from its consideration and the simple fact is that the world is using less coal to-day than it used yesterday and will be using less to-morrow than to-day. It is superfluous to stress the importance to our nation of a declining industry or its bearing upon the questions of unemployment and our social life.
Now, just what the situation is in the Maritimes so far as the coal industry is 'concerned, having regard to that portion of Mr. Rose's address which I have read, I do not know, but I am prepared to say,-and I believe I am speaking for western members generally when I make the statement-that
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

3(i60
when a commission brings in.a report setting out the remedies, as they see them, for the situation in the Maritimes, I believe that every western member will be prepared to support legislation that will ameliorate those conditions.


Mr. MAODOUGALL:: May I ask the hon. gentleman this question: If a commission investigating, for example, the coal industry in Nova Scotia should report back that the thing needed is increased protection, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to support that recommendation?
Mr. MGTGjEPEN: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I would not want to
answer that question just in the bald way m which it was put, but I would say this: So far as we in the west are concerned the protection on coal that is asked for by the Besco Bulletin will not affect us. There is no reason that I can see why I would not support protection of that kind if it was going to benefit the Maritimes.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. Will the hon. gentleman permit another question? He said he would support the finding of the commission as respects Maritime railway rates. He also said that the matter was before two commissions. If the two commissions report differently, which one will he support?


Charles Edward Bothwell: If my information is correct, the Board of Railway Commissioners are studying the question of freight rates. That will be a matter, as I understand it, of finding out whether the rates should be lowered or increased. That is the purpose so far as the railways are concerned. The other commission appointed to inquire into Maritime rights will be supposed to bring in some recommendation that will provide a solution of the difficulties in the Maritimes.


Arthur Meighen: Including railway rates. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman this question: If they differ in their reports, which one will he support?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think my right hon. friend is a lawyer. He must know that I am not able to say, before reading the report, which one I should be prepared to follow. You cannot come to a conclusion until you have before you the facts to base a conclusion upon.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member told us he would follow the commission. I just wanted to know which one he referred to.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think the right hon. gentleman is mistaken when he states I said I would follow the commission.


Arthur Meighen: On railway rates, yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I stated-at least I intended so to state-and if I made a misstatement I will correct it now-that when that commission brings in a report-


Arthur Meighen: Which one?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Either one-any commission which will give us a statement as to what should be done in older to remedy the conditions in the Maritimes-I believe the members from western Canada will be prepared to support legislation that will be in the interests of the Maritimes as shown by the report.
M;r. MEIGHEN: That is not the question.


Charles Edward Bothwell: In addition to the eoial industry there is the iron and steel industry in the Maritime provinces, and in this connection I have been much interested in reading the publication known as the Besco Bulletin. I have endeavoured by a study of that publication to find out, to some extent, what the trouble is in the Maritimes. I find from the issue of April 24th that they have four serious disappointments in the budget. They are as follows:
No. 1. Failure to adjust the specific duties on the basic forms of iron and steed so as to bring their ad valorem effect up to the general level of duties on other matenials.
No. 2. Failure to correct the mistake made last year when the duty on bituminous coal was Lowered three cents instead of being raised, and failure to make anthracite screenings dutiable at the same rate as soft coal with which it competes.
No. 3. Failure 'to take up the matter of dealing effectively with the importation of materials produced in countries whose currency is greatly depreciated, which was dropped in a moment of weakness last session, and which is now of greater urgency than it was a year ago.
No. 4. Persistent adherence to the pernicious policy of encouraging the [DOT]importation of finished goods by lowering the duties, and of partly finished materials by refunding the duties specified in the customs tariff.
"Disappointment No. 2," dealing with the duty on bituminous coal, has to do with the very question which was raised by my hon. friend optposite a short time ago. That is one of the "disappointments", apparently, in so far as Besco is concerned, that we hope to have remedied through the commission on Maritime rights.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
omitting No. 1.


Charles Edward Bothwell: No, I have not omitted it.

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell


Arthur Meighen: If the commission recommends a higher duty on basic iron and steel, will the hon. member support it?


Charles Edward Bothwell: It may be necessary to have lower duties instead of higher.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to answer whether 'he will be prepared to support them if the report is in favour of higher duties?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think I will answer
my right hon. friend when I have seen the report made by the commission. Now so far as ''disappointments" No. 1 and No. 4 are concerned, they can be dealt with in a general way together. They both refer, to some extent, to the same subject.
The other night the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) spent some time in quoting figures in connection with the iron and steel industry and endeavoured to show that we are importing a tremendous amount of goods that we should produce at home. From the manner in which he quoted these statistics he left the impression on the House that in the year 1925 we had imported a good deal more of these particular commodities than in any previous year which he mentioned. Now, I read from the same document that the hon. member for East Algoma quoted from. This is the summary of the trade of Canada for the twelve months' periods ending December 1923, 1924 and 1925. I am taking the figures in the order in which he gave them. He gave the figures for the year 1925, and started with plate glass. Our imports of plate glass in 1925 were just as he stated. The figures are:
Year	Importation	Amount1923	Plate glass	$4,274,5091924	Plate glass	3,318,7901925	Plate glass	3,990,613
The next item was hats and caps. We did increase our importations there a little between 1923 and 1925-from $2,899,627 to $2,951,753. Then in boots and shoes we increased our importations from $1,472,407 in 1923 to $1,670,054 in 1925. Then pigs, ingots, and so on-coming down to our iron-we imported $2,450,605 worth in 1923 and $1,551,783 in 1925. Rolling mill products, 1923, $50,866,319; 1925, $38,006,810. Then tubes, pipes and fittings, a reduction from $4,146,738 to $3,142,701. Then in wires there was a reduction from $4,061,777 in 1923 to $2,648,403 in 1925. I might go through all these items which the hon. member mentioned. The figures are given on page 4 of the publication from which my hon. friend read, I refer only to those I have cited in order to show that while the hon. member endeavoured to convince us
that our importations were increasing tremendously from year to year, the fact is that the importation of the particular commodities which he mentioned has been decreasing from year to year. Now that does not appear as if the reduction in the tariff has had the effect of ruining the iron and steel industry, or as if it were necessary for the government in its budget this year to bring in any legislation in order to meet what they call " disappointments " Nos. 1 and 4. We find the same result in the case of the importations and exportations of farm implements and other commodities, the figures in respect to which are all set out in that pamphlet prepared by the Bureau of Statistics.
Then "disappointment No. 3" was the alleged " failure to take up the matter of dealing effectively with the importation of materials produced in countries whose currency is greatly depreciated, which was dropped in a moment of weakness last session, and which is now of greater urgency than it was a year ago." In the same publication you can find what the importations were from these countries whose currency is depreciated; both imports and exports are given on page 2. The figures are as follows:
Belgium-	Imports	Exports1923	
*5,449,962	*13,328,2481925	
6,502,702	22,219,453
Germany-*
1923	
4.962,180	13,773,2911925	
9,028,936	31,087,709


James Dew Chaplin: We did not have a treaty with Germany.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am speaking in reference to "disappointment No. 3," as got out by Besco, dealing with a country with depreciated currency. If it is alleged that our trade with any country with depreciated currency ha3 been affected by reason of a trade treaty, some one else can deal with that. The table continues:
Russia- .	Imports	Exports1923	
$338,907	$	132,9091925	
2.730	14,316,002
In respect to other foreign countries-and some of the other countries must also have depreciated currency-we find the following figures:
Other foreign countries- Imports Exports
1923	
*24,679,703	*20,615,4861925	
20,777,442	28,734,025
From these figures, in connection with both imports and exports, it does not appear that the depreciated currency of those countries has had any bad effect on the trade of Canada, or that we need any legislation to protect our-

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
selves against ithe product of countries which have a depreciated currency.
I want to touch for a moment or two on the question of the tariff on automobiles. I think every member who has spoken on the budget has dealt with this subject. We have had deputations appear here and the matter has been presented in various ways from both sides of the House. The same question was before the House last year, and I notice that after the debate in the House a year ago the resolution was defeated by only nineteen votes. That would appear to me to be a pretty fair intimation to the automobile manufacturers in Canada that some legislation would be passed this session. Further than that, I think practically every newspaper in Canada has carried requests for months past in connection with the reduction in the tariff on automobiles. During the darly days of this session a resolution by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) was placed on the order paper, showing that he intended to ask for a reduction of the duty on automobiles. We know too that a good deal of lobbying was being done around this House by the automobile interests and speeches of various kinds were, made in this House in the interest of the automobile industry. It strikes me as most peculiar that if it is necessary that the automobile tariff should remain where -it was, no single individual either in this House or in the lobby or anywhere else seems to be able to give us a concrete instance of any industry that would suffer by a reduction in the tariff if it were made. So far as I have been able to find out, no single concrete case has been put ou record to show that any factory, whether having to do with parts or automobiles, would have to close its doors by reason of a change in the tariff. Surely if the experts that have been able to get out books such as we have received from the automobile industry knew that a reduction in the tariff was going to ruin their industry, they would have been able to give us manufacturing costs and facts showing that such a reduction could not safely be made.
But it has been left for Mr. Ford to make his statement that it is quite in order to bring about the reduction, and that statement has not been met by any other manufacturer in Canada so far as I have been able to gather.
I presume every hon. member has received a copy of the book that has been got out by the Ford interests, because we have had it quoted at different times. It would appear from that book that the people of Canada have given the automobile manufacturers fairly good protection. Mr. Ford in the interview that was put on Hansard by the hon.
[Mr Bothwell.]
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) stated that in his plant in Canada they use at least S5 per cent of Canadian material. He says in this book of his, and also in the interview that was read by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that the cost of manufacture is about equally divided between wages and material; that is, that wages and material cost about the same. This book of his says that wages paid out in 1925 amounted to $10,138,927. Eighty-five per cent of his product is procured in Canada. If he takes the 15 per cent from the United States, that would mean on his own figures that he would bring in approximately $1,520,838. His production cost, according to the same book on page 6, is given as $19,329,745, being spent for production material, building construction, machinery equipment, supplies, insurance, advertising and other services. He has the money bags appear at the bottom of the picture showing that the company pay to the government $2,962,234.


Mr. GOTT:: Whom does my hon. friend
mean by "he?"


Charles Edward Bothwell: I should have said the Ford Company instead of "he."


Eccles James Gott: I thought the hon. member
meant Henry Ford.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That $2,962,334 is used to pay Dominion income tax, customs duties, sales tax on purchases, provincial and municipal taxes, Canadian Government Merchant Marine and Canadian National Railways-as shown in his own publication.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would it not be more
correct to say that the purchaser of the automobile pays those taxes?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am coming to that.
Those figures Show that the cost of manufacturing in the Ford plant at Ford, Ontario, last year amounted to $33,951,844. He says that 47 per cent is exported. The sales amount to $25,714,166. The value of his product would be approximately $48,517,294, showing a surplus 'there of $14,565,450. How much of that goes in paying commissions and one thing or another I do not know, but from their own book there is apparently that amount of profit on an investment of $31,275,530.
The hon. member for Assiniboia read an interview with Henry Ford in connection with this matter. There is a little more of that conversation that I want to put on record. The interviewer continues:
"Mr. Ford/' I began-, "you have -made two admissions that are very interesting. I wonder if you really wish them to be published?"

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
"You may write anything I have said," he answered. W'hat are the things I've said?"
"You've admitted that tariff protection encourages indolence in manufacturing and that tariff reduction must produce greater efficiency and economy in your Canadian plant?" "That is true " he said. "What's the other?"	_
"You've admitted that Ford cars have been getting a higher price than necessary in Canada." "As part of the general tariff situation in Canada-Yes.	It
works that way with every commodity and under every tariff. Free trade and free competition are the only healthy conditions," he repeated.
"I would like to ask you about another point which disturbs us in Canada." "Go ahead," said Mr. Ford.
"There is some belief that tariff reduction may mean withdrawal of American branches in Canada and that all this business will now be placed in United States factories." "I don't know anything about the other fellows," said Mr. Ford briskly. "I only know about our business. It is not that way with us.
How Canadian Company Started "Did you establish your plant in Canada because of the tariff?" "No. I didn't establish it at all. It happened this way. Mr. McGregor (referring to the late vice-.president and general manager of the Ford Company of Canada) was running a buggy works over at Windsor. He came across the river to me one day, about twenty years or so ago, and said: 'Look here, my buggy business is going to pass. I'd like to make your cars in Canada.'
"I'd never seen him before but I liked his looks and said:	'AH right, I'm interested in that sort of
thing. Three months later McGregor opened the plant.
I remember that conversation. We were standing in the alley bock of our first plant over on Mack avenue. That's how the Canadian company started.
I never thought anything about the tariff. I never have in starting a plant."
"What about Manchester?" I asked. "I started the plant in Manchester," said Mr. Ford, "to put industry into the country. Tariff had nothing to do with it. All our plants have been located to serve *different localities, like the twenty or more we have in the United States. I would want to manufacture in Canada for the same reason,"
"And you believe the tariff is not a factor in locating .in Canada" "It is not with me," replied Mr. Ford.	*	.	.
Mr. Ford was silent .for a moment, thinking. The stockholder," he said at last, "is the only person who may lose in the tariff reduction, and he's had enough anyway. We shouldn't worry about stockholders. They don't deserve profits; they don't earn."


Eccles James Gott: Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that in the same edition of the Border Cities Star from which he has just quoted, Mr. Henry Ford denied being president of the Ford Motor Works of Canada?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I do not care whether he is president of the Ford Motor Works or not. We know Ford is a manufacturer of automobiles; that he has been in this business since the Ford plants were started, and that he has an interest in the Ford plant in Ontario. I presume he can speak with authority as to how the plant there was established.


Eccles James Gott: It is remarkable that he should be president of an institution of this size and at the same time not be aware of the fact. I would discount his whole interview.
Mr. BOTHWELL; That is the second interview with Mr. Ford. If my hon. friend wants the name of the writer of the article I will give it to him.


Eccles James Gott: I have them all.


Charles Edward Bothwell: He can verify it if he likes. It is an article compiled by Charles Vining. It is probably only fair to state in connection with this Ford industry that it may be an exceptional kind of automobile plant. But the other plants that are manufacturing in Canada are making automobiles with wheels, rubber tires and equipment to some extent similar to that used in the making of Ford cars. There is of course a difference. There are a number of different cars made in Canada, and other plants may have to import certain parts. But if Henry Ford is correct, as we believe he is, in the statement that wages in Canada are no higher than they are in the United States, and we have the raw material in this country just as they have across the line, then if the other manufacturing concerns in Canada are not able to produce at a profit with the protection that is still afforded them after the reduction has been made, they must be poorly organized or poorly managed. There must be inefficiency somewhere. If the Ford manufacturing concern, getting at least 85 per cent of its raw material in Canada, is able to compete with the Ford companies in the United States, then the other automobile factories here should be able to do the same with a protective tariff of 20 per cent.


Eccles James Gott: Do you call the Ford an automobile?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, my hon. friend may live so near the border that he has some slang expression descriptive of it.
Now I want to touch for a moment on the reduction in income tax, and in dealing with this question I desire to read just a brief extract from an address delivered in England by the Right Hon. Lord Decies, D.S.O., director of the Income Taxpayers' Society. The address is reported in the Daily Mail Yearbook at page 20, and reads in part:
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Hon Winston Churchill, in his biography of his father, Lord Randolph Churchill (also a Chancellor of the Exchequer) says:	"He (Lord Randolph) desired
especially to diminish those taxes which fell upon the lower middle class. He laboured to transfer the burdens, so far as possible, from comforts to luxuries, and from necessaries to pleasures. He applied much more closely than his .predecessors that fundamental principle of democratic finance-the adjusting of taxation to the citzen's ability to pay." There can be
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell