1926-04-22

PENSION FUND SOCIETIES-CHANGE OF NAME

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of Bit! No. 24 (from the Senate), to provide for changing the names of certain pension fund societies.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Who is the pi'omoter of this bill?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Let him explain it.


James Alexander Robb: I think we should have some
explanation of this.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: The
bill provides for changing the names of certain pension societies, providing that at a special general meeting, or at any general meeting, a by-law or a resolution to effect the change has been passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the vote cast at the meeting by the contributories to the funds or members of the society, including the parent corporation, the whole subject to the approval of the Secretary of State of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: How is at the hon.
member's name does not appear on the order paper?


Paul Mercier: I was asked to be sponsor for the bill and so informed the Clerk of the House. The omission of my name must be due to some misunderstanding.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	25	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Orr.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	26	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Melville James Andrews.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	27	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Harry Reginald Oddy.-Mr. Jacobs.

26S5
Private Bills
Bill	No.	28	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Mildred Roxie Horner.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	29	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Frances Muriel Burnet.-Mr. Geary.
Bill	No.	30	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Ada Toms.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill	No.	31	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Vera Sanderson.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill	No.	32	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Noel Leslie Deuxbury.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill	No.	33	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Lillian May O'Reilly-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill	No.	34	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Jean Victoria Dillane.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	3l5	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Ethel Alberta Barker.-Mr. Arthurs
Bill No. 36 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Hazel MeCausland.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 37 (from the Senate), for the relief of Sterling LeRoy Spicer.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 38 (from the Senate), for the relief of Amy Bell Corney.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 39 (from the Senate), for the relief of David Frank Crosier.

Mr. Bell (Hamilton) .
Bill No. 40 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Gildea Nye Brown.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 41 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edward Thomas Faragher.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 42 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha Viola Lidkea.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 43 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mike Ayoub (otherwise known as Michael Ayoub).-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 44 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Marion McGinley.-Mr. Garland (Carle ton).
Bill No. 45 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harold Edgar Perinchief.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 46 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hendel Tuerner Lubrinetsky.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 47 (from the Senate), for the relief of Paul Hugh Turnbull.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 48 (from the Senate), for the relief of Helen Elby Pollington.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 49 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Stewart.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 50 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Melville Moore.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 51 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Samuel Milligan.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 52 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marion Richardson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 53 (from the Senate), for the relief of Isadore Boadner.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 54 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Albert Thomas.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 55 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Isabel Clark.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 56 (from the Senate), for the relief of Helen Seymour O'Connor.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 57 (from the Senate), for the relief of Yetta Selma Trachsell.-Mr. Wright.
Bill No. 58 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Dewar.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 59 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Burrell.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 60 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Marion Byam.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 61 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Davidson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 62 (from the Senate), for the relief of Doris Selina Irvin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank John Davis.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 64 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Norman Smith McMurray.-Mr. Charters.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate), for the relief of Archie Claire McIntyre.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Harcourt.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate), for the relief-of Louise Gordon Pook.

Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 68 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ezillah Harriet Cole.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Burnside.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cora Mae Murray.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 71 (from the Senate), for the relief of Janet Thornhill Gorrie.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 72 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian DuBord Bulloch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 73 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henrietta Schierholtz.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 74 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maude Elizabeth Gilroy.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 75 (from the Senate), for the relief of Richard Howard Buckley.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of William George Darlington.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Watson.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 78 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frances Marjorie Warren.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 79 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Douglas Palmer.-Mr. McClen-aghan.
Bill No. 80 (from the Senate), for the relief of Beatrice Isobel Lamontagne.-Mr. Mc-Clenaghan.
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jane Johnston Mitchell Wells.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 82 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jeremiah Gibbs.

Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), for the relief of Caroline Elizabeth Risbridger.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 84 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cassie Woodley.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 85 (from the Senate), for the relief of Isabella Freeman.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Guthrie.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lily Stead.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Grace Hopkins.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Vera Catherine Searle.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Sidney Charles Frost.-Mr. McClenaghan.

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

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What is .the total amount of appropriations and expenditures by Historic Sites and Monuments Board to 31st of December, last?
2.	How much was expended in (a) Ottawa, (b) New Brunswick, and (c) Nova Scotia?
3.	Who is the government representative on the board ?
4. Previous to his appointment, had he been a lecturer or author of history?
5.	If not, what were his qualifications for a work that demanded intimate knowledge of the history of the eastern provinces?
6. Previous to commencing the work of erecting monuments in .the Maritime provinces, did he consult with any of the descendants of the loyalists or the pre-loyalists, or any authorities in history of the Maritime provinces? If so, whom?
7.	Has not the Nova Scotia Historical Society, the Grand Pre Historical Institute and the New Brunswick Historical Society condemned his procedure?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	The moneys available for historic sites form part of the general appropriation for the Canadian National Parks. The total expenditure from April 1, 1919, to December 31 last was $88,407.87. This was expended by the Department of the Interior. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board acts in an advisory capacity to the Department in respect to historic sites work.

2.	Expenditure at Ottawa, $25,274.62. This includes salaries, travelling expenses of members of the board, printing annual reports, pamphlets, posters, etc., books, photographs and photograph supplies, subscriptions to publications, survey expenses, express, freight, making of design and models of the standard tablets, inspection of finished tablets, road indicators and such. Expenditure in Nova Scotia, $6,212.89; expenditure in New Brunswick, $5,557.24.
3.	J. B. Harkin, Commissioner, Canadian National Parks, Ottawa, appointed in 1919.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	He consulted with the members of the board.
7.	The Grand Pre Women's Institute have raised certain objections to the cairn design of memorial. The department has no information regarding the attitude of the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick historical societies concerning the procedure of the department in marking and preserving historic sites in the Maritime provinces.


EDMONTON ELEVATOR
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat of each grade was taken into the government elevator at Edmonton for the crop year 1924-25?
2.	How many bushels of each grade was shipped out of the same elevator for the same crop year?
3.	What was the total amount of overage of wheat (if any) at the government elevator at Edmonton for crop year 1924-25?
4.	How many tons of screenings were sold and what was the amount of cash received for same?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (For Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.
Wheat 1924-25
Grade	Receipts
Dried 1 Northern		4,588-10
Dried 2 Northern		11,883-40
1 Northern		178,380-20
2 Northern		331,902-10
3 Northern		664,859-10
No. 4		334,105-40
No. 5		191,397-40
No. 6		91,466-40
Feed		36,077-00
Rejected		8,702-30
Smuttv		3,180-30
No Grade		86,653-50
Special Bin		1,392-00
Rejected Heated		2,965-50
Rejected Heated and	
Musty		971-30
Condemned Heated and
Heating

Questions
26s;
Wheat 1924-25
2.
Grade	Receipts
Condemned No. 2	 1,401-30
Condemned Heated..	..	904-00
No. 3 Dicklow	 879-40
NG Musty Heated.. ..	-
Total	 1,951,611-50
Wheat 1924-25
Grade	Shipments
Dried 1 Northern		-
Dried 2 Northern..	..	4,139-001	Northern	
178.380-202	Northern	
323,540-303	Northern	
657,760-00No. 4	
274,070-30No. 5	
191,397-40No. 6	
89,165-20Feed	
35,288-30Rejected	
7,033-50Smutty	
2,532-30No Grade	
86,654-00Special Bin	
1,392-00Rejected Heated	
2,468-00
Rejected Heated and
Must}'	 656-10
Condemned Heated and
Heating		-
Condemned No. 2	 1,401-30
Condemned Heated.. ..	904-00
No. 3 Dicklow	 879-40
NG Musty Heated.. ..
3.	41 miles completed; 41 additional miles ditched and graded.
4.	No.
5.	Day labour.
6.	One-a supervising engineer.
7.	The Indian superintendent in co-operation with the Indian foremen.
8.	Gravel is obtained on the reserve when readily available; but elsewhere when more economical.


ONION LAKE OFFICIALS
Mr. DAVIS:: L Was Will. Robinson, of Paranteau poll Athabasca fame, recommended for the position of farm instructor at the Indian reserve at Onion Lake?
2.	If so, who recommended him?
3.	Has one T. J. Slater been appointed as farm instructor at Onion Lake agency?
4.	If so, did he occupy this position on a previous occasion ?
3.	Was he discharged or compelled to resign? If so, why ?
6.	What is his age?
7.	What are his qualifications?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	William Robertson (not Robinson) was an applicant for the position of farm instructor at the Indian reserve at Onion Lake.
2.	Unknown.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Resigned voluntarily.
6.	Unknown.
7.	Experience as farmer and previous experience as farm instructor.
Total	 1,857,663-30
3.	1,012.20 bushels.
4.	Approximately 318 tons; cash received for same, 84,488.45.


SIX NATIONS INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. SENN:: 1.	When did the Department of Indian Affairs commence to use the interest money of the Six Nations Indians to build roads through that reservation?
2.	What amount of money was spent in budding these roads in 1924-25, in 1925-26?
3.	How many miles of road have been completed?
4.	Is this work under the supervision of the Six Nat ions council ?
5.	Is the work being done by contract or by day labour ?
6.	Are there any white men employed in this work? If so. how many?
7.	Who engages the men and teams necessary?
8.	Where is the building material obtained?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	For necessary roadwork in the reserve the interest funds of the Six Nations have always been available and utilized.
2.	1924-25-$2,228.48; 1925-26-$13,164.59.


CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM-DEATHS OF ANIMALS
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	How many head of cattle, horses, sheep and swine died at the Central experimental farm, Ottawa, during the year ending March 31, 1926, and what was the nature of their ailments?
2.	How many of these were registered animals?
3.	What was their total value?
4.	Was a qualified veterinarian called in attendance in the early stages of sickness in each case and given complete control?
5.	If not, who treated the animals in those cases where no qualified veterinarian was called?
6.	What qualifications does this man possess to enable him to prescribe intelligently for live stock in this condition?
7.	Why was no veterinarian called in certain cases?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. Cattle, nine: Mature cows, three; one, abscess in kidney; one, septicemia of udder; one, autointoxication, following parturition. Calves, 6: (Only one over a week old), one, pnuemonia; one pyemic arthritis; four, malpre-sentation and consequent flooding before delivery; (maximum number on hand during year, 295 head).
Questions

Horses, two: (Grade geldings twelve and ten years of age),one, ruptured stomach; one azoturia; (Maximum number on hand during year, 35 head).
Sheep, forty-three: Mature animals twelve; four, lightning on range; two, heat prostration; one, acute indigestion; five, general debility due to age. Lambs, th'irty-one; eighteen, born dead or died within a few hours from goitre; thirteen, died of goitre and wool balls in stomach, caused by abnormal appetite, consequent on slight goitre infection. 1 (Maximum number on hand during year, 370).
The foregoing losses in lambs was due to an outbreak of goitre in 1925, the first in the history of the flock. This trouble has been controlled in 1926 by potassium iodide treatment, there being no lambing losses in 1926.
2.	Sixteen.
3.	$2,080.
4.	Yes, except still-born calves and goitred lambs; (1) qualified practising veterinarians or (2) veterinary pathologists of the Health of Animals branch.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	Answered by No. 4.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS PURCHASED
Mr. WARD:: 1.	What lands in township 17, range 9, west oif the first meridian, and in townships 17, 18 and 19, range 10, west of the first meridian, were purchased by the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	What was the price paid for the lands?
3.	Who were the vendora?
4.	To whom were the warrants in payment for these lands made payable?
5.	How many of the settlers concerned have abandoned their holdings?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: Questions
1	2	3	4S.E. \ 5 .	3,300 00 4,400 00 4,100 00	T. W. Reid	Kennedy, Kennedy & K. Taylor & Colwill. Taylor & Colwill and Wm. Grant.N.W.'i 36	(T. 19-R. 10-W1) N.E. I and pt. S.W. i 1	Wm. Grant	S.W.I9 .	4,200 00 3,000 00 3.500	00 4,080 00 3.500	00	Bank of Montreal at Portage la Prairie.N.W. | 9	Jacob & Fahrni & Imperial Bank ofN.W. \ 15 	Canada. Taylor & Colwill and D.P.L. Comm. Kennedy, Kennedy & K. Taylor & Colwill.S. \ 22 .	N.W. i 1	W. J. Falloon	S.E. I 13...	2,800 00 2,500 00	W. H. Kidner.N.E. \ 14 .	Taylor & Colwill.5. 39.


IMPORTS OF AMERICAN EGGS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What quantity of eggs, in the shell, was imported from the United States during the year 1925?
2.	What quantity of powdered eggs was imported from the United States during the same year?
3.	What quantity of eggs, commonly known as gal-loned, was imported from the United States during the year 1925?
4.	What was the total quantity of other forms of eggs imported from the United States during the year 1925?


James Alexander Robb: Imports of eggs into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1925.
Eggs in the shell, dozen 2,577,400, $922,059; eggs, n.o.p., pounds 54,390, $15,333.
(Powdered eggs and galloned eggs are not specified in the classification of imports.)


TELEPHONE OPERATOR AT BEAVER LODGE
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	Is a man by the name of "Smith" employed as operator at the Dominion government telephone office at Beaver Lodge, Alberta?
2.	If so, when was he engaged, and at what salary?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was he engaged?
4.	Are his duties that of operator or political organizer?
5.	What salary does he receive?
6.	What are his personal expenses, if any, and what is the office expense, including rental?
7.	To whom is the rental paid?
8.	What is the yearly revenue from the said office?
9.	Is the government not aware of the fact that the provincial government of the province of Alberta has an adequate telephone system all through this district?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1. Yes, as an operator in the government telegraph office.
2 and 3 Engaged temporarily on July 25, 1919, at Grande Prairie, Alta., at $105 per month. Appointed permanently by the Civil Sendee Commission on July 23, 1920. Transferred to Beaver Lodge, Alta., by the general inspector, J. S. Macdonald, Edmonton, on March 4, 1921, at $130 per month.
4.	Telegraph operator.
5.	$130 per month.
6.	(a) No information, (b) $351.
7.	R. C. Lessing.
8.	$294.35 (1925-26).
9.	Beaver Lodge is a telegraph office on the main telegraph circuit Hudson's Hope, Edmonton. The fact of there being a local telephone service has no bearing on the existence of this office.


AUDIT OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to secure this year an independent audit of the various departments of the government service, and also of the government's various outside commissions, similar to the independent audits secured by many of the governments of the provinces to good results, and report the results to parliament?
2.	If not, why not?


James Alexander Robb: I and 2. The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act provides for a continuous independent audit by the Auditor General who, since appointment, has reorganized his department and in his reports to parliament has touched upon various aspects of his work which have been receiving attention.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	How many buffalo were killed at Wainwright, or in any other park in the province of Alberta, during the years 1920-1925, inclusive?
2.	How many buffalo hides were disposed of during each of these years? To whom, 8nd at what prices were they sold?
3.	How many heads were mounted and sold during each of the said years? To whom, and at what price were fthey sold?
4.	How many heads were sold unmounted during each of the said years, and to whom and at what -price?
FRUIT JOBBER BROKER COMBINE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) whether in view of the representations made by the fruit and vegetable growers and also of the conviction recently obtained in the

2690	COMMONS
Ministerial Representation-Ontario
trial in Vancouver of the Nash officials, the government propose to prevent the operation of jobber owned brokerage houses?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Labour):: The matter is under consideration. The finding of the courts had reference to the criminal liability of the parties accused. The decision is being appealed and will be opposed on behalf of the government. As regards the question of suppressing the practice that has been engaged in, the government is considering the situation at present and probably I shall be able to make a statement later.


CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE WINNIPEG STRIKE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: A report has been going around for some days that the government proposes to introduce legislation to grant some special rights to those who lost positions in the civil service in the Winnipeg strike. Has the government any such proposal under consideration? Or can it make a definite statement to the House?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I will communicate with the Postmaster General and inform my right hon. friend to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: He is in the Senate, I believe.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. I represent him in this House.


MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION FOR ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I will ask about some
ministers who are not in the Senate. Are we to be kept in the dark as to how long Ontario is to be represented in this House by but one minister? When is the new Minister of Trade and Commerce so long promised, to be appointed?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am rather surprised that my right hon. friend should ask that question. The government has shown its desire to have Ontario represented, but each time it has intimated the probability of another election my hon. friend has opposed the idea.


Arthur Meighen: What election?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any by-election to have another minister returned.
rMr. St-iring.l


Arthur Meighen: When did I oppose any by-election?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend issued a statement to the press the other day to that effect.


Arthur Meighen: The mind of the government is in such confusion that it cannot distinguish between opposition to a man when he appeals for election and opposition to the election itself. If the government cannot make that distinction its position is beyond all redemption.


DELEGATION FROM PEMBROKE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: I
want to call the attention of the government to a report that appears in the Ottawa Morning Journal of Wednesday, April 21, to the following effect:
Pembroke Approves
A delegation from Pembroke-
Pembroke is the county town of North Renfrew.
-headed by Mayor Duff and Daniel Jones, president of the board of trade, waited upon Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance, yesterday. The spokesmen expressed approval of the budget and urged the minister to adhere to its provisions.
I wish to take exception to that article from which it would appear that these gentlemen came in the capacity of delegates representing the council of the town of Pembroke, and the Pembroke Board of Trade.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: That is not a question.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I should like to ask the minister if those gentlemen represented themselves to him in an official capacity or as private Citizens of the town of Pembroke.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the statement which my hon. friend has just read from the Journal is practically correct so far as I know.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): May I ask the Minister of Justice if I may expect soon to have a return to the address voted on March 29, with reference to the Electric Machinery Manufacturing Company, of Minneapolis?
Ernest Lapointe: I will see that my hon. friend gets
his return as soon as possible. Of course, the delay has been very short.

The Budget-Mr. Bristol


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 21, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in common with the
rest of the House I have a distinct feeling of friendship and admiration for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) but I am afraid it does not extend to his budget proposals. I am very glad, however, he has done one thing that I recommended a year ago-reduce the income tax on small incomes. It certainly will be gratifying to every working man and woman in this country, especially those with small incomes.
But on the question of tariff, I would have thought that the experience of the last four years would have been enough for even a Liberal administration, many of whose supporters I think are at heart ardent protectionists,-I would have thought it would have been enough for their feelings after contemplating the dire results of the small reductions they have made in the tariff in the last four years, to have left the tariff entirely to the advisory board which they have recently appointed. I would have thought they would have been satisfied, after losing from the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec approximately five hundred thousand of our young men and women to the United States during the last four years, cot to add more to that quota. The province of Ontario has been the chief sufferer from this exdflus. Presumably still more of our people will go to the United States now to secure the benefits of high protection which they find so advantageous to themselves. But when all is said and done it is really hard to understand why, having talked so much about the necessity of a tariff commission, the government did not trust this first article of tariff reform to that commission. However, after studying the situation carefully, and knowing the right hon. gentleman who is head of the newly formed Tariff Advisory Board, for whom both sides of the House have a high personal respect and admiration, I fancy the government did not think he would have enough strength of character to treat the tariff in this instance in a way that no supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his day and generation 14011-171,1
had ever thought of doing. Accordingly the government felt they had to give one great example of what should be done in this regard, and then the tariff board could proceed to mutilate the rest of the tariff as they might see fit. Should they follow this course and reduce the tariff to a maximum of 27 i per cent, which the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) says is sufficient for anyone, there would be practically no protection to our manufacturers and others under the existing conditions in this country.
Now, the peculiar reasoning of some people is that they seem to think we can maintain a low tariff alongside the United States, where they have followed consistently a policy of high protection. For instance, they give their automobile industry a protection ranging from 25 to 50 per cent according to the tariff imposed by other countries against American automobiles. But not only do the government of the United States protect their manufacturers and others with a high tariff, they have also a board sitting at Washington which apparently works night and day. Supposing we send into the United States any commodities w'hich the tariff board think might better be produced in their own country, the importer is invited to bring his samples to Washington or some other place where they may be examined, and if they do not happen to meet with the approval of the board's examiners, and those examiners think that the goods would be bought in the States, the importer is impeded and prevented from making deliveries and from bringing in any further supplies. This action is taken practically overnight, and in one case the tariff board increased the duty from 50 to 90 per cent.
Modern business is modern warfare. In other words, you cannot fight the United States or any other country along modern business lines unless you use their own weapons. Naturally, we would prefer to keep our people here. Obviously we cannot do-so unless they can earn as good wages as are offered them in the United States. Therefore -we should protect our manufacturers and working people against the importation of competing products from the United States and the countries of Europe. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot become a great and prosperous country unless we give fair and reasonable protection to the manufacturing interests of Ontario and Quebec and the other provinces, but particularly to those two great provinces, where there is an investment of nearly three billion dollars in industrial plants.
The Budget-Mr. Bristol

There are two classes in every community that I think are especially entitled to the fullest consideration. The first class are the farmers. We cannot possibly have a great and prosperous country unless our farmers are fairly treated, unless they have every reasonable opportunity of getting fair returns from the soil. We have the Progressive party in this House, of course, who for the most part are opposed to protection, but I do not know of any government in the provinces. Liberal or Conservative, that has not done all it possibly could for the farmers. It is well recognized to-day that our farmers produce the real wealth of the country to start with, and after them come our manufacturing industries. Nor do I know of any federal government in this country that has not tried to treat our farmers in a fair and reasonable way. Of necessity this must always be done if our country is to be successful. But we have two classes of farmers. There is the western farmer growing his No. 1 hard wheat. He is as fine a farmer as you will find anywhere in the world, and he grows the finest wheat that can be produced in any country. If he had free trade he would have practically no taxes to pay. On the other hand you have the farmer of Ontario, Quebec and the Mari-times who has to rely on other products of the farm, cheese, butter, eggs, and so on, which products have to meet competition the world over. There has been a failure on the part of the present government, and I regret to say of other governments also, to give the farmers of Ontario, Quebec and the Mari-times that fair and reasonable protection to which they are certainly entitled.
.But this is the worst phase of the situation. 'Ontario arid Quebec, for instance, are great producing provinces, the farmers there are prosperous, but those provinces are losing their population, their young men and women. Now, we cannot become a great nation unless we get our people to stay in the country and unless wTe get new population. Above all things, it seems to me the first duty of every 'government is to take care of the people of ''Ontario and Quebec; it is so to protect the industrial interests that the working people will have plenty of employment at as good wages as they could earn across the line, and the local farmers will have good customers. The next step should be to get back our boys and girls from the United States. No one can argue for a moment that the best settlers are not our own people, and we should make the country so prosperous and attractive that our people who have left will return; that those who are here will stay here and that

their number will be steadily added to by a constant flow of immigrants from the Old Country. But after four years of tariff reductions, resulting disastrously to the country, the government has decided apparently to put the finishing touch on their work, and thus drive a still greater number of our young people to the United States. Not only has the government seriously affected the automobile industry by this tariff reduction, but they have scared away capital. They are not doing anything, in other words, to retain our present population, yet new settlers are being brought into this country. We cannot go on with nine million people; with that population we cannot hope to keep paying our great debts and meeting our obligations and the expenses of government. We must have new population. We hear of schemes for bringing these people from England and other countries, but where are they to go? I suppose they will go to northern Ontario and chiefly to the west. I have not heard any particular outcry from those in the west that they want new settlement; in fact one of their leaders said that if they had no more farmers they could get on very well.
But I know that the spirit of fair play and the desire to do what is right exists in the west as well as anywhere else. When I put this position before my friends from the west I would like them to consider it well, because it means so much to Ontario and Quebec, as well as to the other provinces where manufacturing is carried on. People in any countiy have to pay taxes, of course; I think our western friends recognize that fact, and are willing to pay a fair share. It is better to keep the boys and girls in this country, employed in factories producing in Canada the goods which should be made here out of our own raw products, rather than allow goods to come in from the United States. That simply means that our money goes to the United States, and American labour makes a profit on what we buy. If you bring new settlers into Quebec certainly you will increase the home market, but the home market is not so important to the farmers of the west as is the world market. You have the best wheat in the world, and there is no trouble in disposing of it. But when you have the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec with their many farmers, that condition does not obtain.
If you shut down all these automobile factories, what will happen? First of all we will import a great many cars from the United States, with no proper tariff protection. One-half million of our young men went to the

The Budget-Mr. Bristol
United States in four years, and you will send another hundred thousand across the border if this course is pursued; you will frighten industry. If you want to have an agricultural country only then go ahead, because by tariff reductions that < 4 p.m. condition will be brought about.
We can, of course, manufacture lumber and paper, and we have great mineral wealth, but if you keep on with this policy there wi'll be very little else. This country has great natural resources; I do not think a low tariff could ruin Canada but it can do a great deal towards reducing our population and our prosperity. If we do not accord the farmers of Ontario and Quebec fair treatment we are going to injure them and destroy the farming interests in these two great provinces.
If we keep shutting down our factories with this sort of tinkering, and worse, the manufacturing interests of Canada will be greatly decreased and the farmers will lose their local markets. We have nearly three and a half billions of dollars invested in the manufacturing interests of Canada, and I suppose about seven billions of dollars in the farming interests, but one thing is sure: we have to treat each other fairly and reasonably, and I say to my hon. friends from the west that it is worth considering carefully whether it is not much wiser to let this automobile industry prosper as it has prospered in the past. If you want a reduction go at it cautiously, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier did, and then study the result. Such a large reduction as has been made is very detrimental to the public interest; the manufacturers are not able to tell exactly what is going to happen, and the people are uncertain also.
I have said that the farmers are entitled to every consideration, but I again say that the working men and women are entitled to even more consideration. Why? The working men and women of the country go home at the end of the week and take their wages with them; that is all they have, unless there is a small garden around the house or something of that kind. If they lose their jobs, which has already happened to some automobile workers, and which may happen to others in the next two or three weeks, although they may have saved a little money they are up against a very serious proposition. They will have to consider whether or not they should leave Canada, or what they can possibly do. The farmer, on the other hand, is in a different position. If he has a bad crop-which is a very serious thing, of course-usually he has enough produce around
his home, together with chickens, cows and farm animals of various kinds, to carry him through a winter even if he does no business at all. Of course, none of our farmers are in that position to-day; they are too skilful and too wise to put all their money into any one thing, even No. 1 northern wheat, and there is no doubt that the western farmer is progressing on broad lines. His is a wonderful country, and he will succeed. But the younger generation are entitled to every consideration from all of us, and I do not see why the working men and women of Canada should not be protected in this country, as is done in the United States. That country has a population of 120,000,000 people-


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


Edmund James Bristol: I would rather not; I am
not trying to convince the hon. gentleman. We cannot hope to manufacture as cheaply as the United States, for obvious reasons. If you are making in a factory twelve times as much of the same article as another factory is making, obviously you can reduce your overhead to practically nothing, on large production, and your cost is very low. We have a tremendous opponent in manufacturing in our next door neighbours. They have vast wealth and are very fond of Canadians; they have certainly done everything possible to annex this country in a pleasant way. We are the only people in the world they are willing to admit without question, but when it comes to the articles manufactured in this country they put up a tariff wall and appoint an investigating committee, which shuts out everything which might compete with goods manufactured in the United States, and allows in only what they really need.
This is an easy country, Mr. Speaker, to make great and prosperous. We have a splendid population; I do not think there are any better people anywhere, any men, women, boys and girls more diligent or better behaved. We have the greatest natural resources of any country in the world1; it is said that at least S5 per cent of this country possesses mineral wealth. There is no doubt thajt we have power to an extraordinary degree, and the province of Quebec is particularly fortunate in that regard. What we must do in order to prosper is to treat each other fairly and squarely. The Maritime provinces have their troubles; they are entitled to every consideration. The western farmer has received, in my humble judgment, every consideration; he does not get protection, but his wheat is shipped down to the seaboard for
2G94
The Budget-Mr. Bristol

seven to nine cents a bushel less than American wheat is shipped over a similar distance. That is a big protection, when we consider our national railways and the amount of money we have expended in that connection. I would like to ask our western friends to consider the point of view of our manufacturing interests. It is far better to keep our young people in this country; to have our work done in Canada and to manufacture the raw products here, than to buy American products under any conditions. It may cost a little more, but the sacrifice will be a worthy one in the interest of Canada.
'So far as we in Ontario are concerned, we are hard-working people with every respect for the rest of the people of Canada, and we have every desire to see prosperity all over this great .Dominion. We have the friendliest feeling towards our next door neighbours in the province of Quebec. Some of us wonder occasionally why Quebec does not annex us, and1 then we would surely have a wonderful prosperity. I think that instead of trying to stay in office, whatever government it may be, we should look at the affairs of this country in the purely national way, not from a political point of view, and we should do the best according to our knowledge and ability to make our country great and prosperous.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a short contribution to the debate. First of all I must congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the splendid programme which he has submitted. I think it is fair to say that the budget has been received with approval everywhere except by the automobile industries of Canada, and that it is on the whole pleasing to everybody. Of course it has not found favour with the industries to which I alluded and some hon. members opposite. The elimination of the receipt tax, the return to penny postage, the endeavour on the part of this government to route Canadian commerce through Canadian ports, the saving of $25,000,000 in taxes for the coming year, the conversion of an adverse trade balance of $29,000,000 into a favourable trade balance of $402,000,000 as a result of five years' administration, and the reduction of the national debt by some $22,000,000, are all matters for congratulation to the Canadian people. The budget has undoubtedly won compliments from the press of Canada, and in some instances the newspapers are loud in their praise of it. The one feature of the budget which has not met with an equally enthusiastic reception is the cut in the tariff, particularly on automobiles.
I Mr. Bristol. 1
Now, notwithstanding the fact that prior to the last general election the Conservative party preached generally throughout the country a campaign of blue ruin, and pointed to Canada as being in a deplorable condition and on the verge of bankruptcy, very little credit is being given by hon. members opposite to this government for the splendid condition existing in this country to-day. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) congratulated the Canadian people on the prosperous condition in which they found themselves, but declared that prosperity was entirely due to a beneficent Providence, a bountiful crop, and a virile Canadian people. At the same time he stated that the government of Ontario had put that province in a firm financial position by its able management. He gave credit to the government of Ontario for what it had done but declined to give any credit to the federal government for the prevailing prosperity. He asserted that Canada was only getting her due, she was only getting what was coming to her, that such advancement as the country had made should have come some two, three or four years earlier, and that there had been no improvement in the country during the last four years. The last statement is not entirely correct nor is it entirely fair. Let me point out that during the ten years the Conservatives held office in Canada, namely from 1911 to 1921, there was added to the national debt of this country the entire cost of the war, the entire cost of demobilization, and $170,000,000 besides. We all remember, looking back to the period immediately after the war, the depressed condition in which Canada found herself. At that time commerce and finance were stagnant, agriculture and industry were paralyzed. We well remember the credit of Canada had become very much impaired, and that the Canadian dollar was only worth some SO cents. We well remember that men and women were leaving Canada in hundreds and thousands, and even in greater numbers; that in the Dominion there was no money to be found, that this country had very little to sell, and that the price of such few products as she had to offer was not worth consideration. I had the novel experience, during that period of depreciation in the spring of 1918, of buying several hundred ewes at $25 apiece and selling them in the Winnipeg stockyards in the fall of 1921 for the paltry price of $2 each. That gives a pretty fair idea of the depression which prevailed in western Canada during that period. Mention was made in this House at the time of the condition in which Canada found herself, and when the government was appealed to for

The Budget-Mr. Howden
remedial measures it claimed that it could offer no remedy whatever. The Hon. Mr. Calder, speaking in the House on May 19, 1919, said:
I presume that the very large emigration from this country has been very largely due to the rapid expansion otf trade, a.nd commerce and industry of the United States in every direction, which has made opportunities for our young men to enter business there, and I dare say that condition wall continue.
He went on to say that on returning to his native town in Ontario he found that the young men whom he had known in his early days had all disappeared. Mr. McDonald, the former member for Timiskaming, made the following remark:
Some hon. members say that there are many idle men in Canada. We have in .t-hds country to-day the sorry spectacle of some 500,000 people who are idle and together with 'their dependents they number probably a million and a halt out of a population of perhaps ten millions. This is a sad spectacle indeed in this glorious land of ours which we profess to be so proud of. There are 500,000 men or thereabouts idle in Canada and we have bread lines in every centre of population in the country. Why the condition of affairs is staggering and the Dominion government is asked, if my information is correct, to contribute towards the sustenance of men in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Montreal.
The Minister of Finance of the government of that day, speaking in the House said:
We in Canada have a great task before us. The world .is sadly out otf tune. Trust and confidence is sadly lacking. Class interests are advanced wiith selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellow men is weakened. Doubt of the future is voiced, and what is 'the trouble? The sun still shines, the rivers still sparkle and our lands are as fruitful as ever; our resources just as great.
This will give hon. members an idea of the condition of Canada at the time of which I speak. Now modesty is an ever-becoming virtue. I do not for a moment blame the government of that day for the condition in which Canada found itself. I do not suggest for a moment that the condition then could have been helped by the government of the time or by any government. The pendulum of fate ever swings, and at that particular time the odds were against Canada. I simply desire to point out that such was the condition which prevailed in this country subsequent to 1919 and up to the time the present government assumed office. Neither do I wish to give the Liberal government entire credit for the improvement which commenced to be apparent immediately after it entered upon its duties.
Now I will submit a few figures relevant to this matter, in order to show that a gradual improvement has taken place since the year 1921. When the present government came into office on March 31, 1922, the public debt
of this country stood at $2,422,000,000 in round numbers. On March 31, 1923, it was $2,453,000,000 and on March 31, 1924, it had been reduced to $2,417,000,000. On March 31, 1925, it was again $2,417,000,000, but in 1926, at the time of the present budget, we find the national debt reduced to $2,395,000,000, this being some $25,000,000 less than in 1922 and a saving of $22,000,000 from the last year, after providing an amount of $10,000,000 to the National Railways, and advancing $2,500,000 to the Home Bank creditors relief fund.
It has been claimed the government has been spending more money successively from year to year. The expenditures are as follows: in 1922, $464,000,000; in 1923, $434,000,000; a lessening of $30,000,000 from the year before. In 1924 it was $370,000,000.


Mr. CLARK:: Do those figures include
the railway expenditure, and if so do they include the railway guarantees?


John Power Howden: I have taken these figures from the statistical department. They have been given to me under request and I am not able to answer my hon. friend's question accurately, but the figures I have given were supplied me by that department.
The expenditures in 1025 amounted to $350,000,000, and in 1926 they had been reduced to $342,000,000, but this does not include an advance of $10,000,000 to the National Railways, or $2,500,000 to the Home Bank creditors fund. I should like to point out also that in the year 1920-21 the public debt was increased by $92,000,000. In 1021-22 there was again an increase of $81,000,000, and in 1022-23 another increase of $30,000,000. For the year 1923-24 there was a decrease of $35,000,000. At this time a cut of $26,000,000 was made in the general taxation. Notwithstanding this fact there was still a surplus of $5,000,000, or a decrease of $31,000,000 in all, from the preceding year. We all know that in 1026 there has been another decrease of $22,000,000.
With regard to the charges of extravagance that were made by hon. gentlemen opposite, since the present government came into power the services of some 5,000 people have been dispensed with and this has caused a yearly saving of $5,000,000. I might point to the balance of trade also, and just briefly mention the fact that in 1921 we had an adverse balance of trade of $20,000,000, and that the condition has improved since, so that in the present year we have a favourable balance of trade of $402,605,000. Now in the face of these figures, no one can consistently ot

The Budget-Mr. Howden
honestly claim that there has been no improvement in Canada in the last four years. The -hon. member for South Wellington, in making the statement that this government had been an extravagant one, said, at page 2459:
I do say, however, that there are mfliians of dollars of suggested expenditures which might very well be deferred for some years to come without any inconvenience and with no ill effects on the Dominion.
Now, Sir, coming from Manitoba, this statement appears to have reference to the Hudson Bay railway. Without pausing to discuss that project at this time, I would like to say that the people of western Canada were looking for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway even before they were looking for the completion of the Canadian Pacific. Since the later seventies we have had the building of the Hudson Bay railway in mind. In the early eighties an appropriation was set aside fof the building of the road. There has been some $50,000,000 worth of land sold and some $30,000,000 collected, but up to the present time only some $20,000,000 has been spent and we of western Canada feel that the balance of these moneys should be used for the completion of that railway. With regard to the feasibility of the grain route via Hudson bay, which has been seriously questioned, I might say there have in the last hundred years come into Hudson bay some 675 ships with the loss of only two. It it not a very large number, but it is [DOT] about six ships a year, and the percentage of loss has been very small. Assuming the grain route to the Old Country via the Hudson bay never became useful, the Hudson Bay railway will find plenty of other commerce and industry to keep the route alive. I have been down the Nelson river some two hundred miles. There is a great deal of water-power all the way. I should imagine the country would be able to develop sufficient waterpower to pay for the upkeep of the line. Not only is this the fact, but the whole country is saturated with minerals; there is no doubt about that at all, and there is no way of getting these minerals out at the present time. There are large areas of pulpwood too in that country, and that is a matter worthy of consideration. The bay itself contains a wealth of fish life, producing the best salt water fish in the world. Even supposing which I do not admit by any means, that the grain route to the Old Country would be impracticable, there is no reason why the Hudson Bay route should not become a paying proposition.
The main criticism of the hon. member from South Wellington, is with regard to the proposed reductions in the tariff. The hon.

gentleman pointed to the fact that Ontario contains about one-third of the total population of the Dominion, and he stated that Ontario paid over one-half of the treasury receipts of the Dominion, that Ontario was the home of the automobile industry in Canada, that there were, in one way and another, engaged in -that industry, some 20,000 men, and that they with their families made up possibly 100,000 souls. He pointed out that the proposed reduction in the tariff on automobiles would1 probably greatly hamper the industry and possibly throw these men out of work. Now the statement of the hon. member is probably correct, so -far as Ontario is concerned, but I am by no means convinced that the proposed reduction in the tariff on automobiles is going to ruin the industry in Ontario and put these people out of employment. In support of that statement, I should like to read some of the remarks that were made by hon. members in the House to the effect that of the excess price paid by Canadians for cars, over the price paid on the same cars in the United States, less than half is paid for salaries and wages. The excess price of cars in Canada over cars in the United States is 40 per cent, more than one-third, and is it reasonable to suppose that the material going into the manufacture of these cars would cost the other two-thirds? I think not and for that reason I am disposed to believe that automobile dealers in this country reap fairly handsome profits from the manufacture and distribution of automobiles.
I should like also to put before the House some other statements that have been made by other hon. members. In ten different makes of cars -manufactured both in Canada and in the United States, the Canadian -price is from thirty-eight to forty-one per cent and in some cases nearly as much as fifty per cent higher than the United States price. Canadian made cars sell for a considerably lower price on the foreign market than they do in Canada. Cars of United States make assembled in Canada obtain a considerable drawback when exported and enjoy as well, under the British preference, a tariff of eleven per cent-on the British market, but these manufacturers take -advantage of all the tariff of thirty-five per cent will bear as regards the Canadian purchaser. Twenty million dollars in excess of United States prices on the same cars was paid by Canadian people to Canadian car-makers or assemblers in 1924. A Canadian firm which is well known to all, with an original capital of $125,000 -paid average yearly dividends of $642,000, that is to say over 500 per cent for a period of twenty

The Budget-Mr. Howden
years, and at the end of that period the total investment together with the total dividends amounted to $43,978,000 or a profit in twenty years of $43,853,000 on an investment of $125,000; that is to say an average yearly growth of over 1,800 per cent.


Mr. GOTT:: Where do those figures come
from?


John Power Howden: Those figures were obtained by an hon. member of this House by direct interrogation of the managers of this particular automobile concern. Other firms are probably not quite so graciously favoured, but if an honest statement were made of their business as in the above case, it would doubless show that they too were making a very substantial return on their investment. Under the circumstances it does not seem to me that the automobile makers of this country are going to suffer very greatly by a reduction of fifteen per cent in the tariff on cheap cars.
The criticism, however, by hon. members opposite did not stop at the question of the tariff on automobiles; the tariff in general was mentioned. Since I have been interested in the political life of Canada I have heard continually of the necessity of raising the tariff on imported articles. That apparently is to be the cure-all for our ills in this country; but notwithstanding this fact, although the Conservatives were in power for ten years prior to the present government taking office, no effort was made by them to raise the tariff.
Comparisons are often made by our hon. friends opposite between Canada and the United States. The prosperity of the United States is pointed to by them and the fact that they have a high tariff is credited for being the reason for their prosperity. In Canada, although we are not quite so well off, we are rapidly regaining prosperity, and I believe the time is not very far distant when we shall have very little to complaiu of in that regard. Conditions in the two countries are very different. As was stated in this House last night, the United States entered the war some three years after the commencement of that great struggle and during those three years they were not only the storehouse but the merchant who supplied all the munitions of war and who lent the money. At the end of the war the United States of America found itself very rich as a result of that tremendous conflict. In Canada, on the other hand, we find a very different state of affairs. Canada was bled white of money, men and everything else; she was floundering under a stupendous load of debt for which no one can be blamed, and there was no sale for such products as she had for sale in those days for a simple reason. There had been over-production during the war and the world was practically overstocked with the necessaries of life, manufacturing and agricultural, so that there was no price forthcoming for what she had to sell.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What is the per capita difference in debt between Canada and the United States?


John Power Howden: I cannot say.


Peter McGibbon: Practically the same.


John Power Howden: I think hon. members will admit that conditions in the two countries were very different at the end of the Great war. There can be no question that the United States made a great deal of money as a result of the war and that Canada became practically bankrupt.


Peter McGibbon: That is not what hon. members opposite generally say.


John Power Howden: Yes, that is what I say. I am saying now that we are recovering and that is a very good thing. There is no question that we were in a very deplorable condition in this country at the end of the war. Apropos of this matter of the Canadian tariff I might point out that nearly fifty per cent of articles manufactured in Canada are exported and our manufactured exports have to compete in general with those of the United States, England and Germany on the world market. They receive no protection there and it is not probable that our manufacturers would export this material if they were going to lose money on it. How does this figure out? Our manufacturers take a chance on making what they can in the foreign market and they look to the people of Canada to protect them against any possibility of failure. That is to say, the tariff in this country is purely and simply a subsidy paid to Canadian manufacturers by the Canadian people through the medium of the Canadian parliament. Is this a very patriotic attitude? Does it seem to appeal to hon. members in this House or to the people throughout the country, that Canadian manufacturers should charge their own brothers greater prices for the commodities of life which they manufacture than they charge to the people to whom they sell abroad?
It is claimed by some hon. members that agriculture requires protection in the same manner as manufacturing industries. I am
The Budget-Mr. Howden

just wondering how you can protect the products of the western farmer. Is there any means by which you can put an export tax on our wheat or cattle and force the foreign buyers to pay us that extra money? Is it likely that if such an export tax were placed on raw materials we could get people to buy them from Canada? I do not think so. As a matter of fact we have to sell on the markets of the world whatever we produce and there we must take whatever price we can get, I do not see any good reason why the manufacturers should not do the same. The western agriculturist as an agriculturist has nothing whatever to gain from a tariff; it cannot help him in the least. We do not wish to take any selfish stand and we are willing, indeed we are anxious, to see Canada as a whole prosper. To this end we. are ready to make some sacrifice, but we do insist that this sacrifice be reasonable.
There is some possible question about the necessity for protection in respect of such things as fruit and early vegetables. As I have stated in this House before, early fruit and green leaf vegetables from abroad come into Canada before the products of this country are ready to be placed on the market, and the fact cannot be emphasized too strongly that these commodities are of extreme importance to the Canadian people. I want to read some remarks made by Doctor Hastings, the medical health officer of Toronto, at a recent medical convention. Doctor Hastings emphatically denounced any move which would add to the price of fresh vegetables in Canada in winter. He said:
I am absolutely opposed to it. My attitude is shown by the fact that I have been agitating for a complete removal of all duties from all citrus fruits. We should get our oranges, grapefruit and lemons duty free so that the price can be brought as near the poor man's ability to pay as possible. The leaf vegetables are of the greatest importance. Lettuce, spinach and cabbage would all come in duty free if I had my way in the matter.
At the same convention Miss Frances McNally director of the dietetics department of the Macdonald College, Guelph, had this to say:
W'hy, to shut the door upon or cut down the supply of leaf vegetables in Canada in winter would be little short of tragedy. Millions of dollars have been spent in educating the public to this value in dietary. To raise the price would be to throw away the results of years of educational work along this line.
We medical men all know that one of the greatest safeguards we have against the great white plague as also against a great many other constitutional derangements is suitable diet, and there is no suitable diet for constitutional diseases which does not include

green leaf vegetables and fresh fruit. I am inclined to believe, with Doctor Hastings of Toronto, that when fruit and early vegetables are available for Canada before the Canadian products are ready, even if these commodities come from the United States or from other places, they should be admitted free of duty. When we in Canada have our products ready for the market, then you can shut the other fellows out altogether so far as I am concerned; but I certainly think that until then the early fruit and vegetables should be allowed to come in free. This would redound to the benefit not only of the consumer but of the grower of fruit and green leaf vegetables in Canada as well.
I was interested to hear one hon. member from British Columbia state that he had seen wagonloads of apples taken to the dealers in towns throughout the fruit producing districts of that province, only to have them rejected, entailing the necessity of taking them back home, because there was no sale in view of cheaper American fruit being on the market. This is to me an astounding statement, especially when we know that to-day we have to pay five cents apiece for apples in any store in Ontario. When I was a little fellow in Winnipeg some forty years ago apples were at a premium; we thought when we were getting this fruit that we were getting a gold mine. But even at that time, as I remember, we could buy two or three apples for five cents as against one to-day. If therefore the fruit producers in this country are having to return home with wagonloads of apples because of the duty the condition of affairs is indeed strange.
I do not think it is necessary to refer to butter and eggs. A good deal has been said about butter in connection with the Australian treaty, which, it is said, is injurious to the trade in Canada. I am safe in saying, I believe, that there is not much butter manufactured in Canada in winter, the vast bulk of our product being made wdien the cows are in full milk in summer. The milk and cream offered for sale in Canada in the winter months goes directly to the dining tables of the land as such. The fact is that our butter is being made in summer when cream is plentiful and being stored by the creameries and the cold storage plants, if anyone suffers through the admission of Australian butter it cannot be the primary producer; it must be the operators of the cold storage plants and possibly the creameries. Pretty much the same thing holds in regard to eggs, for we know that the bulk of our eggs is produced in Canada between the first of March and the

The Budget-Mr. Howden
end of June. As a general rule the hens begin to moult in July, and they do not then lay for some six weeks or two months. There are therefore few eggs laid in the fall, and those few never leave the farm. The Canadian market is supplied with the production that takes place between the first of .March and the last of June, and the cold storage houses also put away large quantities of this commodity during this period. I heard the statement made in this House recently that only one egg in ten used in Canada was of domestic production. This impelled me to secure certain statistics from the bureau, and after figuring the matter up I find that very much the opposite is the case: sixty Canadian eggs are used in this country for every one that is imported. The surplus Canadian eggs are held by the cold storage plants until the months of September, October and November, when they are put upon the market, those months being the season of the year in which eggs are scarce. We have very few eggs produced in Canada during fall and winter months, except those that come from the poultry farms and which are sold as newlaid eggs at prices beyond the reach of ordinary incomes. We have to depend upon the eggs that come in from the southern states. These are practically fresh eggs, and to shut them out by a high tariff would be to do an injury to the rank and file of the Canadian people.
In common with a great many others, I believe that we Canadians should bend our energies to. the development of our basic industries, and encourage the manufacture only of such materials as are obviously Canadian in origin. What are our basic industries? There are many, but obviously agriculture is the leading one, and the chief feature of agriculture is the production of wheat and grain. There can be no question about it that agriculture is our chiefest basic industry, although we have others such as lumbering, mining and fishing. But since the wealth of any land must come from the soil it is clear that agriculture is and must be the most important basic activity of any people. There can be no question that agriculture is the most important basic industry of this country. Can wre develop any industries in connection with agriculture? Well, we have some. Of course, we can mill our grain and make flour. There is a contention in the west that the flour ought to be milled where the wheat is grown. There are difficulties, however, in the way of this which make it almost impossible. In the first place it is stated there is no market for our flour abroad. This is hardly correct, for we sell quite a large amount of our best
Canadian flour on foreign markets. But it is pointed out with a great deal of truth that England is a workshop, that they do not want our flour but want our grain, which they themselves will make into flour and distribute. That is only the half of the story. They not only want our wheat to mill, but they want it to mix with the wheat from the other great wheat-growing countries of the world, and thereby make a better grade of flour. So it looks as if we would have to be content with manufacturing flour for our own consumption. It is also pointed out that it is much cheaper to export whole wheat than flour and its by-products.
With respect to our mining industry, I heard it stated recently that Canada contains the only commercial nickel in the world, that Canada and South Africa have the only commercial deposits of asbestos in the world, and that in Canada are to be found deposits of lead and zinc superior to those in any other country. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently familiar with this industry to speak freely, but it seems to me reasonable enough to take the position that if the world is dependent on Canada for nickel, asbestos, lead and zinc it ought to come to Canada and get those products in their highest stage of manufacture. I do believe that a scheme ought to be worked out whereby our mines should be protected and the whole benefit of our mineral deposits accrue to the Canadian people.
As to our fishing industry, our export trade is considerable. We have a vast supply of fish in our rivers, in the inland lakes and in our seaboard waters, and this is an important form of our natural wealth.
With regard to our timber, I think that also ought to be very generally processed in this country before it is allowed to be exported.
There are other manufacturing industries which do not rely on any of our natural products. For instance, I understand that all the materials for the silk manufactured in this country have to be imported from Europe. I do not very well see how an industry of this kind can be expected to compete with the long-established and highly specialized silk industry of the Old Country.
The same remarks apply to the manufacture of paint. Not very long ago I visited a paint works in the city of Winnipeg and listened to a very instructive lecture by the superintendent in regard to the manufacture of paint, in the course of which he pointed out that they brought their materials from all over the world. Just how they can hope to compete with districts where the raw materials are very much more easily secured is not obvious to me.
The Budget-Mr. Howden

I might point out to the House we have not very many industries in the prairie provinces. I think it would be rather a good scheme for our protectionist friends to try to infiltrate those provinces with a few industries. I have always wondered why there are so few industries established throughout the west. I have heard it suggested the probable reason is that we cannot get them financed. I think every hon. member will agree that the money-power of this Dominion is pretty well centered in eastern Canada around Toronto and Montreal. When a man in the west desires to go into an industry his bank manager says, "Very well, but I think you had better run down east and see the president of the bank." When the man gets there the president says, "What is the idea of manufacturing up in that wilderness? WThy not bring your industry down here? Of course, we will finance you all right, but it will be very much easier to finance you here." The consequence is that pretty nearly all our industries are centered in eastern Canada. I am not at all sanguine of their success, but I would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they want to change the minds of western Canadians on tariff matters they had better establish a few industries out there; then they may be able to make some of our people protectionists.
With regard to the amendment that has been offered by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), it gives no definite intimation as to the attitude of our friends opposite in relation to what they would like the government to do in the matter. A few days ago the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated that he was not in favour of taking the tariff out of the hands of parliament, and he read extracts in support of his view. He said that by all means the proper authority to deal with tariff questions was the parliament of the land. We on this side are wondering why hon. members opposite did not intimate what line they thought should be taken with regard to the budget alterations, or if any alterations at all should be allowed to take place. I am inclined to wonder if a good many hon. members on the other side are not actually in favour of a reduction in the tariff on automobiles, and if it is not a little bit difficult for them to come to a conclusion amongst themselves as to just what they actually want. If they had definitely intimated just what they would like done, vre would be very much further ahead. As it is, they merely point out that they wish the whole tariff referred to the Tariff Advisory Board. This would hold up the budget for an indefinite period.


Mr. MANION:: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I can tell him in a second what we suggest. We suggest that before any tariff changes are made there should be an investigation by the tariff board appointed by this government.


John Arthur Clark: ; In accordance with the government's pledge.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Power Howden: That does not change the situation at all. We are still quite at a loss to go ahead and meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I will only delay the House a few moments, to mention the Canadian National Railways. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) gave the entire credit for the Canadian National Railways to the right hon. leader of the opposition, which reminded me of a story my mother used to tell some years ago about an old Irishman who was never a great success in life himself but whose boys grew up and prospered. The old man used to take the credit for the successful career of the boys, and would interrogate the members of his family in this way, "Aren't yez proud of yer owld father, that can have such foine sons?" I was thinking that the right hon. leader of the opposition was being placed in precisely the same position.
With regard to the Canadian National Railways I would say, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Far be it from me to detract from any credit due to the right hon. leader of the opposition, for whom personally I have a very high regard. In the matter of the Canadian National Railways, not being very familiar with the facts, I am willing to admit that the scheme was perhaps conceived by hon. members opposite, led by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and a great deal of the programme put in action by them. It must be admitted, however, that at the time this government took office the Canadian National Railways was a white elephant. It was like the ugly duckling; no one wanted to father it at the time. Now that the system has been put on a paying basis through the efforts of this government in the appointment of Sir Henry Thornton and in other ways, we believe that a great deal of credit for this very excellent public utility should be given to this government.
In this connection I might quote some figures with which a good many hon. members are familiar, but I will just pause long enough to say that in the year 1921 the operation of the railway alone showed a deficit of $11,000,-

The Budget-Mr. Clark
000. This deficit has disappeared and the position has been gradually improved, so that this year we have a surplus of $32,000,000 in the operation of that road.
I believe I have exhausted my material. I am not a very rank politician, and I believe that after all there is not such a tremendous difference between members of this House. I believe we are all perfectly honest, and that we are expressing our views, our sentiments, our beliefs and our convictions as we feel them. I think we are all working for the betterment of Canada and that Canada in no very distant future will be perhaps the favoured land of the world. We are still in the morning of our day; with our cousins to the south it is high noon, and in the 5 p.m. Old Country the day is perhaps well spent. But, Sir, I have enough faith in this country and in the Canadian people to believe that in the very near future we will build a great nation here; we will be the finest dominion on the face of the earth, and I trust that I shall not be damned for my temerity in so thinking.


John Arthur Clark: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Howden) will not expect me to review his address in detail. I may say that I enjoyed his remarks very much, but I fear we do not agree in many matters of policy affecting this Dominion. There are one or two observations I would like to make in connection with his remarks. I would draw his attention to the fact that if there was a bread line of 500,000 people in Canada when this government came into office, those people have not since found employment through any efforts of this government; they are now in the United States, enjoying employment there.
Mr. hon. friend quoted the expenditures of this government since it assumed office, in an effort to show that there had been some economy effected. I do not dispute the figures which my hon. friend quoted; they included the railway expenditures, but my hon. friend was not here when this government covered up the actual railway expenditures by guaranteed bond issues, which are not shown in the expenditures referred to. The only way my hon. friend can arrive at any idea of the expenditures of this government is by referring to the public accounts. I have the public accounts for 1925 under my hand, and I would draw attention to the fact that in only one year since this government assumed office was there any material reduction in the ordinary and capital expenditures, exclusive of railway expenditure. That was in
the year 1923, when there was a reduction c.' $15,000,COO, largely due to a reduction in war expenditures. There was a reduction in 1924 of $6,000,000 only; a reduction in 1925 of $4,000,000 only, and I draw attention to the fact that, according to the statement made by the Minister of Finance in this House on April 15, the 1926 expenditures show a very large increase over those of 1925. The expenditures shown for 1926 are $342,890,000, whereas the expenditures for the year previous were $339,902,775.94, a very substantial increase.
I would further call attention to the fact that while the estimates for 1926-27, as the minister pointed out, only show a drop of about $4,000,000, the minister admitted that these estimates do not include the supplementary estimates, which will ordinarily run from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000. These estimates do not include about $12,000,000 for old age pensions; they do not include the sum required to take care of the revaluation of soldier lands, nor do they include, unless I am mistaken, anything for the Empire land settlement scheme. Neither do they make provision for rural credits, which may require many more millions of dollars. Thus a very conservative estimate of the expenditures for the forthcoming year would be $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 in excess of the expenditures of the previous year.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Will any money be required for the old age pensions scheme, and most of the other schemes my hon. friend mentioned, this year, if they pass the House?


John Arthur Clark: In connection with the old age pension scheme it depends entirely whether the provinces accept the suggestions of the government. As to the other matters spoken of, it depends entirely on whether this House passes the measures. That remains to be seen.
I hope that my hon. friends from the Eastern Townships in the province of Quebec noted the last speaker's remark that he favours the complete removal of any customs duties upon green vegetables. I wonder if my hon. friends from the Eastern Townships also favour the removal of the duties on these products.


John Power Howden: May I correct the hon. gentleman? I stated I would be in favour of the entire removal of the duties on green vegetables and fruit up to the time the Canadian produce was ready.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

The Budget*-Mr. Clark


John Arthur Clark: So that when the taste for strawberries has been satisfied our own strawberry growers will have the market. Is that my hon. friend's idea?


John Power Howden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he want to throw obstacles in the way of the Canadian people getting the necessities of health-not of life but of health-by keeping out all these products in order to preserve the Canadian market?


John Arthur Clark: I tell my hon. friend that we produce plenty of vegetables good enough for the health of the people without the free importation of American products.


Charles A. Stewart: And at reasonable prices.


John Arthur Clark: Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want this interchange to develop into a debate between myself and the last speaker because there are several very vital matters I would like to touch upon.
I think the House will agree with me when 1 say that the two outstanding features of this budget are the so-called income tax reduction, and the reduction in the duties on automobiles. I propose to refer briefly to the income tax reduction. Undoubtedly there is a reduction on small incomes earned, by salaried people who do not receive dividends from corporations. That is obvious. I was very much interested the other day when the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) spoke on this subject and joined in the general jubilation over the fact that the income tax had been drastically cut on incomes which equal the indemnity of a member of parliament. That was very interesting, particularly after the hon. member's speech in the early part of the session on the Address when he said emphatically that the government should go slow in the matter of any income tax reduction. Now, according to the Minister of Finance these reductions are very substantial. But no word of protest came from my hon. friend that the tax has been removed from that portion of the people who can pay, nor did I hear him raise his voice for the vast body of the common people, for whom he is so fond of talking, and protest against the fact that the sales tax in Canada raised by this government and resulting in an average annual increase since it assumed office of twenty-two and a half million dollars in taxation, is continued. That tax is paid by the common people, and that is the tax which will continue to be extracted from their pockets. I wonder what the common people

of this country will say when they hear of that? I wonder what they will say when it really sinks into their minds what these reductions mean to them? Are the common people those who receive salaries of 13,000 and upward, or are they the people who are in receipt of salaries under that amount? If I am not mistaken the great bulk of the Canadian people receive salaries under $3,000, yet no relief is given to them. They are told that this extra twenty-two and a half million dollars of taxation imposed by this government will continue to be extracted hereafter. There you have the budget for the common people whose interests hon. gentlemen to my left so often profess to defend in this House. I wonder if the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) will approve of this cut in taxation in the interest of those who can pay, and will stand up and vote for the continuance of taxation on the common people, for the extraction of increased taxation to the amount of twenty-two and a half million dollars annually, imposed by this government and continued under this budget?
As to the question of the income tax reductions, may I say this? It is a matter of great surprise to me that the imposition of this income tax has never been legally contested by the corporations of Canada, because I know that although the reduction in income tax under the budget is held as a great thing for the people of the Dominion, yet out of collections amounting to $56,000,000 nearly $32,000,000 is paid by the corporations and an additional $14,000,000 is paid by the manufacturers, making $46,000,000 in all paid by the manufacturers and the corporations of Canada combined. To what extent are these two classes relieved by this budget? The income tax paid by the corporations is reduced, I think from 10^ per cent to nine per cent. That will not account for a reduction in excess of $3,000,000 unless, due to the acts of this government a number of these corporations go out of business this year, and I am inclined to expect that. But if business continues as it has continued during the past year these corporations may pay $3,000,000 less than they paid last year. On the other hand the manufacturers who are paying $14,000,000 will now pay in excess of that amount because they are taxed this year on their dividends, whereas last year their dividends were relieved from the normal tax although they paid the surtax. This year the particular class that pays the $14,000,000 will pay, I venture to say, in excess of what they paid last year. And when the Minister of

The Budget-Mr. Clark
Finance predict-s that this is a reduction in the income tax I question it very much. There is a reduction, as I said before, of income tax in the case of such people as earn an amount equal to the indemnity of a member of parliament, but not in the case of the class that actually pays the great portion of the income tax in Canada.
I repeat, the two classes that pay are the corporations and the manufacturers. All but about $10,000,000 of the total income tax is paid by these two classes. I mentioned that I was surprised that the imposition of this tax had never been tested by any corporation. Note the ingenious manner in which the Minister of Finance referred to this feature in his speech the other day. He stated that the special war revenue taxes received during the fiscal year 1925-26 amounted to $154,580,000, and added:
The total expenditures directly attributable to the war

and I desire to especially direct this to the attention of the House

will amourot to some $163,997,000, or $9,417,000 more than the receipts from our special war revenues.
Now the minister knows better than I do that that statement is not in accord with the facts and not in accord with the public accounts of Canada. Some time ago I received a statement, in answer to a question, which showed an increase of $121,896,099 in the interest on the public debt since 1914, and the Minister of Finance attributes that whole increase to expenditures due to the war. Now that amount is nearly double the amount of interest on the public debt due to the war, as I see it. The Minister of Finance asks this House and the country to believe that prac-ticallj' the total national debt to-day is directly attributable to the war and that the debt has not been increased by cash advances of nearly $600,000,000 to the railways, for instance. The public accounts of Canada for 1925 show that the total cost not only of the war but of demobilization was $1,694,365,809.60. If that whole amount is charged up to or added to the national debt, it does not account for more than sixty per cent of the total interest which the Minister of Finance attributes to the increase on the debt due to the war. I wonder if the minister makes that statement in order that he may be on safe ground, in case the 'legality of the direct income tax for purposes other than the war is tested? Because I say emphatically that the special war taxes now collected by this country exceed by many millions the sum required to take care of war expenditure, and in so far as income tax is applied to purposes other than special war purposes it is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada, parliament having no power to impose direct taxation for anything other than war purposes.
I should like to give a concrete illustration of the effect of the present income tax proposals on a business that makes net profits of $55,000. That might be considered a comparatively small corporation. At nine per cent that corporation will pay a tax of practically $5,000, leaving for distribution about $50,000. Assuming there were ten equal shareholders in that company, each would receive in dividends $5,000. A year ago these shareholders would not have paid income tax on those dividends. I am not sure whether I am absolutely correct in that; I know I am correct up to $4,000. In any case none of it was subject to the normal tax of four per cent, and I do not think the surtax would come into operation on an income of $5,000. This year, on the other hand, those ten men, each one of whom would have paid $495 by way of income tax into the revenues of this country through the Corporation tax, will pay an additional sum greater than the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) who is so jubilant because his income tax is being reduced, will pay on his $4,000 indemnity. That will be accentuated in the case where a shareholder of a corporation receives very large dividends. The Minister of Finance stated it was his desire that such moneys might find their way back into industry, but as a matter of fact there will be less available to go back into the industry this year than there was last year.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the reduction of the tariff on automobiles. The only reason given therefor by the Minister of Finance or by his government, was that there was a pronounced sentiment in Canada that the automobile industry was receiving too much protection. Well, since when have governments brought down sentimental legislation? Why was some reference not made to the pre-election pledges of the Prime Minister in this connection? Why was no reference made to the solemn pledges that appeared in the Speech from the Throne? I think it might be well to refer to two or three utterances of the Prime Minister during the campaign, as to how he felt when he appealed to the voters of Canada for their support. I refer to a speech made at Kingston, reported in the London Advertiser of October 20, in which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
"We realize that our industries here have to have safeguarding with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south, competition from conditions as they are :n Europe, and we think that is all the more reason why
The Budget-Mr. Clark

in these days of depreciated currencies and the like we should have the benefit of expert advice and information on all these great questions of the tariff.
This city of Kingston need have no fear from Liberal administration as to the well-being of its industries. The industries would be taken care of. The government had no desire to injure established industries, quite the contrary."
Speaking at Fort William on October 12th, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
''We don't want to work injury to any industry." he urged, ''we want to help, as far as possible, all industries. We hope to make such readjustments of the tariff as will develop the industrial life of our country from one end of the country to the other."
He referred to a Fort William starch factory. He had, he said, been asked if It would not be possible to give home industries more protection and get the industry started again.
''How in such a case," asked the Prime Minister, ''would the tariff board proceed? We would," Mr. King continued, ''expect the member of the division to go before the board and present the case of that industry. We would expect a deputation of persons interested; then we would expect the tariff board to make a careful study of the whole subject and say whether some readjustment of the tariff could not be made here and there.
If we were advised that a readjustment could be made of the tariff schedule that would serve to put. the great industry on its feet again without undue injury to consumers the government would certainly be inclined to accept in a sympathetic way any suggestion of that sort. In revising the tariff there would be no intention of protecting special interest."
If inquiries of the board, however, might show that in some cases the tariff would have to be lowered, in some cases there might have to be readjustments here and there upwards. The aim would be to have a tariff suited to the needs of the country and to needs of the people. I
I have many other utterances of the Prime Minister along similar lines, but these suffice to show that he gave his word to industry in this country that no industry would be affected by any adjustment of the tariff without a proper investigation by the tariff board. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he has broken his word to the Canadian people? I would like to ask the government why they have broken their solemn pledges, given in the Speech from the Throne, that all industries would be investigated by the tariff board before any revision upwards or downwards took place. Apparently they are dumb. Attempts have been made to bolster up the position of the government by some of my friends to the left and some of my friends from Saskatchewan. The government could find no reason except that of sentiment. Their friends have been floundering around trying to find some reasons, all of which are just as ridiculous as the reason advanced by the government that they were doing this for sentimental reasons.
The hon. member for Brandon, in his efforts for the benefit of the common people, wants

to get cheaper cars for them. I do not think the common people in this country are as much interested in getting cheap cars as they are in being relieved of the burden of taxation imposed by this government and also in finding employment and in retaining the employment which they now have.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) said: "The profits in this industry are too great." Is that not one reason why the tariff board was established, so that these questions might be referred to them for investigation in order that they might ascertain the profits and determine w'hether or not they were too great?
He made another suggestion, namely, that it would be more patriotic on the part of the Canadian people to buy United States' cars and to pay the duty than to buy Canadian cars made by our own Canadian workmen. He supports that argument by certain figures. He states that if in 1924 we had imported all our cars, the Canadian government would have received $20,000,000 by way of customs revenue, whereas, he says, as a matter of fact they received only in the neighbourhood of $1,581,882. I will do my hon. friend this justice; I do not dispute these figures because I have not investigated them. But I have the corresponding figures for 1926 from the Customs department, and they show that if all cars sold in Canada last year had been imported the customs duty would have been about $17,000,000. They show that the net customs duties paid by automobile manufacturers, after drawbacks are deducted, are about $4,500,000. The automobile manufacturers themselves say that they paid net duties, after allowing for all drawbacks, amounting to $7,418,513. I take their statement without hesitation because I know they import many articles which are not classified as automobile parts. In addition to that about two hundred "parts" men have stated that they pay in duties $1,168,411, making a sum of $8,586,925 net payment to the Canadian customs for the year 1926. There is a considerable difference between $17,000,000 and $8,586,925, but the House should bear in mind that this industry paid also $2,000,000 in income taxes. A considerable sum paid' by "parts" manufacturers is not reported and there is a certain amount of income tax paid by 22,000 men employed in this industry.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has just made a statement as to how much the industry paid in income taxes. Under the Income Tax Act no person is allowed to give out such information. Where did he get it?

The Budget-Mr. Clark


John Arthur Clark: I do not think I am bound to answer my hon. friend. I have a statement from the Department of Finance showing, as I stated before, that corporations in Canada paid $32,000,000 of the $56,000,000 in income tax and that manufacturers paid an additional $14,000,000, making a total of about $46,000,000 paid by corporations and manufacturers. It is pretty safe to assume that the automobile industry paid $2,000,000. I took those figures from public statements made by the automobile industry.


James Alexander Robb: That is all right.


John Arthur Clark: I rely on them and I do not think my hon. friend will dispute them. I hope the Minister of Finance will not dispute the fact that these 22,000 employees in the automobile industry and subsidiary industries pay some income tax and that they also contribute a part of the enormous sales tax that is being collected in this country. The burden of the sales tax bears on those employees and they are subscribing very largely to it. I do not think the Minister of Finance will dispute the fact that their hundred thousand dependents pay a considerable amount into the Customs department of the $120,000,000 odd collected by that department, nor will he dispute the fact that they pay some stamp taxes. Let me say just here that this stamp tax has grown since this government came into office from, approximately $2,000,000 to about $9,000,000,


Charles Benjamin Howard: Prosperity.


John Arthur Clark: No, increased taxation.
When this government-came into office a two cent stamp had to be put on a cheque. Now it is more likely to be a dollar. Last year in my own very small office in Vancouver, I cannot give the exact figure, but I know the stamp taxes were much in excess of $250, so that my hon. friend can see how heavily this tax bears on the people of Canada. The Minister of Finance may well take off some of the income tax when he increases the stamp tax to $9,000,000, a tax that does not bear fairly on the Canadian people. It is the people who are paying out money or borrowing money for their needs who are taxed for that privilege.
Now, referring again to other contributions made to the revenue of the country by these individuals, I venture to say that their payments to the provincial and municipal governments are almost as great as to the federal revenue, and possibly greater. So that when hon. gentlemen have the hardihood to suggest that it is more patriotic to buy American cars than to maintain the Canadian industry by 11011-172
keeping on the duties, I say that any simpleton can sit down and figure out for himself just what this industry means to the treasury of the Dominion. The automobile industry and its employees pay probably 100 per cent more in taxes than would be paid in duties by the Canadian people if they imported all their cars from the United States.
I think I am well within the mark when I say that they pay in taxes to the Dominion and to the provincial and municipal governments a sum not less than $30,000,000.
The hon. member who last spoke (Mr. How-den) implied that the wages paid to the employees in this industry were not great in comparison to the value of the finished product. I will do him the justice to admit that he was fair: he did say that a substantial sum was paid in wages, but he qualified the statement. I am sorry he is not here, because I would point out to him that in this industry considerably over sixty per cent of the value of the finished product consists of materials. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), in a speech he delivered in this House a few weeks ago made the statement that the total wages paid in the automobile industry were insignificant in comparison with the total value of its output. Once more let me say, the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada assert that they pay in salaries and wages the sum of $17,595,282, while the subsidiary industries which manufacture automobile parts declare that their payroll amounts to $14,036,668. My good friend from Macleod referred particularly to the Ford industry, stating that the wages paid amounted to about $7,000,000 as against a total production valued at something like $8S,000,000.	He had the Ford statements
before him, and I am sure they cannot be controverted, for the Ford people would not risk giving false returns. Well, those returns show that their expenditures in materials in Canada during the last year amounted to approximately $20,000,000. These materials consisted of such things for example, as automobile wheels. Now surely it requires labour to produce automobile wheels, so that a great deal of that $20,000,000 would represent wages paid to labour.
And would it be suggested by anyone that of the $7,775,000 paid in freights by the automobile manufacturers and subsidiary corporations last year a considerable proportion does not represent employment to the Canadian people? What will be the effect upon Canadian railways if we import automobiles from the United States? I know what the effect will be in British Columbia: automobiles will be assembled in Seattle and will be shipped

The Budget-Mr. Clark

over the Great Northern railway into Vancouver instead of over the Canadian National railway from Toronto or Walkervi'lle. They will come over American roads from New York and thence by way of the Great Northern into Vancouver, and into Winnipeg and other prairie points. Furthermore, when a commodity is manufactured in Canada it means that the railways move at least four carloads of freight to every one that is moved if the article is imported in the finished state, because there is the hauling of raw materials to the factory to be considered. I have no doubt every manufacturer will agree with me that at least four carloads of freight will move in the case of the article manufactured at home as against one when the finished product is imported.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Will the hon. member
say whether or not he is in favour of putting the duty back to 35 per cent?


John Arthur Clark: I say yes, unhesitatingly. Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question in turn. Is there a silk manufacturing concern in his constituency?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Is the hon. gentleman in
favour of continuing the 35 per cent duty on silk?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not think it is in
order to answer the question, but I should like to reply to the hon. member.


John Arthur Clark: Go ahead.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If the silk industry in
Sherbrooke is taking advantage of the tariff to the detriment of the Canadian purchaser, I say take the duty off.


John Arthur Clark: How would the hon. member proceed to find out whether that industry was taking advantage of the tariff?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The prices will tell.


John Arthur Clark: I think you will agree with
me, Mr. Speaker, that I have been franker with my hon. friend than he has been with me. I state unhesitatingly that I would put the duty back to 35 per cent and turn the tariff board loose on the industry. I am in accord with the policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his election pledges; I am in accord with the policy announced by the government in the solemn pledge given in the Speech from the Throne, that no industry would suffer without 
investigation. This government has broken its pledges; the Prime Minister has not kept his word to the people of Canada, and all that one needs to do to prove this is to read the statements I have quoted this afternoon.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The views the hon. member is expressing are not embodied in the amendment.


John Arthur Clark: They certainly are embodied in the amendment. I have not spoken to my leader, nor have I discussed this particular question with any member of the party on this side, but I am sure that the feeling of hon. gentlemen over here would be that the duty should be put back to 35 per cent, and the industry investigated by the tariff board.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to see the Manitoba Tories vote for it.


John Arthur Clark: They will vote all right;
the Minister of Agriculture need not worry.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not worrying at all.


John Arthur Clark: I come from a constituency in which neither automobiles nor automobile parts are manufactured, and there is jusi as much likelihood of the reduction being popular there as it will be on the prairies. But I am man enough to stand up and declare that I want to see justice done to the people of Canada, no matter where they may be located, whether in Ontario, in Saskatchewan or anywhere else. And I say that justice has not been done in this case. A grave injustice has been done, and the Minister of Agriculture is a party to it.


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Has the
hon. member seen the statement of Mr. Ford in this morning's papers?


John Arthur Clark: Yes. Would not Mr. Ford just love to see free trade in this country? Would it not have been a great thing for Mr. Ford if no tariff had ever been put on against the importation of American automobiles? Do you think Mr. Ford wanted to come to Canada to manufacture cars? Did any other American firm want to come here to manufacture for the Canadian market? Would they not have been delighted to supply the Canadian market from their United States factories? And would not Mr. Ford have made infinitely more money out of Canadians if there had been no tariff? Let me tell my hon. friend what happened. The Ford Company of Detroit was started with a

The Budget-Mr. Clark
capital of $28,000. To-day it has net profits in excess of $100,000,000 a year-profits largely in excess per car of the profits made by the Canadian Company. Now then, the Canadian Company commenced with a capital of $125,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much cash?


John Arthur Clark: Last year the profits of
that company were quoted by an hon. member at about $6,100,000. The stock valuation of the Ford Company in Detroit has grown to $6,000 per share; that of the Ford Company of Canada to $425 per share. But since the government announced its policy the stock has dropped 160 points.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hit it again.


John Arthur Clark: I realize that that is the
policy of my hon. friend from Saskatchewan. I am not here to defend the Ford Company or any other manufacturer. What affects me is this: there are very few automobile manufacturers that have not got their main plants in the United States, and they would just as soon go back there to-morrow and supply the Canadian market. But I do believe in some sense of justice, in some sense of fairness on the part of members from Saskatchewan towards those 22,000 workers and their 100,000 dependents who are located in one small part of Ontario-a province which, by the way, contributes 50 per cent of the total revenues of this country. I appeal for fairness to a province that is able to do that. It is not my province, but I do feel, no matter what province it may be, our object should be to keep good Canadian people here.
It might be well at this point for me to mention that the Ford Company of Canada, for instance, since 1913, has made price reductions of 41 per cent, while during that time all other commodities have increased in price, so that it takes to-day $155 to purchase what $100 would have purchased in 1913. That reduction, I believe, is due largely to two things:	keen competition among the
manufacturers of cheap cars, and the economies effected by the Ford Company at Ford, Ontario, through mass production.
Why does it cost more to manufacture automobiles in Canada? I have only to refer the government to its own returns for 1925, which show a drawback of customs duty on automobile parts amounting to $4,426,S01.66, and an export value of automobiles totalling $26,030,339. The drawback was one-sixth of the total value, or slightly over 16 per cent. That increased cost of manufacturing a car in Canada is due to the imported parts that 14011-1721
enter into its manufacture. I think that is of sufficient importance to repeat in another form. It is said on all sides, "Why cannot these Canadian manufacturers turn out cars as cheaply as they do in the United States"? Well, it is a comparatively new industry to this country; many of the component parts are not yet manufactured here, and the domestic market for automobiles has not yet warranted the erection of Canadian factories to manufacture those parts. The manufac- . ture of parts is already a considerable industry in this country, but there are still many parts, particularly engines, that cannot be manufactured here. It will probably take some time before we can develop the automobile industry so that the whole manufacture is done in Canada. In the meantime the cost of production throughout the whole industry is increased by 16 per cent on cars for distribution in Canada by reason of the customs duties paid on imported parts. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is smiling at my remarks or not, but let me tell him I am not now quoting figures supplied by the automobile manufacturers, I am quoting figures furnished by the Customs department. That one feature alone increases the cost of manufacture in this country tremendously.


James Alexander Robb: We are returning 25 per cent of the duty paid, and I should like to make it clear that that rebate goes to the manufacturer of parts as well as to the manufacturer of automobiles.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think the average Canadian manufacturer to-day is in a position to produce 50 per cent of the car.


James Alexander Robb: That is the milk in the cocoa-nut-that is what all the row is about.


John Arthur Clark: I think the minister will agree that our manufacturers have increased their percentage of manufacture tremendously in the last few years. Then again, the manufacturer will be put to so much trouble in applying for rebates on his parts that it will require an extra staff and the cost will be almost prohibitive. Further, I say that the manufacturer of parts in Canada is entitled to consideration by the tariff board.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the statement of the Minister of Finance that there will be a 25 per cent rebate of duties
The Budget-Mr. Clark

paid on parts imported for the further manufacture of motor cars, and I think I had given three reasons why that would not be of any material advantage to the industry. In order to take advantage of that rebate it will be necessary to manufacture fifty per cent of the car in Canada. Now that I admit is a very laudable ambition, it is one to which we all aspire. But the very effect of a reduction in the duties on parts will be to cause even less of the ear to be manufactured in Canada than at present, because the manufacturers will be forced to buy the parts where they can buy them the cheapest; they will naturally import more parts from the United States where mass production is carried on and where the parts are cheaper. One instance of the effect of mass production is given by the Ford industry, the only automobile industry in Canada which has reached a high percentage of production in Canada. I understand that the figure is from 80 to 90 per cent. However, that industry, as we all know, is not one which is most affected by the cut in the tariff; it is the least affected although it is the industry which this government aimed at when it reduced the tariff. I think that other manufacturers of motor cars in Canada have hardly reached the fifty per cent basis. I doubt if many of them have got beyond forty per cent, although the percentage has undoubtedly increased in the last few years; it is on the increase to-day, and if the industry were given a fair chance that increase would in the very near future reach a figure well in excess of the fifty per cent.
May I point out to the Minister of Finance that the wages and the purchases of the automobile industry indicate the enormous value to Canada of that industry? First of all, the wages paid by the manufacturers themselves and their subsidiaries amount to $3l'.500,000. Then as to the very large purchases, two instances might be given. Ford purchases in Canada, $32,431,000 worth of goods, though he only sells to Canadians to the extent of $25,914,000, leaving for circulation in Canada the enormous sum of $6,716,840. Another instance might be given, the General Motors. They make purchases in Canada of Canadian materials amounting to $35,733,390, whereas they only sell to the Canadian people goods to the value of $34,044,048, leaving a balance for circulation in Canada of $1,689,342, And may I state, so far as Ford is concerned at any rate, that because he produces from 80 to 90 per cent in Canada, very little of the money received by that company gees out of this country. For instance last year I think the company declared in dividends a little

over $1,000,000. I do not know what proportion of the stock is held in Canada; but dividends are paid in this country, so that a very small amount of money is going out of Canada by reason of the fact that a portion of the capital is supplied by citizens of the Unitec' States.
Now the minister proposes, by reducing the duty, to cut down these purchases which art now made in Canada, by making it easier foi the manufacturers to buy from the United States. As shown by a ruling of the Department of Customs, the minister is going to cut the duties on 130 parts by 25 per cent if the manufacturers manufacture fifty per cent of the finished article in Canada. I point this out to the minister: that even though all these manufacturers qualify for that reduction the minister would still be charging the manufacturer who manufactures his car in Canada a higher duty on parts than he will exact from me if I purchased a car in the United States. Let me put it in this way; the minister says to me "'Clark, if you buy a car made in Canada I will see that you pay from 25 per cent to 35 per cent on every part imported from the United States that goes into that car. If that manufacturer happens to make fifty per cent of your car in Canada I will give him a rebate of 25 per cent, but if you will buy a car that is fully manufactured in the United States, made by American workmen, with American capital, I will charge you only 20 per cent duty." Has there ever been an instance where this government has subsidized American manufacturers in preference to Canadian manufacturers? This is a case where the minister is subsidizing American manufacturers, encouraging Canadians to buy American cars, because if they do so they will pay less duty on parts than they will pay if they purchase Canadian cars. These are some of the reasons why the minister's suggestion of a rebate is of no value. I may point out that only four out of 134 articles will come into Canada at a 20 per cent duty, namely, the automobile cover, the body, the chassis and the wheels. There are 130 other parts which -will come in at the old duty.
Before I was interrupted by the Minister of Finance I was giving some reasons why cars manufactured in Canada cost more than cars manufactured in the United States. Another reason is the high taxation in Canada. It lias been generally admitted that about twenty-five cents out of every dollar of our net production goes into taxes, municipal, provincial or federal. There is an enormous tax on industry, and I showed quite clearly before the House

The Budget-Mr. Clark
took recess that that taxation, largely falls upon corporations and manufacturers and the result is to increase materially the cost of . manufacture in Canada.
Another reason is the cost of distribution. The minister knows that we have a wide area over which to distribute motor cars. Then we have the fact that the freight rates from Toronto to Vancouver are enormously high, compared to those paid in the state of New York by manufacturers there, or by the manufacturers in Detroit in the state of Michigan. Our large area and sparse population also accounts for the increased cost of selling a car in Canada as compared with the United States. I venture to say that on a car which costs $2,000 in Canada, at least $100 of the additional cost to the consumer is the extra cost due to the increased commission paid to dealers. Add to that the extra freight charges and you have an enormously increased percentage cost to the Canadian consumer of a Canadian car. Furthermore much of the misunderstanding which has arisen in connection with motor cars and their cost is due to the fact that the Canadian consumer must pay the five per cent sales tax, the five per cent luxury tax on cars under $1,200, the ten per cent luxury tax on cars over $1,200, making ten per cent on cars under $1,200 and fifteen per cent on cars over $1,200. We are inclined to compare the cost to us of a car delivered in the outlying parts of Canada with the price at which an American may buy his car in the state in which it is manufactured without any of the taxes, except the three per cent luxury tax. Nothing could be more unfair than that.
Another reason why the-cost of manufacture in Canada is greater than in the United States is the mass production. For instance, twenty-five cars are produced by Ford in Detroit to every one produced in Ford, Ontario. If any of my hon. friends were manufacturing, for instance, binders, and had a factory which could produce only one binder a day, and I have a factory where I can produce twenty-five binders a day, in which factory do they think we would get the more efficiency and the cheaper binder? I venture to say it would be in my factory. With efficient management, if I were manufacturing twenty-five binders a day, and one of my Saskatchewan friends was producing one a day in his factory, I venture to say I could produce my binder anywhere from twenty per cent to twenty-five per cent cheaper than he could manufacture his.
Now Mr. Speaker, what protection is left to the automobile industry in Canada? I should like to take one practical illustration
of a car which is manufactured in Canada. Take, for example, the Overland five-passenger touring car. Under the tariff as it now stands at 35 per cent, the duty on that car is $136; under the revised tariff it will pay $77.70. It so happens that the Overland Company import parts for the manufacture of that particular car on which they pay duties to the amount of $74. I hope my hon. friend will follow me.


James Alexander Robb: I am following the hon. member. I would like to know on what valuation he bases that $136?


John Arthur Clark: On the valuation on which the tariff is charged, which I think is the price to the wholesaler from the factory. Am I right?


James Alexander Robb: I want to know in dollars and cents what is the value of the car.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot give my hon. friend the exact value-somewhere around $400 or $420. But I do know-if my hon. friend will investigate he will ascertain the fact-that the duty now paid on an Overland five-passenger touring car is $136; that the duty on the same car when this tariff goes into effect, if it does go into effect, will be $77.70, and that the duty paid on parts which go into the manufacture of that car is $74. That leaves for the company a protection of exactly $3.70; in other words their protection is wiped out at one fell swoop by the drastic reduction of 42 per cent. I ask my hon. friend what is going to be the effect of this reduction upon the British investor-perhaps not the British investor because it does not come home to him so much, but the American investor-


James Alexander Robb: Before my hon. friend proceeds with the argument, in the $74 duty on the parts has he allowed the 25 per cent drawback?


John Arthur Clark: No I have not, because in
this particular car I believe fifty per cent is not manufactured in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Then I admit frankly that
we intend that these companies shall manufacture fifty per cent in Canada. That is the idea.


John Arthur Clark: That is an arbitrary statement on the part of the minister irrespective of whether or not it is possible for companies to do that. I thought I had elaborated that portion of my argument, that some companies started out simply as assembling plants in which not more than ten per cent of the total value would be manufactured in Canada. That percentage is gradually being increased. In fact an increase is necessary in order to take
The Budget-Mr. Clark

advantage of the British preference which requires 25 per cent Canadian workmanship and material and which I understand will be increased in the near future. I also know and my hon. friend knows it is the ambition of every manufacturer to increase his percentage of production in Canada. For example, a company which three or four years ago had just installed itself in Canada and was doing say only ten per cent of the production here, and has to-day worked1 up to thirty per cent, a laudable increase-that company to-day, if it is in the position of the company to which I have just referred, has its protection absolutely wiped out. by this budget. It is not even given an opportunity of increasing its production to fifty per cent.


James Alexander Robb: How can my hon. friend argue in favour of industries getting away with manufacturing only ten or twenty-five per cent in Canada and in the next breath condemn the British preference because we allow goods to come in with only twenty-five per cent being manufactured in England?


John Arthur Clark: I have not condemned the
British preference. When did I condemn it?
Mr. ROiBB:	A party over there has.


John Arthur Clark: I will not get into an argument with the minister over the British preference.


James Alexander Robb: He had better not.


John Arthur Clark: That is a big subject. I
do not fear for one moment debating that subject with the minister, but he is in a position now where he knows he has done an injustice to a certain industry and he-is not willing to stick to that point.


James Alexander Robb: No, no.


John Arthur Clark: I propose to confine myself to it. As regards the British preference on this particular thing, I am willing to engage my hon. friend on it. I have shown distinctly, I think, that the Minister of Finance and his government have wiped out the protection for the average car manufactured in Canada. I have shown that by a concrete illustration which he cannot refute and which no member of his ministry can refute.
I am sorry the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is not in the House to-day, because I was particularly interested in a remark which he let fall the other day when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) was speaking on this matter. The hon. member for Fort William stated that this export trade with Great Britain was of great advantage to Canada. The hon. member for 
Brandon interrupted saying:	That weakens
your argument. I presume what he meant was this, that because we can export to England in competition with United States manufacturers, we should therefore be able to compete with them in Canada without protection, or with the protection we have, or with the protection which is proposed. I know quite well the hon. member for Brandon has not made a study of the question or he never would have made that observation.
In the British market under the British preference we have to-day an advantage over our United States competitors of 11% per cent. I showed this afternoon by a reference to the drawback of customs given for parts imported from the United States on a Canadian car going into the British market, the cost of manufacture of a car in Canada for distribution to the Canadian people is increased by sixteen per cent. In other words, a Canadian manufacturer who gets a drawback on his parts for cars for export, gets sixteen per cent of the total cost of production of these cars for export refunded to him by the Customs department. That gives him another sixteen per cent protection in the British market as against the United States manufacturer, a protection of sixteen per cent that he does not get in the Canadian market on cars which he manufactures for Canadian trade. That makes in all a protection of 27% per cent on those two features alone, which the Canadian manufacturer gets in the British market over his United States competitor. That is why the Canadian manufacturer is able to export cars to Great Britain and compete in that market with the United States manufacturer, and that is also why the Canadian manufacturer can sell his cars cheaper in the British market under the British preference than he can afford to sell them in the Canadian market.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Hoes the hon.
member not think it is about time Canadian people were getting some consideration when the manufacturer has had this privilege of exporting and getting a drawback of twenty-five per cent? He has been reaping the advantage of that and the country which buys these cars has been getting the benefit. It is time for the Canadian people to have some benefit.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend did not really ask a question; he has made a speech. My hon. friend was not here this afternoon when I gave figures showing the advantage which Canadians are getting from this. I gave figures

The Budget-Mr. Clark
which showed that the General Motors spend annually considerably over one million dollars more in Canada than they take from the Canadians. By reason of this export business they leave in Canada considerably over one million dollars a year for circulation in this country. Ford leaves in Canada something like $6,700,000 for the same reason. Is that not something for the Canadian people? We pay less to these companies for the cars we buy from them than they pay to us for the things they buy from us. Supposing my hon. friend has a store and I buy from him annually $1,000 dollars worth of goods and he buys from me only $900 worth, would he try to put me out of business?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Not at all, unless I was paying too much for the privilege of keeping my hon. friend in business.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think my hon.
friend would be sacrificing $1,000 worth of business from me when he was buying only $900 worth from me. That is the position of these automobile manufacturers in Canada. They are buying more from us than we are buying from them. Are the Canadian people getting anything? Is that of any advantage to them in addition to the fact that these manufacturers are employing more than 20,000 men and supporting more than 100,000 people directly as a result of this industry?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Just a moment
to clear up the point. I would ask the hon. member if according to the statistics, the protection we are affording these industries is not costing the country about $5,000,000 more than the total wages paid to all employees-*


John Arthur Clark: The hon. member unfortunately was not here this afternoon, when I showed clearly how much these companies are paying to Canadian workmen in salaries and wages. I will repeat for his benefit that in wages alone the automobile industry is paying to Canadian workmen $31,500,000, but I do not propose to go over my whole speech again. If the hon. gentleman will read Hansard he will find his question answered.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does that amount
represent wages to labourers alone or does it include salaries paid to garage men?


John Arthur Clark: It is the amount of wages
and salaries paid to employees engaged in the plants of manufacturers of automobiles and manufacturers of parts. It has nothing to do with garage men.


James J. Donnelly: Where does the hon.
member get his figures?


John Arthur Clark: I told the Minister of
Finance this afternoon where I got them. Apparently hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan were absent, and if they like my good friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. MacLean) will read my speech they will see that the figures I have quoted are authentic. The Minister of Finance did not suggest for a moment that he could controvert them.
I do not advance these facts, Mr. Speaker, in justification of a tariff of 35 per cent, but I do state them as a reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have kept his word to industry as given in his pre-election speeches; I state them as a reason why the government should honour the pledge made in the Speech from the Throne, that no changes should be made in the tariff until there had been -a fair opportunity to investigate the facts.


Mr. PARENT:: What difference would
that make so far as the soundness of the reduction is concerned?


John Arthur Clark: I do not intend to make,
my speech over again; I was cross-examined on that point this afternoon. In the light * of the industry's experience since other reductions have been made we should not sacrifice any other industry of great importance without due investigation. When I recall the effect of reductions on other industries, such as the woollen and steel industries as well as industries in my own constituency, I am convinced that the government is taking a fatal step in making the present proposed reduction without investigation. I believe it was in 1923 that this government cut the tariff on saw-mill machinery. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made the statement in this House that because of that reduction many new mills had been built in British Columbia; I absolutely dispute that suggestion. Indeed, as a result of the reduction, several industries in Vancouver have been closed down. One firm which manufactured logging engines, with an output of two engines per month, was supplying the trade in British Columbia, and it was obliged to close down within six months of the tariff cut. That industry to-day employs only four men who are engaged in repairing logging engines imported from the United States, and the proprietor is acting as agent for an American manufacturer of the very article which he himself formerly turned out.
Take the steel industry also. This is undoubtedly a basic industry, if any is, and we

The Budget-Mr. Clark
find that far from there having been any progress there has been a retrograde movement in this case since the present government came into office. In the calendar year of 1912 Canada produced 821,000 gross tons of steel ingots; in 1913 this had increased to 1,066,000 tons. In 1923 the production in this industry had fallen off to 840,000 tons and in 1924 there was a further shrinkage to 625,000 tons.


Malcolm McLean: What were the figures for 1921?


John Arthur Clark: I have not got them here
but they were in excess of these.


Georges Parent: Is not that explained by
the fact that less steel has been used because of a greater consumption of cement in the construction of bridges and other structures of that sort?


John Arthur Clark: The hon. gentleman knows
that since this government reduced the duties in this industry the imports have increased. The government dealt a body blow to the industry, and if hon. gentlemen opposite want to realize the extent of the damage done they may look at the Maritime provinces. Let them consult the stock market for British Empire Steel. British Lmpii e Steel first preferred has declined from the thirties until to-day it is around seventeen, while second preferred, which formerly stood at about ten, is to-day only in the neighbourhood of two. And so on. Al-goma Steel is in pretty much the same condition; I do not know the state of the market for its stock but certainly it is not active. Now we all know that the steel industry is one of the basic activities of Canada. And that industry is dead, its death being attributable almost entirely to the action of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: The government never touched the steel industry.


John Arthur Clark: What did they do when
Mr. Massey came down and requested that consideration be given in the matter of certain steel parts? The government put those parts on the free list and so crippled the industry.


Charles A. Stewart: Simply the parts entering into the manufacture ' of binders.


John Arthur Clark: In return for that concession Mr. Massey joined the Liberal cabinet. He stuck around the buildings here for a couple of weeks pleading his own selfish interests at the expense of other subsidiary

manufacturers. The minister knows, however, that the automobile manufacturers today are not hanging around asking this government to help themselves by cutting the throats of the parts manufacturers.


Charles A. Stewart: To what
extent did the reduction in the duty on parts entering into the manufacture of farm implements affect the general steel situation?


John Arthur Clark: I do not need to go into
that.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course
not; but if the hon. member will go into it he will find the answer to the question.


John Arthur Clark: The result of the reduction
was that imports from the United States increased. And what has been going on in the steel industry in the United States at the same time? In fifteen years we find that while Canada has been standing still in the steel industiy, the increase in United States production has been 75 per cent. It might be well at this point for me to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) yesterday in claiming credit for the great advances in the stock market last year. Well, recently there has been a dreadful slump, and I am not sure that it is not equal to the' advance of last year; it certainly is in those industries affected by this government's tariff policy. I am advised by authorities who should know that there is now in progress very heavy selling of Canadian securities, due to the new provision respecting income tax on Canadian investments. This action of the government will drive a large amount of capital out of Canada for investment in American securities, and the people who so invest will probably open American bank accounts and leave their money in the United States, thus escaping Canadian income tax on their American investments. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance in suggesting that he has done this to enable our capitalists to reinvest their money in Canadian securities must know that his suggestion is a joke; it cannot be done.
What is the situation in Canada to-day?' We find our crops have been good. Does the government suggest that it was responsible for the increased production of the soil last year? ^ We find the pulp and paper industry is thriving. Well, that industry will thrive until the natural resources on which it depends are exhausted. If my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will examine the records in his own department, he will find his experts estimate that within our own time the available accessible supply of pulpwood

The Budget

Mr. Totzke
in this country will be exhausted. We have a greater production also in the mining industry and in the fishing industry. Those are about the only industries in Canada that are making progress. But let me point out that they are all wasting industries. Take, for instance, the mining industry, we have Cobalt worked out and the industry receding into the Porcupine, and now into the Red Lake district. We have other examples in the Yukon and the Rossland mining camps. We have another example in the fishing industry on the Fraser river. A few years ago you could see from the train millions of fish in that river; to-day, Mr. Speaker, as you know from your own investigations that is no longer the case.
To-day my friends from Saskatchewan are jubilant because of their great wheat crop last year and because of their control of the world's market in that commodity; but I warn them that when Russia is reorganized she will be again a formidable competitor in the wheat market of the world, and that market is not likely to expand.
Bearing all these things in mind, Mr. Speaker, we should devote ourselves to a more diversified industrial development. With the example of exhausted natural resources in other countries, one would think Canadians would make it their first concern to manufacture their natural resources at home and make it possible for the country to support a larger population and produce greater wealth. Since this government came into office it has driven over 500,000 young Canadians, the very best of our stock, to the United States because it has preferred to encourage American industry at the expense of Canadian.
My friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) yesterday referred in jubilant tones to the fact that the income tax has been practically wiped out on incomes equal to a member of parliament's indemnity, and he added in great glee, " Keep your eye on the price of motor cars." My plea, Sir, is that the members of this House and the people of the Dominion keep their eye on the employees in those factories who are now being affected by the tariff reductions on motor cars; that they keep their eye on the unemployment that will result; that they keep their eye on the distress that will follow; and that they keep their eye on the exodus to the United States due to the closing of five industries in the city of Oshawa alone. My further plea is that they join with the Conservative party in a determined effort to enforce the fulfilment of the solemn pledge given by this government that no industry shall suffer a reduction of its tariff protection until a proper investigation has been made by
the recently appointed Tarm .revisory Board. How long, Mr. Speaker, are protectionist constituencies such as North Waterloo, Joliette and North Vancouver going to send representatives to this House who, while they profess to be protectionists, help to install in office a Prime Minister who has no respect for his pledge, a Prime Minister who solemnly promises that Canadian industries shall get a fair deal and full opportunity to be heard before their tariff protection is taken away or diminished,-I say how long are those and other protectionist constituencies going to send members to this House to support such a Prime Minister,-members who protest when tariff reductions are made, but nevertheless render the reductions possible by remaining with a party which breaks its pledges?


Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to occupy very much time in this my first address, but there are a few things in connection with the budget that I feel I should discuss very briefly.	Let me first of all
congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon his very excellent budget.
I think I can safely say that this budget is very pleasing to at least ninety per cent of the people of Canada. Not only is the budget itself very welcome but the improved financial conditions which made this budget possible are very gratifying. More especially is that so, Mr. Speaker, after the blue ruin speeches which we heard throughout the length and breadth of the country during the recent election campaign, and even during this present session. We were told that the factories were being closed, that trade was falling off, and that the country generally was on the verge of ruin. So it is very gratifying that the Finance minister is able to bring down a budget making a reduction of some $25,000,000 in taxation. We know that revenues are required to carry on the business of this country, and it is gratifying indeed to note that business has already so improved, and that the prospects for business in the future are so bright, that the Minister of Finance has been able to make the reductions now' proposed in the budget. Not only are the majority of the people pleased with the budget, but I am sure that if our friends opposite would only give candid expression to their opinions they would also admit satisfaction.
One of the items of the budget which to my mind is of importance to the constituency which I represent is the reduction in the income tax levied on the man with a small income. The chief occupation of the people
The Budget-Mr. Totzke

in my constituency, as is the case with the majority of the people in the province from which I come, is that of farming. The farmer of the western prairies, with the conditions obtaining and the class of farming carried .on, is in the position that one year he will have good crops and splendid returns and will have to pay a large income tax, then possibly for the next two or three years he has to operate his farm at a small profit or in some cases at a loss. So he may pay income tax one year and operate at a loss the following year, and there is no allowance made for this difference. I do not know that this could be remedied in any way, but I do know that the increase in exemptions will do much to alleviate this condition.
Some hon. members of the opposition have stated that the reductions in the income tax are only apparent; that while the reductions apply to the man with the small income the tax is increased when applied to 9 p.m. incomes derived from dividends or other unearned sources. I submit that this is as it should be. It is the man with the small income, who is raising a family and trying to give his children a proper education which will fit them to become good and useful citizens-and these comprise by far the greater part of our population-who should be given every encouragement possible.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) speaking on the budget the other day, said that this government could not be given the credit for the improved conditions existing in Canada, but that the credit should be given to a munificent Providence. I am ready to admit that Providence had a lot to do with the improved condition of affairs, but had conditions been worse the blame would certainly have been laid on this government, so why should they not receive some credit? There is a saying that the Lord helps those who help themselves, and I submit that the improved condition in which we find ourselves is due in large measure to the economical and careful administration of the government.
I would like to say just a few words in regard to the tariff proposals. This is a very important matter to us in western Canada, as indeed it is to all parte of our Dominion. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has on several occasions paid considerable attention to those sitting in this corner of the House; he has called us the Saskatchewan colony, and free traders. I do not know just what he means by "Saskatchewan colony"; I do not think he intends to be very complimentary, but I want to say 
that this Saskatchewan colony will keep on growing. Most important of all, there is absolute harmony amongst ourselves; we are all here with one purpose. That purpose is not to impose our will upon this government or upon tlie rest of Canada, but to secure fair treatment as we are wdlling to accord fair treatment to others. The right hon. gentleman has called us free traders. Perhaps our inclinations are for free trade, because we cannot see that protection can be of any benefit to us. Our main business is the production of wheat; we are gradually getting into mixed farming, and that class of farm work has already assumed considerable proportions, but the main thing is still the production of wheat. When we sell our wheat we must sell it on the open market, in competition with the rest of the world, so we cannot see any advantage to be gained by having protection. In that way perhaps the hon. gentleman is partially correct when he diasses us as free traders. Our inclinations are for free trade, just as the inclinations of those in the industrial centres are for protection, because they believe protection is to their advantage. Let me say, however, that while our inclinations may be for free trade, we have not come here expecting to get free trade, nor do we expect to get any drastic cut in the tariff at present.
The voters in Saskatchewan demonstrated one thing last October, that is, that they do not desire any increase in these tariff duties. The leader of the Conservative party preached higher tariffs, and so far as the people of Saskatchewan are concerned he has his answer; not a Conservative member from that province is in this House. A great deal has been said' during this session with regard to the popular vote cast last October; members of the opposition have gleefully counted the votes cast in opposition to the government candidates, and in so doing have counted the votes cast for Progressives. In my constituency we had a three-cornered fight, with Liberal, Progressive and Conservative candidates. The Conservative lost his deposit, and I venture to say that had the Progressive candidate not run, the Conservative would not have gained fifty votes. It seems to me the votes cast in Saskatchewan last October were not so much in favour of free trade as in favour of a reasonable tariff, and strongly in opposition to any increase in the tariff duties. We have no desire to injure the business of the manufacturers of this country. We want to see them prosper, and we hope some day to have them in our part of the Dominion. But we do abject to having them make unreasonable profit at our expense.

The Budget-Mr. Totzke
Most, of the time this afternoon was taken up with a discussion of the tariff reduction on automobiles. I do not intend to weary the House by going into a detailed consideration of the matter, but I wish to place on Hansard a statement attributed to Mr. Henry Ford which appeared in the press of to-day. It is a Canadian Press despatch dated Detroit, April 21st, and reads as follows:
Henry Ford, Detroit industrial magnate, this afternoon stated his belief that the industry at Ford city would "run better if there were no tariff whatever." Mr. Ford declared himself to be a free trader. The magnate was interviewed on the Walkerviille ferry as he was returning from an inspection trip of the Ford city plant. He would add nothing to the statement made by Mr. Wallace R. Campbell, general manager and treasurer of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, other than expressing the opinion that free trade would be best tor the Canadian plant.


Mr. MORAND:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that Mr. Ford owns only about twenty per cent of the Canadian stock, and the whole of the American stock; that they are two separate companies, and that he might be quite willing to have the Canadian plant closed?


Albert Frederick Totzke: I do not wish to discuss the matter with the hon. gentleman at all except to say that the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon are answered, I think, by the statement in the despatch quoted that " free trade would be best for the Canadian plant The Saskatchewan members came down here to discuss matters with our eastern friends. We came animated by the spirit of give and take, and the sooner our eastern friends get away from the idea that we are looking for free trade the better it will be for all of us. We understand the conditions in eastern Canada perhaps better than easterners understand conditions in the west, for the reason that a good many of us were born and raised in the eastern part of the Dominion. I myself was bom and brought up in Kitchener, which is one of the best industrial centres in this old province of Ontario. One of the members of the opposition made the suggestion some weeks ago that it might be a good thing for the members of this House to travel to various parts of Canada and become acquainted with the conditions in each locality. I believe that idea could be acted upon to advantage, and that it would result in a better understanding between the east and the west.
The improvement in the finances of the Canadian National Railways, as announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech is also very gratifying. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) when
speaking the other day, expressed satisfaction with the improved conditions of the railway, but he did what our friends opposite usually do whenever this government does anything worth while: He tried to prove that in some way the credit is due to the party on that side of the House. The hon. gentleman said on the occasion referred to that while this road was in good shape and its condition was improving day by day, the credit for that really should be given to the right hon. leader of the opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not so much concerned as to who gets the credit for the improved condition of the railway as we are with the condition itself. While perhaps the right hon. leader of the opposition was the father of the road, the present conditions prove that sometimes a foster father is better able to care for a child than a natural father. From the way things were going on when this government came into power I am afraid that had the child been left with its father much longer it would have been in a pretty ragged and dilapidated condition, or perhaps would have been swallowed up altogether by the wolves.
To my mind the government made a happy selection when they secured the services of Sir Henry Thornton as general manager. He has been able to imbue the officials of the road with a different spirit, and those of us who patronize this road can testify to the courtesy and efficient service now given. Let me tell hon. members a little experience I had on my trip west during the last recess. I was going from Winnipeg to Saskatoon. Getting up in the morning I met the porter in the corridor and I said "Are we running on time this morning, porter?" His answer was "Yes, indeed, sir-the 'National way'." That is an illustration of the spirit that exists on this national railway to-day, and if it is all that Sir Henry Thornton has been able to do it has been well worth while; it makes all the difference between operating the line on a paying basis and on a non-paying basis.
The hon. member for South York (Mr. MaClean, who is perhaps the most consistent advocate of public ownership in this House, makes a plea for the amalgamation of the two roads, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. He claims that some $250,000,000 could be saved annually by removing duplication of the service. I am ready to support the hon. gentleman on the question of public ownership, but I cannot support the amalgamation of these two roads. I think the hon. gentleman would find that when he came to do away with the duplication of the two systems there would be such a howl of

The Budget-Mr. Totzke
protest, such a storm of opposition, that to carry that suggestion into effect would be almost impossible. Perhaps in very few cases it could be done, but here is the situation you have to meet. In very many instances there are towns built along these lines. There are shipping facilities, elevators, and all that goes to make up the small towns of the western prairies. While these places are small they are very important and do a lot of business. So that I cannot agree with my hon. friend's scheme of doing away with the duplication of service. I will admit that there are instances where the passenger service on the lines, or something of that character, might be diminished, but the lines themselves could not be done away with.
Furthermore, there is the question of competition. Competition is the life of trade, and to us in the west of Canada competition means a lot, especially during the harvest time when our rush season is on and we require a great number of cars. Let me give an illustration of how the lack of competition sometimes works out to the detriment of the settlers. In one corner of my constituency there is a railroad grade that was built in 1912 and 1913. The grade is there for some twenty-five or thirty miles, but there is no steel on it and I will tell you why. The particular district this railway was supposed to serve has been settled ever since 1898 when the first batch of settlers went in there. They are good settlers, they have improved their farms, and they have done well. When they went in the Canadian Northern, as it was then, built the main line, known as the Winnipeg and Edmonton railway, just to the south of this district. The Canadian. Northern also secured a lease of the Regina and Prince Albert branch, which was the old Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway. The Grand Trunk Pacific had the line from Young to Prince Albert. While this condition existed, the Canadian Northern with lines on two sides of the triangle, and the Grand Trunk Pacific on the other-or rather I should say this rectangle, because the Canadian Northern had another line on the north side of it-there was competition between these two roads. And the Canadian Northern constructed this grade with the purpose of securing the grain from that particular district. Since the amalgamation this particular section of the country is surrounded on four sides by one road, the Canadian National. There is no longer any need, so far as the railway is concerned, to construct that road, but the settlers need it. They have from twenty-five to thirty miles [Mr Totzke.]
to haul their grain, and anyone living in the west knows it is not profitable to haul grain for more than ten or twelve miles. So that since the Canadian National have had these four lines this grade has been lying there idle, and I submit that if one of these lines had remained in competition with the Canadian National the condition would be much better. This particular branch line was included three sessions ago in the branch lines railway bill, but the proposal for its construction was thrown out by the Senate. I am in hopes that before long, with improved conditions in the country generally, and in our National railway operation in particular, it will not be long before they undertake the construction of that line.	[DOT]
Just a few words on the subject which was really the main issue in the campaign last October in my constituency, namely the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I am not going fully into the matter of the completion of this road or the matter of its feasibility or cost, but I wish to make one or two references to the matter. As I said before, in our election campaign three candidates were seeking election, and the main plank in the platform of each one of them was the completion of the Hudson Bay road. I observe the right hon. leader of the opposition is not in his seat I wanted to draw this particularly to his attention. I desire to read a statement from the platform of the Conservative candidate in that constituency. It will be taken for granted that the Progressive and the Liberal candidates would certainly be in favour of the immediate completion of that road, because that has been a plank in our platform ; it has been our desire for years to have the line completed. The following advertisement appeared in the Bruno Leader of October 8, 1925:
Mr. E. S. Wilson, the Conservative candidate for the federal constituency of Humboldt, stands for:
1. Immediate completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
But that is not the best of this particular article; there is a paragraph at the bottom of the article which reads:
These are the policies laid down by the leader of the Conservative party and endorsed by the Conservative candidate for Humboldt.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just introducing that to show my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition the feeling of the people in my constituency. I might say further that that is the feeling of the vast majority of the people of Saskatchewan, the province from which I come. If by any chance the candidate of the leader of the opposition in the constituency of Humboldt had been elected,

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
he would have had at least one man sitting behind him who was pledged to support the immediate completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Indeed I believe he has several right now wrho are pledged to the completion of this road.
There is considerable opposition, Mr. Speaker, in eastern Canada to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. A lot of propaganda has been printed, and it might be interesting to know just where the money comes from to pay for that propaganda. It is feared by those in the eastern provinces that the completion of this road will perhaps mean the diversion of traffic from eastern ports and subsequent depreciation in value of the terminals and shipping facilities in those provinces. To my mind there is no occasion for eastern interests to be alarmed on that score. Even after the road is completed, we realize that we will not be able to ship our grain and cattle immediately. It will take some time to get the proper facilities, and by the time there is any big movement of grain out of that port our production will have increased to such an extent that it cannot all go through the Hudson Bay route, and we will need every avenue through which we can possibly export our produce. We are not only advocating the completion of this road for the transportation of our grain and cattle; we believe the natural resources in forests, minerals, fish and agriculture that will be developed will justify its completion. Let me read a clipping which will illustrate to some extent what I mean. I do not know whether to take this article at its face value, but I wish to read it to the House to show that it is not only the farmers in western Canada who think this road would be a beneficial proposition, but that others are of the same opinion. I have here a Canadian Press report dated January 27, which reads in . this way:
Toronto, Jan. 27.-"If I were out of work to-day, I would go straight to the Hudson's Bay district," said Professor A. Fitzpatrick of the Frontier College at the social service council convention here, to-day.
"There is work and to spare for millions if they have the right clothing which would cost $100 a man."
Professor Fitzpatrick predicted there would be half a dozen cities on the Hudson bay in the next decade or two, each one a quarter of the size of Toronto.
"You will live to see half a dozen railways to Hudson bay. So soon as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway is pushed on to Moose Factory the Canadian Pacific Railway and others will be forced to build connection too," he said.
"The Hudson bay itself will easily support one million people." .
He proposed that the social service council should do something practical next year by putting 1,000 jobless men with sufficient clothing arid equipment for the work which is always waiting for them in cutting pulp-wood in the new northern country.
As I said before, we believe that this line when completed to the Hudson bay alone will support itself, whether or not it is a feasible road for our grain and cattle. We believe it is feasible, and we have abundant information in connection with that, but I do not intend to take up time discussing it. Perhaps we will have an opportunity later on to do so.
The right hon. leader of the opposition has told the Saskatchewan members in this corner of the House that we would find before we were here very long that we could not get what we want from the government. May 1 say in conclusion that we have got and are getting what we want from the government and our good friends from the eastern and other parts of this country. That is the consideration of our problems and the opportunity of discussing with them the problems of other parts of the Dominion with a view to assisting in finding some solution for them. We realize that we are not the only province in this Dominion, and it is only by co-operation and mutual concession and goodwill that our country will gain the great position amongst the nations of the world to which it is entitled.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, my principal object in rising to take part in this debate is to say a word on behalf of the labouring people and the farmers of this country. I regret very much that I cannot offer my congratulations to my good and amiable friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Nothing would please me better, but my opinion of this budget would be almost in inverse ratio to my opinion of the minister. I do not for a minute think that anything I say or might not say will have the least effect in stopping this government from the mad and reckless course on which it has started. This budget, to my mind, is just another broken promise added to the long list which this government has had following in its wake ever since it came into office.
I remember quite distinctly away back in the election of 1921 when the Prime Minister took with him throughout the length and breadth of Canada the late Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding-who unfortunately to-day, we all regret, is ill- because he felt that his reputation, in this House and in the country, a reputation of thirteen or fourteen years for tariff stability, would create the impression among the Canadian people that if the Liberal government obtained power they would not pursue the reckless course which they have been pursuing since obtaining office. After they obtained
The Budget-Mr. McGibbon


George Spence: AVhen did they enter the war?


Peter McGibbon: Is the hon. gentleman asking for information?


George Spence: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: I will refer him to the newspapers. The United States, I say, paid off $6,000,000,000 of their national debt in six years, and as the allies owe her $12,000,000,000 that leaves a net debt of $9,000,000,000 for the people of that republic to pay. They can
The Budget-Mr. McGibbon


George Spence: If the hon. member will permit a question,-if his party were again in power would he be in favour of putting back the duty on automobiles to what it wa3 before this reduction was made?


Peter McGibbon: I have heard the hon. member ask that question three or four times to-day. I was hoping he had something else in his repertoire. Why, sure, I would put the duty back until the Tariff Advisory Board appointed by the government had an opportunity to look fully into the question. 1 believe in giving every Canadian industry protection enough to carry on. We are giving protection to the western farmers in the way of freight rates, and I submit that the industries of Ontario have an equal right to live. This question, Sir, as the late leader of the Progressive party in this House once said, is elementary in its simplicity. Now, I ask the minister: Does he think with all his knowledge and experience that he is able, without any evidence, to render a verdict upon any issue of that kind Is it fair to himself, is it fair to the country, i3 it fair to any industry for him to just get up and say, "The people believe you are enjoying too much protection, and we are going to take the duty off, although we do not know whether you have got too much protection; we do not even know if you have got enough"? Why Mr. Speaker, such an attitude is ridiculous. The thing is ridiculous. To my mind it would have been much nearer the truth had he said that the Minister of Railways demanded it, and the government had to give it to him. We know that he, the Minister of Railways, and the members from Saskatchewan have come down here demanding not the head of Barabbas but the head of industrial Ontario, and there is more than a suspicion that thjis budget js. an election budget, reflecting the feeling of this government towards the province of Ontario because of what happened on October 29 last. I ask the minister what reason he can give? Surely he can give some reason for jeopardizing the 14011-173
employment of 22,000 men and the living of 100,000 people without even a trial. Is not the thing absurd?
I do not wish to follow that line further, as it is getting late. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place, because I had intended to give him some information whereby he could stir the dry bones of that department and make it of some use to the Canadian people. This government, by its action and inaction, has practically wiped out the protection of our farmers, and they have been left exposed to the cheap Australian and New Zealand butter which is ruining the market. Had the minister been here I would have read a clipping from the Toronto Globe under yesterday's date, in which it is stated that the western provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta are flooded with Australian butter; that the western Canadian butter is drifting down into Toronto, and that the price is down to 33 and 34 cents a pound. That is the result of legislation passed by this government.
Before going into that I would like to refer again to the Minister of Finance. He has stated that he does not know how to find out what protection these industries require, so I am going to tell him where to get some examples. I have in my hand the regulations under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of Great Britain, which I will read in order to give the minister some idea of how to proceed. When an industry applies for protection the evidence is to be heard and the verdict rendered on the following conditions:
(1)	Whether the applicant industry is, by reason of the volume of employment engaged in the production of the goods to which the application relates, or by reason of the nature of the goods produced, an industry of substantial importance.
(2)	Whether foreign goods of the class or description to which the application relates are being imported into and retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities.
(3)	Whether the foreign goods so imported are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices which are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom.
(4)	Whether, by reason of the severity and extent of such competition, employment in the manufacture or production of such goods in the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, seriously affected.
(5)	Whether such exceptional competition comes largely from countries where the conditions are so different from those in this country as to render the competition unfair.
Competition for the purpose of such inquiry is not to be deemed to be unfair unless it arises from one or more of the following causes
(a)	Depreciation of currency operating so as to create an export bounty.
(b)	Subsidies, bounties, or other artificial advantages.
(c)	Inferior conditions of employment of labour. . .



The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
I have here the report on the cutlery industry, which applied for protection, and we find the verdict as follows:
In all the circumstances, we consider that a duty of 33% per cent ad valorem would be reasonably sufficient -and we recommend that such a duty should be imposed for a period of at least five years.
That is the way they find out in Great Britain whether or not an industry needs protection, what protection it needs,
10 p.m. and for how long it is needed.
I recommend that system to the Minister of Finance. I have also a report on the aluminium industry, and after hearing the evidence this is what they say:
We are not in a position to state that the applicant industry has established a claim to a duty.
It works both ways, as you see. I have also a report on the wrapping paper industry, and I find that the verdict is as follows:
We recommend a duty of 17J per cent-
In the glove industry I find a double verdict rendered. On the question of leather gloves they say:
We therefore recommend that a duty of 33% per oent ad valorem should be imposed for at least five years.
On the question of fabric gloves, in the same verdict they say:
We do not recommend a duty on fabric gloves of silk and artificial silk.
I recommend to the minister that he get his information along these lines, and he will then be in a position to give this House the reasons for the reduction or increase in duty upon any article in a reasonable way, not in the unreasonable way which he followed this afternoon.
I want to deal now with the United States. I have the seventh annual report of the United States tariff commission and I want to read their instructions. Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922 provides:
"In order to regulate the foreign commerce of the United States and put into force and effect the policy of the Congress by this act intended," the President shall have power, upon investigation, to ascertain the differences in costs of production of domestic articles and of like or similar imported articles and to proclaim the changes in classification or increases or decreases in rates of duty which may be necessary to equalize the differences in costs thus ascertained.
Those instructions were given to the United States tariff commission, which President Harding called the greatest advance in tariff making in the last hundred years. What is the result? The president has power to either raise or decrease the duties or to alter the classification up to 50 per cent, but he cannot do that-and this is the point I want to impress upon the Minister of Finance-until an investigation has been held. That is the way these things are settled in Great Britain and the United States, and I recommend that procedure to the government of this country. If that course is adopted they can come to parliament and give reasons for their actions, and they will not slaughter an industry, as has been done in the case of the automobile industry, simply because they say the public believes it should be slaughtered. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such reasons are beneatu any man holding the position of finance minister of any country on God's earth.
For a few moments, Mr. Speaker, I want to take up something on behalf of the farmers of this country. I did want to show the Minister of Agriculture how he could do something for our farmers. I have carefully gone through the workings of the Fordney-McCumber tariff as it applies to the farmers of the United States, and when I am told in this House that farmers cannot be protected by tariff I want hon. members to read these figures, which I am going to ask leave to place on Hansard. Now that tariff came into force, as most hon. gentlemen know, on May 27, 1921. To be brief let me say this: I have gone through every branch of the farming industry in the United States from wheat to cotton, and with two exceptions-those were milk and cheese, where the duty had not been raised sufficiently-in every case the tariff raised the price of the farm products of the United States, and in many cases raised it by the amount of the duty.
Let me take the cattle industry. They put a duty of thirty per cent on cattle. The imports of cattle in 1920 were 48,000 head. In 1921 the imports had dropped to 28,000 head, and the price of cattle went up almost identically with the application of the new tariff. I have here comparative prices of stockers at Chicago and at Winnipeg, as follows:
[Mr. McGibbon 1

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
Prices of Stockers (Per 100 Pounds)
Date
January___
February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September. October.... November. December.
January____
February...
Chicago (1)
$ cts
6 58
6	71
7	34 6 80 6 84 5 80 5 44 5 34 5 34 5 33 5 00 5 27
5 54 5 96
Winnipeg (2) current exchange	Excess Chicago over Winnipeg	30 per cent duty	Toronto (2) current exchange	Excess Chicago over Toronto	30 per cent duty$ cts.	I cts.	i Cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.4 93	1 65	6 77	0 19	4 87	1 84	6 08	0 63	5 37	1 97	6 57	0 77	5 17	1 63	5 10	1 74	3 90	1 90	1 17	2 83	2 61	0 85	4 08	1 36	1 222 81	2 53	0 84	4 06	1 28	1 212 87	2 47	0 86	3 00	1 74	1 082 77	2 56	0 83	3 58	1 75	1 072 76	2 24	0 82	3 68	1 32	1 102 93	2 34	0 88	3 70	1 57	1 113 18	2 36	0 95	3 18	2 78	0 95	
(1) Steers, common choice.
(2) Stockers, 450-800 pounds.
This statement shows that the tariff put The prices of fat steers show that in here the price of stockers up at once and kept it also there was a similar result. The excess up to an amount equal with the duty.	of the Chicago price over the Winnipeg price
in each case is shown by the following table:
Cattle, Price of Fat Steers (per 100 pounds)
Date
1921:
January....
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September..
October____
November..
December..
1922:
January....
February... 1
igo (1)	Winnipeg (2) current exchange	Excess Chicago over	30 per cent duty	Toronto (2) current	Excess Chicago over	30 per cent duty
					Toronto	
cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	l cts.	$ cts.9 90	6 41	3 49	8 21	1 69	9 47	6 69	2 78	7 79	1 68	9 62	6 99	2 63	8 41	1 21	8 46	7 25	1 21	8 28	0 18	8 51	7 21	1 30	8 08	0 43	8 24	6 16	2 08	1 85	7 07	1 17	2 128 60	4 85	3 75	1 46	6 00	2 60	1 809 07	4 38	4 69	1 31	6 12	2 95	1 848 59	4 24	4 35	1 27	5 78	2 81	1 739 17	3 97	5 20	1 19	5 39	3 78	1 624 89	1 22	5 17	3 79	1 558 58	4 22	4 36	1 27	5 63	2 95	1 698 59	5 25	3 34	1 58	6 48	2 11	1 948 69	5 36	3 33	1 61	6 75	1 94	2 03
(1) Steers, good. (2) Steers, 1,000-1.200 pounds, good.
2724

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
Wheat
September..
October___
November.. December..
January...
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September..
October___
November.. December..
January..., February.,
March	
April	
Period
1921
Minnea- polis: No. 1 dark northern	Winnipeg No. 1 northern Manitoba (current exchange)	Excess of Minneapolis over Winnipeg	Kansas City No. 2 hard winter$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	{ cts.2 62	2 47	0 15	2 452 20	2 10	0 10	2 071 77	1 82	0 05	1 771 72	1 65	0 07	1 691 81	1 70	0 11	1 721 71	1 65	0 06	1 621 69	1 67	0 01	1 541 54	1 57	0 03	1 331 64	1 67	0 03	1 471 69	1 68	0 01	1 461 74	1 61	0 13	1 211 54	1 62	0 08	1 151 53	1 32	0 21	1 221 36	1 09	0 27	1 111 30	1 01	0 29	1 081 31	1 05	0 26	1 101 35	1 08	0 27	1 141 55	1 28	0 27	1 291 58	1 36	0 22	1 341 64	1 39	0 25	1 36
Excess of Kansas City over Winnipeg
cts.
0 02 0 03 0 05 0 04
0 02 0 03 0 14 0 24 0 20 0 22 0 40 0 47 0 10 0 02 0 07 0 05
0 06 0 01 0 02 0 03
Wheat prices, spread between No. 1 northern Manitoba and No. 2 hard winter
Period	Excess of No. 1 northern Manitoba Winnipeg over No. 2 hard winter Kansas City	Excess of No. 1 northern Manitoba Liverpool over No. 2 hard winter Liverpool (current exchange)1921	$ cts.	$ cts.January	0 02	1 07February	0 03	0 16March	0 14	0 19April	0 24	0 34May	0 20	0 30June	0 22	0 29July	0 40	0 32August	0 47	0 35September	0 10	0 17October	0 02	0 08November	0 07	0 06December	0 05	0 02


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: In respect to
what year is my hon. friend quoting?


Peter McGibbon: I was quoting the prices in 1921 before the application of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. That tariff went into effect in May and I gave the prices which ruled 
afterwards. The prices in every case went up immediately after the duty was put on. so that the farmers of the United States are getting the benefit of the duty in dollars and cents.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend
cannot quote the prices of one year ago?


Peter McGibbon: I do not know that I
have them. They would not be applicable anyway. The point is this that you get certain prices; in May the tariff was put on, and then the prices go up immediately.
Now I will give the comparative prices for potatoes.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If my hoc.
friend studied the grain prices for the past two years he will see that his argument breaks down entirely.


Peter McGibbon: I am not prepared to
admit that for a moment. I am quoting from the report made by the tariff commission to the United States congress. That is a body of competent men, and they make the positive statement that the price of every one of these articles has gone up practically by the amount of the duty. Surely these men know their

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
business; they do nothing else the year round. They made this report to congress and in it they worked out the operation of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. Now I have the price of potatoes here. Probably my hon. friend will dispute them, but I will give the prices in Montreal and in Boston. I want my hon. friend to pay attention to the excess price in Boston over Montreal. The figures are as follows:
Price of Potatoes, 1921
-	Montreal	Boston	Excess of Boston over Montreal price Per 100 lbs.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.2 06	1 90	12	1 95	19	1 82	1 82	26	1 82	1 70	Feb. 2	1 83	1 62	9	1 83	1 57	16	1 15	1 42	0 2723	1 15	1 32	0 17Mar. 2	1 14	1 32	0 189	1 14	1 45	0 3116	1 14	1 72	0 5823	1 14	1 32	0 IS30	1 14	1 32	0 18April 6	1 16	1 30	0 1413	1 16	1 05	20	1 16	1 05	27	1 16	1 00	May 4	1 17	0 95	0 2211	1 17	0 92	0 2518	1 17	1 05	25	1 17	0 87	0 30June 1	1 17	0 85	0 328	1 17	4 12	2 9515	1 17	3 87	2 7022	0 94	3 37	2 4329	0 94	4 00	3 06July 6	0 93	4 12	3 1913	0 93	3 37	2 4420	0 93	4 75	3 8227	2 68	5 37	2 69Aug. 5	2 75	3 25	0 5010	2 75	3 07	0 3217	3 50	3 37	0 1324....'	3 00	2 50	0 5031	2 75	2 00	0 75Sept. 7	2 73	2 57	0 1614	1 68	2 07	0 3921	1 68	2 00	0 3228	1 68	1 80	0 12Oct. 6	1 30	1 95	0 6512	1 30	1 95	0 6519	1 30	1 92	0 6226	1 30	2 12	0 82Nov. 2	1 29	2 00	0 719	1 29	2 05	0 7616	1 29	1 95	0 6623	1 29	1 90	0 6130	1 29	1 90	0 61Dec. 7	1 54	1 95	0 4114	1 54	1 92	0 3821	1 54	1 95	0 4128	1 54	2 20	0 66


Mr. VALLANCE:: The hon. gentleman has been quoting the price of wheat, beef and potatoes, three commodities of which the United States does not export a great deal. Will he quote the price of corn last fall?


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member says
they do not export these products?


John Vallance: Not to a great extent.


Peter McGibbon: Why, the United States grows 2,800 million bushels of com, and exports about 300.000,000 bushels.


John Vallance: Can you tell me what
the com crop of the United States was?


Peter McGibbon: I have got the figures
of the com crop here; I will give you anything you want. Now I am going to deal with the price of butter. I have the comparative prices of butter in London and New York. The commodity that makes the price fluctuate in these two markets is the Danish butter, is it not? If my hon. friends will study these figures to-morrow they will find that the price in London was in excess of the price in New York right up till the month of June. On May 27 the tariff on butter was applied, and immediately the balance fluctuates to the other column and the price at New York is ahead of the price at London. Do my hon. friends want anything more definite than that? The comparative prices of butter in detail are as follows:
Butter Prices
-	Excess of New York over London	Excess of London over New York
	$	$
	0-	
1921		
	0 0377	
8			0-0110
15			0-0402
22			0-0666
29			0-0847
Feb. 5			0-0510
12			0-0794
19			0-0347
26 		0-0090	
	0-0088	
12			0-0462
19			0-0727
26			0-0575
		0-0274
9			0-0310
16			0-0487
23			0-0811
30			0-1395

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
Butter Priceb
-	Excess of New York over London	Excess of London over New York1921	$	* 0-1369 0-0398 0-0816 0-0887 0-0668 0-0409 0-0161 0-000614	21	28	
11			
18			
25			
July 2		0 0107 0 0326 0-0308	
9			
16			
23			0-0119
30		0 0081 0 0293 0-0229	
Aug. 6			
13			
20			0-0185 0-0229 0-0072
27			
Sept. 3			
10		0-0110 0-0566 0-0549 0-0621 0-0755 0-0748 0-0588 0-0651 0-0425 0-0231	
17			
24			
Oct. 1			
8			
15			
22			
29			
Nov. 5			
12			
19			0-0324
26		0-006 0-0626 0-0683 0-0591 0-0925 0-0894	
		
10			
17			
24			
31			
		
Now I will give my hon. friends some information about corn. The duty on corn was raised to 15 cents a bushel. The United States is the greatest corn producing country in the world, producing three times more than any other country. They grow over there 2,800,000,000 bushels.


John Vallance: What was last year's price?


Peter McGibbon: I have not got that.


John Vallance: Does the hon. gentleman want to hear it?


Peter McGibbon: I do not know whether I want to hear it or not?


John Vallance: What influence has corn on the price of wheat in the United States?


Peter McGibbon: The same influence as any other food has. Now then what happened? Imports before 1913 were less than 100,000 bushels a year. They made them free in that year, and the imports thereupon rose to 12,290,000, and from 1915 to 1920 they averaged 5,210,000 bushels. After the tariff went on, what happened? Only 91,000 bushels

came in. And what was the the effect on the price? Before that, down in Buenos Aires, the other market for it, the price was 25 cents more than the price in Chicago, and after that the United States price went ahead of the price in Buenos Aires. That was the effect on corn-a difference of twenty-five cents a bushel.
Now I take up the question of cheese. The duty on cheese was not raised to any considerable extent. It was increased from 20 per cent to 23 per cent, but the change was not sufficient to have any effect on the price. We see practically the same result in regard to milk, because the duty was only two cents a gallon and it had no effect on the price. Now we come to beans. The duty on beans was raised from 25 cents a bushel to $1.20. In 1920, before the duty went on, the imports were 2,094,646 bushels. In 1921, after the duty was imposed, the imports dropped to 274,058 bushels, and the price rose from four to seven cents a pound. That is what the tariff did for the farmers in the United States in regard to beans. Then I come to wool, and I find that the raise in the tariff made an increase in price of 25 to 35 cents a pound. One of the greatest industries of the United States is cotton. The effect that the tariff had on cotton was to raise the price six or seven cents a pound. That is what it put into the pockets of the man who was growing cotton.
I have a good deal more information as to other articles, but I have given enough. The point is that the American republic, by reason of the fact that they have a scientific board which is working day and night studying these questions and applying scientifically the principles of their tariff policy, have increased the price of practically every farm product in that country and have put hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of their farmers. I wish the Minister of Agriculture were present to-night; I would like to get into his head the idea that the farmers of the country can be protected as much and more than any other class of people, and it is on their behalf I am speaking now. I have not used half the material I have here before me, but I think I have used enough to show this government that what it wants is a scientific tariff board to tell us when duties should go up and when they should come down, and that tariff board should apply not only to industry but also to the great farming population of this country.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Before entering upon my address proper, I would like to pay a little attention to the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. McGibbon). He

The Budget-Mr. Millar
has directed considerable of his attention to the growing of potatoes, wheat, corn and other products in the United States. I think I shall have time to touch only on the question of wheat. I found some difficulty in following his reasoning when he stated that the United States placed a duty on Canadian wheat at a time that wheat was lower in Winnipeg than it was in the United States.


Peter McGibbon: No, I did not say that.
I said that normally under free trade it would be six or seven cents higher in Winnipeg than in Chicago or Minneapolis. That statement is accepted by everybody. I showed by an application of the tariff that, instead of it being higher in Winnipeg, it was much higher in Chicago.


John Millar: About that time a duty was placed on Canadian wheat, in order to prevent it from going to the United States. I must take issue with my hon. friend right at the start when he says normally wheat is higher in Winnipeg than in the United States.


Peter McGibbon: Everybody accepts that.


John Millar: It is exactly the opposite.


Peter McGibbon: I must insist that the
hon. member quote me properly. This is the third time the hon. member has failed to do so. I said that under conditions of free trade everybody accepts the fact that it is higher m Winnipeg than in the United States.


John Millar: My hon. friend said normally under free trade the price of wheat would be higher in Winnipeg than in the United States; therefore I must flatly contradict his statement, for the reason that the United States have a hundred million odd people to feed and in Canada we have only ten million. We have to sell our wheat on an export basis, we * cannot get above it, while in the United States hard wheat is nearly always- in fact you may say always-above an export basis, at a premium. He has made the statement in reply to a question that the United States do export wheat. That is quite true, but it is not hard wheat. There is great demand for their hard wheat to mix with the soft wheat, and they pay a pretty high price for it. Hard wheat is always above the price in Winnipeg; what the Americans are exporting is soft wheat. My hon. friend has given figures in regard to the United States that are absolutely useless, for this reason: they do not take into account the premiums paid for protein. Nearly all the wheat in the United States is handled on a protein basis. The figures referred to what is called a standard price, and that is the
standard price which is paid for wheat with about eleven per cent protein. Then they pay a premium of a few cents up to fifty cents a bushel. That is not taken into account; therefore the figures are entirely useless. If his figures are equally reliable in regard to corn, cheese and other commodities-


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


John Millar: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Has there been any
change in the relation of protein content to the value of wheat before and after the going into effect of the Fordney-McCumber tariff?


John Millar: I do not think there has
been very much.


Peter McGibbon: Then what was it that
increased the price?


John Millar: I will come to that. The
hon. gentleman spent a good deal of time trying to convince the House that when you place a duty on a commodity it usually raises the price. That is what we have been trying to convince our friends for a good many years; yet the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) stated last session or the session before that if we increased the duty on farm implements the price would not be affected, but would remain the same. I am pleased to find that the last speaker agrees with our view of what is sound economics, that under ordinary conditions when you protect an industry or commodity you are going to raise the price. He will not need to spend one minute to convince me that when the United States imposed a duty on Canadian wheat when Canadian wheat was lower in price than the American wheat, the effect was to increase the price to the American farmer. Certainly it was.


Eccles James Gott: The same would apply to
butter.


John Millar: Yes. Let me point out, though, that the1 ultimate effect to the United States farmers was quite different from what they expected. They gained something in price on the commodities protected; but the ultimate effect, when they took into consideration the extra price they had to pay for what they purchased, the protected implement, the protected clothing and other protected commodities that they had to buy, meant a net loss to them of $301,000,000. That is, they took the bait, believing that protection was going to help them, was going to enrich them. I suppose it was made very
The Budget-Mr. Millar

attractive by the manufacturing industries of the United States the same as it has been in Canada, and having taken the bait they expected that they were going to reap a great deal of benefit thereby. But when an accounting was made and they found they had suffered a net loss of $301,000,000, I find now that the farmer bloc in the United States have turned against the high tariff and they are crying out against it. I believe they are appealing to congress to make a change.


Mr. FOSTER:: From what authority does this accounting the hon. member speaks of emanate?


John Millar: The Farm Bureau of the United States.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the American Farm Bureau?


John Millar: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Located in Chicago?


John Millar: I do not know where it is located', probably Washington, but I am not sure.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid my hon. friend's figures are away out, because I have the records in my office.


John Millar: It is a confederation of farmers. It may be located in Chicago. I cannot say where it is located.


George Eulas Foster: The figures are not in line with the figures published bjr the bureau. They may be from some newspaper.


John Millar: They were printed, I
believe, in the Grain Growers' Guide as being the official figures from this federation, and I give them as such.
A remark was made by the last speaker (Mr. MoGibbon) regarding the flooding of the prairie provinces with butter from Australia, and I believe he said it was working eastward' into Ontario. I would like to read an extract from a report of a statement made by a trade commissioner from Australia.
Australia is Canada's second best customer, ranking second only to Great Britain, declared Sir James Elder, K.B.E., Australian trade commissioner to the United States, addressing the Canadian Club here to-day.
This is by a representative from Australia to the United States just a few days ago:
"During 1925," said the speaker, "Australia imported $105,000,000 worth of goods from the Dominion,-
That is the Dominion of Canada.
-or an average of $3.60 per capita. And in that same period Canada only sold an average of $3.90 per capita in Great Britain."
Now let us get the comparison between Canada and Australia.

But this trade balance has been all in favour of your country, Canada only importing $6,500,000 worth of Australian products or an average of fourteen cents per capita.
We heard a few minutes ago a statement as to the country being flooded with Australian butter, and we have heard a great deal of that of late. These are the figures of the trade commissioner of Australia himself, who states that Canada during the year imported fourteen cents' worth per capita, while Australia received of Canadian goods $3.60 per capita.


George Eulas Foster: How many millions?


John Millar: I gave the figures a moment ago. Australia imported $105,000,000 worth of goods from Canada.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is an error. There
is a tremendous disparity between the imports and exports and it is much in our favour, but I think it was $19,000,000, or $20,000,000, and not $105,000,000 worth, that we sold to Australia. There is an error there but the hon. member can take it that for say the last six or seven years the disparity has been at least ten to one in our favour. It does not . alter the point.


John Millar: If the hon. member is
correct I am willing to accept 'his statement, but I would like to ask if those figures, that is, the $3.60 and the fourteen cents per capita, are also in error.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The comparison would
be about correct.


John Millar: That serves my purpose
pretty well. In that case, why should we make such a tirade about this country being flooded with Australian butter? I believe this statement is sound, that if all the butter were available for sale at one point in Canada and competition were playing its part, not one pound of Canadian butter would be exported as long as the price in Canada was above an export basis. Who would be foolish enough to export his butter to Great Britain or anywhere else and receive thirty cents a pound when he could sell it right at his door at thirty-two cents a pound? I do not know of anybody who would do that. As long as the price is one cent above export basis, he would sell it at home and the price must come down to export basis before the export of butter would start. That would be the situation if all the butter were available in one place.
But Canada is a big country. There may be a lower price in some provinces, than in others; the price may be higher in one part

The Budget-Mr. Millar
of Canada and lower in another, or at a time when there is a shortage of production, when there is a possibility of cold storage plants cornering the commodity and raising the price, they may take advantage of the situation and export some butter in order to increase the price at home. At no other time is there an opening for Australian butter, because the market that is open to us for the export of our surplus is open also to Australia on equal terms. It is unreasonable to think that Australia would export butter to Canada when the price here is on an export basis, when the same market that is open to us is open to them.
But the provision that is included in the Australia treaty does affect the cold storage' people, and they are the ones who are making the noise. I may add that they have been given considerable assistance by the politicians. In fact I wish the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was in his seat.
I was in Woodstock a short time ago and some people there were so unkind as to say that he was active in seeing that a little Australian butter was thrown on the market at Woodstock for sale. I do not know about that, but they were unkind enough to say so


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Was it any
better than the cheese he gets in this House?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is very easy to make
reckless charges in the absence of a member.


John Millar: Ditto. We must remember
that the hon. member is not always absent. If he wants to make any reply he has an opportunity.
During the past four years we have heard so much about blue ruin and the dry rot that was eating into Canada, we have heard so much about the disaster that would follow in the wake of this government's policy, that we were led to believe that the country was going to the bow-wows: the people were all going to get out and, in short, national bankruptcy would ensue. Some people began to wonder seriously whether there was really anything in these "whispers of death ". They knew that we had passed through strenuous times and that we had a considerable national debt as a result of the war, and they were naturally concerned about the financial condition of Canada. Well, the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) a few days ago has set these fears at rest. Even the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) -I hope I may refer to him in his absence- said he would take no objection to the statement of the Minister of Finance that the condition of Canada had improved in the past four years. From time to time statements have appeared in the press to the effect that our trade returns during that period were much better than they had been before: our post office returns were increasing, as were also the returns from our customs, even with the rotten conditions which have prevailed in that department during several years past, and which will be admitted now in every corner of the House. Even under those conditions the customs returns increased, as did also the clearing house returns. There was a better feeling throughout Canada, according to these reports, and now we have absolute proof that the conditions have improved. This has placed my friends to my immediate right in rather an awkward position. They do not like to admit that they were false prophets; they do not like to admit that the country did not go to the bow-wows. But I am willing to give them credit for being sufficiently Canadian and sufficiently patriotic to find some joy in the fact that the country has improved. How were they to get out of the difficulty? I must confess that I find a great deal of inconsistency in the reasoning of hon. gentlemen to my right. Every time anything bad has happened to Canada the government which has been in power during the past four years was to blame; the country, we were told, reacted at once to the policy put into effect. But if any good fortune fell to the lot of Canada it was because Providence was smilling upon us and the sun was shining; the government were not entitled to any credit. I cannot understand that. Surely it the policy of the government is effective at cue time, if it is going to react upon the country, it will be effective and will react at another. I thought it rather unfair for hon. gentlemen to indulge in this sort of criticism. I know that the government can well defend themselves and I have no brief for them, but it struck me as rather inconsistent that the government should be blamed for everything that was bad while for anything creditable Providence was praised. Whenever there was prosperity it was because of Providence and the virility of the people. Surely when hon. gentlemen prophesied during the past four years they knew that the people were industrious. I can understand that they might go astray in their prophecies if there were many unknown factors to reckon with, but they should at least have known that the people were industrious. Now they seem to be surprised to find that this is so.

The Budget-Mr. Millar
On page 2625 of Hansard the hon. member for Fort William said:
But there is a Providence, they say, which looks after drunken men, and I presume the same Providence looks afiter governments who are drunken with the desire to hold power in spite of the wishes of the people.
If the hon. member had added, would-be governments, there might be some force in what he said. If desire is any guarantee of immunity from danger a number of gentlemen who sit on front benches to my right might climb to the top of the tower of this building and throw themselves over, without dashing their foot against a stone. They would be perfectly safe if desire had any protective charm.
The same hon. member goes on to ask what the workingman and the small farmer are to get out of the budget. It strikes me that this is a workingman's and a small farmer's budget. True, the small farmer may not have an automobile, but the reduction in the customs duty may place an automobile within his reach. That is where many of the small farmers will gain. Does it not ultimately benefit the small man, who has not an income of $3,000, that the man with this income will be relieved of taxation? Is it not well with the small salaried man if the man who employs him, the man with whom he has to deal, is prosperous? Is not the country going to react favourably to such a budget as this? As a matter of fact, is there not already a wave of confidence passing over Canada as a result of the budget proposals? Will not the budget help the man who has not an income of $3,000 and the small farmer who has not an auto? If there is prosperity with some classes, that prosperity will filter through to the small man and there are none who will not feel the effect in the long run. This, to my mind, is the poor man's budget.
The hon. member for Fort William mentioned two instances in which he said the income tax would have an undesirable effect. He referred in the first place to the widow who was receiving an income from dividends. Well, it may be that occasionally in the readjustment an individual may pay a little more now than formerly, but this will happen in very few cases. The fact, however, is that a great many wealthy men have been escaping income taxation in past years by investing their money in such a way as to draw nontaxable dividends. If that is the case the government did a wise thing to tax dividends. The other illustration the hon. member gave was rather amusing. It was that of an old couple who had reached the ages of seventy-three and seventy-four-I am speaking only

from memory, of course,-and who, as I gathered from his remarks, were scraping along on an income of $4,800 a year. I think he said that these people were in the autumn of their days, and he lamented the fact that in the readjustment they would pay $4 more in income tax than they formerly did. Now, surely if dearth of grounds upon which to object is any proof of a good budget this is an excellent one. Just think of the old couple with an income of $4,800 having to pay $4 more than they paid before 1 Is that such a serious matter? There are thousands of couples of seventy-five years of age and over who have worked long and hard in the heat of the day and who have not a quarter of * that to live upon.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


John Millar: Because of the corporations to which you are so friendly. While my leader was speaking an hon. member said to him, referring to the income tax, "So long as you don't have to pay it." I thought that was a harsh remark. I have under my hand figures to show that the farmers of Canada do pay very little income tax. These figures are for 1921, but I suppose what was true then will be largely true now. These are the totals in round figures: employees, $11,000,000; manufacturers, $8,000,000; merchants, including wholesalers and retailers, $7,000,000; professional men, $2,000,000; farmers, $601,000. Although our farmers paid only this comparatively small amount in 1921 it is a considerable increase over what they paid in 1920. It has been thrown in our faces many times that the farmers are not paying income tax. I could pick out homes where the conditions are very sad, and I am sure were I to describe the poverty, the distress and the long hours of labour I would bring tears to your eyes, but I will refrain. There are thousands of our farmers in the east as well as in the west who are slaving long hours and have much less to live on than is enjoyed by the average citizen in a city like Ottawa. When adverse conditions overtook them after the war, particularly in western Canada, when the prices of the commodities they were selling dropped very low while the prices of the commodities they had to buy were still high, many farmers found themselves in straitened circumstances, and in some cases their children had to wear old bags for protection, their parents being too poor to buy them the necessary clothing. In one case a banker told me he went to see a farmer on business and found his wife, formerly a school teacher, out stooking, and she said, "I

The Budget-Mr. Millar
am helping my husband to stook in order to save money enough to buy coal for the winter." And yet because our farmers do not pay a large proportion of the income tax an hon. member says tauntingly, "As long as you don't have to pay it." The money of those farmers has gone in many cases to pay the exorbitant prices that the combines have been able to exact, and with that exaction they have been able to monopolize a great share of the actual wealth and comfort that should belong to all. And yet a few are not satisfied and would throw out such taunts. The farmers are not paying more income tax simply because they have not got the income on which to pay it, not because they are lazy, not because they are indifferent, not because they are inefficient, not because they are failing to do everything they should do to maintain their homes and raise their families. Many a farmer has been compelled frequently to make great personal sacrifices when his family required medical care. Members of the medical profession in this House know that, especially if they are practising in the country. It may be that members of the farmer's family required dental care, but had to do without it for lack of money. In a word, the farmer and his family have to make sacrifices that the average person in our urban centres seldom gives him credit for. After going through such painful experiences it is not a pleasant thing for them to be told they are shirking their duty.
The member for Fort William-perhaps he will read this in Hansard, so I will give him the benefit of it in his absence-made the statement that this government could have removed much more taxation if they had economized more. Well, I remember some three years ago when the hon. member made an excursion into this region of economy and attacked the expenditure involved in sending certain delegates to the Wembley exhibition. Thereupon the ex-whip of the Liberal party, who was interested in the matter, came back at him with some figures that showed apalling extravagance under a former Conservative regime, and, figuratively speaking, the doctor was carried to the hospital after his opponent got through with him. This government is guilty of extravagance, and I know of no government that has not been. This is partly the fault of the governments themselves and partly the fault of the people. What took place in this city not very long ago? Perhaps some of you may not like to hear it, but you are going to. This government discharged some four thousand civil servants during the last four years because of pressure being
brought to bear that the departments had become very much overstaffed since the war. What was the result? I believe that action of the government was a large factor in their losing the two local seats in the last election.
I have heard it said many times that the civil servants almost as a bloc turned against the government. There is the difficulty. When the people reach the high standard that they will say, "We do not want anything for our constituency unless we have a right to it and it will be for the good of Canada as a whole," then we shall have cleaner government. I do not know that the Conservative party has any better record in regard to economy than the Liberal party; perhaps both parties are about equal. But there is one thing the Conservative party did which I have always given them credit for, in fact I have shouted it sometimes from the house tops. I refer to their cleaning up of the Printing Bureau. Every time any government does something that is really courageous in bringing about economy, every section of the House ought to give them credit for it here and in the country, and not take advantage of it at election time.
The hon. member for Fort William propounded a rather strange theory. He said that in some cases if you raised the duty you raised the price, and then if you lowered the duty you again raised the price. He tried to explain it in this way. He said, "You lower the duty"-I do not know whether he mentioned automobiles, but that will serve the purpose as wTell as any other commodity * you lower the duty on automobiles until you ruin the Canadian manufacturer, and immediately the foreign manufacturer will raise his price; so that while you have lowered the duty and destroyed your own industry you find you have to pay a higher price for the foreign made article. Let us analyse that statement. What is it that prevents the Canadian manufacturer of automobiles or of any other commodity charging a higher price now? Is it not the competition of the American manufacturer? If the latter were to raise his price without the duty changing, would not the Canadian manufacturer follow it up immediately? Does anyone believe he would not? If the American manufacturer were to say, "Never mind the duty; I will not sell my commodity in Canada except at an increased price of 10 per cent," do you suppose the Canadian manufacturer would still sell at the same old price? Of course not; he would raise his price at once. The remarks of the hon. member for Fort William may be true where one


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Millar: I do not hear any applause from the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Millar: Thank you; I am glad you wakened up.
"This will restrict their sale and so reduce either the number of employees or their hours of labour, or both.
"Incease in the tariff is increase in taxation, and is followed by increase in cost of goods, increase in cost of labour, and in lower demand for labour.
"Will that make Canada prosper?"


Mr. PRICE:: What proof has the hon.
gentleman that the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada are making an undue profit? The government has appointed a commission to investigate these profits and the conditions surrounding the manufacture, but what proof has my hon. friend for the statement he makes? Will he kindly answer that question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Millar: I will certainly answer the
question. First of all let me say that I do not know what meaning my hon. friend attaches to the term "undue profits." However. I will give an illustration of what I would call an undue profit.


Otto Baird Price: You do not know anything
about the matter.


John Millar: The original investment
of the Canadian Ford Company in 1904 or 1905 was $62,500, and they gave a like amount to Mr. Ford for his goodwill and patents.


Otto Baird Price: Will the hon. gentleman
kindly state what profits they are making?


John Millar: Please sit down until I am through.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


John Millar: The present plant is now
capitalized at $31,000,000, although the original investment was $125,000, or, to be accurate, $62,500 exclusive of the interest given to Mr. Ford. Now the company have made most of this $31,000,000, less $125,000, by charging from
$150 to $250 above the American price for every car they sold in Canada. I would call that an undue profit.


Otto Baird Price: That is no answer at all. Some hon. MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


Otto Baird Price: I should like the hon. gentleman to tell us now-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: -what he is talking about.
I should like to know what profits they have made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: If the hon. gentleman has
any information on the matter I should like him to state it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give the boy a chance.


John Millar: As there seems to be a
desire for further information I have no objection to the Speaker calling it 11 o'clock. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, April 23, 1926.