1926-05-06

[Stage Direction]
House of
Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 6, 1926

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALFRED STORK (Skeena) presented the first report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries as follows:
Your committee recommends that it be authorized to have its proceedings and such evidence as may be taken printed from day to day or as may be required for use of the members of the committee and of the House and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion for the
adoption of this report must be preceded by notice.



FUEL SUPPLY


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the special committee appointed on Monday, March 15 to investigate our present sources of supply of anthracite and bituminous coal, the dependability of such sources, and other matters in relation thereto be composed of the following members namely: Messieurs Armstrong (Lambton), Bury, Campbell, Flemming, Garland (Bow River), Gershaw, Howden, Lapierre, MacDonald (Cape Breton South), McLean (Melfort), Neill and Nicholson with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: May I point out to the government that a committee similar to that now proposed was appointed in the session of 1923 with precisely the same powers and for the performance of the same functions. That committee went into the subject exhaustively, taking evidence covering practically several hundred pages; before it appeared the head officials of both railways in Canada. Now, I do not believe that the appointment of any special committee at this date, entering as we are upon the fifth month of the session, will get us anywhere on the coal question. The facts are all well known, and the government is perfectly aware that the matter is solely a question of transportation. The committee appointed in 1923 made recommendations looking to a national fuel supply and although the government accepted those recommendations, they failed to put them into effect.
In view of the strike in England and Wales to-day there will be a fuel famine during the coming fall and winter such as has never been experienced before. The onus for a proper fuel supply in this country rests not upon any committee or commission, but entirely upon the government of the day. The best part of the Canadian merchant marine, the vessels that could sail the lakes, this government has sold, and now the country expects that the national railways shall be mobilized to solve this problem. When the matter was discussed 'by the previous committee it was admitted that the $7 rate would be satisfactory and take care of all overhead. Why has not the Prime Minister accepted that rate? He has referred this important matter to the decision of the railway commission, so that we shall receive no report upon it before August next when it wil be too late to get a supply of fuel. The Montreal Board of Trade, I may point out, realizing the gravity of the present strike situation in Great Britain, predicts a coal famine and economic newspapers and banking journals declare that there is likelihood of another strike taking place in the United States before the summer comes. Now, why refer this question to a committee? What object can be served by such a reference? The object of the committee as stated in the Prime Minister's motion is to investigate our present sources of supply of anthracite and bituminous coal and the dependability of such sources. It seems to me that if the committee were to investigate the dependability of the present government to solve this problem it might be more to the point. The government, in my opinion, are depending altogether too much upon Sir Henry Thornton and appear to be absolutely incapable of taking the initiative themselves. All the evidence that was given before the special committee appointed a couple of years ago, evidence contained in several hundred pages, shows quite clearly that this is purely and simply a transportation question. Sir Henry Thornton's officials and his experts who were examined before that committee were quite agreeable to the $7 rate but the government have refused to act upon the recommendations of that committee. I repeat, they are allowing Sir Henry Thornton to usurp

Fuel Supply

their powers and to exercise the functions which they should discharge themselves. Had I received anything like reasonable support when I discussed this question before something might have been done.
Now there is no necessity whatever for a committee to inquire into the sources of supply in Canada, for we all know what they are. The government do not need any advice at all upon that subject. I would urge the deputy leader of the House from Brandon (Mr. Forke) and the vice-regent from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to try if possible to get the government moving in this matter and to shoulder the responsibility that properly belongs to them. There is no reason why the country should suffer because of inaction on the part of the government. The matter has now been made a football for long enough. One commission, the railway commission, failed to act on its own volition until instructed by parliament, and their report will not be in until midsummer and will be of little or no value to end or solve the question. The appointment of a committee only gives the government a chance to shelve its responsibility with regard to a situation that will become very acute next winter. The resolution just mentions sources of supply and says nothing at all about Alberta, the Mari-times or transportation.
As I said on March 15 last, in the debate of 1924, a vote was taken and my resolution for a national coal supply was adopted.
Where are we going to be next fall if the coal strike in England continues for six months or a year; are we going to be frozen? On the government of the day. Mr. Speaker, as long as they are the government, is the responsibility for finding a solution of this question. I do urge on the government that this industry is in such a critical condition to-day in the Maritimes and in the west that we should adopt the principle of subventions, bonuses and subsidies, a good protectionist doctrine, and put the industry on its feet. While I have the utmost regard for the mover of the resolution. I fear its adoption would mean further delay, and the only tangible result would be the presentation and filing of another report to supplement these two reports that I hold in my hand. Sir Henry Thornton agreed to a seven dollar rate, but later he said conditions had changed and he withdrew that rate. To hear him making his pronouncements on railway matters, you would think he was superior to the railway commission and even to parliament. Again. Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to take immediate action so that this very serious 
situation may be dealt with in time to save the people of Canada, particularly those residing in the central provinces, from all the misery and discomfort that must inevitably follow another shortage of fuel next winter.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) always seeks an opportunity to make a speech when the question of coal comes before this House.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: He needs to.


Charles A. Stewart: Does he?
I have not noticed recently anything serious in the coal situation, with all respect to my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton). What is proposed to be investigated by this committee is not the situation that was dealt with by the committee of which my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest has just spoken. There is no need to investigate sources of supply; we all know where these are available. But some members of this House, particularly those from the province of Ontario are interested in securing coal from the west, and naturally hon. members from Alberta desire to supply the fuel necessities of Ontario from the coal mines of their province. To bring this about, it was advocated by some of our Ontario members that transportation could be reversed on the Great Lakes; in other words, that the coal be brought down to Fort William, and there transhipped to bottoms which would carry the coal to the lake ports from which in turn it could be distributed to the southeastern portion of this province. That phase of the subject was- not investigated thoroughly by the previous committee. I do not see any advantage in investigating the whole problem of coal transportation, because that has been already very fully gone into and the results, as my hon. friend stated, are contained in the volume he held in his hand. But it is felt by some members who are interested in this matter that they can prove the practicability of cheapening transportation costs on Alberta coal by transhipping it at Fort William as I have already mentioned. The work of this committee will not interfere in the slightest degree with the movement of coal to supply next winter's requirements of the central' provinces. We are well aware of what the strike in Great Britain may mean to our fuel situation, but we are chiefly interested in supplying the central provinces with our own coal, and the government is quite aliva-to the whole problem.

Fuel Supply


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly agree with the minister that this question was not discussed by the former committee; 1 cannot recall any phase of the coal situation that was not taken into account by that committee, and I think he will find from the reports that this and all other features of the coal problem were considered. The minister does not in this parliament, nor did he in the former parliament, seem to be seized with the seriousness of the situation. Let me draw your attention to these facts, Mr. Speaker. On January 22 last the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) brought to the attention of the minister what he considered to be a very serious situation, and on January 25 the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) also called the attention of the minister to a similar condition. On that occasion the minister replied:
There may be a serious emergency so far as the miners of Alberta are concerned, but at the moment there is no emergency at this end.
At that very time the situation was serious in eastern Ontario. Only two months before that the minister must have been aware of the emergent conditions, because he is reported in a Canadian Press despatch from Ottawa, dated December 28, under the heading, "Hon. Charles Stewart warns the public of possible acute situation," as follows:
Hon. Charles Stewart in an interview here strongly recommends householders "to immediately protect themselves by laying in supplies of whatever fuel they can obtain at present prices."
And so on. So at that time there was a serious fuel situation according to the minister; but on January 25 he stated there was no emergency at this end, although at that time there was an alarming situation. The minister seems to be imbued with the same spirit to-day in dealing with this subject: he is going to wait until this committee reports, just as he did before-


Charles A. Stewart: May I interject? I never said anything of the kind.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, the
situation is so serious to-day that the government should assume full responsibility. This government has achieved an unenviable reputation for appointing committees and commissions of one kind and another which have never accomplished anything. We had a pulp-wood commission appointed by the leader of this government, and what did they do? They went gypsying in a modern way, enjoying a trip in excellent cars, Pullmans and so on, until the Finance minister had to send out a message calling them home, removing them
14011-200^
from the job and the payroll. 1 cannot see that anything will be accomplished by this committee; the matter is so serious to-day that the government should set themselves to its settlement, and deal with it and take the responsibility.
Mr. MIACKEiNZIE KING: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this to close the debate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the mover
speaks the debate is closed, but if it is quite clear that such will not be the case, it is all right.


Hewitt Bostock: What is the point?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The right hon. Prime Minister rose to speak, and I pointed out that that would close the debate, as he had made the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wished to say a word in explanation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite
content to have the hon. gentleman speak on the understanding that the debate is not thereby closed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I merely wish to make an explanation. So far as the government are concerned we are simply seeking to meet the wish of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), who expressed the desire that this committee be appointed. In order to meet the wish of the hon. member the government agreed to appoint a committee, but if hon. gentlemen opposite think such a committee would serve no purpose, we are quite prepared to withdraw the motion.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: As this matter is of the greatest importance to the province of Nova Scotia, from which I come, and which province has the greatest developed coal resources in the whole Dominion, I might point out that in the composition of this committee Nova Scotia has no representation. The province of New Brunswick, which has comparatively small coal resources, is represented; the province of AJberta is also represented, and I would like to ask why there is no representative on that committee from the province of Nova Scotia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
has asked why there is no representative of Nova Scotia on that committee. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the whips of the different parties were requested to hand in the names of those members whom they wished to serve on that committee. As most
Fuel. Supply

of the hon. members from Nova Seotia happen to be on the opposite side of the House, the names of Nova Scotia members would be handed in from his own side of the House. I am informed that there is one representative of Nova Scotia on that committee, in the person of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald).


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I desire to add a very few words to what has already been said with regard to this matter On March 15 the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) moved a resolution which was seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), asking that attention of the House be given to the development of the coal resources of Canada and the delivery of this product at the lowest cost, in order to meet the urgent need for this fuel for manufacturing and domestic uses, and that a committee be appointed for this purpose. In consequence of that resolution the Prime Minister has to-day moved that the names of those who compose that committee be Messieurs Armstrong, Bury, Campbell and so on. May I point out that the purposes alleged in this motion are somewhat different from those set out in the motion proposed by the hon. member for East Lambton. The special committee named in this motion is to investigate our present sources of supply of anthracite and bituminous coal, the dependability of such sources, whether the prices are fair and reasonable, and other matters in relation thereto. The proper course to pursue in regard to the motion would be to recognize the fact that in 1923 a committee investigating this question made a report, and I would suggest that the present committee take up the work where it was left off in 1923, in order that there may be no duplication or unnecessary expenditure of public money with respect to this matter.
Might I also point out that the report made on that occasion was very, very definite. The report is printed on pages S and 9 of the Journals of the House, No. 6, Mines and Minerals, and the reference to that committee dealt not only with the question of mines and minerals in a general way, but also with the coal supply in a very definite way, particularly with respect to our dependence upon the United States. I would suggest that following , the preparation of that report, and the hearing of witnesses at considerable expense, this new committee should not duplicate that effort. All that need be done is to amend the motion in such a way as to make it clear that the committee is to report upon the matter from the report of the last

committee up to date, or in other words dealing largely with the question of transportation. It must be common ground with every member of this House that we have already established beyond question our sources of coal supply. We know what they are, in a general way, and further than that, we know in a particular way in what provinces they are and their extent, and the particular difficulty under which we labour at the present moment is the cost of transportation.
In that committee this matter was deals with at some length and the government was recommended to take certain definite action. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) has complained, and it seems to me very properly, that the government has failed to carry out those recommendations. I would suggest that this examination be held for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of transporting coal from the great coal regions of Alberta to central Canada, and from the Maritime provinces to Montreal and other cities of eastern Canada. That is the real difficulty confronting us. It is not necessary to waste time determining the extent of our coal resources , we need not waste time ascertaining whether or not the fuel is good, because its quality has already been established, and it has largely been used in Ontario during the past season.
In this regard, despite what has been said by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), I should like to place on record the great sense of obligation the people in Alberta have to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). In season and out of season he has urged the desirability of the use of Alberta coal by the citizens of Ontario, and most of the people of Alberta realize that no better friend of the development of the coal areas of Alberta can be found anywhere than in the person of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. I do deprecate this matter being made a political football, and being treated purely as a matter of politics. This country is confronted with what may become a very serious situation with regard to fuel during the coming winter. If, peradventure, there should be difficulty in the mining of coal in the United States, added to the difficulties now prevailing in Great Britain, I am sure every member of this House would feel that he had neglected some part of his duty if he did not, at this time, do everything in his power to assist in bringing to light every possible suggestion whereby the coal of Alberta may be used in Ontario during the coming winter.

Fuel Supply
I am divulging no secret when I say that large financial interests in England are already prepared to put substantial sums of money into Alberta for the purpose of developing the coal areas there. The largest group engaged in coal mining in Great Britain are prepared to invest this money, which means that one question which should engage the attention of this committee, apart from those matters particularly raised by the hon. member for Lambton, must be the cost of transportation. That is the one problem concerning the Canadian people at this time, and if my right hon. friend-*


Charles A. Stewart: Would it
not be wise to add the cost of distribution as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, and if my right hon. friend would be good enough to accept the suggestion in the spirit in which it is made, he might recast his motion, not for the purpose of making it conform to any suggestion of mine, but to harmonize it more with the report made in 1923, and with the motion of the hon. member for East Lambton, whereby a very great deal of good would be accomplished. We would not waste time, we would not duplicate effort, and may I also suggest that when it is being done, perhaps it would expedite matters if the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) were appointed to that committee.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise merely in connection with a remark passed between myself and the minister when be was speaking in the first instance. I pointed out to him that I thought there was very great occasion for the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) to talk on this subject whenever he could get an opportunity. He has to; all of us ought to, if for no other reason than the reason of endeavouring to get some action some time out of this government. That of itself is quite sufficient justification. If we could get into the heads . of this government a better sense of their responsibilities to-day, it would be a grand thing if we went on talking even for a considerable time. I refer to what the right hon. the Prime Minister says. After all, he says, if you do not want this I do not want it, and I will take it back. We are only doing this, he says in effect, because you want it. That is not what we want, Mr. Speaker. We want coal for the people of this country. We want the
Fuel Supply

government to take hold of this matter and to bring down and introduce such measures and such resolutions as they believe in themselves, such measures as will get us coal, not merely resolutions which are introduced for the purpose of being withdrawn, resolutions which they do not believe in unless we say Amen to them.
We have had a delay now since the 15th of March; nothing has been done since that date, and what we would deprecate more than anything else is a further shelving of this question. If the government will make use of this committee, and if the committee will get busy at once and the government will put into effect their recommendations at this session of the House, the committee will be a very good thing, but if the government uses this committee as they have used committees in the past simply for the purpose of delay and shelving a question, then indeed it is a bad thing for the householders of the province of Ontario and of the province of Quebec, and for the miners of Alberta and Nova Scotia, that this motion is introduced.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Having spoken in support of the resolution of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) when this question was up before, I desire to make an observation or two.
The committee does not need to study the problem of disposing of Nova Scotia coal in the central provinces, for I believe that every hon. member of this House has come to one conclusion, that Nova Scotia coal as a domestic fuel can be successfully used in the ceniral provinces only by one method, and that is by the establishing of coking plants at centres in Ontario and Quebec. I believe that the government can take action on that point without a committee.
Secondly, with regard to Alberta coal, there are just two problems. The first problem is the cost of mining the coal. Hon. members from Alberta have admitted that over-production, too many mines and lack of full time work for the miners, are causing the cost of Alberta coal to be higher than it should be. That question will have to be in some way regulated, or else the cost of Alberta coal will be too high to the users in Ontario and Quebec.
The second problem is whether Alberta coal of a grade that will meet the competition of American coal can be brought to the central provinces without the imposition of a duty against anthracite. That becomes a question of fiscal policy for the government.
The hon. member for East Lambton is quite right in what he says as to the method of handfSir Henry Drayton.]
ling coal. I know something of the cost of lake transportation, but all grades of Alberta coal cannot be handled by boat at Fort William, thence to Ontario ports, and transhipped by rail to Ontario points. The scheme is feasible, but it is feasible only with certain grades of Alberta coal, and there comes in the question whether you are going to ask domestic users in Ontario to take all grades of Alberta coal when some grades will so slack in handling as to be unsuitable.
My feeling is that this committee should confine itself entirely to the control of the supply of Alberta coal, the cost of transportation, and the methods of handling. If the supply of Alberta coal is regulated in such a way that the better grades which can be handled without Slacking will be able to be brought east, I believe, as I said in a former speech, that the railways should make more money on a $4 rate to Fort William than on a $7 rate right through to Toronto. The better grades can be handled from Fort William for $1 a ton to all ports on lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario. That policy is one which I believe the government can adopt, and I have myself pressed the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to take up that matter at once. It means the establishing of certain docks at lake ports to handle this coal; but it also means control of the supply in Alberta.
In this regard may I say: A great many men entertain fear of the word "nationalization". I do not. We have demonstrated in Canada that the attitude of the Canadian public towards a nationally owned project is the attitude of good citizens. We have not had strikes on our national railways and we have not had trouble with those railways; we have had success. The province of Ontario has further demonstrated that an intelligent people can have a public utility and administer it well. I do not believe that the province of Alberta is going to get one hundred per cent efficiency out of its coal mining so long as new coal mines are being opened up indiscriminately. I also believe that the province of Ontario is going to pay too high a price for Alberta coal and will receive some low grades, without some control. Every additional thousand tons of coal ordered may mean the opening up of some new mine and a consequent increase in competition. I point out to the Minister of the Interior that the greatest problem he has to face in connection with marketing Alberta coal in Ontario is the controlling of the supply. If the best mines only are operated in such a way that the miners will get full pay the cost will be kept down. If that can be

Peace River Election
done I believe that Alberta coal can be transported to Ontario, and we can make a great national asset out of the coal we have in that province. I say to the Minister of the Interior again, that the problem of transporting Alberta coal is not a difficult one. The con-tiol of the mines in Alberta is a difficult matter. On that point the government must take its stand and it does not need a committee to supply it with the necessary evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: I am now ready to give my ruling on the point of order raised on Tuesday.
A petition has been presented to the House by James Arthur Collins praying that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that Donald Macbeth Kennedy, of Waterhole, province of Alberta, was not duly elected and returned at the election held 29th of October, 1925; that his return is void; and that he the petitioner be declared duly elected and is entitled to be returned as the member for the electoral district of Peace River, in the House of Commons of Canada.
On the report of the Clerk of Petitions the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King raised a point of order. . He contends that said petition cannot be properly received by the House of Commons because the Peace River election has been protested and is still before the Supreme Court of Alberta, and that the parliament of Canada, by the Controverted Elections Act passed in 1873, which is now found in Ch. 7, R.S.C., 1906, has transferred to courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the election of its members.
A debate arising thereon, many rulings, precedents and authorities were cited on both sides of the House. The question is a very important one, and I have given its solution my most earnest consideration.
I have looked .into the cases cited and I find that they do not all apply to this petition.
In the Queen's, N.B., case, the proceedings did not originate by a petition. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery was ordered on the 14th of April, 1887, to attend on the next day with the return of the election, poll-books and other documents. He attended in accordance thereto on the next day. A motion was made by Mr. Skinner on April
28th, 1887, that the clerk of the crown amend his return by erasing the name of Mr. Baird and substituting that of Mr. King as the duly elected member for the constituency; and on amendment by Mr. Thompson the return and papers were referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections.
The same procedure was followed in the Brockville and West Huron cases. A motion was passed on the 6th of July, 1899, ordering the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to attend at the table with all poll-books, voters' lists and other documents transmitted to him by the respective returning officers. He was in attendance on the next day and produced the papers. On motion of Mr.-now Sir-R. L. Borden, these papers were referred to the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections.
In the Nipissing case, Mr. Northrup moved on the 24th of April, 1901, in amendment to the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for Supply, that the conduct of the returning officer be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections. This amendment was voted down at the same sitting on a division of 51 to 94.
In the Coderre case, no petition was presented. Mr. Gauthier rose on a question of privilege and moved on the 17th of March, 1913, that certain allegations against the Secretary of State be referred to the standing committee on Privileges and Elections. The motion was defeated on a division of 53 to 87.
The only two cases which originated in the House by way of petitions are those of Gaspe and Richelieu. In the former, which came up in 1874, the petitioner, Horatio Le Boutillier, asked that the return for the election be amended by substituting his name for that of Louis George Harper, the sitting member. Speaker Anglin did not allow the petition to be received.
In the Richelieu case, Speaker Blanchet rendered a similar decision, supplementing it with the following remarks:
If the petition should be received it would then be competent for any member to move that it be referred to a committee; and if such a motion were agreed to, the various allegations in the petition would constitute the order of reference by which the committee would be governed in its proceedings. In this way, a door would be opened to the indiscriminate reception of petitions attacking generally the return of members, though not governed by any of those formalities necessary even in those times when the House possessed full jurisdiction over controverted elections. To grant the prayer of the petition, would be to violate the general principle which lies at the basis of all the legislation adopted by the English parliament since 1868, and by the Canadian parliament since 1873, that the court alone should adjudicate on matters of controverted elections.

Peace River Election
Rule 80 has been cited by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as giving the House sufficient authority to take up this petition but this rule is nugatory today as it was superseded by the Controverted Elections Act which has been on the statute book since 1874. It has nothing to do with the different laws which fully provide for the trial and punishment of corrupt practices at elections; it only reiterates the House's privilege to deal with offences of bribery and corruption after they have been proved before the competent courts.
That parliament, in Canada, as well as in Great Britain, has consented to transfer the exercise of some of its privileges to special courts constituted by law, there can be no doubt. There is very little difference between the English and the Canadian Controverted Elections law; and May, 13th edition, page 642, after dealing with the organization of the election tribunals, says:
Petitions complaining of undue elections and returns are presented to these courts instead of the House of Commons, as formerly-the House has no cognizance of these proceedings until their termination; the judges are also to report whether any corrupt practices have been committed with the knowledge and consent of any candidate.
The act provides here as well as in Great Britain that when the election trial is over, the judges shall make a report in writing to the Speaker showing that any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate; the names of the guilty parties; whether corrupt practices have extensively prevailed; whether the inquiry has been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition and whether further inquiry is desirable.
Nothing could more clearly show that the House has transferred to these courts the functions formerly performed, by its own committees than the following comment of May at page 643:
All such certificates and reports are communicated to the House by the Speaker, and are treated like the report of election committees under the former system. They are entered in the journals; and orders are made for carrying the determination of the judges into execution. A report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed is equivalent to the like report from an election committee for futher enquiry into such corrupt practices.
I now come to the right of petition alluded to during the debate. Our rule 75 deals with the procedure to be followed as regards petitions. Subsection 8 provides that:
Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and, which, according to the rules or practice, of the House, can be received shall then be deemed to be permitted to be read and received.
I Mr. Speaker.]
Mark these words, "can be received." It is well to bear in mind the wording of this rule. Does it not clearly indicate that whilst the right of petitioning may be acknowledged as a fundamental princi-4 p.m. pie of the constitution, yet it is limited? The petition can be received if it does not contain matter in breach of the privileges of the House. To be received it must conform to its rules and practice.
In the course of the debate, great stress was laid on the immemorial right of every British subject to petition parliament. Red-lich, volume 2, page 239, refers to that time honoured usage in the following words:
The venerable institution of petition, the oldest of all parliamentary forms, the fertile seed of all the proceedings of the House of Commons, has but little life at the present day. It is, no doubt, the birthright of every British subject to address petitions to the House of Commons and the House of Lords as it was fifty years ago, and thousands of petitions are annually sent to the House of Commons. Thanks, however, to the ample development of courts of justice and administrative bodies, the value of petition as a protection against denials of right has disappeared.
May, page 608 observes that:
Before the constitution of parliament had assumed its present form, and while its judicial and legislative functions were ill-defined, petitions were presented to the crown and to the great councils of the realm for the redress of those grievances which were beyond the jurisdiction of the common law.
In the present case, the judicial function is certainly well defined and nobody will contend that the grievance is beyond the court's jurisdiction.
This petition prays that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that Mr. Kennedy was not duly elected and returned at the election held on the 29th of October, 1925, that his return was and is void, and that it may be declared that the petitioner was duly elected at the said election, and is entitled to be returned as the member elected to represent the electoral district of Peace River in the House of Commons of Canada. A prayer of this character is of far-reaching importance, and the reception of such a petition requires careful consideration and examination of precedents before it is entertained or received by the House.
If this petition merely asked the House to deal with complaints against an official of the House, such as a deputy returning officer, for violation of his duty under the law, such as fraud and manipulation of ballots and other corrupt practices, or if it asked for the punishment of such an officer, the right of parliament to receive such a petition and apply the remedy is undoubted. The House

Peace River Election
has always the power to inquire into the conduct of its own returning officers and to prevent them from wrong doing. (Bourinot, page 134). This has been unquestioned since 20th March, 1875, when both Sir John A. Macdonald and Hon. Edward Blake agreed that the House had not abandoned its right to control, censure and, if need be, punish returning and deputy returning officers. This was also the view held by Sir Louis Davies, Hansard, 1899, volume II, page 5308.
The result of the precedents cited is summed up by our old standard authority, Bourinot, 4th Edition, pages 133-134, where he states:
Among the conclusions reached from a review of the cases cited in the controversies one may be stated, namely, that the strong sense of parliamentary and public opinion is opposed to any return to the old system of parliament interefering in the trial of election questions, although it continues to retain all the powers not expressly, or by fair interference, entrusted to the courts. The provisions of the statutes on controverted elections and kindred matters do not supersede the jurisdiction of the House in questions affecting the seats of its own members not arising out of controverted elections. The House is, in fact, bound to take notice of any legal disability affecting its members and to issue writs for election to fill the places of members adjudged to be incapable of sitting without waiting for the return to be questioned by persons outside of parliament; that the House has always the power to enquire into the conduct of its own returning officers and to prevent them from wrong doing. Of course it will proceed cautiously in any case that might be more satisfactorily settled in the courts, though it is always regular to receive petitions setting forth grievances and praying for a remedy, provided they do not question the return of the member within the meaning of the Controverted Elections Act.
Before the passage of the Controverted Elections Act, the House by the Privileges and Elections committee tried all election petitions, the practice had been in force for many years, witnesses and parties filled the lobbies, and: charges of unfairness and partisanship were constantly alleged. It was to get rid of all these difficulties and to set up an impartial tribunal that parliament passed the act and delegated all such matters to the courts.
Exclusive jurisdiction was given to the courts by section 91 of the act, which reads as follows:
91. All elections shall be subject to the provisions of this act, and shall not be questioned otherwise than in accordance therewith.
The force of all these authorities and precedents is so impressive that I have come to the conclusion to rule that this petition cannot be received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Respectfully but firmly, Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your ruling that future generations may realize that a considerable number of the members of this House still attach a real value to a petition to parliament.


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker having ruled that the petition of James Arthur Collins, praying that he be declared entitled to be returned as the member elected to represent the electoral district of Peace River in the House of Commons, cannot be received, under rule 75, subsection 8, because parliament has delegated its powers in such matters to the courts, under section 91 of the Controverted Elections Act, Mr. R. B. Bennett, West Calgary, appeals from that ruling. Those in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained will please say aye; those against will please say nay.
Before putting the question I would call the attention of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) to rule 69:
If anything shall come in question touching the return or election of any member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not here.


Mr. BOURASSA:: I had agreed to pair with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), otherwise I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys). I would have voted in support of the ruling had I voted.


Mr. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. CULLIGAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WILSON (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: 1.	In view of the return to two cent postage on July 1 next, is it the intention of the government to revise the rates of compensation of rural postmasters?
2.	If so, from what date?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1 and 2. It is realized that the adoption of the two cent letter rate on 1st July next will result in a substantial decrease in the revenue of rural post offices. As rural postmasters are paid on a commission basis, there would be a corresponding decrease in their salaries, unless their rates of compensation are increased.

Questions
As postmasters' salaries are based on the revenue of the previous year, two cent postage would not affect their salaries in any event until 1927. In the interval, the question of an upward revision of the rates of compensation of rural postmasters will receive sympathetic consideration by those who are charged with the duty of fixing the rates.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LADNER:: 1.	How much lumber was imported into Canada from the United States and used for government works during the years 1922 to 1925, inclusive?
2.	How much of such lumber imported from the United States was of Canadian origin?
3.	What was the total value of lumber imported from the United States and used for government works from 1922 to 1925, inclusive?
4.	What was the total value of Canadian woods used in government works in the same period?
5.	What was the total value of other products imported from the United States from 1922 to 1925, inclusive, and used in the construction of or the operation of Canadian government works?


RAW SUGAR, ETC.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: 1.	What is the price of raw sugar per 100 pounds such as is imported into Canada from the West Indies and Australia respectively at the port of shipment?
2.	What is the freight per pound on raw sugar imported into Canada from the West Indies and Australia, and what is the rate of duty per pound on the said raw sugar coming from these countries into Canada?
3.	How many pounds of butter has been imported into Canada since January 1, 1926, from Australia, New Zealand and the United States, respectively?



LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL SIGNAL STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make inquiry of the government, particularly of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), to whom I have forwarded a copy of this inquiry, whether or not permission has been given by the government, through the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to an American marine reporting firm known as the J. W. Westcott & Company, marine reporters of Detroit, Michigan, to establish a marine reporting station at the head of the new Livingstone channel, lower Detroit river, two miles above Amherstburg, Ontario, in Canadian waters, and on a Canadian government-owned lighthouse? If not, has a permit or license been issued to the Lake Carriers Association to use the lighthouse? Has the department been advised that the interested parties are preparing to lay the cable to the lighthouse from
the Canadian mainland for their exclusive use? Have any protests or representations from Canadian residents been made to the government in opposition to the proposed permission granted to the American marine reporting company; and, if so, what action has the government taken up until to-day?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank my hon. friend for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his question. On March 12 last Mr. J. N. Arthurs, superintendent of lights for the Parry Sound district, submitted an application from the Westcott Ship Reporters and Vessel Agents of Detroit, for permission to establish a signal station on the pier of the Livingstone channel light station in the Detroit river. He represented that he knew of no reason why the application should not be granted. On March 30 he again directed attention to the application previously made. The matter having .been considered, the department advised on April 1 last that the permission sought might be granted. Nothing further was heard about the matter until April 29, when a telegram was received from Mr. A. F. Healy, of W indsor, Ontario, advising that there were protests against the granting of the permission referred to. On May 1 the Westcott Ship Reporters and Vessel Agents were advised by telegram to stay operations in connection with the establishment of the proposed station. On the same date the Westcott Company advised the department by telegram that operations were stayed. Meantime the harbour master at Amherstburg has been requested to report the grounds upon which the objections to the establishing of a station are based.
That is the situation at the present time. No request has been made by any other company.



FISHERY AND FOREST AIR PATROLS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Might I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has considered the matter of the abandonment of the air patrol of the British Columbia fisheries, which I brought to his attention on May 3, and if he has any announcement to make.
Hon. P. J, A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):	I may say to my
hon. friend that the matter has been considered, and that at present we are in communication with the Department of National Defence with a view to continuing the service.

Freight Rates Equalization



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland, Ont.):: On March 22 an order for return was passed with reference to the dismissal of one John Hanna. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) why that has not been brought down.


Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways) :: I will see why the return has not been brought down.



EQUALIZATION OF FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I observe the presence of an old friend, Mr. John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia, and as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railwaj's are in their seats, I would like to ask the government one or two questions. Has any application or representation been received bj' the government from Mr. John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia, relating to the reduction or equalization of freight rates by this parliament? If so, is the government considering action on the question of freight rates, by act of parliament or otherwise?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend
will let me answer that question to-morrow. At the moment I cannot speak for all the members of the government, and I would like to make sure first whether representations have been received in any quarter.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Perhaps the Minister of Railways could answer the question now.


Charles Avery Dunning: The answer of the Prime Minister is quite satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not believe the matter is one of urgent public importance, and I think an answer to-morrow will serve.


Leon Johnson Ladner: We in British Columbia
believe it to be a matter of great importance. May I ask the Prime Minister, in making the announcement to-morrow, to also refer to the question of the application for the return of the Peace River block and the Dominion railway belt.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: Put the question on the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think if my hon. friend would put his question on the
[Mr. Cardin.)
order paper it could be answered more satisfactorily. I will try to give him a prompt reply if the question is placed on the order paper.



PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: On several occasions I,
or others on this side of the House, have asked the government through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) whether any changes were proposed to be made as to the budget. At first we received negative replies, but on the last two occasions the replies were certainly not negative, whatever else they were. I am receiving reports of a character which I cannot ignore to the effect that very extensive changes are proposed. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he proposes during this debate-and if so at what early date-to advise the House of the changes thus proposed, or is he prepared to let the debate become purely academic?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: My observation, Mr. Speaker, is that the debate has been academic for some days, and I am very anxious that we should reach a division. The last time my right hon. friend asked this question he said he was anxious to make a speech but did not like to do so if there were to be any changes made, and I said he would be quite safe in making his speech. I have no other reply to-day.


Arthur Meighen: I would like an answer to my question. I ask the Minister of Finance again, as plainly as I can put it, if he proposes budget changes, whether of importance or not, and if so, whether he proposes to let the House know about them whilst the debate is proceeding.


James Alexander Robb: I have no reply to give
to my right hon. friend other than what I have already said. He knows that in committee representations are frequently made and considered. If my right hon. friend has any suggestions to make when we get into committee I will be very glad to listen to them.


Arthur Meighen: I must ask the government to answer yes or no. There is no reason why that question cannot be answered. Does the government propose, whether in committee or before, substantial changes in the budget presentation?


James Alexander Robb: My answer to that question
is no.


Arthur Meighen: No substantial change?

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin (Kent)



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 5, 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. A. D. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):: When the House adjourned yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
I was dealing with the sugar beet industry of western Ontario. I would like now to refer to what the sugar beet industry has done for immigration. During the past sugar beet season 3,000 Hollanders and Belgians worked in the beet fields of the county of Kent, and when not employed in those fields, some of these men work in the tobacco fields and also do mixed farming, thus very materially assisting production. Four hundred Hollanders and Belgians are now located on their own farms. These men had to be assisted into Canada by the sugar beet company a few years ago, and arrived with no money at all. They are very thrifty and have their own farms, well cultivated and in splendid condition, and are making the very best of Canadian citizens.
With regard to the Petrolia plant, construction was discontinued after several hundred thousand dollars had been spent by the farmers, due to the action of the government in placing an excise tax on beet sugar in 1922, and in cancelling this tax in 1923, substituting for it a reduction in protection twice the amount of the tax. This gave the cane sugar refineries a little better protection than they had previously enjoyed, at the same time reducing the protection to beet growers by 50 cents per ton. I am not holding any brief for the sugar company, but they have been doing a good work in bringing immigrants to this country, and that industry has been responsible for placing these 400 Hollanders and Belgians on the land.
While on the question of protection I would like to make a reference to the woollen industry of Canada. As a result of the action of this government a great number of our woollen mills' were closed practically over night, which leads us to wonder what business is safe. And what did the reduction in woollen duties mean? In the mill which was closed in Chatham it meant less than 24 cents a yard on suitings and overcoatings, or less than $1 on a completed overcoat. I
believe the same thing would apply to other mills now closed, and for that one dollar no one received any benefit; suits and overcoats cost as much now as they formerly did, and thousands of men have been thrown out of employment. That may not seem quite correct; such a statement may require a little explanation.	I would like to draw
attention to the experience of the United States in connection with the woollen industry. Mr. Fordney, of the famous Fordney tariff-the man who put a 42 cent duty against our wheat entering the United States -saw that their woollen manufacturers were in danger as a result of the importation of foreign woollens. He said, "We have the highest standard of living in the world, and we are not going to have it lowered by allowing cheap labour products to come into this country." So Mr. Fordney raised the duty to 100 per cent, and the United States mills are busy to-day.
Now for the explanation I promised. I said that thousands of employees of woollen mills were thrown out of employment. I should have said that they are out of employment in Canada. Many of these men have moved to the United States where they have secured jobs in factories which are sufficiently protected and are running, so they have merely changed their place of employment. It may be argued that there are some woollen mills running in Canada. Some may be running in the hope that a Conservative government may soon be returned to power. Others are running, but it is a safe bet that they are running for cover, and not for profit.
I have heard about the Simcoe mill as one which is running, but I would like to tell this House that the manager of that mill recently passed away. The business of running a woollen mill in this country to-day is enough to kill the most stout-hearted manufacturer. During the late election campaign the Hon. G. N. Gordon, who ran into a Peck of trouble in the late election, asked one of the large woollen manufacturers not to put out any woollen election propaganda, saying "We will fix you all right." This promise was entirely unnecessary, for his government had already fixed the woollen industries, but, unfortunately, it was not "all right"'-it was "all wrong." This same gentleman was slated as Minister of Immigration in the new cabinet. I was greatly, surprised one day to read the Prime Minister's speeches out in the prairie provinces pleading for Liberal supporters instead of Progressive members. He also stated he would like to have his Immigration minister from that part of Canada. I could

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin (Kent)
not understand just what he meant, having already one Minister of Immigration, but it struck me all at once that it was not immigration he had in mind, but emigration. He wanted the Minister of Immigration at Halifax or Montreal to count the immigrants coming in, and a' Minister of Emigration at Windsor or Niagara Falls to count them going out- and the Minister of Emigration, I believe, would be the busier of the two.
The protective policy which I. am advocating for the woollen industry is the policy which will prevent people from leaving this country by providing employment for them in Canada, and thus rendering unnecessary the appointment of a Minister of Emigration.
Speaking of the problem of unemployment. I have been surprised, as a new member of this House, and also greatly struck by the character of the comment which comes from the supporters of the government. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) advocating government assistance for the unemployed in and around Winnipeg. Now the unemployment must be quite noticeable when a member of this House pleads for aid. On the other hand.
I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) make the remarkable statement that times were prosperous, and that they were building a couple of factories in Sherbrooke to employ around four or five hundred hands. I would like to ask the hon. member what class of goods are to be manufactured in these factories, and also what protective tariff they will have on their goods.
I believe they have a factory in Sherbrooke closed now because they can import goods from Germany cheaper than they can manufacture them. Would the hon. member for Sherbrooke be averse to a tariff that would open up that factory and shut out German goods, even if it was 35 per cent or more?


Mr. HOWARD:: W ill the hon. member
please name any factory in Sherbrooke that is closed or that has closed down in the last five years?


Alexander Dew Chaplin: The hon. member told me himself, in the Chateau Laurier. of one factory in Sherbrooke that had closed down, because the people were buying goods from Germany instead.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not make any such statement.


Alexander Dew Chaplin: The hon. member for Sherbrooke, when speaking in this debate, gave the best and most concrete argument in favour of protection. His speech [Mr. A. D. Chaplin. [
was notable for two reasons: first, the great volume of sound, which reminded one of the steamboat on the Mississippi with a seven horse-power engine and a ten horsepower whistle-every time the whistle blew the engine stopped. Second, he gave the best argument one could use for the Conservative national policy of protection. He stated that a factory in Sherbrooke making hose was selling its products at the same price as that at which they were being sold in the United States, although they had a tariff of 35 per cent. That clearly shows that they were not taking advantage of that tariff. But the hon. member did not say that the competition came from Canadian plants, and not from factories outside this country. That internal competition is exactly what is advocated by the Conservative policy.
It is an unfortunate fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have too much unemployment in this country. This is shown very clearly by the fact that in the last few years 500,000 of our people have been admitted to the United States and have paid the head tax, to say nothing of those who slipped in without paying that head tax, which would raise the number to probably 700,000. Now, Sir, supposing these 700,000 had refused to go to look for work in the United States. Would the hon. members still say that there was no unemployment in this country? They had jobs here once. Where have their jobs gone? On top of all this, we hear of the great "wave of prosperity" which is spreading over the country. This wave of prosperity seems to be based on the reports of our wonderful exports, and how they so greatly exceed our imports. But the man out of work with a family to support says in regard to these export statistics: They may be good food for the brain, but they are not much good for the stomach.	[DOT]
The Liberals cry aloud in this House and in the press when five or ten thousand of our people come back from the United States, but when the five hundred thousand of our people left this country, paid head tax and entered the United States, they wept not. It seems to me that the business of this government is the closing of factories. Dun and Brad-street's will show that. They also seem to make it their business to buy goods from the United States rather than in Canada, as our import statistics will show. Further, I would like to draw the attention of this House to what the government is doing in regard to supplying members of this House with articles of everyday use. If hon. members will look at the penholders on their desks, or at the

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
lead pencils furnished to the members of parliament and their rulers in their rooms, they will notice that these goods are all made in the United States.
I do not think there is one member who would condone buying our supplies for this House anywhere but in this country. We read in the press all over this Dominion, "Buy at home", "Buy goods made in Canada." Mr. Speaker, the running of this country by parliament is the biggest business in Canada, and we should set a good example to the rest of the people by buying nothing outside that is made in Canada. If it is that these articles can be bought cheaper in the United States, then we need a higher tariff. I will make this statement, that if there were any members or ministers in this House who made pen-holders, pencils or rulers, that order would never have gone to the United States. Now, Sir, the buyer in this department has some reason for going out of the country to buy these goods. It is either precedent or block-headedness. If it is precedent, then for heaven's sake, Mr. Minister of pens and pencils, have it cut out. If it is blockheaded-ness, then all I can say is this:	If this buyer
thinks he might lose his head to make pens and pencils, he is in no danger whatever; his head is not wood, it is plain, unadulterated petrified bone.
But that is not all. Not long ago I was riding on the Canadian National railway with a friend of mine, and while in the dining car we asked for jams. We got jams made by Sprague, Warner and Company, Chicago. You have heard of taking coals to Newcastle, but that is a bedtime story to this. Sir, a man who would buy a pound of jam outside of this country when there are millions of pounds made here should be put in that big house at London, and in a padded cell for his own safet3r, and seven of the worst inmates could then be let out and that institution would be still to the good.
May I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that what we are striving for is a tariff that will give adequate protection to our farmers, that will foster our industries-especially the automobile, the sugar-beet and the woollen industries-and promote the greatest measure of prosperity for the masses.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the House will bear with me this afternoon in the brief remarks I purpose to make on the budget. First of all I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr Robb) upon the budget he brought down on April 15th. I think it can be fairly and honestly stated that it is a budget which is for the benefit and will tend to promote the
material welfare of the masses of the people of this Dominion-and after all the great masses of the people really form the backbone of any country.
The budget contained, perhaps, the most welcome news this Dominion has received for several years. During the last seven or eight years following the war a commercial depression, not confined to Canada but world-wide in its character, was experienced. The recent deliverance of the Minister of Finance indicates, however, that so far as business conditions are concerned Canada is emerging from darkness into light. He was able to announce a large increase in the trade of the country and, what is of more importance, a decrease in the national debt to the extent of some $23,000,000. Even more vital in its character was the announcement of a drastic cut in taxation the benefit of which will be felt by all persons who are in receipt of moderate salaries or who possess moderate means. Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that the recent budget was one of the most cheerful budgets that has been delivered in this House for many years.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, or at least most of those on that side who have spoken in this debate, have grudgingly admitted that there is an improvement in the trade of Canada and that the financial position of the country has been strengthened in the last year or two. but they all maintain that this improvement is due to a kind Providence. The hon member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) referred to this matter yesterday afternoon, but prior to his speech I had prepared some notes on the same point and notwithstanding that it may involve some repetition I am going to inflict them on the House. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), following the delivery of the budget speech on April 15th, admitted that conditions were improving in Canada, but he said the credit was due to a kind Providence. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) spoke along the same line but went even further. In this connection let me say,-I do not offer the remark in any unkindly spirit, and I hope it is not presumptuous coming from a new member-that I have come to the conclusion that the latter hon. gentleman goes to a greater extreme than any other member opposite when he rises to address the House. For the benefit of the House I shall quote the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William on the occasion referred to. At page 2625 of Hansard of April 20, the hon. member is reported to have made the following statement:
I admit that luck has been with this government; that Providence, by giving Canada these greater crops, has shown some favour to the present administration,
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

but there is a Providence, they say, which looks after drunken men, and I presume the same Providence looks after governments who are drunken with the desire to hold power in spite of the wishes of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Some hon. gentlemen across the way say, "hear, hear." I am glad to get that recognition from them. Let me say in reply to the hon. member for Fort William that we on this side believe in Providence, and that we think Providence works sometimes in a most marvellous and mysterious manner, not always as we wish or hope or pray, but in a manner that is for our ultimate good. I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps a kind Providence had something to do with defeating the government that went to the country in 1921; that Providence did then operate in a way that worked for the good of Canada. I think also that a kind Providence had something to do with seeing that the Conservatives did not come back to this House after the election in October last in sufficient strength to control the destinies of this country for a few years to come. Furthermore, Providence has had something to do with the votes which have been recorded in this House during the last four months; and it is not unlikely that Providence has kept the hon. member for Fort William from crossing to the treasury benches, because I do not think there is any hon. gentleman opposite who wants to reach those benches more quickly than my hon. friend. It is quite evident that although Providence sometimes works in a mysterious way those operations are for the good of the country.
I do not think I should have injected myself into this debate had it not been for the fact that certain hon. members opposite, especially those from the province of Ontario and in particular the representatives of ridings adjoining the county I have the honour to represent, have stated that they cannot support the budget, and that those who sent them here are not in favour of it. These hon. gentlemen have affirmed the belief that the budget is not for the good of Ontario, or, for that matter, for the good of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. Speaking for the constituency of South Perth I am satisfied that the majority of the people of that riding are not only in favour of the budget, but they think it will be advantageous to the province of Ontario and the whole Dominion also. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I am not only going to vote for the budget but I shall exert myself to the utmost in its defence.

The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who represents a county adjoining <the riding for which I have the honour to sit, in the speech he made a week or two ago gave utterance to some very extreme statements. I shall take the liberty of reading one of those statements, which will be found at page 2642 of Hansard of April 20. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I desire to put myself on record in answer to this statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford. He said:
Thia 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, and if those members from Saskatchewan who seem to favour those policies get any more power in the House than they have shown they have, there is going to be very serious trouble for this country. The reason why I attribute this to Saskatchewan is as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said this afternoon, because no reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to this reduction in the tariff on automobiles.
I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I speak subject to correction. I did not know that it was usual to incorporate in the Speech from the Throne the specific matters that were to be presented in the budget in regard to reductions or increases of the tariff on this article or that; I would imagine that to be a most peculiar procedure for any government to follow. The statement of the hon. member continues:
I attribute this reduction more to Saskatchewan Liberals even than to our Progressive friends and I base this statement on part of a letter written by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) to his home paper about February 5, when he said-
I will skip two or three lines which have no bearing on the point I am making, and read from further on:
I have noticed for the last two or three days that whenever there is any applause on the other side on account of the budget, the Liberal members applaud income tax reductions and the Saskatchewan members applaud reductions in the tariff on automobiles. That shows what the feeling of the House is on the matter.
As a member from Ontario I desire to say that I hold no brief for hon. members from Saskatchewan. I have noticed that they are well able to take care of themselves in this House when the occasion arises. Nor do I hold any brief for my good friends the Progressives, because they have shown that they are quite able to take care of themselves at all times; and this remark applies equally to my good friends from the province of Quebec. During the four months I have been attending the sittings of parliament I have never seen a single, solitary move by the members from Saskatchewan, the members of the Pro-

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
gressive group, or the almost solid bloc from the province of Quebec, which in any shape or form was not in the best interests of Can- _ ada as a whole. My answer to the hon. member for North Oxford is that I am not controlled by anybody from the province of Saskatchewan, but I have come to the conclusion, as a humble member from Ontario, that this is one of the best budgets that has ever 'been 'brought down in the Dominion of Canada, in that it is calculated to contribute to the prosperity of the whole country.
Hon. members on the other side of the House have spoken of the desirability of unity; they have emphasized the fact that we must have a united Canada. This statement was made particularly by the Conservative members from Ontario, including that solid bloc of Conservative members who come from the city of Toronto. I say that there is not a single member in this House who does not want a united Canada. We all want it. But, Mr. Speaker, we will get a united Canada sooner if there is a little more compromise and reason on the part of the members of the Conservative party from Ontario. The sooner they realize that Toronto is not the whole of Ontario; that Ontario is not the whole of the Dominion of Canada and that they cannot choke down the throats of the members from all the other provinces their policy of higher and higher protection, the sooner we will have a united Canada.
Coming to the budget, I will not deal at any length on the reductions in the income tax. It is obvious to anybody who has read over the schedule that there is a substantial reduction, which will benefit especially those who receive moderate incomes. I am not very much concerned about what the cut is, if any, on the income of anyone who is in receipt of $50,000, $75,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per year or upwards. But I am concerned about the man with the moderate income, and the Minister of Finance has provided for that class of people and granted for their benefit a substantial reduction. The two-cent postage appeals to everybody and I will not say anything in regard to it. The taking off of the stamp tax appeals to all and is a welcome change.
I come now to what is the most contentious matter in the budget, namely, the reduction in the duty on automobiles. Hon. members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House during this debate have taken this attitude: they do not directly criticize the reduction in the tariff on automobiles, but they hide themselves behind the argument that this is a matter that should have been referred to the Tariff Advisory Board. I am
in favour of a tariff board, and I am only speaking for myself when I say I would like to see a little wider power granted to that board. In regard to referring this question of the reduction of duties to the tariff board, I think this government did the right thing when, off its own bat, it reduced the duty on automobiles. Hon. members on the other side have taunted this House with having no initiative, with hiding- themselves behind commissions, with doing nothing but drift, with not having sufficient strength of character or will power to take any matter into their own hands and come to a decision upon it. When this government on its own initiative virtually decided to make this cut in the duty on automobiles they showed strength of character; they showed that they were prepared to stand or fall on that question. They showed that they had the courage of their convictions in reducing the tariff on automobiles without referring it to the tariff advisory board.
The reduction in the tariff on automobiles is not a new matter. It has been debated in this House, I understand, session after session; it has been discussed by the people, who have demanded that some reduction be made in the duty on automobiles and motor trucks imported into this country. Hon. members opposite have argued that the government had not sufficient knowledge of the automobile industry to be in a position to decide whether or not this cut should be made. While I am on the tariff I may remind the House that we have had in this country before commissions which have investigated the whole subject. In 1920, for instance, the government of that day appointed a commission to study tariff matters and that body, composed of three members of the cabinet, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Tolmie), and the hon. Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, travelled up and down the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This morning I was curious enough to look up the history of that commission, but I could find no trace of any order in council appointing it. I did discover, however, that the jaunt of these three hon. gentlemen who toured Canada on that occasion for the purpose of securing information on the tariff, and presumably of giving to parliament and the people the benefit of that information, cost the country the sum of $17,153.39. I am not going to go into the details of that expenditure; I would refer any hon. gentleman interested in the matter to the Auditor General's Report of 1920-21, page F 128. Perhaps it may be observed in pass-



The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
mg that the government appealed to the country in December, 1921, about a year after this commission, or whatever you choose to call it, had travelled up and down the Dominion.
Now, surely these gentlemen gained some information then in regard to the automobile industry along with other industries m Canada. I know, of course, that this was five or six years ago and possibly the condition of the industry now is somewhat different from what it was at that time. But I think I may safely assume that the automobile industry was prospering back in 1920 and I venture to suggest that its prosperity has increased probably fourfold in the meantime. I have been unable to find any report submitted to parliament by that commission. Although I have looked the matter up I have not discovered that there was ever published any of the information they gathered as a result of that trip, but the House will be interested to know what was contained in the Speech from the Throne as submitted on February 14, 1921, in relation to the tariff question. That speech reads in part as follows:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course. It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained; but that the Customs duties imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.
That apparently is the only information that was ever made public in connection with the investigation of that commission into the tariff. That was a commission of the Conservative government's own making. Three ministers of the crown went exhaustively into the subject in all its phases, and as I well remember, they visited the part of my province in which I live, interviewing everybody who might care to give evidence on any point appertaining to the tariff. They heard the views of farmers, manufacturers, bankers, artisans, labourers, mechanics; in fact, anyone at all who cared to volunteer information on the subject of the tariff was heard. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that these three gentlemen gathered, in the vast mass
(Mr. Sanderson.]
of information submitted to them, some knowledge of the automobile industry. In view of. that probability, it is surprising to note what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who as I have said was a member of that tariff commission, or board of inquiry, or whatever you may care to call it, said in a speech he delivered in Kingston on April 30 last, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 1, 1926:
Doctor Tolmie referred to the cut in the tariff on automobiles made by the government. "Now, I do not propose to say whether the tariff on automobiles is too high or too low," Doctor Tolmie continued. "No one could pass an intelligent opinion on this without a very thorough investigation and hearing both sides, so that I do not know under what grounds the government was able to come to a conclusion, but the general impression in the House of Commons is that they were forced to it as a result of their being under the influence of groups and their effort to run the country with a minority. It will appear to every fairminded citizen that the proper course to have .pursued was to submit this to the tariff board and then abide by the finding of that body."
The hon. member should take this House into his confidence and give us the benefit of the information he gained on that trip in 1920, even if it is five or six years old.
Other hon. gentlemen opposite also have expressed their views on the reduction in the duties on automobiles and motor trucks. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has taken up very many hours of the time of this House during the past four months discussing various industries in Canada. He is a speaker whom we all delight to hear, and he has a wonderful fund of information on practically every industry in Canada. I have heard him discuss the milling industry, the farming industry and, if I mistake not, the textile industry, in regard to which he has given us a good deal of information. But strange to say, when it comes to automobiles, concerning which almost any man in the street can tell you something, the hon. member prefers to have a tariff board report upon the industry. He wants more information than he has at present. He confesses that he is not very well posted on the automobile industry, although he presumes to be thoroughly conversant with almost every other industry discussed in this House.
The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) delivered in this House the other day a speech in which he sidestepped very gingerly the reduction in automobile duties. If I may say so, he made a very good speech in so far as the imposition of a duty on American magazines and periodicals was concerned, but he was not so well versed

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
in the automobile business. Let me read to the House what he said in regard to the reduction of automobile duties:
We stand to-day, Mr. Speaker, in the position where a great industry in this country, an industry with ramifications through all our commerce, is threatened with serious impairment, and it is threatened without investigation, without taking expert advice, and absolutely contrary to the pledges of the government as contained in the Speech from the Throne.
I have here a newspaper published in the city of Toronto in which there is reproduced an editorial from the Orange Sentinel, a publication edited by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre. This article was published between last session and this. I want to read it for the benefit of the House. For fear some hon. member may ask me what paper I am quoting from, let me say that I find it in the good Tory Evening Telegram published in good Tory Toronto. This is the editorial:	[DOT]
Whatever else may be done with the customs tariff at the next session of parliament-
Mark you, that is this session.
-there should be a substantial reduction in the duty on motor cars. It is clear from the price quoted in the United States and Canada that the Canadian manufacturers are charging "all the traffic will stand." The duty of 35 per cent is more than protection, it is in part a government subsidy to the makers of automobiles. As long as the motor car was purely a luxury that only the rich could enjoy, there was not much reason for complaint; but the motor car has become a necessity in business and professional life, and those who are thus compelled to buy one should not be forced to pay excessive profits to the manufacturer. A certain type of car that sells in the United States at $1,875, costs $3,100 in Canada. That is altogether too wide a spread, and is not warranted by any factor in the trade. The American makers have large production, it is true, but they pay higher wages, and there is no reason why their raw materials are any cheaper. The makers of motor cars in Canada are soaking the public unduly, and it is the duty of the government to lower the tariff, and it that way inject a little competition of American firms, which will bring down the prices.
In this good Tory paper from Toronto, the Telegram, there is another article which refers to what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) said with respect to the duty on automobiles, I think last session. This is how he expressed himself on that occasion, according to the Toronto Telegram:
As I have previously stated, I am not a high protectionist, and I think there are some industries in this country which possibly are too highly protected. One of these, I think, is the automobile industry. This industry is making rapid strides in Canada, and in the last year this country, a country of 9,000,000 people, exported half as many automobiles as did the United States with a population of 110,000,000 people.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) last session voted in favour of a resolution
14011-201j
urging a reduction of the duty on automobiles. I do not know what he intends to do on this budget. The hon. member for Kingston Oity (Mr. Ross) also voted in favour of that resolution. When these hon. gentlemen declare that they do not know anything about this industry and desire full information, it seems rather remarkable that months and months ago they should have put themselves on record in favour of a reduction of the duty on automobiles.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the notice of the House some figures regarding the automobile industry of this country. As I stated a few moments ago, this is not a new industry. As a matter of fact the automobile is no longer a luxury, it has become an absolute necessity to ninety per cent of our people. The farmer must have an automobile and perhaps a motor truck. In business after business these vehicles are just as necessary as hydro power and steam power. I am a protectionist to a certain extent, and always have been, but when an article has become an absolute necessity and is enjoying a protection of 35 per cent, I think it is time the duty was cut for the benefit of our people, particularly when, as is admitted, the industry has passed the creeping and walking stages and is now at the running stage. I have before me statistics of the Canadian automobile industry for 1925, from which I quote the following:
New records were made in the automobile industry in Canada in 1925. In that year the production of motor cars numbered 161,970, as compared with 132,580 in 1924 and 147,202 in 1923, the best previous year in the industry; the value of output at the factories rose to $110,835,380 and exceeded that of any other year; capital employed amounted to $74,678,451,-
I would ask hon. members to note the next sentence:
-an increase of 23 per cent over 1924; -
That is, an increase of capital of 23 per cent over the previous year, 1924. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that a large portion of that increase was not further money invested in the industry, but represented what is known as stock "melons" to the shareholders-that the companies were pyramiding their profits and divided them to the extent of giving their shareholders further stock. I have no absolute proof that that is the case, but I think it is highly probable. Certainly it happened in the case of the Ford Company of Canada.
-employees numbered 10,301 as against 9,277 in 1924; payments in salaries and wages totalled $17,249,270 as compared with a corresponding figure of $14,219,137 in the previous year; export shipments-
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

This is a very vital matter, Mr. Speaker.
-export shipments valued at $39,417,614 were the highest on record; imports at $35,240,298 were greater than in any previous year, and registrations of motor vehicles totalled 728,005 as against 652,121 in 1924, when the previous high record was established.
Following that statement is a summary of production in the automobile industry in Canada from 1904 to 1925, and it shows the growth of the industry during that period. I have no doubt these figures will be of interest to hon. members and I will therefore read them:
Summary of Production in the Automobile Industry in Canada 1904-1925
Number of
Year	Automobiles
1904-1916.
1917..	..
1918..	..
1919..	..
1920..	..
1921..	..
1922..	..
1923..	..
1924..	..
1925..	..
135,000
93,810
82,408
87,835
94,144
66,246
101,007
147,202
132,580
161,970
Total
1,102,202
That shows an increase of production yearly; there were some 25,000 more automobiles and trucks manufactured in Canada in 1925 than were manufactured during the twelve years from 1904 to 1916. It would therefore appear, Mr. Speaker, that this is an industry which i3 past the stage of pap feeding by a very high tariff; it must be at the stage where it can take care of itself to a certain extent, without being protected against competition by a high duty.. The increase in exports of automobiles and motor trucks shows that these manufacturers do not altogether depend on Canada for a market, but that they have a very wide and substantial market elsewhere. I read the figures showing the exports, which amount to from 40 per cent to 42 per cent of the entire output of these Canadian factories. These automobiles and trucks are exported under very favourable terms, and I do not doubt the price paid shows a profit to the manufacturers.
To bring the purchase of an automobile right down to the individual, has there been a man who purchased an automobile during the last three or four years who, after the deal was made, did not conclude that he was paying almost more than the value of the automobile, and that he was paying an undue profit to the manufacturer of that car? If my information is correct, as I think it is, the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada do not give credit; theirs is an entirely cash business. I under-
:.Mr. Sanderson.]
stand that if you order a car through your local dealer-it does not make any difference what kind of car it may be-he either goes to the factory for that car or has it shipped by rail, and he has to pay spot cash before he receives it. If he goes to the factory for five cars he has to pay for them before leaving the factory; if they are shipped by rail they are shipped with a draft attached to the bill of lading. Therefore the manufacturer runs no risk of bad debts; the poor unfortunate local agent ha3 to carry that burden. He may not get cash from his customer; he may have to take notes running for a term of months; he runs that chance and takes the risk of loss on secondhand cars as well. So the automobile manufacturer is in a different position from the manufacturer of any other article; his is a cash business, and that is a big advantage. Anyone in business knows if a manufacturer has no bad debts on his books and does not have to give credit he is in a position to sell his article very much more cheaply than if he carried a big line of credit and had to wait for the money to come in.
I have perhaps tired the House with my remarks; I have taken longer than I intended, but I want to say a further word about my position on this question of a reduction in the tariff on automobiles. If I honestly believed that the cut in the tariff would wreak havoc, and throw thousands of men out of employment, forcing the automobile manufacturers to close their doors, I would hesitate in giving my support to it. But I see no reason why men should lose their jobs; I see no reason why the automobile manufacturers cannot carry on and still do a profitable business. It should not be necessary for them to cut the pay of their employees; they may threaten to do so; they have bluffed a good deal already in closing their doors, but I sincerely hope that such an event will not occur in reality. If that should be the case, it may be that politics will have entered into the question, which will be a very regrettable and sad thing for the country. I think, however, the government were perfectly justified in making the reduction, and I believe most of the people, irrespective of their political faith, will approve of it also.
I thank the House for their indulgence and for the patience with which they have followed my somewhat rambling remarks.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. Baker
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. L. BAKER . (Toronto Northeast)
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I, with your kind permission, address the- House on the subject of this debate, it being the first occasion I have of speaking in this Assembly, I ask for your leniency and that of the House. But before broaching the subject matter, Sir, I wish to pay you my respects and offer you my congratulations on the high post you occupy as First Commoner of Canada. I also wish to congratulate the hon. members of this House on their selection of a man so dignified, courteous, capable and possessing such a sense of fairness, as Speaker of this House for a second term. I hope that you will live long as occupant of that position; but, that before long, the hon. gentlemen on this side will be sitting on the other side of the House, on your right, and those hon. gentlemen now on the other side will be here, on your left. I further wish, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, to offer you and the hon. members of this House our congratulations.
It is a pleasure for me to endeavour for a few moments to speak the French language, out of regard for you, Sir, and those other French Canadian members in this House, and further, because as the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) expressed it, there are two official languages in this country. I endorse what the hon. member, said: That French is the most beautiful language born on human lips. I should like to speak more at length in French, however I do not wish to do so to-day, because I am sorry to admit it, I have forgotten much of my French, not having had enough practice within the last thirty years and I naturally fear not to be well understood. However, I trust that, when I have been living here for a year, I shall be more successful and that some day I shall have the pleasure of delivering in the House, a speech in French. The French Canadian members in this House understand the two official languages of this country, but all the English speaking members do not, perhaps, understand the two languages; that is why, Sir, with your kind permission I shall now continue in English. But before I do so, I wish to express a wish: I think it is necessary to have in this city a French speaking club to study and converse in French. I propose that the name "Le Club Lemieux" be given to it, and I would like to have the honour of being a member of this club so as to endeavour to speak the French
language perfectly, and this, for me, would require a long practice. I also endorse the views of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), when he says that it is an excellent thing to speak two or three languages.
In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, as I [DOT]previously pointed out, that this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing this or any other parliament, I know you will extend to me the same generous, kind consideration that you have always shown to those who are making their first speech in this House. I trust that hon. members will bear patiently with me while I express my views on the question before the House, to do which, I understand, is my privilege, as well as my duty, as I see it, to my constituents.
I wish to refer to two occasions upon which remarks made by me were referred to in this House. The first occasion was when the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), acting as leader of the House-which duties he performed so well-said that one of the members from Toronto, addressing his constituents, "made the following remarks" to which he took exception. In order that the onus shall not be placed on any of the other Toronto members-I presume they have enough troubles of their own to bear-I think it will be well for me to state that I did make the remarks in question to my constituents before coming to the House. I said at that time that I considered it was inconsistent for the Progressives to vote, because, as I explained to my constituents, they dissented from both the other parties in the House; that the people of the districts which they represent also dissented from the two old parties, and therefore to be consistent they ought not to vote in the original division in the House which sought to determine who had the right to govern the country. I have nothing to withdraw regarding that statement, and although it seemed to annoy some people I thought it expressed my conviction as to what should be the correct course on the part of the Progressives. I still think that if they had followed that course they would have taken the right stand, and by abstaining from voting at that time the business of the House would be further advanced than it is to-day, and they themselves would not have made any less progress than they have to date. I do not feel called upon to withdraw the statement I made at that time, although it seemed to annoy a few hon. members of this House. I am still of the opinion that had the course which I outlined been followed, it would have been the best policy to adopt, having regard to the welfare
The Budget-Mr. Baker

of the country and the best interests, in the long run, of all parties here, including even the Progressive group.
The other occasion when exception was taken in the House to remarks made by me, was when a newspaper report was read here regarding a meeting of my constituents in Toronto Northeast which I addressed. I was speaking at the time of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Dunning), and the ground for the comments which the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) made depends upon which newspaper report he read. And yet there is nothing to find particular fault with in the one report any more than there is in the other. Nor could any particular objection be offered to anything I said on that occasion. I was expressing my views to my constituents with respect to matters in Ottawa. I did not do that with any feeling of ill will or of malice towards anybody, and the use of the word "cub" had no ill intent behind it as respects anyone. I am pleased to recall that on the occasion when the hon. member for Yorkton brought the matter up in the House, Mr. Speaker was good enough to say that there was not much harm in the word "cub." We know that the word "cub'' is used continually by students in a university or college; and it is quite common on their part to make use of the word "freshmen" also with respect to newcomers. I have heard the word used in a much more friendly sense even than this. Of course there are idioms in everyone's language, and idioms are frequently employed in the course of conversation. I have often made use of the expression in speaking to my own grandson: "Come here my little cub, I want to talk to you." In such a case as that the expression would be meant as a term of endearment. Very frequently I have used the word in that sense, so that when I uttered it at the meeting in question there was no thought of malice towards anybody, and no harm was intended.
In bringing me to task the hon. member for Yorkton referred to me as a "denizen" from Toronto. The hon. gentleman, perhaps unintentionally, made an error there; I know he would not have erred intentionally. Now referring to Webster's dictionary, which I found in the library, I found the definition of "denizen" to be: "one admitted to residence with all or part of the rights of citizenship." So my hon. friend was absolutely wrong when he called me a "denizen," because I was born in this country, as were the two generations that preceded me, There was therefore a slight error on the hon. gentleman's part. I do not apply the name 
"denizen" to my hon. friend either; but it so happens that the word, as defined in Webster, does apply to a great many of the hon. gentlemen whom my hon. friend was quite unnecessarily defending.
The hon. gentleman used a quotation from Dryden with respect to me, no doubt composed about the year 1650. But there is another quotation from Dryden which reads this way:	"As soon as denizenized they
domineer." Well, I thought, after sizing the situation up, that in the days of Dryden they were talking along the same lines that I was endeavouring to follow, without any idea on my part that objection would be raised. Apparently for a long time it has been the tendency of the newcomer to want to domineer. Such a thing as that would not be very well received in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario.
I hope I have offered a full explanation of the incident in question. It was the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton that forced me to refer to the matter in detail so that there might be no misunderstanding.
Now I should like to refer briefly to my constituency, which I believe is the custom on the occasion of making a m'aiden speech. I have noticed that many hon. members have repeatedly proclaimed that they are here to represent the interests of their constituency first. May I say that my constituents did not send me here in that spirit? They fully understand that this is a federal parliament whose duty it is to administer the affairs of the whole Dominion. Their desire is that I should come here and assist, as much as possible, in the carrying out of policies applicable to the whole of Canada, not merely those which will benefit my constituency or any other particular riding. They understand that the only way in which an all-Canada policy can be brought about is on the basis of live and let live, of give and take.
In the last election the policies of the Liberal-Conservative and Liberal parties respectively were presented to my constituents, and the answer was twenty-one thousand votes-and if my opponent had not been such a fine man it would have been 25,000-for the policy of safeguarding the industries of Canada by means of adequate protection, in other words, the policy proclaimed by the Liberal-Conservative party. That is the wish of my constituency. They desire to see protection applied to industry, whether agricultural or manufacturing. The policy declared by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in this House on June 2 last is the policy that I am here

The Budget-Mr. Baker
to uphold, and the policy that my constituents think is for the best welfare of Canada as a whole. The feeling of my constituency in general is that we should work together; let the centre use the coal and iron of the east and the coal and wheat of the west, and let the east and the west in turn use the products of Ontario and Quebec. Such a policy we believe is feasible; that is the only way we can bring about a united Canada and bring prosperity to the whole of the country.
The last speaker this afternoon (Mr. Sanderson) mentioned the great desire along the lines of unity in Canada. I do not think, if I may respectfully say so, that he started very well when he made an attack on Toronto and Toronto members, and to that I consider it my duty to take exception. I do not know that any hon. members from the city of Toronto made any attack on the hon. member or his constituency, nor do I think they have the desire to do so. Toronto in no way considers that its members have any more privileges than any other members in this House. They know they have not, and have never assumed to have, which is quite contrary to the statement made by my hon. friend. The members from Toronto as a rule adhere very closely to the basis of protection and the safeguarding of industry. That is largely the policy of the people of Toronto. But my hon. friend must not think that they are doing it with any ill intention to any other part of the country. They conscientiously believe that that is the one policy that will build up every constituency in Canada, and that is why they uphold that policy. If I may respectfully suggest it, the hon. member, in talking that way, while he made a great appeal for concord, is really talking discord. I am sure it will be agreed that the less discord we have in this House the better.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member permit an interruption? I am glad he has come to that frame of mind, and it is a pity he did not arrive at it before he delivered his speech in Toronto attacking the Liberal members from Saskatchewan.


Mr. BAKER:: I am very sorry if I have annoyed the hon. member in any way. I did not intend to do so


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has not annoyed me at all.


Richard Langton Baker: Referring to the budget, I think the government ought really to be very grateful to Providence that they were able to do so well for the year ending March 1926. I am quite positive that it was not because
of their fiscal policy, a policy which drove 560,000 registered Canadians to the United States and likely 100,000 to 200,000 more who were unregistered. If we had not been blessed with bountiful crops it would be quite another story. Providence sometimes expect^ us to help ourselves by good judgment and good policy. Some people have said that this is a poor man's budget. I cannot quite see it that way. In fact I claim that if the fiscal policy of this country were correct we would not be in need of any poor man's budget; there would not be any poor man. Why should we have a fiscal policy which will produce the poor man, and then make a budget to help him? I do not think that is good business; it does not sound reasonable.
One hon. member called this budket a "common people's budget." I do not accept that word " common ", I do not think it is up to date in this age at all. Some people say it is the people's budget. In my opinion it is nothing but a straight clean-cut political budget, designed for election purposes, regardless of the results to Canada. It is a political budget designed to catch votes for the government rather than to encourage investments in industry, to improve our internal trade conditions and increase prosperity throughout the country.
There are many arguments which I could present against this budget, -but the points I am bringing forward in discussing it may show why I come to that conclusion. The estimates-which are only estimates-show a credit for the year ending March, 1926, of possibly $22,300,000. That is pretty close sailing; however, it is better than showing a deficit. We must remember, of course, that we paid very heavy taxes to get this amount of $22,300,000. We paid more than that amount in taxes, and we paid more than we should have paid, so that this showing is only made on the excess collection of taxes plus the assistance of prosperity. It is very gratifying to see the improved condition of the National railways. It is good to see that they are gradually coming to the point where the loss is less and less each year, and we hope they will soon be able to show a profit instead of a loss and be in a position to pay the interest they owe the government, meet the commitments involved in the guarantees, and so on. We are glad to see that Providence has helped us in the receipts from the railroad. It has subscribed a good deal, but I think the railways could be assisted to come to a paying basis much quicker, or at least as quickly, by an increase of population, which I suggest can only be brought about by an increase of work in this country for the work-
The Budget-Mr. Baker

ingmen. This can only be accomplished by having a full and adequate tariff to protect the industries in which these men may be employed, whether agricultural or manufacturing. We have an excess of exports over imports to the extent of $402,000,000. If we were to add to the imports the smuggled goods, of course that would make a considerable difference. This is only taking into consideration the visible, and if we were to take into consideration the invisible it would make an even different showing. And by the time you made the addition of invisible imports and exports you might find the $402,000,000 gradually dwindle down to a much lower point. For example, we pay in interest to foreign countries $350,000,000 annually. The lumber, pulp, mining products and so on that we export, amount to $369,000,000. That is produced largely by United States and English companies-more largely by United States companies-and all Canada gets out of it is the labour. The value of the goods less the labour goes to the United States; we do not reap the benefit of that. We have here again an increase in the imports of $131,000,000 over those of last year. I do not think that looks very promising, when we know at the same time that our population is leaving the country for want of employment. Then again a question we should consider in connection with these figures is how much of this $796,000,000 of imported goods we should have made in Canada. That should be considered from the point of view of good business- the excess of exports over imports. That to me is a very vital point. If we bought $400,000,000 less we would have $400,000,000 less to pay to foreigners, and that would give us much more to add to our pay rolls at home.
Regarding the export of $1,350,000,000 of our raw material, this should have been manufactured at home and exported in the finished article, or almost finished article, thereby giving employment and paying wages at home. These are the points that deserve deep study in connection with these figures. It looks very good on the surface to speak about our exports, but to get back to the facts, how much have we exported in the raw that we should not have *So exported, and how much have we imported that we should not have imported in the finished article? A consideration of these points is essential if the country is to be put on a sound basis in the matter of internal trade. The success of a country does not necessarily depend upon excessive exports. We might export more and more of our raw materials until our resources were entirely depleted, and although from the standpoint of statistics we should be in a
Baker.]
prosperous condition it is obvious that the contrary would be the case.
In the matter of income taxation, I am glad to see that married men have been exempted up to $3,000. I am also happy to note that unmarried men will have to pay a little more; I think they should and can afford to. One inconsistency in the budget is in my opinion the simultaneous reduction in duties and in income tax; I do not see how this is going to work out. Of course we shall not know until the end of the year, but it seems to me that., with a reduction in duties, more goods will be imported and consequently there will be less activity in home industry, so that there will be less to collect by way of income tax. I am afraid the government is taking a long chance of having an improvement of conditions in the coming year, but if Providence is not equally as good to us as it was last year in the west, then undoubtedly there will be a nice balance to the bad when the reckoning is made.
The automobile question has provoked considerable controversy, and while I do not intend to deal with it at any length, seeing that it has been very well discussed on both sides of the House, I do not think that anyone will dispute the fact that as a result of the reduction in duties the industry is being, and will be, disturbed. We are all agreed on that point, I think. I am in perfect agreement with the view expressed in the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that, had this whole subject been referred to the Tariff Advisory Board which has been appointed, the present serious situation would have been averted. As it is the lack of confidence on the part of investors in industry, due directly to the action of the government, will greatly impair industry with a consequent loss to the Dominion.'
I note that the preferential tariff is to apply only to such goods as are shipped directly through Canadian ports. That is as it should be and always should have been. And as regards the tariff in relation to sugar, I agree with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Chaplin), who went rather fully into the matter, that the present proposal will work to the injury of Canadian beet growers. The hon. member stated his case quite clearly and I did not hear anyone contradict it. Here is another industry which the government is attacking without due investigation. Why should we give a preference to farmers in the West Indies in discrimination against our own Canadian agriculturists?
A good deal has been said about prosperity, several members opposite supporting the government having dealt at length on the point.

The Budget-Mr. Baker
I do not know how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) figures out that Canada is in so very prosperous a condition to-day. Suppose we have $400,000,000 of exports in excess of imports; does that necessarily imply that we are prosperous? What are the internal conditions of the country? That is the criterion. Are we yearning for people to come in to fill up our workshops to keep the wheels of industry turning? Are we advertising for thousands of men who are badly needed to meet the growing demands of industry for labour? Or, on the other hand, [DOT] are our people leaving Canada to seek work elsewhere? In the answer to that question lies the evidence of prosperity or lack of it. Do not let us ask the Minister of Finance whether we are prosperous; let us go to the chartered accountants throughout the country who make up the annual statements of our business concerns, and to our bank managers. They can tell us just how prosperous we are in industry, merchandising, and so forth. Let us ask, too, the income tax department, according to whose returns we collected in 1921 $100,000,000 as compared with less than $50,000,000 in 1925. It is to such people that we must go to find out whether or not we are prosperous, and not to the speeches of men who look at these things from the political point of view. Let us get down to facts. If I am asked whether we have had prosperity in Canada in the past year I say, yes, in the west where Providence did the work. But in central Canada and the east, where the government did the damage by failing to safeguard industry by means of adequate protection, I answer, no. That is my opinion and I happen to know something about the matter, for I am in a position to learn the conditions throughout the country. I am in touch all the time with the pulse of our internal trade from Halifax to Vancouver. The exodus of our people surely is one evidence that we are not enjoying the prosperity which we are told we are having at present. If this country were as prosperous as hon. members make out, people would be coming into Canada from the United States. That is the natural course for migration. People naturally move from the older to the younger country; they do not go from the younger to the older. That is the unnatural route for people to take when they are seeking to better their conditions, and the fact that Canadians are going to the United States to look for work proves positively that things are not so prosperous in Canada.
This country is not following a rational course in the matter of tariff policies and budgets. Surely the right thing to do in connection with any business or undertaking is first to lay your plan and then to work it out. On that principle, should we not first decide whether we in Canada desire to be an agricultural community, pure and simple, or a nation devoted to a happy combination of agriculture and manufacturing? Should we not decide that question first, and then go ahead? If we settled that point we would be kind enough to stop United States manufacturers coming into Canada and spending large sums of money putting up plants which sooner or later, as a result of interference with tire tariff, will not be required? On the other hand, if we decided that we needed both agriculture and industry, we could stop people coming here with the mistaken idea that we were a free trade country and that we did nothing but grow wheat for export. We could, too, by coming to a clearcut decision let our young people know in time whether it would be worth their while remaining in Canada or saving so many years of their lives by getting out of the country. Just think of the millions of dollars we are spending educating thousands of our young men simply to see them pouring over the line into the United States. We could stop that waste if we had a decisive policy as to what we intended doing. Surely we should have some such policy and pursue it instead of following, as we are doing now, a course that offers no encouragement to industry or business and that holds out no inducement to our workingmen to remain in Canada.
Some people ask the question whether Canada is adapted to manufacturing, and there are those who say that it is essentially an agricultural country. I say that Canada is suitable for manufacturing. Do hon. gentlemen realize that we can produce manufactured goods 300 days in the year, whereas agriculture can produce only for a short period in each year? Some hon. gentlemen say that our climate is a handicap; I think we talk too much against our climate.


Mr. WARD:: I do not think the hon. member is familiar with agriculture or he would not make that statement, that agriculture is carried on for three or four months of the year.


Richard Langton Baker: Let me substitute for "three
or four months," if I said it the words, "a lesser portion of the year."


William John Ward: On a properly adjusted farm operations are conducted throughout the whole twelve months. A very small percentage of our farmers are engaged in wheatgrowing only.
The Budget-Mr. Baker


Richard Langton Baker: Then it is too bad that such a small number should control the country; that is not majority rule. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we should talk less about the rigours of our climate; it is bad advertising. I think the House will agree with me that Canada's climate is all right.
With respect to our export trade, I do not think we should be too ready to boast about it. For example, England has a larger export trade per capita than United States, but she suffers from much more unemployment per capita.
Again as to the budget, Sir, I should like to have seen the Minister of Finance incorporate in it a tariff duty sufficiently high to exclude American journals. Those publications are tending to Americanize Canada, and the sooner such propaganda is checked the better it will be for this Dominion.
I should also like to have seen the budget contain an item increasing the duty, against imported woollens so as to revive the Canadian woollen industry. Attempts have been made to controvert the fact that this industry has suffered severely from lack of adequate protection, but there can be no doubt that this is the cause of its being in such a seriously depressed condition to-day. Of the thirty million dollars' worth of woollens we imported last year, considerably more than half could be manufactured in this country if the industry were adequately protected, and this would give employment to a large number of men. It must always be borne in mind that "the man follows the job," and if you want lots of population you must provide lots of jobs. In the course of his speech last week the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) stated that last year we imported only thirty million dollars' worth of woollens as against forty-five million dollars' worth in 1921, and he appeared to derive considerable satisfaction from this apparent decrease. But we must remember that prices last year were away down compared with those which prevailed in 1921, and therefore the apparent decrease of importation may be good for political purposes but it is misleading. Besides, to really judge the volume of this business we should have regard to the yardage, not to the money value. The, following figures will bear out my contention :
1921	Yards Imported	192569.03.1	Overcoatings	351,1752.585.833	Tweeds	3,327,7606,552.434	Worsteds and Serges	9,756,954
And so on down the list. This shows that while the figures presented by the minister apparently bore out his contention they did not represent the facts, and that the real condition of^ affairs can only be realized when the importations are stated in terms of yardage. We bought tremendously greater yardage in 1925 than in 1921. It is yardage that gives employment, and it is employment we want, for employment brings population.
Now, in framing a budget I think consideration should be first given to labour-in other words, to employment. A protective tariff, it must be remembered, is not simply to protect the manufacturer; this is purely incidental; the prime purpose of such a tariff is to protect the wages of the working people. In short, the safeguarding of our industries is primarily to protect the wage-earners of this country so they can work in Canada at high wages which will enable them to maintain the Canadian standard of living, not at such wages as are current in mid-Europe and Japan, where the standard of living is deplorably low. When discussing the budget the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) pleaded for a minimum wage regulated by the cost of living. Well, so it should be, and we hope that the minimum wage of Canadian workers will always be a good liberal wage. But I cannot see how it is possible for him to consistently plead, as he no doubt conscientiously does, for that laudable objective and at the same time vote against the only party in this House with a policy which will assure to the working people of Canada a minimum wage sufficient to meet the high cost of living. One thing we have to contend with in this House is inconsistency, and I address these remarks to the hon. gentleman in the most kindly spirit and in the hope that he will see his way clear to support the party that is supporting the people whom he is supposed to be representing. I hope he will represent them by taking this course, for there are no people in the world more worthy of proper representation than the labouring people of Canada. I hope he will accept my suggestion and support the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), and so make certain that labour will not be interfered with in the future by a government which fails to properly look after the interests of the working people. We have seen this government ignore the tariff board which it recently created and then take the bull by the horns and shake the automobile industry all to pieces, thus throwing our working men out of their jobs.

The Budget-Mr. Baker
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has also pleaded, and quite properly, for the relief of unemployment. Might I respectfully suggest to him that the greatest relief he could possibly give them would be by supporting the fiscal policy of the Conservative party which will ensure adequate protection to every Canadian workman.
As to old age pensions, Sir, I think it is a very deserving proposal, and I think every one in this House agrees with the principle; the only difference of opinion is in regard to the details of working it out. In applying this principle I think the one thing we should guard against is to so frame the legislation that it will not be possible for people to qualify for pensions who have not given their labour to Canada between the ages, say, of twenty and fifty. If they need it they should have good, reasonable old age pensions, but foreigners, after giving their labour to a foreign land, should not be able to come here and receive old age pensions at the expense of the Dominion of Canada. That is the old age pension system I think should be put in force.
Then we come to the question of population, and I think we all agree that we need an increase in population; I presume there is no argument on that point. I think it was mentioned by one hon. gentleman that we did not necessarily need increased population to be a good country, but I do not agree with that. We must have more people for our area, for the railroad plans we have laid out, for our expensive government and for our great national debt. We must increase our population and make that population prosperous by a proper fiscal policy. We know, of course, that with double our present population the per capita debt and expense of government would be so much decreased. We have now ten parliaments to govern eight million people; if they are all as good as this one, of course, they will be able to govern forty million people. Let us get the people, and it will then cost so much less per capita for government. Our railroads can handle twenty-five million people as well as they handle our present population, and the overhead would not increase, which would give our railroads a chance to show good profits.
With regard to our population I am satisfied that- the only immigration policy for Canada is one which safeguards our industries by adequate protection. Then we will have an inflow so great that we will be able to put in a quota system and choose our population. We can take as many as we like from the United States-and let us take a large number from there; we can take a great
number from Great Britain, and also from France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway and Sweden. In other words, let our new population come from Great Britain, the United States and the northern part of Europe. These people are willing to come to Canada, but they will not come and we do not wish them here if we have not employment for them. But there is a way to provide that employment, and only one way.
We have had some discussion in this House about treaties. I have many notes on this subject but I am not going into it in detail. We have a treaty with France, a treaty with Belgium, a treaty with Australia, a treaty with New Zealand and so on. So far as I can see -and I say it fearlessly, because it is only my own humble judgment-this government are very poor treaty makers. That is shown in so many ways, and although the farmer

but I will not say the farmer, rather the farmers and grain growers of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Langton Baker: No, no, I do not mean that
as a joke; I do not want to disqualify any hon. member. In this House we have both;
I was contradicted on that point a moment ago, and I want to be as nearly correct as possible this time. They have rather belittled the fact that the Australian or New Zealand treaties may work against their interests; very well; this is another case where only time will tell, but I am well convinced of what the result will be. I am sure they will see the error of their ways very quickly and ask the House to reverse its former action. In other words, what we want is foresight and not hindsight; we should not make these treaties and then withdraw them. I think some hon. members to my left would be very glad to see these treaties withdrawn now. I believe it was the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) who said that since these treaties were in force it was only fair and decent to give them a trial for at least six months. But I noticed the hon. member said-and I was very pleased to hear it-that he did not see why this government wanted to go to Australia for a treaty because, as he said at page 1082 of Hansard, our imports from Australia amounted to only $762,113 in 1917, while out exports to that country amounted to $6,549,546. That trade was doing very well and might have been left alone, as the hon. member suggested; there was no real need of a treaty at all. Then I have a memorandum here in regard to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). He said that he voted against the Australian treaty in the last parliament
316S
The Budget-Mr. Baker

because it increased the duty on raisins. I think that is a rather interesting reason.
My idea of treaties, Mr. Speaker, is that we in Canada need a treaty among ourselves; a treaty of the east with the centre and the west; of the west with the centre and the east, and of the centre with both east and west. We should expend our energy in that direction, if I may respectfully suggest it to this House. We want internal trade, a national policy for the protection of all industries; protection within Canada. There is lots of room for work; we can spend lots of time in making that kind of treaty. Why should we buy farm products . from foreigners when Quebec produces such large quantities of the same farm products? If Ontario must import %rm products I should say the fiscal policy of,'this country should be such as to enable Ontario to secure those farm products from Quebec, and not from some foreign country.
It is said that Canada is difficult to govern. I do not say that, but it has been said in this House more than once. Supposing that to be so, that should provide all the more interest; an easy job has no interest at all. If Canada is difficult to govern let us go at it hard and lose no time in getting down to business.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are doing it.


Richard Langton Baker: We are not getting anywhere and never will get anywhere under existing conditions here. The work of government may be difficult, but there is too much partisan politics in the game. We have five troubles in this country, with which we are all well acquainted; the fiscal policy, taxation, transportation, immigration and emigration. Our imports, taxes, salaries and incomes, no matter what their source, are all paid out of domestic production. That is where we get our money, so if we protect our production we protect the source of all our business and revenue. Hence we return to that principle which hon. members will notice I have been continually suggesting, because to my mind it is the only thing to save this country. That principle will be eventually adopted and inaugurated and will save this country, but let us save time; when you save time in a matter of such importance you save a tremendous amount of money, so let us get at it as quickly as possible; let us get right down to business, and do what we all know must be done. We must safeguard our industries by adequate protection.
On the surface, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest difficulties we have in Canada is that 
conditions are unbalanced. I think if we take it gradually and look it over carefully, we will find that that is the trouble. But I do not say there should be any upset because we are unbalanced. In a business you wiil have departments overbalanced and unbalanced, but you will not upset that unbalanced department; by the success of other departments this one department will be allowed to find its level without loss. I mention that because I am going to make a remark in a moment about grain, and I do not want my friends the grain growers to be disturbed at what I have to say. I would not take anyone's business without reimbursing him. The country is unbalanced in this way; for the welfare of the Dominion we are. producing too much wheat. If we grew less wheat for export and produced more vegetable and farm products in general and had more manufacturing, we would then be more evenly balanced and would have less trouble and less turmoil than we are having to-day. I think it quite evident that the wheat production of Canada is out of all proportion to the industries and general farming, and if you will notice, that is the root of the trouble in this House. If we would work along those lines to try to balance things up, stop growing more wheat for export until we catch up on the vegetable and general farming products and the manufacturing, we would get along better. For example, why should we import a hundred million dollars' worth of farm products which we could grow in this country, and for which we must send out wheat of the same value? If we did not do that we could consume more of our own wheat at home. I know that cannot all be done at once, but in the meantime the production and export of wheat might be kept at such a level, by a statutory process which can easily be worked out, that losses will not be occasioned in the meantime.


William John Ward: Is the hon. gentleman advocating a reduction in the production of wheat?


Richard Langton Baker: I do not advocate that; I
simply suggest the advisability of not further increasing our wheat production. Let it stand still until other forms of industry catch up. If we go ahead, and develop and overdevelop our wheat production, we will have to carry on our present expense in spreading out the railroads, whereas by stopping the increase we will do away with that. I think we will be balanced then; there will be a great deal

more harmony in this House and through the Dominion, and more prosperity to all.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, thait I am not thoroughly versed in farming; we cannot all have that pleasure and privilege, but I think it is generally admitted that these new lands now being broken in for the production of grain for export will not, in twenty years, produce so much per acre. If that is so are we not using up too much of the virgin soil of this country in the present generation for the purpose of exporting wheat to foreign countries, when that land may be required in fifty years or more for food for the coming generations? That should be also taken into consideration.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: May I ask the hon. member if he is now enunciating the policy of the Conservative party?


Richard Langton Baker: I tried to enunciate the
policy of my party before touching this question, but apparently I have not made myself clear. I would not like to take the time of the House in going over it again, but if my hon. friend would do me the honour of coming to my room to-morrow I would be. very pleased to have a talk with him on the subject.
As I was saying, this question of the unbalanced production of wheat has to be taken into serious consideration. I hope I have the success of the wheat growing industry as much at heart as any Canadian, but if we should grow no more wheat than we are growing now, and in the meantime work out a policy whereby we could consume a greater amount of our Canadian wheat at home, I think we would be proceeding in the right direction. I have a number of quotations on United States wheat; everyone knows it is inferior in quality to Canadian wheat, but it is quoted sometimes as high as 15 cents a bushel more than the Winnipeg market.
The policy I am advocating for the balancing of trade in this country would give protection to the wheat grower as well as to everyone else; he would receive more money for his wheat, which would benefit everyone. Then again on this question of the over-production of wheat, we must remember Russia; supposing Russia should become sane? She is. on the road to sanity now, and what about wheat when she gets back to normal? I read the other day of a shipment of 30,000 tractors from New York to Russia, which were paid for by cash. If the wheat fields of Russia are opened up I presume we cannot produce wheat as cheaply as it can be produced in that country. They are in dose proximity
The Budget-Mr. Baker
to England, and England will buy where she can get the grain the cheapest; then where shall we find a market for our wheat? The United States will not take it; Russia will be supplying England, and what are we going to do with our hundreds of millions of bushels of surplus production? Why not see that possible trouble ahead and stop now this excess production? Let the grain grower see the true light and start to build up a home market in Canada, looking forward to that possible menace in the future. I call that good business. Do not wait until the trouble comes, and then say: Oh well, we used to send all our wheat to Europe but Russia has the market to-day. And we must remember that there is the Argentine also supplying wheat to the world's market. The standard of living in these competing countries is low, compared with ours, and what are you going to do then? The one salvation for the western wheat grower, and he is coming to see it, is to build up a home market in this country, and that is the policy advocated by the Conservative party.
There are many viewpoints of protection, but I would like to give a quotation you have all heard before very often; to my mind it is so good that I do not think anyone can hear it too often or dwell upon it too much. It is a quotation from Abraham Lincoln, and it is good. He was more modest than we are; he did not presume to know very much about protection. He said:
I do not know much about tariffs, but I do know this much: When we buy goods from a foreign country, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money; but when we buy goods at home, we get both the goods and the money.
I think it would be a good thing to have that framed as a motto and sent all over the country to be hung on every man's wall. There are other people that have ideas on protection, for example the Prime Minister. He gave utterances to some of those ideas in this House on April 30th, 1925, as reported at page 2656 of revised Hansard. The Prime Minister said on that occasion that what the country needs is protection for the women. Well, to that extent I agree with him. But when he talks about his knowledge of protection for women he ought to discuss the question a little with some of us grandfathers in this House. We who have mothers, sisters, wives, and married daughters ought to know a little more about protection of women than the Prime Minister does. The right hon. gentleman says there should be protection for women. He is right but the protection the housewife wants is to know that her man is going to have a job and whether he is going

The Budget-Mr. Baker

to have his pay envelope every week. Those who have had to go out and look for a job, whether it be in mercantile pursuits, in farming, or anything else, in order to get a pay envelope for the wife and family, know, perhaps a little more about this subject than the Prime Minister who talked in this strain so glibly. Yes, the housewife wants to know, also whether her son when he becomes old enough to go out into the world and earn his living is going to get a job in Canada instead of having to go to the United States to look for employment. That is another sort of protection the housewife wants. The Prime Minister has not been running this government in a way that will produce that result, and it is just about time he did. There is only one way in which it can be done properly, and that is by establishing a suitable fiscal policy for this country. It is only those accustomed to grind at the wheels of commerce or to plow the soil and who find themselves out of a job, who appreciate the stem realities which confront them when there is a lack of that protection.
Now I wish to refer to some inconsistencies that we have witnessed here. In the first place let me take the government. Other hon. members on previous occasions have referred to their lack of sincerity and some fault has been found with the application to them of such a term. I do not wish to be called to account by the Speaker and therefore I will not speak of " insincerity," I will use the word " inconsistency ". The latter term is almost equally as good as the other and I hope it is parliamentary. Now, the inconsistencies of this government are really very striking all the way through. I have not made a list of them, but they are really very numerous. And in this connection I may say that the stand taken by labour- or rather by its representatives in this House -although I have no doubt sincere, has been inconsistent. The very fact of the present government being still in existence after the famous Richmond Hill speech of the Prime Minister is the very height of inconsistency.
In this House we are apt sometimes to figure that we are familiar with the viewpoint of the farmers. In trying to get that viewpoint I think we should be careful to differentiate between farmers and grain growers. M hile we have many farmers and grain growers here, I think the spirit of the general farming community of Canada is not truly, consistently, and generally represented in this House. In my opinion it figures on the other side of the question to a rather overpowering degree. May I say also to my hon. friends from the province of Quebec-and I say it

conscientiously and fearlessly but with great kindness-that they are not representing the spirit of that province. They are inconsistent when it comes to representing the spirit of the province of Quebec, because if there is any province in Canada which is protectionist in spirit all the way through it is that very province. What is at the bottom of all these inconsistencies? I am afraid it is politics. Personally I am sorry to see such a display of inconsistency. Many new members like myself coming to parliament for the first time were very unfortunate to arrive when parliament had reached the stage where a policy of bartering was entered into in order to enable the present government to hold power. Had we entered this House when conditions were normal our first session would not have impressed us so unfavourably. As it is, our impression of the elevation and dignity of parliamentary institutions has been somewhat lessened by what we have -witnessed.
Referring to trade conditions, the farmer will come into his own when commerce is again properly balanced and proper steps are taken for the building up of a home market. I want to speak with some frankness as to the policy which should be pursued in the national interest, and I know my hon. friends from the west will accept my remarks in the proper spirit. In the first place is it not desirable, in the interests of unity and a real national spirit, that the newer provinces should display due consideration for what I may call the parent provinces? If we are to live together as one family and one household should not a certain consideration be manifested for the older members of the family who are supplying the most of the funds? In a properly managed household do not the older and more experienced members have the most to say? But here we have the younger members of the family coming in and trying to dictate the policy of the household. It seems to me that is rather premature on their part; I think a contrary policy should be followed without detriment to any particular province.
Before closing let me say that I do not approve of group government. I desire to put myself on record on that question and for this reason: The feeling in this country at the present time is that we should return to two party government, and so far as I know our Libera] friends would agree to that. If there is anything better than two party government, it would be government without party, but we have not yet reached that point of perfection. Group government, parliaments ruled by a minority as we see it in this House, is not a good thing for the country.

The Budget-Mr. Baker
I do not need to speak of the effect of the tariff on industry or on the price of goods. It has been argued very often by hon. members that a tariff raises the price of goods. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) who sits on the other side of the House, has answered that question very satisfactorily and shown- that a tariff does not necessarily advance the price of the goods. The hon. gentleman gave us instances of articles produced in this country, the prices of which were no more than the prices of similar articles in a country where they had 35 per cent protection against them.
I could refer to utterances of many other hon. members in this House, but I will not take the time. Let us throw aside the theories of Cobden and Cartwright; they do not apply to Canada to-day. Cobden's theories might have been all right a hundred years ago in England, but this is not England a hundred years ago, this is the Canada of today. Cartwright's theories were not accepted in this country in his day. Let us get down to business and consider the practical facts and conditions as they at present exist in Canada. I suggest that if hon. members would study men like W. R. Morson and other up-to-date authorities on the subject, they would receive greater assistance. I noticed that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) gave us the latest statistics on cattle. Indeed I do not know whether he succeeded in persuading the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) that the Hamiltonians were not as big beef eaters as they were pictured to be. The Hamilton people may have come from the Tower of London and perhaps they were good beef eaters. But the point he was making was, how many pounds of beef a day these people were consuming. The qustion was in regard to the exportation of beef. If we had in our country the people who were driven out of Canada by bad fiscal policy, the amount of beef that went to England from Canada last year would not need to be exported at all. In going over the figures the hon. member made special mention of the fact that in the statistics he was dealing with there were no importation of asses. He made rather a striking remark in regard to that. I do not know what his idea was in drawing attention to it, in particular but upon looking up the statistics of the breeding of live stock in Canada I find there is no record of any asses being bred in Canada; so honours are even.


Mr. BROWN:: The statistics I gave were
correct.


Richard Langton Baker: Quite right, there were no
asses imported and also none bred here. Referring to page 1925 of the same book I find that in Saskatchewan they had practically all the mules in Canada-9073 mules-but there are practically none in the other provinces. I am only dealing with agricultural statistics, and we are talking about quadrupeds now.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make special mention of the hon. members representing constituencies in the province of Quebec. I speak truly and to the best of my knowledge that twenty or thirty of the hon. members representing constituencies in the province of Quebec are not really representing the spirit of the people of Quebec, having re- ' ference to the politics of the two different parties in this House. I appeal to hon. gentlemen and I say that they do know that the spirit of the province of Quebec is protectionist all the way through. Having reference to the magnificent protectionist policy consistently pursued from beginning to end by their able provincial government, I appeal to hon. members from that province and I say to them, "You have the power to save the situation that now exists in Canada." I appeal to the members from Quebec to consider this matter seriously; on the question of their duty to their country and the loyalty they have always shown to their country, with the permission of the Speaker they might ask the privilege of crossing the floor of the House, on the ground that they want to divorce themselves from the party who do not believe in protection. I would like to see a real page made in history; I would like to see twenty members from Quebec cross the floor on the question of a trade policy which makes for the welfare of the Dominion of Canada. By so doing you guard your industries because under present conditions you never know when your industries are going to be hurt.
Let me say from my seat in the House one word to the people of Canada. I suggest that they should take more interest in the affairs of their country and vote for the adoption of a fiscal policy which means live and let live for all parts of Canada. I should like to ask the people of Canada to consider the recent election and the results of the returns sent in by returning officers, which show that tens of thousands of people in Canada did not vote at all. It is too bad; they should vote. It is almost a question whether we should not have compulsory voting as they have it in Australia. I appeal to the people to send only to this parliament, as indeed they
The Budget-Mr. Letellier

generally do, men who with staunch hearts will follow a policy of Canada first and foremost, Canada as a link in that world chain of nations on which the sun never sets, so as to secure peace, happiness and prosperity to all the people of this world.


Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton) (Translation: Mr. Speaker, called upon, at the
opening of the first session of the fifteenth Parliament, to represent in this House, the riding of Compton, I heard noisy protests, from my very arrival, among the hon. members of His Majesty's opposition, and, above the din of these protests, it was easy to make out these words loudly uttered against the * government:	"It is a headless government,
a moribund government; a government usurper of the people's rights." Fortunately, to-day, these high sounding phrases used by the hon. members of the opposition have subsided and one may surmise that a forced1 compunction obliges and will oblige, for a long time, our friends of the opposition to use towards the present government a more subdued tone and wiser language.
Who, among the hon. members of the opposition, would dare contend that the present government is without a leader? The hon. Prime Minister, on the one hand, with much consideration for the popular verdict-owing to the complexity of the vote-deemed it wise to ask His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to call parliament in order that it might solve the uncertain situation in which were placed the various parties in this House; on the other hand, very considerate of the code of honour and wishing to enter parliament by the expressed will of the people, he declined the offer of generous members who desired to vacate their seat in his behalf. He is now placed in authority, and I heartily congratulate him for having so wisely acted. His so sincere devotedness to public affairs, and his so profound respect for our free institutions, are a guarantee of a very sound administration.
"It is a moribund government," stated hon. gentlemen of the opposition. Could they express themselves thus when they saw the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) occupying the so difficult post of acting leader, with such dignity and rare tactfulness which even compelled their admiration.
Could they possibly maintain that the government was dying, when such hon. ministers as Robb, Boivin, Stewart, Cardin, Motherwell, Cannon, Macdonald and King, at the head of their important departments, fulfilled their task with such ability and zeal.
The people wished that the government which was so unjustly attacked should no

longer put up with the abusive language of the opposition, and we witnessed one after the other the present office holders take their place in the departments of Railways and Labour, they will prove themselves worthy of the task entrusted to them-I have named the hon. Messrs Dunning and Elliott.
"A government usurper of the people's rights," had cried out hon. members of the opposition. Fascinated by the allurement of power, they checked up their numbers and came to the conclusion that their supporters were numerous enough to entitle them to be called upon to form a government. It is then that my hon. friends of the Progressive party generously cast their vote with the government so as to preserve to the country a wise, far-seeing and progressive administration. You alone, Mr. Speaker, escaped the criticisms to which the government had to submit, and the unanimous choice of the hon. members of this House in placing you again in the Speaker's chair, leads me to believe that the day is not far away, when legislation will make permanent the office you so gracefully hold. Together with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) I express the hope that you will become the first holder.
The budget that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) presented to us raises a unanimous chorus of praise. The unavoidable criticisms which it has also suggested will not prevent the people from being relieved of $25,000,COO of taxes, and appreciating the wisdom of the Liberal government who, heirs to the enormously difficult task bequeathed by the previous government, nevertheless were able to rouse the country from the state of depression into which it had fallen and lead it on to prosperity, where the vigour of the eminently constructive principles embodied in the Liberal party's policy will shine in all their splendor.
The budget shows us a real surplus and there is no need of further proof than that of the wiping out of taxes. Scrutinize the budget, glance at it with an evil eye, if you so wish, truth is always truth, and the hon. members of the opposition will have to humbly admit that the hon. Minister of Finance has had the glory of rousing great enthusiasm from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific. Objection may be taken that automobile manufacturers closed or wished to close their factories, owing to lack of protection. I shall retort: the present government is not the appointee of financial interests, but the elect of the people, and it intends to safeguard the rights of the people in preference to the interests of a few large business concerns.

The Budget-Mr. Letellier
This budget brings me joy, because it will allow the government to work out some measure in regard to the rural credit scheme.
I am very sorry to find that so worthy and able a man as the hon. leader of the opposition has discovered in this some manoeuvre favouring my party. I am also sorry to see that a measure announced by His Excellency the Governor General, in his Address from the Throne, a measure so necessary and so prolific in benefits to the farming class, lias been the object of attack, to the extent of giving the impression that it was a bait to draw the hon. members of the Progressive party to cast their votes with the government. Yet this legislation was necessary, it was and is still urgent.
To promote farming is but to want the country's prosperity; to give generously and wisely to farmers is to accomplish a patriotic work and consequently one that is truly national, I now turn towards those who understand farming, I ask the hon. members of the Progressive party

they who know what amount of labour is required in operating a farm, until is reaped the golden wheat which produces bread, those who are accustomed to feel the burning rays of a July sun and to feel their hands hardening with the daily farm routine- I put the question to them as well as to the great army of noble toilers of the land of whom they are the worthy representatives here: has the Liberal government brought down this rural credit measure only to please you? Would we be a prey to selfish feelings such as are unknown to you? You approve of this measure because it favours the farmer, it matters little whether he lives in Ontario, Quebec or the Maritime provinces. Do the high winds of your vast, prolific and fertile prairies bring to eastern Canada selfishness or freedom? They bring freedom and you rejoice in the success of the eastern farmers, as they themselves rejoice when Providence bestows upon you an abundant crop. No, this rural credit is a measure resting on justice and equality, and I shall always find it strange that a measure destined to produce such excellent results can 'be the object of spiteful attacks. We have, for many years, claimed this rural credit system in the province of Quebec.
During a number of years, I had the honour of being the president of the Farmers' Association of the parish of Lake Megantic, and I had advocated this measure long ago. Last autumn, in Montreal, at the annual meeting of the members of the Catholic Farmers' Union of the Province of Quebec-in which more than 1,200 delegates took part- resolutions asking for this measure were 14011-202
adopted. Later on, when this question is under consideration, I shall submit these resolutions to the House.
Moreover, the hon. Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, who was present at this meeting, spoke in favour of it and expressed the hope that some day the Dominion Government would come to an understanding with the various provincial governments to have such a measure adopted. He also expressed the hope that the banks and the co-operative societies, on agreement, might be of great help in the effective working of the rural credit system. We are aware that here and there private industries fail for lack of funds or lack of co-operation. After making a start with that so beneficial grant to the rural credit system, the government, I trust, will find it possible before long to advance funds, in order that associations may be formed in the most important localities, toward facilitating the canning of a number of products, and through this medium farming will find itself greatly benefited:	the
farmers, in the vicinity of these important localities but at a distance from large centres, will find an easy market for the sale of their [DOT] garden products. I shall always lend my support to such a measure, because to my mind there lies the source of the welfare of the farming class. I wish to let my hon friends of the opposition know that if I support the measure in connection with the rural credit system, I do not do so with the aim implied in their criticisms, but for the welfare of the whole country. I further wish to add that it would be proper and wise to have a well organized propaganda, aiming at pointing out to the farmer the great usefulness of a system of book-keeping, and especially in connection with an act providing for a system of farm loans. Who, during the last electoral campaign, did not witness how one sought to have the people of this Dominion believe that the country was going to ruin, governed, so it was stated, by an administration who did not understand the true economic interests of the country. People who read certain newspapers saw the farmers leaving their lands to cross the border seeking elsewhere the bread which, it was said, had been taken away from them in this country. They saw large armies of workers with starvation staring them in the face and reflected in their clothes, seeking work and finding none. The manufacturer was pictured as standing on the threshold of his factory and turning away his whole staff because, he said, the government gave them no protection. Yes, I saw them

The Budget-Mr. Letellier

and you all saw these posters carrying from the east to the west the whisper of death, discouraging those who remained in the country, stopping at the borders those who wished to return home. You saw them, and I also saw them, these headlines aiming at throwing terror and fear among the population, in order to induce them to defeat the government. What happened? A number of votes were thus secured, but they were unable to defeat the government to whom, a few months later, the opportunity was given, not to start a campaign of terror and pessimism, but to send out to the whole population this cheering message which was so greatly applauded:	Hope! Prosperity is returning* notwithstanding what may be said. Your shoulders were bent owing to the heavy burdens carried and for which we were not responsible; to-day we relieve you of these burdens, we relieve you of $25,000,000 of taxes, in order that you may breathe more freely.
The people had been deprived of freedom, the Liberal government returns it to them. The country is entering on an era of prosperity, and it is to the everlasting glory of the Liberal government that they were able, notwithstanding innumerable difficulties to start it on its path towards its high destinies.


Mr. C. J. HAMILTON (Stormont):: As
brevity is the soul of wit and procrastination the thief of time I have decided to occupy very: little of the time of this House in discussing the budget which is before us. This is the first occasion on which I have risen to speak in this House, and although I have passed the age allotted to men I have never been in a parliamentary assembly before coming here. In the early days of the session, while the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was acting as Prime Minister, he offered very encouraging words to the younger members of the House, the substance of which was that every man in this House was on an equal footing and should therefore take an interest in the affairs of parliament and of the country. With that encouragement I rise to-night to show why I stand on this side of the House in defence of the, doctrine of protection.
There are few members in this House who can recall the origin of the protective tariff enunciated by the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. In 1873 the government of Sir John A. Macdonald was in power, and as older members will recollect, during the regime of that administration the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken. While the preliminaries of that great enterprise were in progress a certain telegram
	,
was dispatched through the country, and being intercepted and brought into the House it necessitated the resignation of the Macdonald ministry. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie took office in November 1873, forming a cabinet of the most capable men in the country. He carried on until 1874 when he appealed to the electorate and succeeded in sweeping the country, coming back to the House with an enormous majority, Sir John Macdonald being in opposition with a very much reduced following. Strange to say, the conditions in the country financially, industrially and otherwise began to go from bad to worse, and Canada was in a depressed state. Practically all our industries were at a standstill and this situation continued until 1876 or 1877, when it became intensified. Delegation after delegation came to the House and were met with the answer that the governments of countries had no control over economic affairs, and that therefore the administration in power could offer no assistance. It was declared that governments, being mere flies on the wheel, could not help matters. In the meantime the condition throughout the country was in so deplorable a state, that to my personal knowledge Toronto and other cities in Ontario-I cannot speak for the other provinces-were crowded with soup kitchens, and men were going about begging for a ticket to get a piece of bread and a bowl of soup. This is not paper talk; it is personal knowledge, for I was a student in the University of Toronto at the time and I know whereof I speak. What I say can be corroborated by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who was also a student with me. Delegations waited upon Sir John A. Macdonald and asked him whether he could do nothing to alleviate the distressing situation that prevailed. Sir John A. Macdonald inaugurated the National Policy and said:
The welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National Policy. We are often asked, What is a National Policy? Gentlemen on the opposite side brought in a measure in a previous year which they called a National Policy, but it was practically free trade, but fell a little short of entire perfection by the necessities of revenue. The free trade which has been argued in England, which has been argued here, and which has been argued in the United States would never make a nation. There are national considerations that rise far higher than the mere accumulation of wealth, than the mere question of trade advantage, there is prestige, national status, national dominion, and no great nation has ever risen w'hose policy was free trade.
On another occasion in 1876 he spoke as follows:
We are informed in the Speech from the Throne that there is stagnation in trade. We are informed also-

The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
that this has arisen not from any fault of our own but in consequence of the depression in trade that has taken place in the . neighbouring country. If it be true, I say that if there ever is a time when it is lawful, or allowable, or wise, or expedient for a government to interfere, now is that time. Besides the general principle which I have been advocating, that our great manufacturing industries require support, the manufacturers of this country have been up against it. Some have been working half time, some three-quarter time and some have scarcely been keeping their doors open, hoping and believing that they would get assistance, and now at this last moment, just as they thought the time of relief was coming, just when their tether was strained to the utmost, when they were keeping on their work people not by spending their own money, but by their credit and by pledging their resources, in the hope and belief that they were going to get assistance from the government, no aid was given. The disappointment was dreadful and there was deep indignation, curses not loud but deep.
In 1878 the government of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie went to the country, and Sir John A. Macdonald for the first time launched the National Policy as the war-cry of the Conservative party. He swept the country and came back with an enormous majority. Immediately confidence was restored, industries that had been lying idle for months resumed operations, and shortly after, owing to the confidence that was inspired throughout the country, he was able to organize a company for the building of that railroad which was eventually the cause of his downfall. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company carried that railroad from ocean to ocean, and it has opened up and civilized the great country from which hon. gentlemen to the left come, where millions of bushels of wheat are grown every year. When I was a boy we were taught that that country was good for nothing but the buffalo and the Indian.
The doctrine of protection has been preached ever since. After Sir John A. Macdonald's death his policy was continued by his successors until it reached the hands of the greatest of all native Canadians, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He never touched that policy to the extent that he ever injured the industries of this country, and there was never any anxiety respecting its continuance until the tinkering with the tariff commenced four years ago. It will be remembered by hon. gentlemen that when interference with the tariff was first mooted some of the brightest men on the opposite side left the party^at any rate they left the House.
To-day this country cannot continue without being protected against the importations of the manufactured products of those countries which have erected tariff walls against our products. I do not believe in a tariff structure that will make millions of dollars for a few people, but I do believe in such a protective tariff as will give the working man.
14011-202i	,
the man who has to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, adequate protection. He is the first man who should be considered. I believe also in such a tariff as will protect the farmer, and when I say the farmer I include the dairyman. For the last forty-eight years I have been associated with farmers, I am dealing with them every day, and I know the difficulties they have to encounter, especially the difficulties that the dairy farmers, have to surmount, and these difficulties are becoming still more troublesome owing to the health laws that now govern dairying. When I heard an hon. gentleman to-night say that there should be protection for the women, I thought the farmers' wives needed protection most of all, because they are the hardest working women in this country. It is generally conceded, Mr. Speaker, that everything possible should be done for our agriculturists. If they are not prospering, then the country generally cannot prosper. We all know that the first fruits of the farm are what make a country prosperous. This is proven by the fact that every year our great financial institutions send their agents throughout the Dominion, particularly throughout the northwest, to ascertain what are the prospects for a bountiful harvest, and if those men come back with favourable reports the financial institutions regulate their investments accordingly.
I wonder if hon. members have any idea of what the dairy industry means to this country. I was amazed the other day when I read the report of an address recently delivered by Mr. J. A. Ruddick. Dominion Commissioner of Dairying and Cold Storage, before the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association. He is one of our most experienced men in dairying pursuits on this continent. Some time ago Mr. Ruddick spoke in rather an alarming way about Canada's dairy industry. From the proud position it had attained in the Canadian and British markets-a position which he himself was in no small measure responsible for-it was, he feared, being ousted by countries that had sat at the feet of Canadian dairymen. His criticisms of slovenly methods that had been unconsciously slid into were outspoken and unpleasant, but apparently they have achieved their purpose in some measure, for Mr. Ruddick now says:
I have as you all know, offered some rather severe criticism of conditions and methods in the industry during the last few years. There was a time when I felt rather discouraged and had some doubts as to how we were going to meet the new competition. If I put things rather strongly, it was because I wanted to awaken the dairymen of Canada to a sense of the seriousness of the situation. I don't know what effect anything I have said may have had, but I do know that there has been decided advancement during the

The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
last two years, and it gives me pleasure to say so. The conditions in the industry have by no means passed beyond the reach of criticism, but I believe in giving credit for what has been done as an encouragement to further effort.
The importance to Canada of its dairy industry is stressed by Mr. Ruddick in a rather interesting way. The estimated value of the total dairy production in 1925 is $300,000,000, nearly three times as great as it was fifteen years ago. Mr. Ruddick says:
The report on mineral production in 1924, gives the total value as $209,583,406. This includes everything that comes out of the earth-gold, silver and other precious metals, iron, copper, nickel, etc., coal, natural gas and oil, salt and gypsum, construction material like cement, stone, sand, lime and all clay products including brick. And yet the total value of all these materials is only a little more than two-thirds as much as the value of Canadian dairy production.
The mining man leaves a desolation behind him. The dairyman, improves the land he occupies, and leaves it in better condition for repeating the production, and yet I daresay that the average "man in the street" if asked would tell you that the mining industry is of greater importance to this country than the dairy industry. Perhaps he judges by the larger amount of space it occupies in the public press, or by the larger number of high salaried men employed in developing it. I may be prejudiced, but it seems that the public lacks a sense of proportion in this matter. Mining is a highly speculative industry. Fortunes are lost as well as made by those engaged in it. Dairying offers no opportunity for acquiring great wealth, but it does open one of the surest and safest roads to a competency that is to be found in the whole realm of agriculture for the man who is willing to stick to it.
I had no idea that such conditions prevailed in this country. For that reason I am coupling the dairy interests with farming, and I think it becomes the duty of this government or of any other government to advance agriculture and the dairying industry by every possible means.
Following the introduction of the protective tariff, Canada went ahead by leaps and bounds. In 1870 Fort Garry was a place where there was nobody but Indians; to-day it has a population of 260,000. Not only that, but Edmonton, Calgary, Brandon, Portage la Prairie and many other cities in what was called the Northwest Territories have all made wonderful progress and have been brought into touch with the outer world by that greatest of all advertisers of the Dominion of Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Coming now to the budget, my profession is not that of Minister of Finance; I am a worker; I never have any money to finance with, but I have a head on me, and I know when it is raining. In the first place we had a solemn promise from the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) previous to the election that a tariff board would be appointed and that all matters in

connection with the tariff would be submitted to that board before any changes were made. That was stated not only by the Prime Minister but I think by every one of his candidates; it certainly was promised in my riding. Then when parliament assembled we found that the Speech from the Throne also contained a promise that a tariff board would be formed and that no changes would take place in the tariff until they had been considered and reported upon to this House by that board. After a great deal of discussion, as we all remember, the Speech from the Throne was adopted by the House. When the Speech from the Throne was adopted, it became, in effect, an order to appoint that board and to carry out the promise made with regard to the tariff not only during the election, but again specifically in the Speech from the Throne itself. But that was not done. Without any warning this budget was brought down, proposing considerable changes in the tariff. I want to say right here that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who occupies the post of Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). He comes from a constituency just across the river from mine, and there is no gentleman in that part of the country who is more highly thought of. At one time he was employed in the town in which I live, and it was only the other day that a very prominent man asked me about him .and spoke of him in the very highest terms. I believe the hon. minister was actuated by what he thought was right when he brought this budget before the House.
We find that the budget reduces the postage rate. But how many postage stamps does the ordinary man in this country who is working for a living buy in a year? How much does this reduction help him? It does help the man who is able to pay for postage, but not very much the ordinary working man.
The receipt tax is another tax that the man who is able to pay ought to pay. The wiping off of this tax does not help very much the workingman or the ordinary man of moderate means. So I do not look upon these two reductions as much of a gift to the ordinary working people of this country.
As to the income tax, liow many men in this country have been paying income tax on an income of $2,000 or under? Hardly any. So the reduction proposed, while it may help the man who had to pay income tax before, is of no benefit whatever to the man who did not have to pay income tax before. Here again, is a reduction that only helps the man who is able to pay the tax, and who

The Budget-Mr. Evans
should pay it. So that is not much of a gift to the ordinary people of this country.
I have listened with a great deal of interest and much pleasure to the members from the Maritime provinces who have spoken on behalf of that part of the country. I have heard them state their case. I can recall the confederation days and the difficult negotiations that were had before confederation was brought about. I remember reading the promise that was given to the eastern portions of this country when they joined confederation, and I believe it should be the aim of this House immediately to relieve the Maritime provinces and give them what they were promised at that time, and what they are justly entitled to under the bargain that was made when they entered confederation with us."
I would also be strongly in favour of backing up anything that would develop the coal fields of Alberta, thereby giving work to the men in Alberta and enabling the central provinces of Canada to get Alberta coal. We should be burning our own coal instead of having to go on our knees to our friends to the south and asking them to keep us warm throughout the winter. We have wonderful coal resources, and we should use them. We have also the necessary transportation facilities to bring the coal to central Canada, and it is only a question of getting the right kind of men together to settle these questions, when the people of this country will benefit by the development and use of our own coal.
As I promised at the beginning I am not going to occupy much time, because I have been told that I am a good deal like the minister who was accused of not preaching a long enough sermon. A delegation waited on him and told him that the congregation were not satisfied with his preaching, that they wanted him to preach longer. His reply was that he was born in Pennsylvania, that his father was an oil man, and that he had always heard his father say that any man who could not strike oil in half an hour was either boring in the wrong hole or else there was something wrong with his auger. So I am going to take the advice of the oil man of Pennsylvania. I have given what I think is a common sense view of the subject that is before us, and I am strongly in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William (|Mr. Manion) to submit every question respecting the tariff to the tariff board before any changes whatever are made.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, the budget is looked on every year as a barometer of the business of the country, but it is doubtful if in any country the business concerns watch for the budget with such feverish anxiety as it is awaited by the business concerns of Canada. This is due to the fact that in no country in the world does business rest on the politician so much as it does in this country. I think it may be said that the budget has this year been produced under the most favourable circumstances in the last ten years at least. There is less unemployment and hardship in the cities; there is less hardship on the back lots of our settlements throughout the northwest as well. There is one underlying cause for all this: Western Canada has had a good crop. A greater amount of new wealth has been produced this year from the land than in almost any other year since confederation. Consequently, there is increased railway earnings; the purchase of manufactures has increased, and also there is less unemployment. But agriculture is seen to have been the one thing capable of growth, and that without placing a burden on any other industry. Prices for agricultural products have kept up to a good level, and this has been mostly due to the fact that things are returning to normal im the populated centres of Europe to which we look, and shall look for many years to come, for our chief market for agricultural products.
Now the fact that a good crop is a factor in producing better times, and that the market for our crop is in other countries, compels consideration of at least two problems in our national life. The first of these which I shall mention is the permanence of agriculture since it has proved to be the basic industry, and secondly, transportation. The one is dependent on the other. Both are dependent on the removal of every handicap which prevents the functioning of both in a natural way. Both are dependent on the cost of production and the cost of living being set by natural means, and not, as now, by those classes and individuals whom we by laws of privilege have placed outside the pale of competition altogether. Agriculture under such a system becomes destitute and too weak to carry the burden placed upon it, being the basic industry, of competing in world markets and at the same time of carrying the burden of other industries. Our prices have always been set in an arbitrary, despotic way by those whom we have placed outside of competition. Such arbitrary, despotic prices have always been set, not on the value of the article at all -that is not taken into account-but simply
The Budget-Mr. Evans

by what the manufacturing and distributing combines agree to charge for their services. The only bound beyond which they cannot go is the price of the article abroad with the whoie amount of the duty added. The price in the country of origin, it must be remembered, is the retail price. If the consumer or even a co-operative company of consumers attempts to import anything direct from a manufacturer the dumping clause is at once applied. The dumping clause takes into account the rule of the manufacturing and distributing combines of the Dominion in their classification of the citizens as to what price each class must pay on its imported goods. In other words, the consumer must pay retail prices, and the retailer must not go beyond his wholesaler. In many lines, too, the wholesaler must buy from the jobber or dealer, who stands between him and the manufacturer. If any of these go beyond what they are allowed there is a levy made under the dumping clause which is always equal to the profits of all in between. Each of these concerns is jealous of its rights under these combine exactions, and each allows no deviation from this rule. A co-operative company, no matter what article they handle or in what quantity it is handled, are allowed no higher standing than that of a consumer. Canada was the first country in the world to enact what is known as a dumping clause. The first thought was to protect only our infant industries, which had then been infants for some twenty-two years at least and which, according to our protectionist friends in this House, are just as helpless to-day as when the dumping clause was put into force.
There is still another feature of unfairness in the tariff, even if we concede that Canada [DOT]should have a protectionist policy. That feature is that no trade discounts are allowed *except to the trade, that is the distributors *or the manufacturers. In some lines of goods this gives a protection to the manufacturer and the distributing combine over the consumer of from 90 to 190 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: On what articles?


John Evans: The hon. gentleman asks
what articles; in particular on hollow ware, kitchen utensils and so on-I think it is rather worse on that class of goods than on any other. So between trade discounts and dumping acts we have a fiscal system which, for unfairness, injustice and hardship on the consuming class has never been surpassed in any country of the world.
While I favour the budget in a general -way and will give it my support, I cannot

help voicing one or two objections. The Progressive party has always stood for direct taxation; in fact the farmers' organizations, which existed for twenty years before the Progressive party was brought into being, stood for direct taxation. I would prefer to have seen some of these tariff incongruities abolished as a means of lowering taxation and the cost of living, instead of making a cut this year in the income tax. It may be news to some of our protectionist friends that the Progressive party did not ask for this cut in the income tax.


Mr. FOSTER:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me a question? You say the Progressive party has been in favour of direct taxation. Would you be in favour of a tax on all incomes of $500 and up?


John Evans: No, I would not. I think
it can be said with some justice that the increase in the income tax exemptions is, perhaps, justified. I think a man must be allowed a living, and $500 would not give him that.


George Eulas Foster: Then what method of
direct taxation do you favour in order to permit the country to derive a revenue?


John Evans: There are a good many
methods.


George Eulas Foster: Well, state some.


John Evans: I certainly would have an
income tax as a permanent thing, also death duties, a tax on land values, unearned increment, and so on, to be collected from the man best able to pay rather than from the poorer consumers. In some cases the poor people are tihe greatest consumers, in fact the bigger family a man has the more commodities he must purchase. I think such a man should not be called upon to pay the same rate of taxation as a man with an income of $10,000. I would sharply graduate the income tax as the incomes increase. 1 have said that between trade discounts, dumping acts, and other features of our protectionist system we have a fiscal policy that has never been surpassed for the injustice and hardship inflicted on the workers.
But let us look for a moment at the moral side of all this absurd legislation, and let me try to define protection from that standpoint. Any law that is economically unsound certainly becomes morally wrong. In the first place we are supposed to be a commonwealth, but our laws are a series of divisional statutes discriminating between the rights of citizens and giving to one class the power to exploit the other. I say it is not the province of any

The Budget-Mr. Evans
government to discriminate between the rights of its citizens or to recognize the exactions of any combine whether manufacturing or distributing. We should all be equal before the law. In Canada we are not. I repeat that our laws are a series of divisional enactments, and in that there is an evil. It is bound to breed rebellion in the one class, and in the other class a disregard for the rights of others. I think if anything has been forcibly demonstrated by the Customs investigation that has been proceeding during the present session, it is the fact that there is a disregard for the rights of others which has increased with the passage of time during the last forty years. I say it breeds rebellion in the one class and in the other class a disregard for the rights of others.
What is the tariff? It is a frame-up between the politicians and those who have an interest in putting an import penalty on certain classes of goods. This must involve corruption and misrepresentation of facts to the electorate. It can have no other result.


George Eulas Foster: Where is the corruption?


John Evans: I will deal with that in a minute. I said the tariff was a frame-up, the one class guaranteeing the election of the other which in turn trades off its influence and power to produce the legislation desired. If such was not the case, protection as we have it to-day would not last one year. It is inconceivable that men elected as representatives of the people would trade off the rights of their fellows without some consideration. That is where the corruption comes in.


Mr. CAHAN:: That is where the Progressive party comes in, too.


John Evans: The hon. member for St.
Lawrence-St. George says " that is where the Progressive party comes in".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Evans: I challenge the hon. gentleman to prove that. In case I may seem to be presumptuous in my statement let me quote an authority. This is taken from a statement by Sir Richard Cartwright.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: Some hon. gentlemen to my right do not like to hear the name of Sir Richard Cartwright; I do not wonder at it. But listen to his statement. He said in a letter addressed to the London Economist:
Prior to the general elections of 1882, 1887 and 1891, Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues called the protected manufacturers together, and demanded and obtained from them such sums as they deemed necessaipr for debauching the electorate, pledging themselves in return not to alter the tariff to the detriment of the said contributors, which compact was faithfully carried out and impudently avowed.
Sir Charles Tupper, speaking in the House of Commons on March 22, 1892, called
Cartwright's attention to this serious charge.
" Every word of it is true," answered Cartwright, "and you know it." I say again that no man engages in evil transactions involving risk to his name and honour, without some personal benefit. The tariff was the first means of organizing in this country a band of overlords who ruled the Dominion, who still hold the reins of power, and who are the cause of creating a class-conscious war to-day between themselves and the other classes. The Progressive party is composed of farmers. Labour would have a share in the movement too, but for the fact that that part of the working population are directly dependent on these overlords for their living. A tariff to-day is a means in the hands of the manufacturers and other combines, of finance and of distributing concerns, of intimidating their employees. These employees are continually under the threat that if their ballots are not marked as the employers desire the works will at once close down,-in fact the threat has been made that if the budget is not favourable many works will close down. Intimidation is a regular appanage of the system. The workers are helpless in their plight to-day, and the lords of industry and finance gloat over the condition they have created. If anyone disputes this let me read a paragraph from 'tihe Bankers' Magazine^ of August 26, 1920. That journal, commenting on the situation, expresses it thus:
"Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination and legislation. Debt must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes they will be more tractable, and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government, applied by a central power of wealth under the control of leading financiers. A people without homes will not quarrel with tlheir leaders."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that an extract from a publication of the Bankers' Association?


John Evans: An extract from the Bankers' Magazine.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of Canada?


John Evans: Of the United States, August 26, 1920.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Whose writing is it?


John Evans: Let me read another paragraph.

The Budget-Mr. Evans


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Please tell us who wrote it, so that we can judge of it.
Mr. KVAN3: It is taken from tlhe Bankers' Magazine.


George Eulas Foster: Who is responsible for the article in the magazine? It must have an author.


John Evans: It is the Bankers' Magazine. It is the voice of the paper.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand my hon. friend to say it is an editorial in the Bankers' Magazine.


John Evans: I take it to be such.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not believe it.
Mr. EVANS Another paragraph from the same article reads:
History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. By thus dividing the voters we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers (I would say traitors) of the common herd. Thus, by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished.
Now the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) will again, as in the past, classify my speech as the ravings of one who is foreign born, and who suffers from Bright's disease to such an extent that his mental capacity is impaired'.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I am suggesting that his fairness is impaired by reading from this book.


John Evans: I wish to tell the House that the time is near at hand when the safest and best way for governments and all legislative bodies will be to work towards a real cooperative commonwealth, and the state will be compelled to perform the functions before very long which are now performed by private capitalists and their trained subordinates. I say to-day that the conditions in England are not without their lesson for us here. Before blaming the workers in England, or even our own miners in Nova Scotia, let us consider the position of these people who, like ourselves, are human beings. These lords of industry have been successful in getting together great hordes of employees who have no more interest in the community or in the commodity they produce than the slave of the southern states of many years ago had in the cotton he cultivated and picked. To have peace in industry you must give the employee some responsibility. You must make him a partner in the business, and not, as
fMr. Evans.]
now, see that he gets as little as his employer can get him to work for, so that every interest in life is taken away from him except his daily wage. We have reached this stage by certain steps during the last forty or fifty years

first, compulsory education, second, the franchise, and, following these, organization; and things are not going to go on in the way they have been going. Laws of privilege kill patriotism. A man must have an interest in the state; place some responsibility on him and there will be peace. The state is composed of individuals, not entirely of natural resources. The material must be used for the state. The working man is just as much the state as any director of finance or industry, Canada is not contained in St. James street, Montreal, or King street, Toronto, or even in the stock exchanges from coast to coast.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor on the prairies.
_ Mr. EVAN'S: Our first duty in this country is to recognize the rights of the farmers and workers, and I will say this: despite all that the budget contains this year, favourably as I look upon it in a way, it takes no account of the legalized lines of cleavage established between the different classes. There is hardly anything in it to lower the cost of living for the worker, or to induce a more equitable system of industry.
The facts lately brought out in the discussion pro and con respecting the tariff on automobiles clearly illustrate the length the lords of industry in our own country can go in misrepresentation and criminal intimidation. Indeed more, they drag in the mire of their own corruption the sacrificed lives of our sons who fell in the war. It seems that nothing is too sacred to be sacrificed in their greed. They encouraged the delegation of returned men to come to Ottawa on a mistaken mission, so that these same lords can still take their toll from the sweated labour of the soldier settler and his wife and children.
I will give a few figures regarding the automobile industry. In 1924 we produced $88,000,000 worth of cars and we exported approximately $31,000,000 worth, leaving for home use made in Canada $57,000,000 worth. The duty on that amount, which the manufacturer has added to the factory price, was $19,950,000-


George Eulas Foster: How does the hon. member figure that?


John Evans: -or in some cases over 35 per cent.


George Eulas Foster: On the retail price?

The Budget-Mr. Evans


John Evans: On the retail price. These
are figures from the Statistical Department. The total number of employees on wages and salaries in 1924 was 9,277 and the wages paid to 7,872 wage earners amounted to $10,938,202. That makes an average for each wage earner of $1,389. Salaried employees to the number of 1,405 were paid $3,280,935 or an average of $2,335. In this industry the number of salaried employees in comparison with wage earners is altogether out of proportion to that in any other industry, and this feature is an evidence of the prosperity which it is enjoying and the tremendous profits it is making. I would call the attention of -the House to the meagre wage paid the workers. This is something that is absolutely out of keeping with the argument advanced for protection, that we must maintain a high tariff if we want to preserve a high standard of living -for our people. The fact is that these benefactors of the nation have pinched their wage earners on the one hand and the consumers on the other, in -the matter of prices. Indeed, 35 per cent is not all the protection they have enjoyed. I find that during the year 1924 the Ford runabout sold at the Ford factory for $410 and the duty added was 41 per cent, not 35. On the touring oar they charged 42 per' cent, while the others were 33 and 34 per cent. I am looking forward to some wonderful revelations in connection with the automotive industry when the Tariff Advisory Board has access to their books. And surely they cannot refuse to lay their books on the table, seeing that they have become wards of the nation. Is there any man in this House bold enough to say that legislation which takes out of the pockelts of those who buy cars nearly $6,000,000 more than was paid in wages in the whole industry is legislation for the general good of Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: That is for the wage earners.


John Evans: Yes. Our tariff has enhanced the total price of cars made and used in Canada to -the extent of $5,900,000 more than wages paid in the whole industry for the year. Our fiscal policy, I say, is a senseless, unreasonable one; it is altogether absurd. Let us follow this matter through to its logical conclusion. Since the automobile manufacturers dio not pay the wages of their own workmen, who does? Our automobile manufacturers were paid by way of tariff exactions nearly $6,000,000 more than they paid out in wages in the whole industry.


George Eulas Foster: How much of that represents excise duty and how much taxes paid to the government?


John Evans: The sum I have given represents the retail price of the cars, enhanced as a result of the tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the American retail price.


John Evans: An 'hon. gentleman says, the American retail price. I will not dispute that but-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the figures the hon. member has quoted, is he not including the number of employees engaged in the assembling of parts and not the 20,000 men who are employed in the making of component parts which enter into the manufacture of cars?


John Evans: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question I may tell him that in order to be correct I got my figures from the Statistical Bureau.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are -true as far as they go, but they do not go far enough.


John Evans: That does not alter the
case anyway; the price has been enhanced by that amount. And who foots the bill? It may be said that everyone who buys a car and pays the duty does so, but under a tariff system such as ours, and with agriculture as the basic industry of the country, this contention is obviously wrong. If the farmer buys a Ford car he pays the duty in the price charged by the dealer. If the dealer sells a car to the doctor, the doctor pays the duty in the price charged, but when the doctor makes a professional visit to the farmer or the farmer's wife his -fee will include a part of that duty which he has paid on the car.


Charles A. Stewart: What about the lawyer?


John Evans: I am coming to that. Now, agriculture is the one basic industry in this country, -and it does not matter who performs the duty for the agriculturist, the fee for that service always includes a part of the tariff duty on the car he drives, the clothes he wears or anything else he uses.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And all that is paid by the farmer?


John Evans: Wait a minute. If the
farmer even buys a sack of sugar from the grocer he not only pays the duty on that sack of sugar, but he pays a part of the duty on the sugar which the grocer himself uses. If the farmer uses his Ford car to drive to his nearest city to consult a lawyer, the cost of that trip is enhanced not only by the duty he has paid on his own Ford car, but the lawyer's fee will include a part of the

The Budget-Mr. Evans
duty which the lawyer has (paid on the limousine which he uses for his own pleasure. My statement would not be complete if I left it there. If the. doctor employs the lawyer, the cost of the service to the doctor is borne by the doctor himself only until his next visit to the farmer. When he makes that visit he shoulders it upon the farmer. Again, if the doctor and the lawyer perform a service for the manufacturer of agricultural machinery, that individual passes it on to the agriculturist in the price charged for the implement needed on the farm.
Now, I want to tell hon. gentlemen that a fiscal policy such as ours can survive only so long as there is a basic industry to prey upon, and in this case agriculture is the basic industry which has to shoulder the whole thing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In what respect is it more
basic than fishing or mining?
_ Mr. EVANS:	It may be said that fishing
is a basic industry, but from the national standpoint it is inconsiderable compared to agriculture. The worst part of the whole thing is that this tariff policy is destroying the basic industry itself, and that is why agriculture is feeling the pinch to-day. If our protectionist friends here think they can everlastingly go on increasing protection, they must satisfy themselves that there is some basic industry sufficiently prosperous to carry the load.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman
mean to say that agriculture, or wheat-growing, because that is the department of agriculture which he is speaking about-


John Evans: No.


Mr. BIRD:: That is a mistake.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He said wheat-growing.


John Evans: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, take all the departments of agriculture that you like, does the hon. gentleman mean to say that agriculture in this country sustains our nine million people in their various endeavours?


John Evans: It does, with the exception of some minor industries. And some more wealth is created out of raw material being manufactured into the finished article. But when our protectionist friends have a fiscal policy which takes out of the pockets of the people even more than the wages paid in that industry, I submit there is no benefit to the nation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that the man who builds a house out

of timber of the value of $5,000 does not contribute exactly as much to the wealth of the country as the farmer who contributes $5,000 worth of wheat?


Thomas William Bird: He is not protected.


John Evans: That man will contribute to the extent that the house afterwards is used to house some one engaged in an industry that brings in new wealth, and only such.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is there an industry in this or any other country that does not in its operation bring in new wealth?
_ Mr. EVANS: I say there is. Most of the industries established in Canada have been a detriment to the progress of the country rather than a benefit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not my question. Is there an industry which does not produce wealth? I should like to hear of such an industry if it does exist.


An hon. MEMBER:: The liquor industry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: From recent returns that industry apparently produces more wealth than the basic industry of agriculture.


John Evans: If there is an industry in
this country standing on its own feet, then that industry must contribute to its own upkeep ; but the very idea of protection precludes any profit-making or any increase in new wealth; and industry in Canada to-day is based on this fact, that it cannot live without protection. Our protectionist friends say that it cannot. Then the value of the finished article must be worth less than the elements entering into its manufacture and the labour that has been put on it. Neither the member for St. Lawrenee-St. George nor anyone else can gainsay that fact. If it did not need protection, then it would be worth something more than when in the raw state.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member allow a question?


John Evans: Half a minute, please. I
repeat, once our protectionist friends say that any article cannot live on its own merit and be sold in the markets of the world, they must admit that with the raw material and the labour entering into the manufacture of that article it is worth less when finished than it was before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The other evening I called
attention to the fact-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.

The Budget-Mr. Evans


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Evans: But in the same statement
my hon. friend said that the steel industry could not live on its own feet.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say that.


John Evans: That it could not stand on
its own feet? His one argument was the necessity of protection. Then the steel industry is not a paying concern in Canada, and the farmers, the men engaged in the basic industry of this country, would be better off buying their implements in the markets of the world where they have to sell their own products.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What proportion of the
farm products of Canada find a market abroad?


John Evans: About 72 or 73 per cent at
present.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a bit of it; nearer 20
per cent.


John Evans: We have this year to find
a market for nearly 400,000,000 bushels of wheat when the crop is all marketed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, but not outside the
country.


John Evans: 
Mr. MURPHY:: Not necessarily; Canadian cars have the advantage of a preference in that market.


John Evans: Not at all. In 1924 we
exported cars to seventy countries, many of them outside the British Empire.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In which of them did they
not have a preference over American cars?


John Evans: Not in any of them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In nearly every one of them where the cars went.


John Evans: The fact that we exported
$31,000,000 worth of cars is another admission that the tariff is not needed, or else it is used to ensure a profit on the export trade as well as on the home trade. Perhaps some Conservative or protectionist advocate will yet explain how far our automobile manufacturers are using the tariff or import penalty to soak the home consumer so that a profit is assured over the whole of their factory output, whether sold at home or abroad. That is one question I want answered. I say again, if the export trade in Canadian autos is carried on at the Canadian taxpayer's expense, it is time the public was relieved of this burden. When their books are examined by the Tariff Advisory Board I hope some light will be thrown on this subject. Perhaps, though, the next tariff subvention advocate will explain it.
I want to repeat that one thing is certain; either the automobile manufacturer does not need protection in the Canadian market or he is using the tariff to exploit the home consumer, so that he may cut prices or meet competition abroad. A good deal of surprise has been expressed because this matter was not allowed to stand over until the Tariff Advisory Board was brought into action. Every bit of information needed on this question surely must have been open to every Conservative member, and particularly to the leaders of that party. A very able tariff commission went through this country at great expense in 1920. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was at the head of the commission, and he is reckoned in this House to be an authority on economics and finance. The trouble with this commission was that they were all protectionists, and although five years have passed no report has been forthcoming, for the reason that its findings would be detrimental to those interests of which that party professes to be the docile servitor. That commission, in other words, was afraid to make known its own findings, for party reasons. If such is not the case I would advise gentlemen such as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to apply those findings to the present controversy. I hope the findings of the present Tariff Advisory Board will be open to the public.
The Budget-Mr. Evans

I want for a few moments to deal with another feature of the game of legalized robbery, and I hope to Show the utter craftiness and gross folly of a fiscal system such as we are tolerating in Canada. I find that the Canadian Milling and Grain Journal of Montreal has been publishing with unconcealed rejoicing editorials from other papers, particularly the Alberta Farmer and the Calgary Weekly Herald. Before going further let me say that the Alberta Farmer is not a farm paper at all, and was never endorsed by the farmers. The Canadian Milling and Grain Journal is not even content with an export duty on wheat; the ultimate aim is to prohibit the exportation of wheat entirely, so that after putting themselves entirely outside of competition in the home market they are going to prevent the exportation of wheat to the United States in order that they may have a freer hand in the markets where our flour is sold. The journal comments on the situation in this way:
Looking beyond the smoke screen of politics and prejudice the situation admits of one clear cut solution. The whole of the Canadian grain crops should eventually be manufactured into the finished article in Canada, and exported to foreign markets as flour. This is the ideal, and so far from being impossible of attainment through the accident of geography, it is an ideal quite capable of achievement by the powers that be at Ottawa. The whole of the profits of manufacture would thus be retained in Canada. ... our slogan should be, "Canadian mills for Canada's wheat".
If this means anything it must mean that the whole of the exportable surplus of Canada's wheat is to be kept in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian millers, and that parliament must be employed as the tool of the milling trade in the execution of this most outrageous form of wholesale robbery.
Let us look into this milling business for a little while. The other day the Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics for March came to hand, and I believe the figures therein published are correct. This bulletin gives the price of flour at Liverpool and Winnipeg and other grain and milling centres of the world for the month of February.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 
George Eulas Foster: There is the cost of transportation.


John Evans: My hon. friend has the cart before the horse. No. 1 northern wheat will make forty pounds of flour to the bushel, but in order to be sure let us allow 150 pounds of wheat for the 98-pound sack of flour. Accordingly the cost of wheat for a sack of flour would be, Winnipeg, $2.32; Liverpool, $2 S5, or a difference of 53 cents in favour of Winnipeg. Fifty-three cents on wheat and 38f cents on flour makes a steal of 91 J cents on every sack of flour sold to the Canadian public. Allowing nine million barrels of flour each year for the population of Canada this country has paid $16,470,000 too much for its flour. We quibble over a little thing in the budget; who is concentrating our earnings now? Under the protective tariff our millers have enjoyed the Canadian home market for years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest that the
hon. member give us the difference expended in wages in milling in Canada and the wages similarly paid for milling in England.


John Evans: That is a very important
question. I cannot answer it explicitly. The only thing I will say is this:	The policy
which my hon. friend advocates has so driven up the cost of living and the cost of production in this country that all our export stuff is out of line with world prices. There is $16,470,000 of a steal on the nation's flour in one year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it fair to say that that
is a steal without taking into consideration the higher wages paid in the milling industry in this country as compared with England?


John Evans: I think I answered that
question very fairly. Here again is the fact that the products of the basic industry of this country are sold in competition with the cheap labour of the whole world. Canada ought to be one of the cheapest countries in the world to produce anything in, but the protectionist policy which my hon. friend advocates has driven the cost of production entirely out of line with world prices, and that is the answer to his question. If wages are too high for the millers to compete, is it fair to charge that basic industry again enough on the price of flour to cover a profit for the whole of the export as well as the home trade?

The Budget-Mr. Evans


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the first place, does not
the hon. member's argument assume that agriculture is a basic industry in some special sense? Secondly, is not the result of the policy which he suggests to compel everyone in this country to enter into the production of agricultural products and nothing else?


John Evans: The hon. gentleman says we would all be wheat growers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There would be no room
for anyone else.


John Evans: It is true that if the basic
industry to-day was relieved of this extra burden of protection, our vacant spaces from one end of the Dominion to the other would be filled up with prosperous farmers. What would that mean? It would mean that our industries, every one of them, would be running to provide for that basic industry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or foreign industries.


John Evans: Because it must be assumed that as agriculture is the basic industry, all others are subsidiary to it. All others should be subservient to that basic industry to have a true economic system, and if the products of those other industries cannot be sold in the world's markets on their merits and their cost of production, then I say this country is better without them. It is a false economic law in any country or in any business carried on by even a private company, where every part does not stand on its own feet.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it a false economic law
to produce in this country at a higher, cost any article of consumption which may be produced in a foreign country at a lower cost?


John Evans: If any industry is found on examination to be essential and necessary to the welfare of the country, then the country should carry on that industry at any expense.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


John Evans: But this is what I was going to say:	The onus is on the hon. gentleman
to show that that industry is really necessary to the welfare of the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the issue.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: If the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George followed out his policy consistently, he would put a high protective duty on anthracite coal.


George Eulas Foster: Put it on anyway.


Edward Joseph Garland: You have been urging that for years, but I defy you to do it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, well, these autocrats of the west I


Edward Joseph Garland: It might
suit the west very well, but not my hon. friend.


John Evans: I would be one of the first
to advocate a national policy in everything if it would pay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Pay whom?


John Evans: The people.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What people, the farmers?


John Evans: All the workers. The hon.
gentleman cannot get out of his head the idea that all Canada is contained in St. James street, Montreal, or in Toronto.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot get this into my
head, that it is entirely contained in Saskatchewan.


John Evans: I was going on to say a
little more about the milling industry. That is not the only steal indulged in by the milling industry of the Dominion. In western Canada they have elevators constructed at the points where the wheat of the highest milling value is produced. They have mills at the largest centres also on the prairies, where they buy all the wheat they can get. In this way they skim the cream of the crop here and ship for export what they do not like for themselves, thereby lowering the price, because our price is based on the lowest type of each grade that goes out for export. They also, some of them, have terminal elevators where they mix what they send for export to the lowest possible point for which they can get a certificate, and our price is based on that; and they buy the cream of the crop back home at the price of the grade which they have thus debased. But what is true of wheat is true also of every other protected industry. It is true even of the other natural products that the farmer himself raises. The relative price of oats to oatmeal and rolled oats is a little worse than wheat to flour, or hides to harness and boots and shoes. All these things are out of proportion. The very product of the farm is used to farm the farmer with, and this cannot forever go on. We give all our manufacturers a price-fixing power without any contract being entered into as to the relative cost of the raw material or the amount of labour they should be responsible for. Surely the time has come when this
31SG
The Budget-Mr. Evans

nation will reconsider the asinine stupidity of giving any class a blanket right to exploit the lives of its people in the future as in the past.
Canada is a country where manufacturing can be carried on quite as advantageously as in any other country. I say this despite all the howls of ruin indulged in by the manufacturers and their representatives in this House. We have been inundated during the last two or three years with literature regarding the dying state of the cotton and woollen industries. Let us see how some of them stand to-day. Let us 6ee how some of them have fared since 1921 when this government began "monkeying" with the tariff and when they created an "instability", as I think it is called. Montreal cottons is the first I have on my list. The lowest quotation of its stock in 1921 was 90, and in 1925 it went up to 116. Penman's common stock in 1921 was quoted at 91, and in 1925 that stock was quoted at 185. Does this look like ruin? The lowest quotation for Penman's preferred in 1921 was 78, but in 1925 it was quoted as high as 103.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are giving the lowest in one case and the highest in the other, are you not?


John Evans: In 1925 the highest was 103 and the lowest 99.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That comes nearer to it.


John Evans: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman think that indicates increasing prosperity on the part of the industry?


John Evans: Well, I do not know why people would be buying the stock at an increased price unless such was the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I could furnish an explanation quickly.


John Evans: It seems to me that the more ruinous legislation this government brings in, the better these industries thrive. Such are some of the facts as they stand to-day. I would not have spoken on the budget this year but for the fact that the wail of the industrial lords filled the House.
Mr. H. G. Wells lately said he was out to salvage civilization before the disintegration became irreparable. Our ears are deafened

these days by the clamour of press, platform and parliament to quit our individual selfseeking, forget our vocational and class interests, stifle our sectionalism and devote ourselves to-what? To the welfare of the members of an acquisitive group arrogantly regarding themselves as the state, who, having control of all those agencies for the moulding of public opinion, try to make us believe that in doing so we are patriots when in truth both agriculturists and workers are made their slaves.


Mr. PRICE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? The mileage from Regina to Fort William over the Canadian railways is 776 miles, and the freight rate twenty cents per hundred pounds. The mileage from Glasgow, Montana, to Duluth is 783 miles, or seven miles farther, and the rate is thirty-five cents per hundred pounds over the American roads. Would the hon. gentleman suggest a further reduction in the Canadian rates?	-


John Evans: If the hon. gentleman wants an answer to that question I will say that the stand taken by the Progressive party ever since its inception is public ownership and operation of all public utilities, and that these public utilities should be operated at cost and without profit. There is no other country in the world with a railway system with which you can compare the railway system of Canada. Canada has a long haul for heavy commodities such as wheat, twice as long as that in most of the other great exporting countries. So it is unfair to compare the railway rates in Canada with the railway rates in any other country.
On motion of Mr. Donnelly the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.
Friday, May 7, 1926