1926-04-26

SEALRIGHT COMPANY INCORPORATED

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: moved:
That the petition of the Sealright Company, Inc., presented this day, praying for an act respecting a certain patent of the said company and the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on Standing Orders pursuant to-the provisions of rule 88.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 91 to amend the Immigration Act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: This bill
has been on the order paper for some time. There is nothing new in it except that it involves some amendments to the Criminal Code that will come later. This amendment is merely the amendment that has been submitted on two former occasions, except that on this occasion we are striking out section 41 and substituting a new section 41 which after all is nothing more or less than a provision to simplify our inspectional work and to deal particularly with the discrimination against British-born in the present act and deportation for political offences which may take place without conviction and only on a hearing before a board of inquiry. This will remove the two objections because in the bill we recognize the residence of the British-born and provide that deportation for
27SS
Questions

political offences shall take place only after conviction. That is all that is involved in the bill. The officials of the Department of Immigration are foregoing the right of deportation under the provisions of section 41 which was enacted during the war period.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the minister explain why he describes that as discrimination against the British-born?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps my words were not very well chosen. British-born have no more rights in Canada than any other individuals coming to Canada. There is however the short term of residence in which they have to qualify and during which we can deport them for offences under section 41.
Motion agreed .to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	What gross amount was collected by ithe Dominion Income Taxation department in each of the following years: 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925?
2.	What refunds have been made from each year's collection ?
3.	What was the cost of collection for each year?
4.	How many employees were there in the department in each year?
5.	What amounts were collected by the office at London, Ontario, in each of the years mentioned?
6.	How many employees were in the London office in each of the years mentioned?
7.	Whait are the names of those who now act as assessors in the London office?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.
Fiscal Years	Income Tax Collected
1918- 1919	S 9,349,719.80
1919-	1920	
20,281,081.681920-	1921	
46,579,551.201921-	1922	
79,960,245.081922-	1923	
61,321,125.641923-	1924	
55,579,032.021924-	1925	
57,266,911.43
In addition the following taxes were collected under the Business Profits War Tax
Act:-
1918-	1919
1919-	1920
1920-	1921
1921-	1922
1922-	1923
1923-	1924
1924-	1925
32,970,061.81
44,145,184.48
40,841,401.25
22,815,666.58
13,031,461.80
4,752,680.89
2,704,427.37

2.
1918-	1919 .... 1919-	1920 ....		 17,341.77
1920-1921 ....		 197,726.89
1921-1922 ....		 1,275,890.28
1922-1923 ....		 1,609,587.27
1923-1924 ....		 1,375,004.03
1924-1925 ....		 1,018,868.61
1918-1919 ....		 495,797.38
1919-1920 ....		 1,145,088.03
1920-1921 ....		 1,953,988.54
1921-1922 ....		 2,277,349.78
1922-1923 ....		 2,040,461.08
1923-1924 ....		 1,935,242.19
1924-1925 ....		 1,693,025.23
1918-1919 .. ..		 407
1919-1920 .. ..		 898
1920-1921 .. ..		 1,330
1921-1922 .. ..		 1,447
1922-1923 .. ..		 1,354
1923-1924 .. ..		 1,201
1924-1925 .. ..		 1,057
1918-1919 ....		 302,133.10
1919-1920 ....		 622,792.71
1920-1921 .. ..		 1,636,120.23
1921-1922 .. ..		 5,274,378.78
1922-1923 ....		 3,964,016.04
1923-1924 ....		 4,767,913.61
1924-1925 ....		 4,114,955.22
1918-1919 .. ..		 19
1919-1920 .. ..		 67
1920-1921 .. ..		 90
1921-1922 .. ..		 86
1922-1923 .. ..		 77
1923-1924 .. ..		 58
1924-1925 .. ..		 50
7.	H. I. Orr, J. M. Dickinson, W. G. Harding, J. C. Kennedy, J. H. C. Woodward, J. N. Wood, G. D. A. Blandford, R. S. Booth, W. H. Irvine, H. Morgan, F. J. Weldon.


MR. LEWIS DUNCAN
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What moneys have been paid to Lewis Duncan, barrister, at Toronto, by the present government in each of the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926?
2.	How much of said moneys was for services and how much for expenses?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: Department of Justic
1.
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
1924-	25	
1925-	26	
1926-	27	
Nil
$3,491 62 Nil 700 00 Nil

Questions
27SS
2.	Services Expenses
1922-	23	
Nil	Nil1923-	24..	..	,..	$3,130 00	$341621924-	25	
Nil	Nil19215-216	
700	00	Nil1028-27	
Nil	NilDepartment	of	Labour-
1.
1922-	23	 Nil
1923- 24	 $ 4.533 60
1924-	25	
21,924	2919215-26	
11,751	12
2.
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25
1925-	26

Living allowances Services and disbursements

$	692 60
4,455 79 1,571 12
$31,488 50	$ 6,719 51
Department of Trade and Commerce-
1 and 2. 1922-$1,250-Salary as counsel for Board of Commerce for January, February and March, 1921. No expenses.
1924 1925. 1926
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT
Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	What is the name of the company or companies, person or persons, referred to by the Prime Minister on the orders of the day of April 16, 1926, as having made application for certain leases, licenses, or permits, effecting the Ottawa river in the neighbourhood of Carillon?
2.	What, briefly, does the application ask for?
3.	When was it filed, and what action has been taken with regard thereto?


Ernest Lapointe: Department of Railways and Canals.
Office of the Chief Engineer, Ottawa, April 21, 1926.
Memorandum:
Re Carillon Development
Under lease No. 24414, dated December 1, 1921, to the National Hydro Electric Co., Ltd., the company is given the right to construct a dam in the vicinity of the present Carillon dam on the Ottawa river which would raise the water level to elevation 120, and to develop the full flow of the river at this point, exclusive of the amount required for navigation. Since the granting of this lease, the company have submitted draft leases for the
consideration of the department which involve raising the level provided for above the proposed dam and the export of a portion of the power developed. The draft leases have not been approved and lease 24414 is still extant.
In December, 1924, the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, in accordance with the provisions contained in their charter, granted in 1894 and at various times amended and extended, submitted for approval a plan showing the location of their proposed works in the section of the river extending from Grenville to Carillon. In December, 1925. the company submitted for approval an alternative location of their proposed works in this section. Neither scheme has been approved, and because the construction of a new canal with the works incidental thereto in this section will affect the existing Carillon and Grenville canal under this department's jurisdiction, the company's representatives have been verbally advised, that their plans will have to be submitted in more detail before consideration will be given to their proposals.
A. E. Dubuc,
Chief Engineer.
Department of Public Works.
1.	The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
2.	The approval of plan of a canal and works from Hawkesbury to Pointe Fortune.
3.	Filed on December 18, 1924, under the company's charter granted under act of parliament, 57-58 Victoria (1894) and amendments. Matter under consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BRANCH LINE
Mr. FISH:: 1.	Was a numerously signed petition from the residents of the county of Northumberland, New Brunswick, presented to the government, or some department thereof, during the last session of parliament, praying for the construction of a branch line of railway from a point at or near Newcastle, New Brunswick, on the main line of the Canadian National Railway, to connect with the Caraquet branch railway at Tracadie?
2.	Was a promise made by the Prime Minister or by any member of the government in 1925 that at the next session of parliament, provision would be made to build fifteen miles of this branch?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes; to Department of Railways and Canals.
2.	No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIES AND BALLAST
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	What number of railway ties did trackmasters estimate would be necessary on Atlantic region of the
Questions

Canadian National Railways between Campbellton and Truro, and what numbers were supplied the various sectional divisions for placement during 1925?
2.	Of the number supplied, how many were placed under track and wihat number were left unused as a result of extra section gangs being laid 'off before the work was completed?
3.	On what sections between CampbeUlton and Truro was ballast asked for, and what quantity was supplied each section ?
4.	How much was placed and footed in the road-bed, and on what sections?
5.	Was a proper track gauge machine trailed over the Atlantic region during the year 1925, and with what result?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) 211,582; Ob) 211,582.
2.	(a) 141,814, including 27,437 treated hard wood ties; (b) 69,768.
3.	(a) Harcourt subdivision between Newcastle and Moncton, 10,300 cubic yards; (b) Harcourt subdivision, 7,280 cubic yards.
4.	7,280 cubic yards Harcourt subdivision mile post 0 to 3.50 west of Moncton.
5.	Use of track gauge machine not considered necessary during 1925.


LACOMBE EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	Does the government rent or lease any lands from A. W. Sharpe of Lacombe?
2 If so, what are the terms of lease or rental?
3.	Who has the use of the buildings on the said land? '4, What improvements, if any, have been made on "said land by the government in the way of new buildings, fences, breaking and seeding down of grass, during the terms of said lease or rental?
5.	What is the total cost of said improvements during the terms of occupancy of said lands?
6.	Are said lands under lease now?
7.	Are any other lands leased or rented and used in connection with the Lacombe experimental farm?
8.	If so, what lands, from whom and what are the terms of said lease or rental?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No improvements were made. Seeding done in 1923 was entirely for our own use.
5.	Nil.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
8.	110 acres owned jointly by the town of Lacombe and municipal district of Crown No. 399; rental $300 per annum; 116 acres owned by Emma Staack; rental $400 per annum.


GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OF LIVE STOCK
Mr DAVIS:: 1.	Does the government regulate the insurance on live stock in the different stock yards in Canada?
2.	Is the insurance of one half of one per cent, which is deducted from shippers of live stock, permitted under the government regulations?
''Mr, Price.]
3.	To whom is this insurance paid, or in other words, who receives the benefit of this insurance?
4.	What is the insurance for?
5.	What percentage of cattle, hogs and sheep to which this insurance applies is condemned in the province of Alberta ?
6.	What is the total amount deducted during the years 1920 to 1926, inclusive, in Alberta?
7.	What is the total amount collected from the shippers under this requirement in the province of Alberta?
8.	Are commission charges regulated by the government at all stock yards?
9.	Are feed charges regulated by the government at all stock yards?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	This insurance on hogs and cattle is an unofficial charge, not legally enforceable under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act but allowed by tacit consent of the parties concerned. The government takes no responsibility for the charge under the act.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The persons buying the stock for slaughter.
4.	It is insurance against condemnation for disease.
5.	The percentage of condemnations in inspected establishments in Alberta is as follows: Cattle .76 per cent; hogs, .27 per cent; sheep, 1.12 per cent. No information as to whether or not insurance applies to these condemnations.
6.	No information.
7.	No information.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes.


REFORESTATION OF INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. SMOKE:: 1.	Has the government adopted any reforestation policy in connection with lands set aside as Indian reserves throughout Canada ?
2.	If so, what is the policy so adopted?
3.	What acreage, if any, has been set aside for this purpose in each of the Indian reserves?
4.	If the government has not such a policy will it frame a reforestation scheme which will take care of the future welfare of the Indian people in this regard, and announce such policy at an early date?
5.	What disposition is made of the proceeds of sale of timber on Indian reserves?
6.	Are such proceeds placed in capital or revenue account ?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.
4.	Question will .receive consideration.
5.	Proceeds of sale are credited to funds of band owning the reserve from which the timber is sold.
6.	Sale moneys are credited to capital account; ground rentals and fees to interest account.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie


INVEBNESS HARBOUR DREDGING
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	How much did the government pay, during 1925, to a local dredging company in Inverness town, Nora Scotia, for dredging done by that company in connection with the Inverness harbour?
2.	How much work was done by /this local company?
3.	What was the contract price paid for doing this work ?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: A quantity erf 6,982.6 cubic yards, place measurement, was removed by small suction dredge belonging to R. E. McLeod, of Port Hastings, N.S., and work consisted in the removal of a sand bar between the entrance channel and the inner hahbour at Inverness. This dredging was paid at the rate of 30 cents per cubic yard, place measurement, the total amount paid being $2,094.78.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HUBBS:: For a copy of the agreement between the government and the railway companies regarding immigration, referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the present session.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT

Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, and other documents in the Departments of Justice and Immigration, relative to the case of the King vs. Douglas Stuart or Stewart, in connection with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, taken up in the year 1924, tried by Police Magistrate W. G. Scott and brought before the Manitoba Court of Appeal.



NOVA SCOTIA SENATE VACANCY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: There has
been a Nova Scotia vacancy in the Senate * for some time. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to fill the position without further delay.
Right Hon. \V. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	The matter is under consideration. I might inquire of mv hon. friend if he would care to be an applicant.



KINGSVILLE HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I should
like to inquire of the Minister of Public Works *whether he is aware of the fact or whether the department has been advised that the steamer Pelee could not leave Kingsville harbour on the 16th April on account of the
low water. Has any dredging been done at Kingsville this year, or can we expect any to be done? I drew this matter to the attention of the department on the 20th March.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: In regard to water levels at Kingsville they are, I expect, very much the same as at other points on the lake shores. The water has been receding. As regards dredging at Kingsville this year we have not yet voted supply and the matter is under consideration.


Eccles James Gott: When may we expect some
action on the matter?


John Warwick King: A little later.



TREATY BETWEEN GERMANY AND RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of our imperial relationships I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has had any information from London with regard to the effect on the British Empire of the signing of the recent treaty between Germany and Russia.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The answer is no.



LOBSTER FISHING SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):: Might
I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if a change has been made in the lobster fishing season for the northern section of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and if so, what date has been set?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: The third of next month.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 23, 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.
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I take
this opportunity of congratulating you upon your appointment to the honourable office which you now hold. I quite appreciate the fact that you have always been an ardent

The Budget-Mi. McQuarrie
supporter of this government, but at the same time I am sure that with your parliamentary experience you will live up to the high traditions of the office.
This budget reminds me of a story which I heard at a Kiwanis luncheon, when I was in my home town during the Easter recess. The story told, by a gentleman from the other side of the line, related to a coloured man named Mose residing in one of the western states. Mose worked on a farm near a small town, where he was considered something of a character. He was remarkable more than anything else for a team which he used. He drove into town on all occasions when there was a celebration and people were struck with this team, which consisted of a steer and a mule. Mose was very proud of the team and he took in good part all the fun which people were in the habit of poking at his outfit. On one occasion a spectator walked up to Mose and asked him how he came to hit upon such an unusual combination. Mose replied:	"This am no unusual combination;
this am the best team in the world. ThLf team will go where no other team will go. You see, it's this way: that old steer am stone blind and he can't see where he's going; and that mule-well he don't give a darn." It seems to me that the team of this story typifies very well the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Metaphorically speaking, the leader of the Progressive party is blind; he cannot see where he is being driven. He does not appreciate the fact that by the course he is taking he is doing an injury to Canada while at the same time he is being driven out of public life. And the Prime Minister does not "give a dam" so long as he can remain in office.


John Livingstone Brown: Will the hon. gentleman
apply the rest of the story-that it is the best team in the world.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose my hon.
friend may be regarded as Mose. Now, the leader of the Progressive party has many sterling qualities which endear him to the members of this House. He is no doubt conscientious to a degree; he is goodnatured and always comes back smiling no matter how hard he may be hit. He is industrious and constant in his attendance while the House is in session. However, he is undoubtedly having his troubles and his position as leader of the third party in the House must be an unenviable one. We are all aware of the difficulty he experienced in maintaining the leadership of his party in the last parliament. Anyone desiring particulars in this regard may refer JMr. McQuarrte.]
to the Canadian Annual Review of 1924-25 where, at page 205, he will find a full record of the whole matter. He encountered his main difficulty with some of his supporters who were afterwards known as the Ginger Group, and who objected to the fact that he was always supporting the government, through thick and thin. Well, he is still doing so; he always has been a Liberal, and we may be sure that he will always support the government. Indeed, I fail to understand why he does not cross the floor of the House, like his former chief whip the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Johnston), and sit where he belongs. The subterfuge is so obvious that no one is deceived. I notice also that one of his former supporters, Mr. Shaw, who represented one of the Calgary seats in the last House, has gone back to his old allegiance, having been appointed leader of the Liberal party in the province of Alberta. There are in this House, however, some members of the Progressive party who I think are really entitled to be in a third party, because I do not believe they will follow their leader in every course he may pursue. I think we have some hope in this House that some members of the Progressive party will during the course of this session, on some occasions at least, exercise their good judgment.
The other day the leader of the Progressive party said that he had nailed his colours to the mast of his prairie schooner. May I ask him what those colours were? Perhaps I can answer that question myself by saying

Liberal, Liberal, Liberal every time. His remarks on the budget were, as he himself admitted, largely a repetition of the statements made by the Minister1 of Finance (Mr. Robb); he supports the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel. Sometimes, of course, he is inconsistent, but that does not matter For example, he says that he approves of income tax as being direct taxation, and at the same time he glories in the income tax reductions which are provided for in the budget. He declares he is desirous of assisting the automobile manufacturers; nevertheless he approves of the course taken by the government in depriving those manufacturers of a part of the protection which they think necessary to enable them to continue in business in this country. Again, he praises the government for reducing taxation by approximately $25,000,000, but he says that it is unpatriotic for Canadians to grumble and complain because they cannot get their taxes down to the same level as in the United States. I pause to say that I am one of those who hope to see the day when our taxation will be as low as it is in the coun-

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
try to the south of us, for it is my opinion that if we wish to build up the population of Canada we must have a taxation which will compare favourably with the taxation levied in the United States.
Does the leader of the Progressive party really think that by assisting the government to retain office he is doing Canada a service? I can inform him that this is not the general impression. I have in my hand an editorial from the Vancouver Daily Province dated January 12, 1926. In passing, I might remark that the Vancouver Daily Province is owned and controlled by the same company which owns and controls the Ottawa Citizen. I hope the leader of the Progressives will take to heart this part of the editorial:
The despatches from Ottawa make it quite plain that the Progressives have no intention of being anything more than a crutch for the King ministry, if, indeed, they will offer that much assistance. They may help the government to limp along for a month or two, possibly until the end of the session. But they are giving no assurance and are making no promises that are in any way negotiable. The government is to be, in a very real sense, a government in custody. It is to be more than that. It is to be a government hobbled and shackled, and with one leg lopped off. If it wishes to march at all, it must march slowly and circumspectly with one eye on the course it is following, and one-a careful one-on its Progressive crutch, which may jump from under the crippled ministry's arm at any moment and precipitate the Premier and his colleagues in the ditch.
This may be very well from the Progressive point off view. But it is rather hard on the country, which emphatically needs at this moment a government possessed of all its limbs and all its faculties and able to lead the country out of the slough of pessimism in which it has been floundering and on to the heights of prosperity. The thing Canada requires is a government which can run and keep its balance, not one which must falter and creep. It is therefore doubtful if the Progressives will be confering any boon on the Dominion by bolstering up the Liberal party.
I notice that the leader of the Progressive? in his speech last week took credit to his party for the revaluation of the soldier settlers land which is proposed in a bill before the House. One might almost think that, he and his party were the only ones who advocated this measure. But that is not correct. Members on this side of the House were just as ardent in support of the revaluation of soldier settlers land as any members of the Progressive group, and I myself on several occasions took the opportunity of supporting this policy on the floor of the House, as will be seen by reference to Hansard.
As to the leader of the Progressive group, it is quite true that he is in control of the government, but he is without responsibility, neither does he receive the emoluments of office. As he is Scotch, it seems to me that
he might improve his position by stepping across the floor of the House and occupying a seat among the members of the government So much for one member of the famous team. Now what about the other? From time immemorial it has been the custom for history to assign nicknames to monarehs, and in good old England, always very conservative, that custom has been followed even from Saxon days. We find for example, in English history the following familiar titles: Ethelbert the Unready, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Richard Coeur de Lion, William of Orange, and so on. Now, if the Prime Minister were a king in fact, as well as in name, I believe history would assign him a nickname. I pause for suggestions from hon. members as to what that nickname should be. I have thought of one which to me seems very appropriate-William the Wobbler. I think that nickname would be justified. He has wobbled ever since he became Prime Minister. He is always wobbling. The year before the last election he made a tour of Canada and wobbled all the way, more particularly in his statement of his relations with the Progressive party. It will go down in history-in fact it is already written. I have this history before me and I am going to crave the indulgence of the House while I read a portion of it. It is contained in the Canadian Annual Review. The publication has an advisory editorial committee, and the first name on the list is that of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, the Speaker of this House. So this history cannot be considered to be Tory propaganda. In describing the trip which the Prime Minister took in 1924, the Review, at page 207, says:
Probably the most interesting of all the Prime Minister's expressions of opinion during this tour, and the one that brought him into the most direct connection with western politics, was his handling of the relations between the Progressives and the government as representative of the Liberal party.
Xt was noticeable that at first Mr. Mackenzie King was disposed to recognize the Progressives ns a separate party, working in fairly close sympathy with the Liberal party. I^ater, however, he diverged strongly from this division, and argues, rather, that there was no need for a separate group, such as the Progressives, but that all sections of the west tut variance with "Toryism" and in sympathy with the main policy of the Liberal party, particularly on tariff questions, should unite under the government leadership.
This change of position can readily be illustrated from extracts of speeches by the Prime Minister in several centres visited. At Winnipeg he warned has audience against the creation of factions in the ranks of those "opposed to Toryism." What Canada needed for her development, he declared, was a progressive Liberal policy, and the greatest nvsfortune that could overtake the country would be to let

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
the "reactionary forces of Toryism," again get control, simply because those opposed to them were divided. He added: I believe it would be much better for Canada if we made the Liberal and Progressive forces as one, and if the causes they have in common were advocated from one end of Canada to the other." At Brandon, Manitoba, he made it clear that the government had not acted "through the pressure of the Progressives of western Canada." "That statement is not true," he said. "We have done what we have done because it was part of our platform, because we said we would do it, if we were returned to power." He went on to refer to a pledge made by Mr. Crerar, and afterwards by Mr. Forke, that the Progressives would give 'honourable support to the Liberal party where the policies of the two were the same. This pledge had been honourably observed. He proceeded: "My task would have been easier had the Progressives in the House been Liberals instead of Progressives." He referred again to his proposal, made at Winnipeg, that the time had come, in the interests of western Canada and (the whole Dominion, when the Progressives and the Liberals should seek out a common ground on which ito stand in opposition to Toryism. Mr. King still seeined to hold out the idea of a combination of the two parities, declaring that he wanted (to emphasize that "if the Liberals and Progressives are united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is going to be a long regime of Liberal-Progressive legislation in this country which will help to advance the interesits of not only western Canada,
but of the whole Dominion	It is going to
be a poor consolation to the Progressives and a poor consolation to the Liberals to sit together for the next ten or fifteen years and see Mr. Meighen and his high protection group change the fiscal policy of this country that is what would happen if we are divided."
By the time he had reached Saskatoon, however, two days later, he appeared rather inclined to set forth the idea of the west rallying to the support of the Liberals as a party, rather than having a type of working agreement with each operating as a separate organization. He intimated that such an arrangement would not be as effective as if one party alone represented western feeling. At his Saskatoon meeting he declared that the administration of the country and the passing of suitable legislation would be greatly facilitated by a Dominion-wide organization of rightthinking Liberal-minded persons, in place of factions striving for the same ends in different directions. "At present , the Premier declared," only three westerners hold porfolios. Should the west unite and rally to vm. standard of Liberalism, it would be possible to secure a greater measure of support and a greater measure of success in securing the fulfilment of demands." He referred pointedly to there being only one Liberal member from Saskatchewan, with the other fifteen seats "solidly Progressive, and, as such, outside the councils of the administration", and urged the people of Saskatchewan to think well of the situation before they went to the polls. Mr. King again maintained that the concessions made to the west in tariffs, the Crows-nest agreement, and branch lines, had not been brought about nor forced on the government in any sense by the Progressive party.
The Prime Minister also made another speech at Saskatoon, to which I would like to refer. This extract is taken from a Canadian Press despatch dated October 7. 192.5:
Appealing then for Progressive support, Mr. King said that when at the last election, there was a possibility of either of the three parties forming an administration, Progressives were right in supporting the candidates who best represented their ideas. But [Mr McQuarrie.]
if they wished those ideas to be given expression in the present contest, it was of no use voting for Progressives.
Progressives had no hope of forming an administration. "If," he added, "you support a party confined to one part of the country, you immediately help to put that part of the country, so to speak, in opposition to the rest erf the country."
Mr. King held that the attitude of Progressives in the last session, instead of helping the administration, had hampered it in a hundred and one ways. "We have had co-operation, very helpful co-operation, in some cases," said the Premier. "I can tell you as Prime Min ster that every time the government was face to face with some western problem, we had to face the false charge that we were acting as we were because we were living in the grace of the Progressives or because we wanted their support-which made it very difficult for us to do many of the things we would have liked to do.
I quote again from the Canadian Annual Review:
At Prince Albert, the following day, the Premier came back again to the subject, and declared that "it was most unfortunate that we should have been separated into two parties, when our policies were the same. There is no use in being divided into two groups on 'Policies where we should be united against the forces opposing us .. . . What about the Progressives ? It doesn't make my task any easier with respect to the Hudson Bay railway that they are outside the Liberal party. No group of men can threaten the present government that they will put them out of office because they will not do this or that. But the statement that these things the Liberal government has been doing is to get Progressive support has made it very difficult to get millions more for western Canada when the people of eastern Canada can't get the things they need."
It was at Vegreville, Alberta, on the following day, that the Prime Minister suggested thal the Progressive party should come to an end. With the record of the present, administration before the western people, he declared, he felt there were no further grounds for "Progressivism or any other third party" in Canadian politics.
If that is not wobbling I do not know what wobbling is. Then we have the famous Richmond Hill speech. I am not going into that in detail, but when you compare the position held by the Prime Minister to-day with the statements made during that speech I think you will agree that he has wobbled. We heard him the other day addressing a delegation in front of the parliament buildings. It was a splendid delegation; no one could look into the faces of those people, who conducted themselves in the most creditable and orderly manner, and come to any other conclusion than that they were in earnest and that they considered the situation very serious indeed. What did they get from the Prime Minister? He came out to address them, and it was announced that he would bring his cabinet ministers with him, but they were not there. A great many announcements were made to that delegation for the purpose of keeping it there until

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
the Prime Minister could come out from his conference with representatives of the delegation. The very capable man in charge made announcements from time to time, one of which I remember that the conference was over and the Prime Minister was going out-going out from the conference and coming outside. Someone in the crowd called out, "Going out of office?" which question seemed to call forth a good deal of applause. The man in charge answered, "I am not a prophet." When the Prime Minister came outside he told them it was a nice day; he was glad it was a nice day, and he hoped they would enjoy their visit to Ottawa. He said, "You know', we have been getting information from your representatives; we have been told things we did not know before; we have been finding that this is going to have a very important effect on the automobile industry and on a great many people. It is a strange thing that no member of parliament has moved a resolution condemning the government for the reductions made in the automobile tariff. Any member of parliament can rise in his place and move an amendment."
Is that statement correct? If I understand parliamentary procedure, Mr. Speaker, only one amendment can be moved to the budget. You will correct me if I am wrong, but the Prime Minister certainly gave these people to understand that it was open to any member of this House to move an amendment. In that respect I contend that he misled those people. But what else did he tell them? He told them the matter would receive consideration, and gave them to understand that the fault was not altogether with the 'government, the inference being that it was largely with the Conservative party, because Conservative members of this House had not given him the necessary information on the subject. The exact contrary is what we are claiming here; we claim that the Conservative members had given him information, and that further information will no doubt be given, in a clear and concise way, to show how these reductions will affect the automobile industry, and the country as a whole. As far as I am concerned I think that the amendment which has been submitted by the hon. member for Fort William, covers the situation completely, and brings the whole matter before this House in a very clear and definite way. I shall not take the time of the House to read the amendment that is now before the Chair.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), on the other hand, I believe, told the delegation that so far as he was concerned the government was going to stand to their guns, that
is that no change would be made. So I take it that the Prime Minister will have to do a little more wobbling if he is going to retain his Minister of Finance and at the same time make any changes in the budget. Members who were in the last parliament will remember the famous Petersen contract. They will remember how the Prime Minister stood up in this House and stated that the government would stand or fall by the Petersen contract. They also know that the Prime Minister instructed his majority on the special committee which dealt with the Petersen contract to sidetrack the contract for another year at least, to throw it out of the House, and they know that as a consequence poor old Sir William Petersen died after hearing the result. Gentlemen may laugh, but it is not a laughing matter. It is one of the most tragic incidents that ever happend in this city. There was the Prime Minister wobbling again.
Then we were to have Senate reform. You know what the Prime Minister said on the hustings about Senate reform; you know what he said in this House when the Senate did something that he did not highly approve of. He said:	We will reform the Senate. But
have you heard of any Senate reform taking place this year? Not a word about it. The Prime Minister had various plans for reforming the Senate, but now he has come to the conclusion that the proper way to reform it is to allow Nature to take its course. On the public platform at various places he has called attention to the fact that a number of the old senators are dying off, and that as he has an opportunity, he will appoint to the Senate his own supporters who will see that the Senate is reformed.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and give you many illustrations of how the Prime Minister has wobbled, and is still wobbling, and I think that if he is christened William the Wobbler, it will be most appropriate. Not only does the Prime Minister wobble, but his supporters wobble also. His supporters wobbled during the last election in many constituencies. I, for instance, was opposed by a Liberal candidate who openly advocated protection. Can you believe that? He openly advocated protection. I have here a collection of clippings from newspapers which I have put together, and which tell a very interesting story. I have here, for instance, a number of paid advertisements which my Liberal opponent inserted in the newspapers in my town. He, like other Liberal candidates out there in British Columbia, cannot be charged with any undue modesty because he adopted as a slogan for himself The Man of Destiny-and

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
the Hour for New Westminster, and goes on to say:
A. Wells Gray, Liberal Candidate tor New Westminster, Federal Election October 29, 1925. Bora in New Westminster, October 6, 1876, he is a "native son" Oif whom New Westminster may well be proud. His activities in many fields of endeavour have been marked by ability far above the ordinary, and have reflected fame and honour upon his native city.
I would like to read now a little item from one of his paid advertisements, and, as I said, there were many of them:
In voting for Wells Gray for New Westminster the electors are voting for a safe and sane policy of moderate and reasonable tariffs which will foster and encourage trade and industry throughout the Dominion, will strengthen and encourage our foreign trade, and will continually open new markets for our produce. The issue is not between high protection on one hand and free trade on the other. The issue is between a policy of restrictive and prohibitive high tariffs which might benefit a few special interests and a safe system of moderate tariffs successfully promoted and applied by the Mackenzie King, government-a policy which inflicts no hardships, reduces the cost of living to the wage-earner, fosters and encourages industry and commerce, and protects where protection is necessary.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: You might read that over again for the benefit of the Saskatchewan bunch.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: And emphasize the word 'moderate'-not 'high' tariffs.


William Garland McQuarrie: Instead of doing that I shall read from another advertisement of my Liberal opponent:
The Liberal policy of reasonable tariffs protects the fanner wherever protection is necessary, and protects not only the farmer-but the whole mass of workers in the Dominion against an artificial and unnecessary increase in the cost of living. Do you know that there are almost forty articles of farm produce on the present customs tariff in force in Canada? The Canadian farmer is protected by Mackenzie King and if the necessity arises at any time these tariffs could be amended to suit the occasion.
Here is another one:
Fair aud reasonable tariff rates which will promote trade and commerce and open the markets of the world to our products-adequate protection for producer and consumer alike, without increasing the cost of living.
I do not know how the Liberal candidates were in other places, but my opponent, Mr. Gray, seemed to find it necessary to come out for protection, and he made a very close run of it too; I think his statements in regard to protection helped him considerably.
There is another little thing in connection with the election in New Westminster that I might mention. They had a very convenient arrangement there when they were making up the voters' lists, because next door to the registration office where the officials were making up the lists was another office which served 
as the Liberal campaign committee room. Outside the office where the voters were being registered was the official proclamation, but the next office had no sign on it at all. People thought that the whole thing together was the registration office, and some would go into the Liberal committee room thinking that was the place to register. They would then be escorted by the people in charge of the committee room into the next office where the registrations were taking place. As soon as registration was over, the Liberal committee rooms were enlarged by taking in the office where the registration had been taking place. Now that kind of an arrangement, it seems to me, is not very decent, to say the least.
Something has been said by the leader of the Progressives in regard to the income tax changes. That subject is necessarily involved in a discussion of the budget. Personally, I am not altogether satisfied with the changes which have been made. I do not say that I am not in favour of reducing the income tax *-not at all; I should like to see it reduced still further-but I do say that the changes made will not have the effect that some people in this country imagine they will have. Comparatively speaking, there are very few people in Canada who will be affected by the extension of the exemption. There are very few people in this country who have to pay any income tax at all, because they are not making enough money. Consequently, the great majority of the Canadian people will not be affected by the increased exemption. On the other hand there are people who are going to be adversety affected, people who have been thrifty enough to accumulate a little money, and to invest it in a safe, sane and conservative manner. Those people are going to be adversely affected. It seems to me the result of that will be to discourage the investment of money 'because individual investors will be taxed to the full extent, although corporations have their tax reduced by one and a half per cent. This will discourage the investment of surplus funds in Canadian industry where it is so much required. A communication dealing with this phase of the subject appears in the Monetary Times of the 23rd instant, and is worth reading.


John Livingstone Brown: We have all read it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I hope you have taken it to heart. There is a point that appeals to me, and that is in regard to the exemption for children. WTe now have an exemption of $500 for children up to the age of eighteen

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
years. I think that age should be increased to at least twenty-one years because, those who have to educate their children, particularly if they are trying to give them a higher education which is desired where possible, know that the cost of maintenance, instead of decreasing after eighteen, really increases up to the age of twenty-one years or more. I would suggest therefore that an exemption be granted for children up to the age of twenty-one years. I think also that there should be exemption for life insurance premiums. At present income tax is paid on these premiums. Now, I think it is advisable to encourage the people of this country to take out life insurance. I am not in the life insurance business, by the way, but I carry some life insurance; and in most of the provinces, and in a great many other countries, life insurance premiums are exempt. Then there is the provincial income tax. At the present time we are paying income tax to the Dominion on the amount that we pay to the provincial government for income tax. Then I think also the exemption for municipal taxes should be restored. You may not have noticed it, Mr. Speaker, but if you will refer to the ways and means resolutions you will find:
That the carrying charges or, expenses of unproductive property or assets not acquired for the purposes of a trade, business or calling or of a liability not incurred in connection with a trade, business or calling shall not be allowed as a deduction in determining income.
This means that on all unproductive property we will now have to pay income tax on taxes which we pay to municipalities. I would suggest another thing, and that is that the assessment should be made by the income tax department, and not by the taxpayer himself. It is very difficult for most of us to make out our income tax statement, but it is still more difficult for us to know how much taxation we should pay, and if we do not pay a sufficient amount, we are fined.
Now in regard to income tax, and referring more particularly to the remarks of the leader of the Progressive party on this subject and his support of income 4 p.m. tax, I would point out that in some other dominions the income tax is being very rapidly diminished, and it is the intention of the governments of those dominions to abolish it altogether. That is the case in Australia.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is there not an income tax
in most of the states?


William Garland McQuarrie: In Australia?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not referring to that, I am referring to the federal income tax in Australia.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. gentleman just
referred to the fact that the Australian government was considering abolition of the income tax.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is not Australia considering the abolition of the income tax because the states have their own income tax?


William Garland McQuarrie: 
John Warwick King: How much of that would be rebated to the companies?


William Garland McQuarrie: None at all.


John Warwick King: Are you sure?


William Garland McQuarrie: None of this would be rebated.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much was collected in luxury tax?


William Garland McQuarrie: I have not the details; someone else will give that. It seems to me that something such as I have suggested might be done, and certainly it would be more effective than the proposal the government now makes, if it is the intention of the government to help the people. It has always been the policy of the present administration to reduce the cost of living although they have never succeeded in doing so. But if, as I suggest, they would take off the sales and luxury taxes then everyone would be relieved.
I am not going to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the reduction in automobile duties. That is something which no doubt will be handled by someone much more competent than myself. My only point-and I want to make it perfectly clear-is that the automobile industry has been very unfairly treated. As stated in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), we had a distinct promise on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the hustings, and a definite promise made in the Speech from the Throne, that any tariff changes that might be introduced would be made only after proper consideration of such industries as might be affected. For this purpose we were told that a tariff board would be appointed, as in fact it has been. We had that statement in the Speech from the Throne, and we actually had the tariff board constituted. Yet, a few days afterwards, the budget was brought down with a very substantial reduction in the duties on automobiles. I say, the automobile manufacturers have been badly treated. They were just as much entitled as anyone else to lay
their side of the story before the tariff board, and they had a right to fair consideration. I do not say that possibly there should not be some reduction in automobile duties; I am not saying that at all. I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject, nor do I think that the members of the government are qualified to decide the question. It may be, however, that thej' have no confidence in their own tariff board. Certainly it is strange that this reduction should have been made so soon after the board was appointed.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the tariff board was a member of the cabinet in the last parliament. He was a very prominent member of the government and one who was thought a great deal of in this House. He had wearied of his job and did not wish to continue in public life; as a matter of fact, he is not in the very best condition to live a strenuous life. He therefore declined to carry on in the cabinet. No one can say that the government could not have found him a seat somewhere. It might have been difficult for him to get elected in Ontario, but he might have gone to Quebec or Saskatchewan. However, after hesitating a long time, and after, as I have no doubt, a great deal of pressure had been brought to bear upon him to continue in the government, he decided that he was not equal to the task. Yet the government appoints him to the position of chairman of the tariff board! Surely that will be an arduous life for him, and I cannot see how under the circumstances we can expect him to be anything more than a tool of the administration. He will not be any different in that position than if he were a member of the present government.


John Warwick King: It is hardly fair for the hon. member to suggest that the chairman of the board will be but a tool of the government. We all know him for what he was in this House, and he is known throughout the country.


Arthur Meighen: May I suggest that if
the minister wishes to make a speech he will have an opportunity.
Mr. MicQUARRIE:	I have no intention
whatever to be disrespectful; indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for the chairman of the tariff board. But what I want to know is why this government, suddenly and without any warning whatever, took this important matter away from the board. Why should they have done so if they had confidence in the board? I want to see a tariff board which will be above and outside of politics, a board which can be relied upon

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
to give a square deal to everyone. In any event, I say that the automobile industry was entitled to a chance to place its case before the board even though the government were not in favour of these manufacturers.
We are interested in certain tariff matters in British Columbia, and I regret to say that some questions in this regard the government have not seen fit to consider. I do not know whether they will be referred to the tariff board or not. Time after time in the last parliament, members on this side of the House brought to the attention of the government the unfair situation which the farmers of the country had to face under the tariff, particularly in relation to eggs and butter. I remember that on one occasion, when the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) were under consideration, I called his attention directly to the fact, and the only reply he volunteered was this. He said, " I am more interested in pulling down duties than in raising them." Two members from British Columbia, the former member for Fraser Valley, Mr. Munro, and the former member for Cariboo, Mr. McBride, stood up in their places and belittled the statements I had made in emphasizing the seriousness of the situation. Right here I want to remind the government that those two gentlemen were defeated at the last election; when they went back to their constituents they received their reward for the stand they had taken in this House on that question.
Now, what is the tariff in this particular? I am going to put on Hansard, with the permission of the House, the tariffs of Canada, Australia and the United States respectively on certain commodities. For the moment I
will refer to two,-eggs and butter. The United States tariff on eggs is eight cents per dozen as against our tariff of three cents, while their tariff on butter is twelve cents, having been increased recently from eight cents. The Canadian tariff is four cents.
In regard to the United States tariff, I think it is a crime that we should place our farmers at such a disadvantage with relation to their American competitors; our tariff at least should be equalized with that of the United States. My constituency borders on the United States, I represent quite a large number of farmers, and they have probably some of the best farms in Canada. It is a crime that when they wish to send their eggs over to the United States they have to pay a duty of eight cents a dozen, whereas farmers in the United States can send eggs into this country at three cents a dozen. If our farmers want to send butter across the line they have to pay twelve cents a pound duty, while we allow American butter to come in under a duty of only four cents a pound. I have contended all the way through that our tariff should be equalized with that of our neighbours. The government might have fixed this with respect to butter and eggs without reference to any tariff board, because they know the present condition of affairs is an absolute injustice to our farmers.


John Warwick King: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend proposes putting the contents of that pamphlet on Hansard?


William Garland McQuarrie: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
even members of this government assume to know. What do we find these farmers are doing? Are they worrying about this situation, or are they not? Well, they have been holding mass meetings of their institutes and associations and have been protesting taost vehemently against the unfairness of the present situation. Why? Do you suppose they do not know their own business? Do you suppose they do not know whether there is any danger to their prosperity? Do you not realize that those men are $ware of the real significance of the present state of affairs?
I say that when the government finds them protesting so emphatically it should pay some attention to their protests. I have before me a number of resolutions, but I am not going to take the time of the House to read them all, I will merely enumerate a few. I have a resolution passed at a mass meeting of poultrymen held at New Westminster January 26, at which were represented many thousands of poultry producers of the mainland of British Columbia. In my constituency and in other constituencies there are a great many returned men who were encouraged to go into the poultry industry and who have done their best to make it a success, but now they are being slapped in the face by this government. I have also a resolution of the Surrey Farmers Institute, passed at Cloverdale, B.C., January 12, 1926; a resolution passed at a mass meeting of poultrymen held at Duncan, B.C., January 5, 1926, representing the poultry-men of Vancouver island; resolutions passed by the Strawberry Hill Poultry Association December 1, 1925, and January 25, 1926; a resolution passed by the Courtney Comox Board of Trade November 13, 1925; a resolution passed by the Comox Creamery Association November 12, 1925, and a resolution passed by the Harmsworth District Farmers' Association November 19, 1925, as to grading. All those resolutions referred to eggs. Then I have a resolution passed by the British Columbia Dairymen's Association at meetings held at New Westminster January 21 and 22, 1926, in regard to butter.
Now, the same subject is of concern to the farmers of Quebec, for I hold in my hand this despatch from Three Rivers, Quebec, dated February^ 26, 1926:
A plea for adequate protection for Canadian butter against foreign competition was made this evening by Frank Byrne, of Charlesbourg, first vice-president of the General Breeders' Association of Quebec, at the closing meeting of its thirty-fourth convention. "If w*

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
[Stage Direction]
could produce 15,000,000 pounds of butter more annually," said Mr. Byrne, "we could sell them, but a difficulty arises in the way of success. Other countries threaten to send their butter here. We ought to hit foreign butter as hard as foreign countries hit our butter. Duties as high as those established by foreign countries ought to be imposed here, and I hope the government will see to it."
I desire to place on record one of the resolutions regarding eggs, to which I have already referred. This resolution was passed at a mass meeting of poultrymen held at New Westminster, British Columbia, on January 12, 1926:
Resolution No. 1:
Whereas, eggs coming into Canada from United States points under a tariff of 3 cents per dozen, are making it unprofitable for British Columbia poultry- . men to send their eggs to the prairie and eastern Canadian markets;
Be it therefore resolved:
(a)	That the federal government be requested as an act of justice to Canadian poultrymen to raise the tariff on United States eggs coming into Canada to 8 cents per dozen, which is the tariff imposed on Canadian eggs going into the United States.
(b)	That the federal government be requested to make the Eggs Marks Act of British Columbia applicable to the Dominion of Canada as a whole.
And be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia and to each of the federal members for British Columbia.
Resolution No. 2:
Whereas, under the Australian-Canadian treaty eggs from Australia are allowed to enter Canada free of duty;
And whereas under the Dominion of Canada egg grading regulations it is possible that eggs from Australia, raised under summer conditions, will be able to enter Canada as fresh eggs at a time when winter conditions prevail in Canada;
And whereas this will increase the already serious competition which Canadian poultrymen have to meet from eggs from the United States;
Be it therefore resolved:
That the federal government be requested to add to the present definition of the word "fresh" the
length of time during which eggs intended for sale as "fresh" in Canada may be held when in transit at a temperature of 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less.
And be it further resolved that copies of this resolution-
And so forth.
Resolution No. 3:
Whereas there is reason to believe that an effort will shortly be made by certain produce dealers in the prairie provinces to secure the modification of the present egg grading regulations, which modification amounts practically to the abandonment of egg grading;
Be it resolved:
That the federal government be requested to make no alteration in the present regulations-
You will notice that this resolution does not specifically call for the increase in the 'Canadian duty against Australian eggs to equal the Australian duty, but that is covered by some of the other resolutions. I wish now to read the resolution passed by the British Columbia Dairymen's Association:
I beg to advise you that ait the annual convention of the British Columbia Dairymen's Association, held on January 21 and 22 last at New Westminster, the following resolution was passed:
Resolved that whereas, at the close of its last session the federal parliament rushed through legislation giving to Australia a preferential tariff on cheese and butter;
And whereas this legislation is likely to discourage the production of cream during the winter months in this country, owing to the maintenance of low prices to meet the competition of Australian products moving to our ports by low ocean rates against our high railway rates;
Be it resolved that this convention goes on record by voicing its disapproval of this concession, and that such action be taken as may be deemed necessary for the protection of our dairy industry.
I have here a return tabled on a motion made by myself, showing the importation of eggs from the United States and other places. With the permission of the House I will place these tables on Hansard:
Countries from which Imported	Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1924	Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1925	Month of December, 1925	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueEggs in the shell-	dozen	$	dozen	$	dozen	$United States	6,454,313	1,961,477	2,564,551	917,100	33,133	16,533China	1,150	174	77,908	15,243	116	31Eggs, n.o.p.-	pounds	3	pounds	$	pounds	$United States	No statistics prior to 1925	413,383	90,729	800	640China	560,257	89,545	157,616	25,395
All I ask, and all any reasonable person could ask, is that we be placed on a businesslike basis in our relations with the other dominions. Give our farmers a fair chance and they are prepared to compete with the world,
[Mr McQuarrie.]
but under present conditions they are at a very great disadvantage.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer for a moment to the question of immigration. I am not going to discuss at any length the

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
question of oriental immigration; I have referred to that on a number of occasions, and any hon. member who is interested may look up Hansard and read my remarks. Other hon. members are prepared to deal with this subject, I believe. I wish to say, however, that the people of British Columbia are not satisfied with what is being done by this government. in the way of effective restriction. The resolution which I moved in 1922 providing for exclusion was defeated, because the government promised effective restriction and the then leader of the Progressive party, Mr. Crerar, stated that he was prepared to give the government a chance. All the hon. members from British Columbia are a unit, I believe, in demanding that there be exclusion, but on that occasion my resolution was defeated, because the government said, "We will give you effective restriction of such a nature that it will practically amount to exclusion, although the word exclusion is not used and therefore will not give offence to Japan."
The people of British Columbia are not satisfied with the way that promise is being carried out. I have a great mass of material which has been sent to me during the present session, particularly from the Oriental Exclusion League of Victoria, covering this question. That league, which is very active, has proposed that, a royal commission be appointed to investigate the whole question of oriental immigration, as well as that of orientals already in Canada, and on that royal commission they believe British Columbia should have the majority representation. That is a matter for consideration. The league also suggests that an effort be made to get orientals already in Canada to go back to their own countries. It is said that thousands of Chinese would go back to China providing they were assisted by the return of a portion of the head tax already paid. In South Africa a policy has been adopted under which bonuses are given East Indians to help them back to India; that policy has not worked out in such a way as to get rid of all the East Indians, but some of them have taken advantage of the opportunity. I am given to understand by the secretary of the Oriental Exclusion League of Victoria that a great many-he says " thousands "-of Chinese would go back to China if some such policy were adopted. They would be glad to go back, because they came to this country under the false impression that they were needed here and would be welcomed. They were brought here more or less under false pretences, for which the trans-14011-178J
portation companies are responsible; they find conditions here not as represented, and they would go back if the government would bonus them to the extent of their steamship fares. If that is so, it might be a good thing to do.
I have referred, Mr. Speaker, to the policy of the Liberal party, announced many, many times on the hustings and in this House and in their platform, that the cost of living would be brought down if they were returned to power. Well, I think that has not turned out to be the case, but rather that the cost of living has gone up, and has been going up practically all the time since thi3 government came into power. In this connection let me refer to the Labour Gazette, a government publication, of February, 1926, where at page 93, I find this:
Retail food prices were again somewhat higher, the cost per week of a list of twenty-nine staple foods for an average family of five, in terms of the average retail prices in some sixty cities was $11.63 at the beginning of January, 1926, as compared with $11.56 for December, 1925; $10.77 for January, 1925; $10.78 for January, 1924; $10.52 for January, 1923; $11.03 for January, 1922; $14.48 for January, 1921; $16.92 for June, 1920 (the peak); $15.30 for January, 1920; $12.42 for January, 1918; and $7.73 for January, 1914.
I am afraid, therefore, that this government has not been successful in carrying out that plank of its platform, and I submit that there must be something wrong. I submit that the government's policy is responsible for this increase, and that the government's policy as announced in the budget this year will be responsible for a still further increase in the cost of living.
Now I come to another matter. This government takes credit for a lot of things. I wonder if it will admit that it is responsible' for the state of affairs to which I am now going to refer, namely that the birth rate in Canada has decreased steadily since October of 1921.
Ernest Lapointe: The whisper of death
is responsible for that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the policy of this government anything to do with that decline in the birth rate? Whether it has or not the fact remains that it is absolutely true; the birth rate in Canada has decreased steadily since October, 1921. I quote from a recent press despatch:
The birth rate continues to fall. In October, 1925, the last month of record, returns from all the provinces except Quebec show a total of 11,887 births in Canada, compared with 12,768 in October, 1924. The equivalent annual birth rate per thousand of population in the eight provinces was 20.5, hawing decreased steadily since October, 1921, when it waa 25.3. Vital statistics for Quebec are not available.
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

The above figures are living births. In October last 416 infants were born dead. There were 129 pairs of twins. Sixty mothers died dn childbirth. Infant montallity also was slightly higher; 1,075 infants under one year old died in October.
There must be a reason for this decrease in the birth rate. Does it mean that our population also has decreased? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this government pursues the policy which has been enunciated in the budget, we shall have a still further decrease in our birth rate, because Canada will not have even the population that it now has.
Another matter I wish to refer to in this connection is this:	In British Columbia,
along the coast and in the outlying districts, a very serious condition exists. A great many children come into this world without a doctor or a nurse being available.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Too many doctors here; that is why.


William Garland McQuarrie: The situation is very serious, and a similar condition might exist in other provinces. It may be responsible for the high infant mortality, but I would suggest to the government a way in which they can help. I submit that this government is doing very little in the way of assisting in this very important matter now, but we have an organization in this country that is doing splendid work, so far as its funds will permit, and that is the Victorian Order of Nurses.


Mr. CHABOT:: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: I submit also that that order is not receiving a decent grant from this government. This government is not giving as much assistance to this organization as some municipalities are subscribing; it grants only $10,000 a year, whch is a disgrace to Canada. I submit that the grant should be very largely increased, and that we should give at least $50,000. If we are as prosperous as the Minister of Finance would give us to understand, surely we can afford to give at least $50,000 to assist the Victorian Order of Nurses. Such a grant would enable them to enlarge their work, and I am sure they would then be able to attend to some of the outlying districts where no assistance is at present being given.
The government is doing very little for the farmers, and there is one branch of farming that is being overlooked entirely, namely, the raising of sheep. No encouragement is being given to our farmers to raise sheep, although I believe conditions in this country
[Mr McQuarrie.]
are suitable for sheep raising. When I was in South Africa I had the pleasure of meeting one of the greatest wool experts in the world, the man who wrote the article on Sheep and wool in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Senator Guthrie, of Australia. He told me that he was surprised we produced so few sheep in Canada. He said that the climate, the soil and the conditions generally were suitable to the large production of sheep in this country. I have in my hand a pamphlet which deals with this subject, and I shall make a short quotation from it:
Canada is a fine sheep country and the raising of sheep is a tremendous factor in successful farming. Yet we keep only 2,500,000 sheep while the size, climate and feed conditions would permit keeping 25,000,000, to grow wool and mutton for home consumption and export. Our farmers should have the profit of growing 50,000,000 of the 70,000,000,000 pounds of wool consumed annually by the people of Canada, instead of growing only 15,000,000 pounds, of which a large quantity is exported.
There are no more sheep in Canada to-day than there were in 1897, because Canada then reduced its duties of woolen goods from Great Britain, which resulted in closing down eighty-eight mills, which reacted on the sheep raising industry.
The government should put a proper duty on and give the sheep producers of this country a chance.


Mr. FORKE:: Take the duty off woven
wire.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have in my hand
a resolution which was passed in February of this year by the advisory board of the British Columbia Farmers Institute, which I believe has been presented to the government, and one of the matters therein referred to is the initiation of a policy designed to stimulate sheep-raising and agriculture generally.
I am sorry to notice also that our trade with South Africa has decreased. That trade, of course, is one-sided even now, but I am happy to see that South Africa has decided to send a trade representative to Canada, Perhaps he will be of service in developing a larger trade. I think we should buy more from South Africa. I pointed that out in a speech which I made last session. I find that, our trade with South Africa has decreased very materially in the last year or so. I would refer anyone interested in the question to the Commercial Intelligence Journal, a government publication, of February 27, 1926, where tables are given and where the matter is discussed. Something is wrong in our dealings with South Africa. This govern-

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
ment is not attending to business as it should; it is not doing anything to encourage trade between that dominion and Canada.
Earlier in the session a resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) which called for better treatment for inmates of the penitentiaries and the payment of an allowance to them for work which they perform. It seems to me that before contemplating
5 p.m. anything of that kind the government might take into consideration the wages paid to the guards in the penitentiaries which are altogether too low. The current report of the Auditor General shows that nine industrial guards employed at the New Westminster penitentiary drew during the year in salary and bonus, a total of $8,388, which would be $932 per man. The four keepers drew $6,003, or $1,501 per man, and the forty-seven plain guards drew $42,973, which averages $915 per man. These guards at the penitentiary are not employed on an eight-hour day or six-day week basis at all; they are engaged in continuous service. The government does not pretend that these sums adequately pay these men, but it rests on the plea of the necessity for economy. I understood the Minister of Justice to say that he was in favour of paying the convicts in the penitentiaries for the work they did. I would say to him:	Before you
do that look into the matter of the wages paid to the guards in the penitentiaries, and give them a fair deal. They are not getting the standard rate of wages. We have in British Columbia, as in other provinces a standard rate of wages which must be paid in connection with all contracts awarded by municipalities, and other public bodies.


Mr. FAFARD:: What were the salaries
paid in 1920?


William Garland McQuarrie: I have not got those
figures here. We find from the record of contracts for works awarded in the vicinity of the penitentiary in British Columbia that contractors are required to pay 45 cents per hour which means $3.60 for an eight-hour day. This in turn represents $21.60' per week and $93.60 per month, or $1,123.20 per year. The penitentiary guards are entitled to a wage at least equal to that and I think the government should do something on their behalf.
I have here a protest and an appeal from the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada dated 20th of March, 1926. I am not going to read it because all hon. members have received a copy of the document. I must say that I believe the complaint set out in the protest is well founded, and that these men have not
received proper consideration from the government. In June, 1923, a parliamentary committee, which inquired into the operation of the Civil Service Act, recommended that immediately after reorganization and reclassification had taken place salary revision and adjustments should be proceeded with without delay, and that pending this revision the bonus should be continued. The protest goes on to say:
At the commencement of the 1924 fiscal year no provision was made for the revision of salaries; and the bonus, admittedly a necessity under the existing low salary ranges, instead of continuing, as recommenuec*, was reduced 33 per cent, creating considerable agitation among civil servants generally. The government responded by requesting the Civil Service Commission to revise salaries commencing with the Post Office Department. On the completion of such revision it was found that instead of removing the cause of the agitation (loss of remuneration) it increased the loss; in other words, the revision in numerous instances allowed even less remuneration than after the original bonus reduction was in operation.
The government have made various promises to the civil service, but the latter have been compelled to wait unduly long for an adjustment of their claims. A finality should be reached in this matter. The civil servants are entitled to know where they stand in regard to their salary, and some permanent arrangement should be made which will be fair to them. My contention is that the civil servants are entitled to a fair and reasonable wage. I do not believe in cutting down wages. If there is a lot of deadwood in the various departments cut it out. We were told that was going to be done, that the new Auditor General would deal satisfactorily with that feature, but so far as I am aware the Auditor General has done practically nothing in that direction. I repeat, if there is dead-wood, cut it out, paying those who are retained in the service a fair and reasonable wage.
Before concluding, I want to refer to a more or less local matter affecting my constituency. We are pleased to see by the financial statement of the Canadian National Railways that a very encouraging advance has been made towards meeting the annual expenditures of that road out of revenue. It seems to me that if that railway is in as splendid a position as has been stated bv the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and Sir Henry Thornton, it should be in a position to fulfil its obligations to the city of New Westminster.
Prior to the government taking over this line, when it was being operated by the Canadian Northern and when the road was being extended to the coast, an arrangement was made with New Westminster. The Canadian
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

Northern officials came to that city and requested that New Westminster should provide a right-of-way for the Canadian Northern through the city so that it could get on its own tracks to Vancouver. They promised certain things to New Westminster and in consideration of those promises the city expended a sum of 1500,000 in widening the street adjoining the river for the purpose of giving this railway a right-of-way. The railway acquired at that time about $1,000,000 worth of property in New Westminster, property which was to be used for the purposes covered by its agreement with that city. Some of that property has been leased, but the most valuable portion of it has been lying idle ever since although some good use should be made of it.
The city of New Westminster is entitled to expect the Canadian National, as being the successor of the Canadian Northern, to carry out the agreement made by the Canadian Northern, as has been done in other cases, for instance in connection with the city of Vancouver. What we ask is that the Canadian National do at New Westminster or on the Fraser river something which at the same time will assist the Canadian National. Of course we think the Canadian National should go on its own tracks to Vancouver. It runs over the Great Northern tracks now, and if you will believe it, Mr. Speaker, at the present time the station at New Westminster used by the Canadian National is in charge of officials of the Great Northern Railway Company, a United States concern. If you call up and ask for the Canadian National Railway station in New Westminster, you will be answered at the other end "Great Northern." Surely if wre are in such a splendid financial position, the Canadian National should have its own agents in New Westminster as in other places.
What we suggest is that the government as being synonymous with the railway should build a government grain elevator at New Westminster. I know, in making this appeal, I have the support of many Progressives because they stood up in the last House and strongly supported the construction of a government grain elevator on the Fraser river. There are certain advantages there and all those advantages apply more particularly to the Canadian National. For instance, if there were a government elevator near New Westminster on the Fraser river, say at Port Mann where the railway already owns a suitable site, and if grain were taken off the cars at Port Mann instead of the cars being routed over to Burrard inlet at Vancouver, there would [Mr McQuarrie.]
be a direct saving to the Canadian National Railways of $13 a car.
Hon. members, more particularly those who come from the west, know how much of their grain is going to go out by Pacific ports and how much is going to be carried by the Canadian National Railways. I say to them: On every car of grain carried by the Canadian National Railways to the Pacific coast, if there is a government elevator at Port Mann there will be a saving of $13 a car. It may be said that that is not a saving to the producers, but I submit it will come back to the producers because they have to pay their share of that 813 a car now and equally so will they derive a benefit from a saving of $13 a car.
Another matter is the time involved in taking these cars over to Vancouver. They have to be switched to the bridge, go across the bridge, then be switched to the Great Northern tracks, taken over to Vancouver, switched to the Canadian Pacific tracks, taken down towards the inlet and then switched to another track and taken to the elevators. All that switching would be done away with and a great deal of time would be saved. Another consideration is that the cost of construction on the Fraser river is very much less than on the salt water. On the Fraser river you can use a pile foundation which will last for fifty years or more. On Burrard inlet the construction has to be concrete because of the teredo which is not found in the fresh water. Sites are already available owned by the Canadian National Railways, namely, site at New Westminster, a site at Port Mann and a site at Woodward's landing a little lower down the river. Any one of these sites would be suitable and Mr. Howe, one of the greatest elevator engineers in Canada, has reported as to the suitability of these sites.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Long Lake) :: How does it come about that no elevators have been built there? There has been a good deal of building in Vancouver in the last number of years.


William Garland McQuarrie: That brings me to
what I was going to say. I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked the question because it will give me an excuse for continuing longer. I was just about to conclude my remarks. I wanted to say something about the Fraser river and I am sorry the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) is not in his seat. The Fraser river is one of the greatest rivers in Canada and for a great part of the distance the channel is deep. In most places it has a depth of fifty feet or more, but in one or two

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
places down at the mouth of the river the depth is not there yet. Although some dredging has been done-and I give the government credit for that-no effective work has been done to complete the job. A programme has no doubt been decided upon, but the government does not finish it. Therefore, although shipping in the port of New Westminster has increased very largely in the last few years and although at present many oceangoing ships come into New Westminster including Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships which do a big business, there are ships which cannot even now get into the Fraser river. The matter is just one of having the channel completed and then we shall have private elevators. There is no doubt that the Grain Growers would have built an elevator at New Westminster if they had had positive assurance that the channel would be completed immediately. I know they had options on property there and that they were satisfied with the property. The only question was as to the channel of the river, and the matter is a very simple one from an engineering standpoint. True enough, it means the expenditure of some money; it will involve the completion of the jetty out on the sandheads. Prior to the war the jetty was constructed for half or perhaps three-quarters of the distance, and it requires but a couple of miles more to complete it. This should1 be done, as well as some other permanent work, and if the government would go ahead and complete the undertaking they would find that private elevators would foe established there. The matter is in the hands of the government of course, and I can only assure them that upon completion of the channel these ships will come in. I admit that the draught of the ships in the gTain carrying trade has increased, and I am also aware that it is necessary to accommodate vessels drawing twenty-eight or twenty-nine feet, whereas we can at the present time provide for a draught of about twenty-six feet only. It must be remembered, however, that a ship of that draught is fairly large.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is annual dredging necessary?


William Garland McQuarrie: The channel has to be kept dredged. We have two dredges, one of which I think should be scrapped altogether. It is not doing any effective work although it is costing the country a large sum annually. It is a suction dredge that takes the sand up into its hold and carries it for deposit in the gulf of Georgia. That is a poor system; all the dredge can do is dig holes. It digs two . or three holes, carries the sand out to sea,
and then attempts to dig more holes adjoining those already made. That is not at all effective, and such a method will never complete the work. I have repeatedly advocated the obtaining of a modem dredge of the King Edward type. I repeat, a certain amount of work will have to be done; but if the engineers are right-and we have had one of the best river engineers in America report upon the river-then, upon the completion of this permanent work, there will be little for the dredges to do. At present we have on the river such business as will warrant the expenditure. It is, I know, of considerable proportions, but if necessary I can give the figures to show the amount of business that is done on the Fraser river. I say therefore that we are entitled to have the channel made sufficiently deep to allow us to get our products out to the markets of the world.
I do not expect in this connection to receive any assistance from the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy). That hon. gentleman is not going to support me in my suggestion so far as Port Mann is concerned. In fact, in the last campaign he advocated that the Canadian National shops at Port Mann should be moved to the city of North Vancouver. In a pamphlet issued at his instance there appears the following:
The future development of the north shore. Whart; will it be? By Dugald Donaghy.
Our interests are opposed to the policy announced by the leader of the opposition, that not another dollar shall be spent in railway extensions. Such a policy will hold back the development of this port. We want to see the Canadian National Railway extended from Port Mann to the city of North Vancouver; we want to see its railway shops and yards constructed on the great tideflat areas on the north shore, and we expect to see many grain elevators constructed along our water front.
That would mean a greater expenditure; it would mean adding to the $13 a car inasmuch as they would have to go on other tracks and be taken over another bridge. There would be a lot more switching, involving an additional . expense. This country owes something to Port Mann, in view of the fact that the Canadian National is a successor to the Canadian-Northern. Port Mann was advertised as the terminus of the Canadian Northern railway and as the site for the car shops and terminal buildings of that system, and a great many people throughout Canada and in other countries as well, purchased land in Port Mann on the strength of the representations which were made at the time of its establishment. I say therefore that in all fairness this government and the Canadian National Railways, instead of taking the car
280S
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

shops away from Port Mann should add to the industries already in operation there. They should encourage the further development of industry in that town.
I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen for having listened to me so patiently. I have taken up some time to-day, but it will be admitted that during the previous part of the session I said very little. We are all, I take it, anxious to promote the interests of our own constituencies, but at the same time it is our desire to help the rest of Canada. In my part of the country we do not manufacture automobiles, but we are willing just the same to see that the industry and those employed in it shall have adequate protection. Similarly, although we do not grow grain to any extent, we are interested in the grain growing business. We wish to see the grain growers and other farmers of the prairies prosperous, because we know that their prosperity will be reflected immediately in our province. When there is a good season on the prairies we have also a good season in British Columbia. We are with the prairie provinces; our interests are identical and we desire to see everything reasonable done to assist those provinces. We desire also to help other parts of Canada. We want to see the Dominion as a whole make progress and become prosperous, and I have no doubt that if we have a good Conservative government in power and if we all work together and in harmony, with the welfare of Canada constantly in view, we shall in a comparatively short time see the vacant spaces in this country fill up with the right kind of population and Canada achieve that position to which she is entitled.
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Long Lake); In rising to make a few observations on the budget and the proposed amendment, I desire first of all to follow so many of those who have preceded me in the debate in offering my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the splendid statement he has submitted to parliament at this time. I am sure he must have had the full co-operation of his colleagues in the government to have been able to present such a financial statement to the House and the country, and I believe that we in Canada are fortunate, particularly at a time like this, in having as Minister of Finance a man in whose integrity, high sense of duty and sound business judgment the great masses of the people have every reason to have confidence.
It is not my intention to follow my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) throughout the whole of his remarks,
lMr McQuarrie.]
but at the outset he read an editorial from the Vancouver Daily Province to this effect;
What Canada needs is a government that can run and is not dependent on the Progressive crutch.
I would ask my hon. friend and those of his party if at the beginning of this session- or even at the present time-they were given control, are they in a position to run?


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I ask my hon. friend a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON (Long Lake); I have put. a question to my hon. friend's colleague.
Mr. McGIBBON; Did the hon. member find the Progressive crutch very useful in the past?


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend has not answered my question. Even if given control of the government now, are he-and his party in a position to run-to administer the affairs of state?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: I should say not. The only place they could run would be to the country. How does that gibe with the direct bid which was made to the Progressives by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) at the opening of this session? The rules do not permit me to-quote the hon. gentleman's speech, but if I remember correctly, his language was something like this, and he stated he was making his bid in the presence and with full knowledge of his leader:	That if the Progressives
m this House would join hands in supporting the Conservative party, that party would carry on from session to session until the full parliamentary term was exhausted.


Peter McGibbon: If they had the confidence of the House.


John Frederick Johnston: Certainly;
no government can carry on without the confidence of the House. That is what this government is doing and has done since the opening of the session.


Peter McGibbon: Does my hon. friend say that is a bribe then?


John Frederick Johnston: Well, I do not know what else you would call it.


Peter McGibbon: Then you admit that you are bribing them.


John Frederick Johnston: Certainly
not. Then my hon. friend from New Westminster referred to the Prime Minister as a wobbler. Well, let me ask my hon. friend.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
if his leader did not wobble from his previous stand in connection with Canada's participation in the empire's wars in his Hamilton speech. I want to know if the hon. member for New Westminster, or even the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), agrees with his leader in his Hamilton speech. They are not so ready with an answer, Mr. Speaker.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the hon. member state exactly what speech he is referring to?


John Frederick Johnston: The speech of my hon. friend's leader in Hamilton.


William Garland McQuarrie: What did he say?


John Frederick Johnston: I would have thought my hon. friend knew very well what his hon. leader said on that occasion.


William Garland McQuarrie: Quote it to us.


John Frederick Johnston: I have not the speech before me.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have heard a great many versions of what my right hon. leader-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Garland McQuarrie: Wait a minute.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order:


An hon. MEMBER:: You had all the afternoon.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have not yet heard
from the leader of the opposition what he did say on that occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Garland McQuarrie: You asked me a question and now you will not let me answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: No speech.


William Garland McQuarrie: Before I can answer
that question I must know definitely what my leader did say. But I have never yet known him to make any statement that I did not entirely agree with.


Ernest Lapointe: When wrong they are
misquoted.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not
wish to misquote my hon. friend's leader. I think I shall do him no injustice when I say this is the gist of his words in Hamilton: that if the empire was embroiled in another war, and he were prime minister of this country, before he would plunge Canada into that war he would not only call parliament together but he would appeal to the people. Does my hon. friend subscribe to that doctrine?


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not prepared to
take the hon. gentleman's guess of any statement made by my hon. leader.


John Frederick Johnston: Well, so
much for the remarks of my hon. friend for New Westminster about wobbling. I notice that he criticized the treaty with Australia and wanted the duty raised on butter and eggs. Well, I think I can show my hon friend that so far that treaty has not worked to the detriment of the dairy industry of this country. I have before me the wholesale and retail prices of butter in the city of Ottawa for the winter months during the past three years, and I think they pretty well indicate whether or not Australian butter entering Canada during the past winter has injured our dairy industry. These are the figures:
	Wholesale	Retail
December, 1923	
42	43January, 1924	
42	45February, 1924	
42	45March, 1924	
42	4537	40December, 1924	
38	42January, 1925	
38	4237	40February, 1925	
37	4034	37March, 1925	
34	3737	40December, 1925	
45	4847	50January, 1926	
47	5045	48February, 1926	
45	4847	50March, 1926	
47	50Now, if the hon.	gentleman will	analyse
those figures he will find that the price of butter in this city, both wholesale and retail, for March, 1926, was exactly ten cents a pound more than it was in March, 1925.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the financial statement which the Minister of Finance has presented to parliament, gives great encouragement to the Canadian people. We have a favourable balance of trade amounting to over $400,000,000. The proposed reduction in taxation of $25,000,000 will be a welcome relief to our people who have been so heavily taxed since the war. This, coupled with a revenue sufficient to meet all our expenditures and provide $22,000 000 in reduction of the national debt, will, I am sure, give fresh hope and courage to all Canadians from coast to coast. The reduction in the income tax, the doing away with the stamp tax, and the decision to revert to penny postage on Dominion day, all go to prove that better times have returned.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask a question? Does the hon. member seriously suggest to this House that he is a greater authority than the statistical branch of the Department of Railways, which absolutely contradicts him?


John Frederick Johnston: It ha3
been said, Mr. Speaker, that figures do not lie but that statistics may be made to say anything. The figures I have given are the net returns of the Canadian Pacific Railway month by month and it is up to my hon. friend to refute them.
The hon. member for New Westminster gave some quotations from letters, advertisements and so on. I am going to read one or two. I have a letter from a friend in western Canada under date of April 19, which is so directly opposite to that read by my hon. friend that I think it should go on Hansard. It goes on to say:
It is far and away the most popular thing the government has done since it came into office, not, o-nly because of the reductions in income tax and automobile duties but because it will give the impression that the government is showing capacity to deal with the pressing problem of taxation. The reductions in the latter, amounting to $25,000 000 are,
I think, more than anyone expected. It was a bold stroke but one which I think will be justified by events. Undoubtedly the country is swinging into a much better condition of prosperity than it has enjoyed for years. The result of this will be to swell the revenues from practically all sources and it is therefore reasonable to expect that our revenues for the present year will still be sufficient and probably more than sufficient to meet our expenditures. But there is another aspect of the matter too. Governments, like individuals, are always tempted to spend freely when the cash is available. The mere fact that

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
$25,000,000 of taxes has been swept away will impress upon the government in even greater degree the need for all the economy that can be practised by the administration, so that 'the net result of the budget will be not only to give a much needed relief in taxation but to promote as well a better attitude of mind in the government and in parliament to expenditures.
The reduction in duty on automobiles will also be popular. 1 notice that some of the automobile 'people in Ontario have raised a row and threaten to close their factories and do all sorts otf things. As an illustration, a friend of mine here was negotiating for a car a few days before the budget was brought down. He was informed this morning that the price, as a result of the budget, will be reduced $155. This means that everyone in Canada that buys a car to-day will buy it cheaper because the duty has been reduced, and since there are a great many people buying cars they will naturally be pleased that they can buy them more cheaply. In other words, the budget has put money in their pockets in this respect and ifor that reason will 'be popular.
The opinion expressed in that letter is, I am sure, generally held throughout western Canada. I have here an editorial from the Saskatoon Star, headed "Good Advertisement," which says:
The national budget of this country interests others besides Canadians. It interests those in the United States and overseas who are considering migration to Canada or investment in Canada. British capitalists especially, when thinking of investment abroad, pay particular attention to the national finances of the country they have in mind. Deficits, additions to debt and tax increases impress them unfavourably. Surpluses, reductions of debt and taxation have the opposite effect.
The budget just brought down at Ottawa by Hon. J. A. Robb will therefore be an excellent advertisement of Canada beyond the boundaries of the Dominion. It showed a surplus of revenue over expenditure for the last fiscal year, of $55,000,000. That will be taken (to reflect a return of prosperity and a gain in financial strength. It showed a cut in the national debt, which will be interpreted in the same way. It provided for tax reductions and that, of course, will enhance the attractiveness of Canada for intending immigrants as well as for investors.
One hopes that the preachers of blue ruin will not spoil the picture. They have already worked great harm to Canada by misrepresenting conditions.
It is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard the last of the whispers of death and calamity howling by our Conservative friends in this country, which we have been .so accustomed to hear in the last four years. But even with a financial statement such as is now before parliament it is hard for our Conservative friends to stop decrying conditions in this country.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), speaking in this debate, said- Hansard, page 2459:
We on this side of the House congratulate the people of Canada on the improved condition which has re

cently arisen as compared with the unfortunate state of affairs that has prevailed during the past four years. Now, if we are not inclined to bestew much of the credit for this improvement on the government of the [DOT]day, no one can complain. This country has improved
to some extent, not on account 'of any effort of the government but in spite of the government. For if the prosperity of a country was ever hindered or delayed by an organization of human beings this country has been so hndered and delayed through the administration of the King government.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the trade figures are a pretty good index as to conditions in this country, and I am going to give the trade returns for the fiscal years from 1922 up to the present time. If these figures are looked into it will be seen that year after year since our Conservative friends went out of office there has been a steady expansion in our trade. In 1921, the last year that the Conservatives held sway in this country, our imports exceeded our exports by $29,000,000 The figures for the succeeding years are as
follows:
Fiscal year ending March 31st, 1922-
Imports	5 747,804 332
Exports	 753,927,009
Total trade	$1,501,731,341
Favorable balance	 6,122.677
Fiscal year ending March 31st, 1923-
Imports	5 802 579,244
Exports	 945,295,837
Total trade	$1,747,875,081
Favorable balance	 142,716,593
Fiscal year ending March 31st, 1924-
Imports	5 893,366.867
Exports	 1,058,763.297
Total trade	$1,952,130,164
Favorable balance	 165.396,430
Fiscal year ending March 31st, 1925-
Imports	5 796,932,537
Exports	 1,081,361,643
Total trade	$1,878,294,180
Favorable balance	 284,429,106
Fiscal year ending March 31st, 1926-
Imports	5 927,000,000
Exports	 1,330,000.000
Total trade	$2,258,534 000
Favourable balance	 402,695,000
If those figures mean anything, they certainly mean a great expansion in the trade of this country since the year 1922, and if Providence, as some hon. member suggested the other evening, has had everything to do with this showing, I think it would be a good and a wise thing for the people of this country to keep in power a government that seems to be in line with Providence.
My hon. friend from South Wellington would give no credit at all to the government. He says that during the past four years this country has been anything but looked after by the King government. Well, Mr. Speaker, back in 1896 we had a general election in this country which resulted in a change of government. It
2	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
took the new government that came in about four years to get the ship of state in order, but everybody in this country knows, the years from 1900 up until 1911 were Canada's greatest growing time. Then in 1921 the present administration came into office. Many good acts have been put on the statute book since they came into power, but the full result of their work and careful financing has not been seen until the budget was brought down this year. The reduction in taxation proposed by this budget, I am sorry to say, does not appeal so much to Conservatives in this House as it does to Conservatives outside, who are more free to speak. I have here a Canadian press despatch from Toronto headed "Former Finance Minister Praises Budget Brought Down by Mr. Robb," and reading as follows:
Toronto, April 19th.-The reduction in income taxes announced in Hon. J. A. Rotyb's budget speech on April 15th was hailed as a step in the right direction by Sir Thomas White, former Canadian Minister of Finance, in addressing the Canadian dub to-day on Canada's problems. "Let us hope that the next step will be a longer one in the same direction,'' Sir Thomas said: "The burden of our direct taxation is still very heavy and places us at a great disadvantage as compared with our keenest competitor, the United States." One-Quarter of the net annual production of Canadians was ipaid out in taxes, S:r Thomas estimated. This was a drag on business and enterprise. The problem was to pay interest charges on the national debt, and reduce it, without unduly heavy taxation.
Taxes invoked to pay war expenses should not remain a day longer than necessary, the speaker said. Sir Thomas declared that if the special war taxation was greatly reduced the necessary extra revenue would come from the great improvement in business which would surely result from the tax reduction.
One is glad to hear these words even from the gentleman who, in my opinion, is more responsible than any other individual in Canada for the heavy load of taxation which the Canadian people are bearing to-day. Sir Thomas White, as Minister of Finance during the war period, had opportunities, when money was freer in this country, to levy taxation so that the people would not have felt it. He had a chance to do that and to get the necessary money for this purpose, but he did not grasp the opportunity. During the war, when Sir Thomas White was floating his war loans, his own friends, Conservatives from one end of the Dominion to the other, tried to persuade him to make the income from those loans taxable, but he continued to float loan after loan by means of the issue of tax-free bonds. His reason given for not making these bonds taxable was that if he did so he could not get the money. But what happened after his retirement? The hon, member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) became Minister of Finance, and within three

months after assuming office he floated a loan and by means of taxable bonds obtained more money than Sir Thomas White ever did through the medium of tax-free bonds, showing that the latter's statement that the Canadian people were not patriotic enough to lend the government money in its hour of need was ill-founded. So we are suffering to-day from heavy taxation, much of it, in my opinion, needlessly imposed on the country, because it involved amounts which could have been paid off during the war period.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was directing the attention of hon. members to some statements made by the hon. member for South Wellington in his speech in this debate. I now wish to draw attention to another of the hon. gentleman's statements which will be found on page 2460 of Hansard:
I say, Sir, that if the government had properly administered the various departments of state millions and millions, yes, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars o.f taxation could have been taken off one, two, or three years ago. If the administration of the customs department had been what it should have been there would have been an increase of revenue from customs and excise, duties sufficient to have allowed large reductions in taxation.
It will be noticed that my hon. friend was not careful in his use of words. It mattered little to him whether it was one million, tens of millions or hundreds of millions-a lot of money could have been saved one year ago, two years ago or three years ago. He stopped there because had he gone back four years he would have been getting a little close to the danger line, the year when his friends were in office-those who, to my mind, are responsible, as I stated before dinner, to a very large extent at least for the heavy debt that is on this country at the present time. The hon. member criticizes the government for their proposed reduction in the duties on automobiles.


Peter McGibbon: Did the hon. member
not vote for a great deal of that debt?


John Frederick Johnston: Doubtless
I did as a member of this House, but I was not one of those having the administration of the affairs of this country in hand as was the hon. member for South Wellington and my hon. friend's leader.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
The hon. member for South Wellington has no faith in the personnel of the advisory board on tariffs and taxation. While he pays a tribute to the Right Hon. George P. Graham, he has no faith in Mr. Graham's ability as chairman of this board. I should like to ask my hon. friend whether the fact that the Right Hon. Mr. Graham has served this country well and capable in another capacity for the past thirty years has totally unfitted him for serving Canada in another sphere. I do not think my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman opposite thinks so. These things are said in order to create suspicion in the public mind and to make it more difficult for this board to function efficiently.
But just why did not this government and this parliament have a perfect right to reduce the duties on automobiles or any other commodity at this time if they saw fit so to do? If I understand the matter correctly, this board is an advisory board and if at any time the government and parliament decide that duties are too high on any commodity, we as the representatives of the people have a perfect right to reduce those duties. Now that the board is constituted and with a personnel that I feel sure the people of this country have confidence in and will learn to have more and 'more confidence in as time goes on, I believe action of this kind will not be necessary; but to say that the government and parliament did not have the right to reduce the duties on automobiles is to my mind beside the question.
I wish to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) who, I am sorry, is not in his seat. As reported on page 2644 of Hansard my hon. friend used this language:
The fact may have struck others, as it has certainly struck me, that in some quarters in this House iit is only necessary in order to provoke applause to make sneering references to the manufacturers.
I pause here to ask the hon. member who used these Words or any other hon. gentleman opposite to point to any one instance where members from western Canada jeered at the manufacturers of this country.


Peter McGibbon: Go and read Hansard. It is full of them.


John Frederick Johnston: I have read Hansard and I give my hon. friend an opportunity right now to point to a case of any individual member of this House having jeered when the name "manufacturer" was used in this chamber.
In certain parts of the chamber, notably in the section representing the province of Saskatchewan,
there is immediately a tremendous clapping when such remarks are made touching the manufacturers. Is that right? I notice, however-
And this is the reason of the statement.
It is not hard to see:
I notice, however, that hon. gentlemen from Quebec never do that; they never applaud any sneering remarks made at the e&peitse of the manufacturers. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is noticeable a distinct line of demarcation between those who applaud the abuse of manufacturers and those who do not. The representatives from Saskatchewan always do; those from Quebec do not. And how those two elements, so utterly different, can get together solely for voting purposes, I do not know and cannot understand.
The hon. gentleman sets up a straw man in order that he may knock him over; he puts up an argument in order that he may draw a line between hon. members from Quebec and hon. members from Saskatchewan on this side of the House. The understanding between members of this House from these two provinces is too firmly grounded to be broken by any such tactics. Those of us from Saskatchewan have come to know our friends from Quebec as reasonable men, men who are always ready to sit around the table and discuss our problems and grievances and help us as far as possible to solve them, and I will say to hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly from Ontario, that if they would cultivate a little more the acquaintance of members from Saskatchewan they would find them willing to support such policies as are beneficial to Canada as a whole. Many o' us from Saskatchewan first saw the light of day in the old province of Ontario. We have nothing but kind thoughts for the people of this province, and I submit that statements like those made by the hon. member for North Oxford do not become a member of the House, while they tend to create dissension and sectional differences, of which we have had altogether too much in this country in past years.
My hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) the other day put certain figures on Hansard in regard to manufactured products which he said we could make in this country. He gave a considerable list, including binder twine, fertilizers, paints, varnishes, soap, firebricks, cotton yarns and fabrics, dyes, and so forth. Certainly we could produce a whole lot of these things, but the question is, would it pay Canada to produce them? Would it be economically sound for us to attempt to manufacture these things? There is no doubt in the world, of course, that we could produce them; for that matter we could produce strawberries in January if we cared to. I do not know whether it would be profitable for Canada
2814	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
to produce these articles, nor does my hon. friend himself know. It is very easy to say that we can manufacture this, that and the other thing, but let us first make sure whether or not we can manufacture them at a profit, and to the advantage of Canada. Take cotton textiles, for instance. We do not produce one ounce of the raw material in this country. We have to import it, and then we put up a tariff wall protecting the manufactured article. Now it is a grave question whether this is paying Canada.


Peter McGibbon: How much rubber is
produced in the United States, and how much raw cotton is grown in Great Britain?


John Frederick Johnston: If the
hon. gentleman wants information as to how much rubber is produced in the United States he can go there and get it.


Peter McGibbon: Well, do they not make rubber goods there?


John Frederick Johnston: I am
speaking of cotton, not rubber.


Peter McGibbon: How much cotton is
grown in Great Britain?


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for East Algoma has another item on his list-rolling-mill products. This is a product which is in an entirely different class from cotton, for we have the iron ore and we have the coal. It might therefore be economically sound for Canada to give some little protection to that industry to get it under way, and this is one of the questions for the tariff board to decide upon. It is for this reason that I support the appointment of that board.


Peter McGibbon: Why not automobiles?


John Frederick Johnston: The automobile business has been well looked into by hon. gentlemen in this House, and I have no doubt my hon. friend did the best he could to bolster up the case against the action of the government. However, I am not dealing with that question at the moment.
As I observed before, history repeats itself, and I now want for a few moments to take the House back some considerable distance in the history of this country to show that the Conservative party is attempting to-day just what the Conservative party attempted in 187S. If that party had its way to-day the same result would follow as ensued at that time. In the year 1878 Sir John A. Macdonald moved in the House of Commons by way of amendment to the bud-
get a resolution to which I would ask the patient attention of the House:
That the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that this House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of national policy, which by a judicious readjustment of the tariff will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion: that such a policy will retain an Canada thousands of our fellow countrymen who now are obliged to expatriate themselves in search of employment denied them at home;
Is not- that what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mcighen) has been doing for years? All through the last campaign we heard the same sort of propaganda. The very same thing which the right hon. gentleman has been predicting was hoped for by Sir John A. Macdonald.
-will restore prosperity of our struggling industry now so badly depressed; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade-
I commend the next few words to hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces.
and, moving as it ought ito do. in (the direction of reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will gradually tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade.
These were the hopes and aspirations of the Conservative party in 1878, echoed by the leader of the opposition during the last few years, and the battle cry during the recent campaign. Give industry more protection, we have been told, and we shall not only hold our people in Canada but attract outsiders as well. What is there in all that for the Maritime provinces?


Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton):: That was the period of our greatest prosperity in the Maritime provinces.


John Frederick Johnston: Let us see how that policy worked out. In 1878 our Conservative friends came into office, and in 1879 adopted a new tariff. They raised the general tariff on all imports, dutiable and otherwise, to 19.1, or five points. You will notice in the resolution that Sir John A. Macdonald declared that if such an increase were made in the tariff there would be an addition to our population in this country. Weli, we had in 1881 a population of 4,324,810. During the decade up to 1891, if we had held our natural increase we should have had, with immigration, a population of 5,859,508. But the statistics show that the population in that year was only 4,833,239. This means that during that period, with a substantial increase in customs duties, more protection for industry and with the national policy on trial for

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
three years, we had lost 1,026,000 people. But our Conservative friends say, "Forget all that. Do not review past history; take our word for it. Give us more protection and all will be well." In 1896 we had another general election, and a change of 'government. In that year only 16,000 people entered Canada, so that things were not very prosperous; the conditions were not such as to attract many immigrants to our shores. The general rate of duty on all goods coming into Canada, dutiable or otherwise, stood then at 19.2 and our total trade amounted to $231,000,000. During the few years following, though the reductions in customs duties were slight, there was a corresponding increase in; trade. As I have said, in 1896 the general rate of duty was 19.2 and our total trade amounted to $231,000,000, and in 1897 there was a slight reduction bringing the duty to 18.7. What was our total trade then? It had risen to $249,000,000. In 1898 there was another reduction in the duty to 17.5 and the trade in the meantime had increased to $294,000,000, while in 1911, that fateful year for Canada, the general rate of duty was 16.2, the trade having mounted up to $759,000,000. And what about population? Everyone will agree that the decade between 1901 and 1911 was Canada's growing period. In 1901 we had a population of 5,371,315, and when the Liberals went out of office in 1911 we had 7,296,643. In other words, theTe had been an increase of 1,835,328. It would seem that lower duties had something to do with the increase in trade, and an increase in trade and prosperity means an increase in population.


Mr. FOSTER:: Does my hon. friend not
think that railway construction between 1900 and 1911 had a great deal to do with the increase in population?


John Frederick Johnston: I am ready to admit that, but the railway construction in that period was due to the fact that as a result of a large immigration we needed transportation facilities. In that year we had a general election. That was the year we were to have no more truck or trade with the Yankees. Did voting against reciprocity in 1911 stop our trade with our American cousins? Not at all. In 1923 our total trade reached $1,733,009,000; of this $918,000,000 was with the United States and $520,000,000 with the United Kingdom. In 1924 our trade with the United States had risen to $943,000,000, and for the last fiscal year it reached the huge total of $1,081,000,000. So voting against reciprocity in 1911 did not stop Canadians trading with the Yankees. I think these figures prove
that high protection for industry has not made Canada prosperous, and that the policy Sir John A. Macdonald inaugurated in 1878 did not accomplish what he hoped and foretold it would do-keep our people at home and materially increase our population.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: What was the policy
of Mr. Fielding between 1898 and 1911?


Charles A. Stewart: It certain]} was not high protection.


George Brecken Nicholson: It was just as high as it had been before.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon.
friend has not been following the figures I have been giving. He asked what the policy of Mr. Fielding was between 1896 and 1911.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Stability.


John Frederick Johnston: Stability
with a downward trend.
Mr. HO'CKEN: Mr. Fielding did not say that.


John Frederick Johnston: The figures prove it. In 1896 the general customs rate stood at 19.2. There were gradual reductions in the next four years until in 1911 it stood at 16.2-three full points down.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is the hon. gentleman able to inform the House that the trend of duties will be still lower?


John Frederick Johnston: I am hopeful.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You are hoping right, anyway.


John Frederick Johnston: To my
mind, Mr. Speaker, this is a people's budget. It is such a budget as will give Canadians new heart.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And lose their jobs.


George Brecken Nicholson: What will it do for the people in the United States?


John Frederick Johnston: Why, Mr. Speaker, will my Conservative friends be so pessimistic? Let some person lose his job before we start whining. Why, if the manager of General Motors, Oshawa, instead of giving to the press the statement he did, had said to the people of this country, "We do not know what this reduction in automobile duties is going to do to our plant, but we are going to put the Canadian people to the test. We are manufacturing a good article. We will probably have to cut out a few lines. Are the people of Canada going to support ua and purchase the lines that we continue to
2816	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
manufacture, to such an extent that we can employ all the people we now have in our factories?" If Mr. McLaughlin had said something like that the Canadian people would probably have risen to the occasion. So much for the budget.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government's legislative programme strikes me as being one of real progress. There is an amount in the estimates for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is aware of the fact that the official of the Ontario government who has to do with such matters has issued a statement that in the month of March last over 5,000 native born Canadians applied for certificates to enter the United States?


John Frederick Johnston: I do not know what that has to do with automobile duties or the budget.


Robert Forke: It was before the budget was brought down.


John Frederick Johnston: Probably 4,990 of those people applied for their certificates before the budget was brought down. Does my hon. friend know?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It was before the budget was brought down; but that is the number for one month from the province of Ontario alone.


John Frederick Johnston: I was
speaking about the legislative programme of the government.


Peter McGibbon: Get away from the last point to safety.


John Frederick Johnston: I have no desire to get away from this reduction of duties on automobiles. I think I see some hon. gentlemen opposite who voted for the resolution last year to reduce the automobile duties. I am not so sure but what my hon. friend who has been putting questions to me voted that way.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I never voted that
way.


John Frederick Johnston: Well, other hon. gentlemen did, particularly from the Maritime provinces. I wonder what they will do this time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait and see.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, we will wait and see.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman voted for a speech from the throne favouring examination first. What is he going to do this time?


John Frederick Johnston: My right hon. friend is adept at drawing a fine line. He is blessed with better sight than most of us; he can split a hair four ways and still have some left.


Peter McGibbon: Might I remark that the hon. member is adept at changing his politics? He has been in three parliaments and has supported three parties.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend is absolutely wrong, but even if that were so I have only gone one better than my hon. friend. Party names and shibboleths, Mr. Speaker, mean very little to me, but I submit that my right hon. friend, or the right hon. leader of the opposition, who seems to be deriving a certain amount of enjoyment out of all this-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


John Frederick Johnston: -cannot point to one vote since I came to this parliament ten sessions ago in which I have left the principles which I upheld when I was first nominated in 1914.
I was saying that the legislative programme of the government appealed to me. The vote in the estimates for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway is, I think, very well timed. I am not prepared to say now that, the project is feasible as a grain carrying route, but we have put $20,000,000 into the enterprise; every political party has pledged itself to the completion of the road, and having spent that money it seems to me there is only one thing to do in view of all the conflicting reports, pro and con. We should go ahead and prove thi3 thing out, and the way to do that is to get the rails laid to the bay. For that reason I say the government are to be congratulated for putting an amount in the estimates to provide for the completion of this road. Then there are the other matters of rural credits, revaluation of soldier, lands, old age pensions, and so on. I am sure this programme is such as to commend itself to all Liberals with a progressive outlook.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) who has just left the chamber, was somewhat disturbed as to my position in this House. For his information I am going to read a resolution passed by the

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Long Lake)
executive of the Long Lake Progressive Association:
The executive of the Long Lake Progressive Association, having carefully considered the present political situation at Ottawa and particularly the following phases of the situation, that is:
1.	The official declaration on the floor of parliament that the Conservative party is determined on a higher tariff.
2.	The outline of proposed legislation by the King government contained in the Speech from the Throne bearing on western conditions, particularly rural credits, Hudson Bay railway, branch lines and the attitude on the tariff question.
3.	The general attitude of the Liberal party at Ottawa on Canadian affairs.
Be it resolved that the member for Long Lake, J. Fred Johnston, should co-operate with and support the Liberal administration of Mr. King to the fullest extent to the end that the legislative programme cut-lined in the Speech from the Throne may be carried into effect.
And we believe that such action by Mr. J. Fred Johnston will bring great benefit not only to Saskatchewan but to the whole of Canada.
We /believe that if Canada is to be saved from disunion and disintegration and stagnation the Conservative party must be kept in opposition, and to accomplish this all those holding low tariff views must unite.
Carried.
Dated at Regina in the province of Saskatchewan this 13th day of March, 1926.
I hope that will set my horn friend right.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. MeQuarrie) referred this afternoon to something which happened during the campaign. In this connection I would like to pay my respects to the right hon. leader of the opposition. He has a habit, when coming west, of visiting the constituency which I have the honour to represent; he paid us a visit in 1921 and again during the last campaign. There is a little town called Bethune in my constituency, which has been quite consistently Tory and with one exception has always given Tory majorities. The faithful there thought it would be a fine thing to have the right hon. gentleman run out and visit them when he was at Regina, which he did; his special car was dropped off at Bethune, and there was great rejoicing among the clan. There were many visitors to the car; a meeting was held in the afternoon, a banquet was tendered to the right hon. gentleman, and my friends were feeling rather blue. My right hon. friend always makes an impression.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Frederick Johnston: Wait until I finish, and probably my hon. friends will not clap so much. The right hon. gentleman always makes an impression, but whether or not it lasts is another thing. He did so on that occasion; he was well received, and he HOll-179
had my friends in the dumps, so to speak. But when election day rolled around that consistently Tory poll gave a majority to the present member for Long Lake over his two opponents.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Was Baldy Robb down
there?


John Frederick Johnston: I think I was the baldest man there, with the possible exception of my right hon. friend.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Does not my hon. friend remember Baldy Robb?
Mr. JOHNSTON (Long Lake); Really, Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. friend is referring to a notorious character who has received some notoriety of late through the newspapers, in connection with some election scandals in the province of Alberta. I have never met the gentleman, but I see a smile of satisfaction on the face of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken), which would lead one to think Mr. Robb a very close friend of his.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is far fetched. We had a Baldy Robb ourselves.


John Frederick Johnston: We did not have Mr. Robb or any of his ilk in Long Lake, but we got away with a majority despite the fact that my right hon. friend was there. The message I wished to convey to him, if I had not been interrupted, was an invitation to come again during the next election campaign. He can come just as often as he wishes.


Peter McGibbon: What colours will my hon. friend be running under next time?


John Frederick Johnston: The same old colours. I would like to set at rest once and for all the mind of my hon. friend the gallant member for Muskoka, who is so noisy over there and who seems perturbed as to my political colour. There is one thing he can be absolutely sure of, and that is that for all time to come I shall be anti-Tory.
I want to close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with an old Greek proverb,-ton kalon kateko -hold fast that which is good. St. Paul used that proverb and enlarged upon it in his Epistle to the Thessa'lonians when he said: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." That was good philosophy in the days of Plato and Socrates, it was good gospel in the days of St. Paul, and it is mighty good politics to-day. My advice to the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, is to stay close with the present government, for there is nothing else offering that is nearly as good.

The Budget-Mr. Bird
COMMONS *


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that the budget seems to me to be a very pleasing kind of document, not so much for what it specifically contains as for what it indicates and foretells concerning the prosperity of our country. I notice that our Conservative friends have been very industrious in trying to divest the government of any credit whatsoever for this prosperity. I think they could afford to be more generous. Personally I find it a very easy matter to accord to the government at least the negative merit of having done nothing to prevent this prosperity. Whatever they have done or have not done, they have evidently kept out of the way of Providence while Providence has been working its beneficent aims. Many generations ago it was said of one government that the foolishness of men had made the goodness of God of none effect. Evidently the Liberals have not managed to make the goodness of God of none effect. In spite of all that the government may have done or left undone, in spite of all the forebodings of the opposition, Providence has gone on its way and has brought to us a measure of prosperity. A saying of the poet comes to me:
There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough -hew thorn how we will.
I think the same Providence shapes our political ends. From the Conservative point of view it has saved the government, and from the government point of view it has saved the opposition; that is, it has helped the opposition to explain away their doleful prophecies of October last. I wonder what the opposition would have done if they had all been atheists and had not believed in Providence? They would have had to hand the palm to the government; there is no alternative so far as I can see.
What is this wonderful Providence that has brought Canada back to this Prosperity? It is merely the co-operation of the brawn and brain of western farmers with the soil and the showers and the sun; that is what Providence is, and it is very pleasing to the Progressives to hear the very thing they have been contending for for five years now proved up to the very hilt, namely, that agriculture in this country is at the bottom of all our prosperity. For five years we have been trying to prove to this House that if you could make agriculture prosperous you would solve all our problems.
The course of this debate has been considerably influenced by the provision for a reduction in the duties on automobiles. Our Conservative friends deprecate this action without investigation first having been made.

Now if it had been anything else but automobiles one might have had a measure of agreement with their contention, but it seems to me that this House and the country know sufficient about the automobile industry without having to invoke any tariff commission. As I have been listening to the protestations of our friends to the right, I have been wondering what has become of their guarantee that in case they were called to power and had to maintain or increase our tariffs, they wrould see to it that there would be no profiteering; and if, over the automobile industry and this slight reduction in the tariff, our protectionist friends can work up so much excitement, produce so much sentiment, and shed so many tears, what would they do about less favoured industries? It seems to me that if we cannot lower the tariff on the automobile industry, there is not an industry in Canada on which we can lower the tariff. If they will do these things in the green tree, what will they do in the dry?
The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), to whose very able speech I listened with interest, worked himself up into such a state of elevation about the automobile industry that he actually seemed to visualize the prosperity of Canada standing like an inverted pyramid on the top of a Ford car. The Ford car has been the butt of a million jokes, but I think that is the best one yet-that any hon. member should seriously consider for a moment that the prosperity and progress of this great country rests on that agglomeration of rattles and squeaks known as the Ford car.
Now, I was a very interested spectator of the delegation which thronged the doors of this parliament the other day. I think they were very sincere; I think they really felt that something was about to happen to them. But after all, what does an argument of that kind amount to? I think any one of us can visualize another kind of crowd that could just as easily have been assembled and would have held diametrically opposed views; people just as hard-working, just as honest, just as loyally Canadian with homes to be anxious about, with wives and children; the same kind of crowd, a Canadian crowd, quite as big and quite as vociferous. Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen if legislation or policy in this House is to be influenced by the biggest crowd which can gather round the front doors of this building? I noticed some of the legends which the delegation bore. One of them was very significant; l ean hardly believe that

The Budget-Mr. Bird
it would originate in the mind of a workingman. That legend was:	"On to Ottawa".
Now that phrase, adapted in that form, is a very sinister phrase to me.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. gentleman think the ordinary workingman is incapable of originating anything like that.


Thomas William Bird: Yes; when I have explained
it I think you will agree with me that he is.


Peter McGibbon: I think it is an insult
to every workingman in the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. gentleman is quite an authority on insulting people. But the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) speaking the other day, reminded us of an ancient Italian who said "Destroy Carthage" so many times that they actually did destroy it. I want to remind him and the House that there is a certain modern Italian who said "On to Rome", and he said it so many times that he came very near destroying the freedom of the Italian people. That is where the phrase comes from; it savours of the black shirt. I want to tell the House and the country there are too many .people in whose minds there are simmering thoughts of force which is associated with the black shirt and all that it .means. Our parliamentary system is the people's way. The representatives of the people are privileged to meet and discuss their problems in a deliberative spirit, and it is not in consonance with the dignity of parliament that our Prime Minister and our ministers should be compelled at the bidding of the mob to declare what their .policy is.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does my hon. friend
seriously suggest that the representatives of these workingmen were a mob?


Thomas William Bird: No, I do not.


Peter McGibbon: Well, that is what you
called them.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas William Bird: The representatives of any
class in this country have a right to bring their case before this government, but they have no right in the name of democracy to bring it in this manner. I know that some years ago a similar delegation came from the west. We probably started the movement, but that does not make the proceeding right; and much as I sympathize with these people 14011-179J
I do not think that it is in the interests of parliament that that thing should recur, because if the people of Oshawa have the right to do it, the people in every part of Canada have a similar right, and 9 p.m. we might just as well have a mob here every day. Whether they are farmers or workingmen they have no right to mob parliament in that way.


Peter McGibbon: Mob parliament!


Thomas William Bird: I do not want by anything
that I say to convert this debate into a kind of lachrymose competition as to who shall get the suffrages of the returned soldiers. That has seemed to me in some moments what it was going to become-that one member should proclaim himself the champion of the returned soldiers as against all other members. I do not intend to take a share in such a proceeding as that.
The returned soldiers have not been treated very well by our economic system. They came back to this countiy to find conditions very harsh, and of all the elements in our economic system the protectionist element hit the returned soldier the hardest; because in a time when work was scarce, and when prices were high, the cost of living soared out of his reach. When our protectionist friends express their sentiments for the returned soldier it reminds me of what Alice said about the walrus, "it shed more tears but ate more oysters." I think it is too late in the day for politicians to make the returned soldier a stalking-horse for their own bad policies.
My hon. friend at the desk immediately behind me told us about a monument that his community erected to the returned soldiers. Well, it reminded me that in almost every community of two hundred people or over in western Canada there is some such pathetic memorial to our soldiers, and I daresay it is the same all over Canada. One of these monuments is prominent always in my memory, and it carries these words: "The only wealth is life." I have never seen or heard of a more appropriate inscription on a soldier's memorial than that. I also grant that the idea behind the monument at Oshawa was equally fine-that idea of bringing a stone from each of certain European countries and building those stones into a permanent monument for Canadian goldiers. What kind of cement did they use to bind the stones together? If there is one thing that is going to keep the European countries apart, is going to lead them into another war, it is protection.
The Budget-Mr. Bird

The spirit that controls Oshawa, if that is the spirit, is never going to bind these countries together. Let me read a short quotation from the London Spectator of March 13, 1906. It says:
It surely must be conceded that the present network of tariffs in Europe is monacal to the prosperity not only of Germany, but of all its other states, great and small, including our own. For the tariff has been metamorphosed in recent years, and has become not so much an aid to home industries, os a symbol of national pride, a sort of economic flag, an evidence of sovereign independence, a warning to all and sundry that within these holy boundaries there is a sufficiency of everything. The idea of exchange-the basis of trade, and the first article of the true economist's creed

has been forgotten amidst the racial animosities and raw ambitions of the new Europe. When a tariff becomes a means not so much of benefiting oneself as of hurting one's neighbour in the sacred cause of a newly-formed national exclusiveness, the most rigid protectionist must surely admit that things are going a trifle too far.
In conclusion the writer says:
Exclusiveness carried too far in social life inflicts in the end more harm on those who practise at than on those against whom it as practised, and the same also applies to the world of exchange and barter. Tariff architects cannot remove mountains and alter river valleys; they cannot even modify to any great extent railway tracks and steamship courses. In the end nature is too strong for them. And Germany, pandering on the loss of markets, and the tariff walls which now divide the former dual monarchy, is apparently taking to heart those venerable truths.
According to this article the whole structure of peace in Europe, so carefully and assiduously built up in recent years, is actually at the present moment being endangered by this very spirit.
Protection with its profession of patriotism and nationality is, after all, the most parochial of beliefs that the human mind can entertain. It proceeds on all occasions to look at the national good through the narrow vista of its own particular local self-interest. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove the virtues and benefits of protection if you remain within the sphere of the particular and the local; but when you branch out and try to look at your personal good from the good of the whole, the logic of the protectionist is not quite so formidable as it seems at first. I have often listened to debates in this House, especially from the wonderfully precise, logical mind of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and I have come to the conclusion that with the premises he assumes his logical structure is unassailable. And so it is, if you look at Canada through the eyes of Toronto or Oshawa.
It is a very easy thing to prove that lowering the tariff, for instance, on any particular commodity will likely cause an adjustment in that industry with possibly a diminution for

the time being of employment. That must be conceded. As regards industries that are more or less inefficient, that have been living too lackadaisically up to the standard of the tariff, industries more or less exotic, it is easy to prove that lowering the tariff will for the time being cause a loss of employment. But if you look at the same problem from a national standpoint, it is just as easy, indeed it is easier to prove that the continuance of that industry with its inefficiency, with its exotic character, is a constant drain upon industries that are more indigenous, more natural to the country.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) the other day preached to us the loyalist doctrine of sacrificing yourself for other people's good. He said: "I use a car at home, but if I have to pay forty dollars more for a car, that will not worry me; I will be glad to do it in order to keep the people of Oshawa at work." It is all right for a doctor to	say that he	can do that	because he can pass that	on	to the first	old
lady who thinks she is sick.


Mr. MANION:: Not when he is down here.


Thomas William Bird: I	said, it	was	possible for	himto do it; I did	not say	he would do it.	His
geniality of character belies any such suggestion. He can readily see how it is for professional men to do that, but the great majority of people in Canada are not in that happy position. If that forty dollars is put on to the price of a car, they have to grin and pay it; they have to take it out of something else that is perhaps more necessary. The hon. gentleman also made a peculiar argument about the necessity of discouraging people from buying cars. He argued that it was a good thing to have a tariff on cars in order to discourage people from buying them because if they buy them they will only put mortgages on their houses with which to buy cars. He forgets that people will buy oars in any case, and after this reduction is made in the tariff they will have about forty dollars less on the mortgage.
Another very interesting argument is to be found in the speech of the hon. member for East Algoma, who said:	"After all, the tariff
does not cut very deeply into the resources of the farmer." He had heard some agricultural expert say that it cost only six-tenths of one cent on a bushel of wheat to pay the present or the then tariff on agricultural implements. That seems a very infinitesimal amount; but when you calculate how much it means for a quarter section-probably from fifteen to twenty dollars-it is a different matter. The

The Budget-Mr. Bird
House may have no conception of what life means on the average quarter section in Canada where a man is living away out with his wife and family. Fifteen to twenty dollars may seem a very contemptible sum to my hon. friend, but it does not seem such to a working farmer on the prairies. It may seem an immense sum if his wife happens to ask for a new hat or a new dress in the spring.
A great deal has been said about the Progressives and the part they have played in securing this reduction in the duty on. cars.
I never asked the government to reduce the duty on cars, although I am glad they did so. But our Conservative friends, for want of a better argument, always fall into their habit of chiding the Progressives for supporting the Liberals. I was very much amused by the simile used by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) before dinner when he said that the Progressives were like the steer and the Liberals like the mule, yoked together. I want to tell the House that we had not very much choice; it was a case of choosing the mule or the mule's father so far as we were concerned. [DOT] I do not wish to charge that kind of tactics upon the whole of the Conservative group; it is only some of the younger and more inexperienced members that do it. I want to say to those Conservative freshmen that the transactions and negotiations that have gone to make this House what it is at the moment have been more honourable on all sides than they imagine. I would no more think of charging the leader of the opposition with base motives than I would my own leader (Mr. Forke) or the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King). In my opinion these gentlemen found themselves in a difficult situation and acted as honourable men in the circumstances. That is what I believe to the bottom of my heart. I know there is a lot of petty dickering amongst individuals on all sides, as there naturally would be amongst human beings who might think they saw immense possibilities in such a situation. But I do not think it will go down in history that the leader of any party in the House acted otherwise than as a leader should. I say that in all sincerity.
The hon. member for Fort William is very fond of referring to Great Britain. He asked us with anticipate triumph evident on his genial countenance, what free trade had done to the farmer in Great Britain. Well, I think we might with more propriety ask him what protection has done to the farmer in the United States.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is no more prosperous farmer in the world.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend is making one of his usual wild and reckless statements. According to the logic of the protectionist, the farmers of the United States ought to be in the most enviable position, but from all the channels of information that are open to us we know that it has been exactly the opposite in recent years. The officials of the United States government have written about it; the farmers' organization themselves have investigated the matter and discussed it; and the newspapers, the various organs of opinion and information in that country, have looked into the whole subject. And they are all agreed on this point, that for very many years the United States farmer has been worse off than the Canadian farmer, whether he was a grain grower, a cotton grower or a corn grower.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Is not that explained by
the fact that the farm lands of the northern portion of the United States have been rather more worked than our western lands?


Thomas William Bird: I want to be frank with my
hon. friend. I am not by any means attributing the condition of the United States farmer entirely to protection, but I do say that protection has been a big factor in bringing him to his present state. What do we see in the United States to-day? The farmers of the northwest are approaching the government with the request to take over their surplus production, having come to the conclusion that under their protective system the agriculturist is the victim. He has to sell his surplus produce at world prices while he must buy his necessities at protective prices. He has therefore decided, as I said a session or two ago, to put his feet into the trough. He himself is coming to realize his political power, and he is asking the government, to the extent of many millions of dollars, to take charge of his surplus produce so that he may get from what he sells at home enough for him and his family to live upon in decency in the land of the free.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon. member: Does he not know that the imposition of the Fordney-McCumber tariff raised the prices of practically every article the farmer has to sell in the United States, and raised them over world prices?


John Livingstone Brown: What about wheat?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, wheat is one.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a wild statement.
The Budget-Mr. Bird


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The wildest of all.


Thomas William Bird: I thought I had the data under my hand, but I am sorry I have not. I will go so far with my hon. friend as to agree that in certain seasons the United States farmer who grows spring wheat derives an increase of price by reason of the Fordney-McCumber tariff; but that increase is microscopic compared with the increase in the cost of living and of transportation in the United States. My friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) the other night quoted from the United States Farm Bureau of Statistics that in a single year after the imposition of the Fordney-McCumber tariff the farmers of the United States had made a net loss of $301,000,000- even after allowing for the gain on spring wheat and some other commodities. Now, I wonder what our protectionist friends in Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton will think, of the western farmers when they come here and ask those protectionists to take over at $20,000,000 or more their surplus product to dispose of in the world's markets as they think best and leave the farmers at home to sell their wheat to the domestic consumer at a price that will give them a living on a parity with their friends in the cities. I wonder what parliament will say when the farmers of Canada come to that state. They have come to it already in the United States.
I listened to some of our British Columbia friends talking about the necessity for a tariff on eggs. This is just by the way. One gentleman said: We in British Columbia have carried the poultry industry to quite a high stage of scientific development, and we feed the poultry on grain that we get from the prairies; we are very glad we can get it at world prices, for it helps us considerably. But what would my hon. friend think if the farmer of the prairies, carrying out his own logic, came to this House to ask for permission to put up the price of that grain to a point where it would bring to them a decent Canadian standard of living? Where would the poultry business be then? That shows the absurdity of the protectionist argument through and through.
There is one argument still more absurd, and it was put forward by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). He grew very sad about the declining birth rate, but at the same time he read a letter from a friend of his, which he approved of, asking for an increase in the price of furniture. He wants an increase in the birth rate, and yet he wants to put an embargo on the home. 
These protectionists want to swell the population,, but they would put a tariff on the cradle, the cot and the high chair-on all the paraphernalia that make an increase in the population possible, I listened to a very eloquent sermon last night deprecating the economic impossibility of our young people to set up homes; and yet our protectionist friends want to put a tax on the homes!
But we are getting away from Great Britain. We might have asked: What has protection done for Germany? I read in a paper the other day-I am sorry I did not take a note of it-that a representative of German agriculture was in AVinnipeg the other day consulting the wheat pool, and he told his interviewer that agriculture in Germany was in a very bad way and that there was not much profit in it. That is in protectionist Germany. Now let us come to Great Britain. I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that agricultural conditions in Great Britain have been bad for some years, the same as they have been in Canada. But those conditions are not due to free trade, as my hon. friend would leave the impression on this House; they are due to the aftermath of the war. Farmers in Great Britain, like farmers in Canada and the United States, were encouraged to branch out into new productive lines, and when the slump came they were caught, and there has been depression ever since. I know there are a number of British agriculturists-a very restricted number, though-who would like protection. For instance the wheat growers, I think, would like a certain degree of protection. But I want to remind my hon. friend and this House that not all British farmers by a long way want protection. They would be very unpatriotic people if they did. I am reading this from a paper that comes to me every week from the north of England, quoting a speech of Lord Ernie, a recent Minister of Agriculture in the British government, which shows beyond peradventure that the agriculturists of Great Britain are not looking to protection for a solution of their problems. He says:
If prices could be stabilized on a higher scale by the action of the government, -the level of farming could be maintained. To many arable farmers, and indeed to the National Farmers' Union, this is the obvious remedy. By means of a subsidy or a duty, British corn-growers should be assisted to meet the brunt of foreign competition. It as, however, a mistake to suppose that all farmers want a duty on corn. Agriculture is not one industry but several industries, and the interests of agriculturists are not always identical, but are sometimes antagonistic. A pasture farmer wants cheap feeding stuffs and does not care, so long as they are cheap, whether they are home grown or imported. But even if it is

The Budget-Mr. Bird
assumed that British farmers are unanimously agreed in asking for some form of protection, is such a remedy politically practicable? The answer, in my opinion, must be an unhesitating no.
Continuing Lord Ernie states:
If any such assistance were given the cost would fall on the taxpayers and consumers, and for one voter whose direct interest is that wheat should fetch better prices, there are a hundred voters to whom a cheap loaf and a reduction in taxation are necessities.
Lord Ernie, not only a former Minister of Agriculture but a practical farmer and an authority on this subject, in this place and in others has disabused the minds of British farmers as to protection.
Now, Mr. Speaker, going back to the eighties and nineties of last century, I agree with my hon. friend that the British agriculturist suffered some depression because of the opening up of the prairies of America. It was not only the British farmer who suffered, but also every farmer east of the prairies, because it is impossible for any farmer in the world to compete against free land and virgin soil.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of information might I ask my hon. friend:	How does
he explain the fact that there are fewer farmers per thousand of population in Great Britain than in any other country in Europe, or perhaps in the world for that matter?


Thomas William Bird: There has been a decline in
the population of rural England in recent years, as there has been in all agricultural countries, owing to the enormous advance in invention, and also to a certain extent in the adjustment as between grain farming and cattle farming. It is no doubt true that there has been a great exodus from rural England to the cities; but it is equally true of the United States.


Robert James Manion: But is it not the fact that in England there is a markedly lower percentage of agriculturists than there is in any other European country or the United States either? That is my reason for arguing that free trade put English agricultural land out of business.


Thomas William Bird: I think it is to be frankly
admitted that England is behind the European countries . in establishing her rural industries. Due to something inherent in the character of the British farmer, he has not been able to adapt himself to modem demands in agricultural production; but he is doing it now, and doing it very speedily.


An hon. MEMBER:: He went in for
quantity rather than quality.


Thomas William Bird: Not only that, but he will
have to become a co-operator just as the Danish fanner has. With a little political assistance such as Lloyd George has been offering, or something similar, I have no doubt that rural England will be again a hive of industry as it was in former times.
I think I may very generously concede that in the eighties and nineties the English farmer suffered, as farmers all over the world including those in Ontario and the eastern states of the United States, suffered, due to the opening up of our virgin prairies. But that was only a temporary phase in the development of world agriculture. I always feel sorry and sad to think that the economics of the world should necessitate an adjustment in any industry entailing harm to any individual. I think it is a sign that we are more backward in our civilization than we sometimes think we are when the necessary progressive changes in industry cause suffering to any class or any individual. And I speak very feelingly of the eighties and nineties because of the bitterness of the time which entered into my own soul.
Now we go back to the wonderful period of the abolition of the com laws, to the seventies, to the period I have been speaking of. According to the logic of my hon. friend, that ought to have been the blackest period in the history of English agriculture; on the contrary, it has been called the "golden age" of British agriculture. The abolition of protection to the farmer, with other factors it is true, stimulated his latent ability and turned his energies into new and more profitable directions. I think all will concede that the glorious boast of the British character is just that spirit of self-dependence and self-help which when seemingly obstructed in one direction will forge forward in another to greater and greater success. That was true of British agriculture in these wonderful years of advancement which brought the British farmer to the very peak of his profession. I do not want to take the necessary time, but I could prove that the same spirit has operated in the manufacturing industries as well as in farming in the Old Land. The history of the tin plate industry, which my hon. friend mentioned the other day, during the latter part of the nineteenth century proves that the innate independence and ability of the Anglo-iSaxon can surmount even artificial restrictions to his industry; even when put out of business by. the McKinley tariff he came back stronger than ever and sent his products into all the neutral markets of the world.
The Budget-Mr. Bird

Now let us come to the period just before the abolition of the corn laws. According to the logic of my hon. friends that should have been a paradise to the British farmer.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? What established the tin plate industry in the United States, a country with none of the natural product?


Thomas William Bird: I will be quite frank and admit that the industry in the United States dates from the McKinley tariff. I think we are willing to admit that if we protect an industry, before it becomes spoiled it is given an opportunity to meet its competitors.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, but at the expense of
every other industry in the country. The consumers and producers of the United States paid the bill when the tin plate industry got on its feet there. It was only a year or two until the tariff was lowered again, which showed the inherent vitality of that form of industry in the United States.
Let us come to the pre-corn law period in England. I have a book here which is well known as an English classic of the nineteenth century, Rural Rides, by William Cobbett. This was written just before the abolition of the corn laws; in fact the part I am quoting from was written on January 3, 1822. He gives here the notes of a speech made by himself to a group of farmers in Battle, in which he says:
I am decidedly of opinion, gentlemen, that a com bill o*f no description, no matter what its principles or provisions, can do either tenant or landlord any good; and I am not less decidedly of opinion, that though prices are now low, they must, all the present train of public measures continuing, be yet lower, and continue lower upon an average of years and of seasons*-As to a corn bill; a law to prohibit or check the importation of human food is a perfect novelty in our history,-
They did not have it before; it was only a short period before the abolition that England had the corn laws.
-and ought, therefore, independent of the reason, and the recent experience of the case, to be received and entertained with great suspicion.
I will not trouble the House by reading more of this very interesting account of a ride on horseback through rural England in 1822. I will guarantee that neither my hon. friend nor any of his associates, who dream their dreams of a protectionist paradise to come, have either read or heard of such an account of human misery as is contained in these documents which come from corn law England in the early quarter of the last

century. About ten years later the author was travelling in the county of Lincoln, and he tells of the abject misery into which farmers, farm labourers and artisans had sunk in that period, and how, in disgust with protectionist England, they had gone in hundreds and thousands to the United States.
I do not think I need adduce any more proof, Mr. Speaker; I feel sure everyone knows that the years prior to free trade in England were among the blackest in all her annals; when the standard of living had sunk to its very lowest ebb; when the Merrie England of over a cenltury before had absolutely vanished and a miserable, industry-ridden England had taken its place.
Now let me read an excerpt from Labour and Protection, by George Jacob Holyoake, who actually saw these things with his own eyes. Holyoake, one of the apostles of co-operation, says:
In .the days of protection, as I knew them, the industrial would was a dead world. There was neither animation nor hope in it. As in the inquisition the intervals between the times of torture were days of "alarmed repose," so with workmen under protection. Few knew one week what their wages would be the next. Precariousness, privation, and depression were the characteristics of industry in those times. They live in iny memory like an evil thing, and - I should nott recall the experience o.f that malign period did not the editor of this series ask me to do so.
I would not have gone to the trouble of surveying the history of the British farmer to such an extent had not my hon. friend in a moment of forgetfulness, attempted to travesty the facts of history in order to bolster up the mistaken policies of his party in this respect.
The hon. member also referred to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and said that act was a sign that protection is coming in England. A protectionist looking for such a sign reminds me of a group of picnickers on a cloudy morning trying to persuade themselves that it will be a fine day. They are willing to let their optimism get out of bounds at the least favourable indication. I want to tell my hon. friend that Premier Baldwin and Winston Churchill would not thank him for that remark, because they have sworn to the public of England by all that is holy that there is no such thing about it. You know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Baldwin fought the last election on no such issue; he had no mandate whatsoever, and he told the people that that was the one thing he was going to avoid. The last election was not fought on the fiscal question at all, but on the question of respectability versus-


An hon. MEMBER:: Blackguardism.

The Budget-Mr. Bird


Thomas William Bird: Yes, blackguardism, or Philistinism versus barbarianism, and all the Philistines and all the respectable people-it did not matter whether they were protectionists or free traders, churchmen or non-conformists, brewers or prohibitionists-were huddled into the same fold by Mr. Baldwin. He had no sooner got this flock of sheep into his fold than the powerful lobby of necessitous British industries came along and persuaded him that they had a scheme by which they could be protected, and by which he at the same time could retain the integrity of his conscience, and the outcome was this wonderful Safeguarding of Industries Act, one of the slickest bits of political trickery that was ever put over a confiding public. They dare not bring it in by the front door, they dare not bring it in by the back door, and so they dug a tunnel and brought it in.


Robert James Manion: Does that change the fact that it is protection?


Thomas William Bird: I will admit that it does not. It only needs a very superficial examination of this act to show how easy it was for Mr. Baldwin, with his genial and able mind, to persuade himself that he was not doing any wrong. The industry concerned has to make out a preliminary case before the president of the board of trade, who happens to be a protectionist; then it has to come before a committee whom he appoints, a committee of protectionists; and when the industry has been asked a few superficial questions by the committee it goes before the cabinet, and there is no difficulty there, of course, because they originated the whole scheme. That is the scheme. It reminds me of a fish net with meshes just so big that the little fish can get through, but not the big ones; but in this case the meshes are so constructed that they can be enlarged according to the taste of the political fisherman who happens to be manipulating the net. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of what we may expect from a tariff commission.


George Brecken Nicholson: Just what effect has
the Safeguarding of Industries Act had on the labour situation in every industry to which it has been applied?


Thomas William Bird: I would answer, like the proverbial Scotchman, by asking another question: What effect has it had on all the other industries? You cannot bolster up one industry by a bonus without hurting every other industry that has to stand on its own feet.


George Brecken Nicholson: It has reduced unemployment in the industries concerned by 350,000.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, and I will guarantee that it has created just as much, and more, unemployment in the other industries. I understand the first industry that came before this committee was the lace and embroidery in* dustry. It appears that the ladies of England have quit wearing lace and embroidery, and the industry has got depressed. Lace and embroidery apparently is not used any more except by young members of parliament when they are making their first speeches. But this industry is not abashed at all by the fact that nobody wants lace. They are convinced that they ought to make lace whether anybody wants it or not, and therefore they have found a rich aunt in Mr. Baldwin who has very conveniently provided a shelter for all the lame and mangy dogs in British industry where they can come and be fed and find shelter and escape the lethal chamber just a little longer.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does Mr. Baldwin buy all the lace?


Thomas William Bird: I would not be surprised if he buys some of it; it would only be logical. Like my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr Manion) why should he not pay $40 more than he needed to pay for something just in order to help industry? Mr. Baldwin may have the same type of mind and buy his wife all kinds of lace, believing that it is better to wear lace these days than nothing at all.
Before I close, I want to discuss for a moment the cut in the income tax. This is one item in the budget that I was strongly inclined to criticize, but our friends to the right have saved me the trouble because they tell me that it is not a reduction, but simply a transference. I was afraid myself that it was a reduction, but I am satisfied if it is only a transference, and I am still more satisfied if it is transferred from those who are less capable to pay to those who are more capable. I believe that there will be some little suffering, as in all adjustments, but I would ask the hon. member for Fort William not to be too gloomy about his hypothetical widow, because, after all, she will not starve anyway; there are a good many widows in the land and there is a multitude of widows whom this will benefit.
There is this thing to be considered, that it is a blessing the income tax was not reduced if it meant that other taxes had to be increased. What would the widows have done then? What would they have done if you had taken the tax from the wealthy people and had put it on the poor people? That is the gentle art of giving more cakes and ale to Dives and less crumbs to Lazarus. I do
The Budget-Mr. Bird

not intend while I am in this House to support any attempt to reduce the income tax so long as our sales tax and our customs duties remain where they are at present. We are yet in the grip of war taxation, and the annoying thing is this, that half of our annual revenue is going every year to pay interest on our war debt. That is the irritating thing, that after our country should have sacrificed, its blood and its substance, it should find itself now these many years after the war still paying by the hundreds of millions interest upon that war debt. That is bad enough, but what would it be if our friends to the right got their way and succeeded in the next few years in foisting that burden on to the backs of the consumers and working people of this country?
I have noticed that during the last few years -I do not think it is the result of conscious action on the part of the government-that the ratio of direct taxation to indirect taxation has gradually swung over. In 1922., 67 per cent of our revenue came from consumers' taxes and only 33 per cent from direct taxation. Last year those figures had come to be SO per cent from consumers' taxes and 20 per cent from direct taxation. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is a civilized country in the world where such conditions obtain, where so much of the burden of running our country and of meeting our war debts is put on the shoulders of the people who are least able to bear it. And the ironical thing is that a considerable portion of the burden-bearers includes the returned soldiers. That is the place to work up a little sentiment. Now our hon. friends say: These humanitarian considerations are all right, but you are going to deplete savings, you are going to retard the accumulation of capital. I should like one of my hon. friends to show me how the extracting of a tax from income and paying it over in the interest to the bondholders is going to reduce the capital of this country: It simply means that you are taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. So long as we have a national debt of its present size all our revenue from income tax will be handed over immediately by the government to exactly the same people who have paid it, and thus in this transaction a great national obligation will have been fulfilled and at the same time a large measure of distributive justice achieved. I do not think that my reasoning is exactly watertight-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas William Bird: -and I do not think my hon. friend sees where it is not. I suppose some hon. meTnber will say: If you put the tax on

consumption you would have not only the tax but the interest too for capital. Well, that seems fair, but I want to say this: If this government or any government could relieve the consumption in Canada from some of the taxes it is unjustly bearing now they will immediately increase the purchasing power of the people to such an extent that the wheels of industry will hum as never before. And that is the time when capital is created- when everybody is busy. It creates itself overnight, like Jonah's gourd. You 'often hear the doctrine that it is the savings of the wealthy that creates capital. It is no such thing: it is the hard work of the people, it is the consumer and producer that create capital. It is time that fallacy was knocked on the head, because there is nothing so misleading. What we call capital, and what our wealthy friends complacently call their savings, is after all the surplus production which is left after we have all done our best in the course of a year. A lot of those Who pride themselves on being in possession of it ought not to be in possession of it. They have got into the possession of it through no merits of their own, they have simply sat at the toll gate, and they would make it still harder for the consumer and the producer by unloading the burden of taxation on them.
Now, what are these captains of industry we hear so much about, these super-Canadians who think that every other Canadian has been created to pay tribute to them? I do not think they are so important in the body politic as they think they are, by a long way.
I know they are important. I
10 p.m. know that the ability to organize the multifarious factors of modern industry is a very necessary function, and a very remunerative one too. But the other factors are a thousand times more important. I chanced to be reading a work on economics, and I came across a delightful description of a modern captain of industry. I do not think it applies to any hon. members in this House, because they would not be here if they were not a little bit above the average. This is what it says: that the captain of industry is-
"-the type of intellect that leads unerringly to great business success-a mind moving in one dimension, without depth or breadth, but incredibly flexible and adaptable to the needs of the hour." The financier's "reputation for profundity arose from his unexpected resourcefulness; and this, in turn, was a product of a makeshift intellect. He had no definite plans, and no far-reaching vision, but he knew how to surmount obstacles as they arose. In his essential relations to life he was like a peddler on a country road, meeting people who came by, and getting the better of them."

The Budget-Mr. Bird
Again, his "career illustrates clearly the fixity of purpose which is the first law of great financial success. It is a career for the single track mind, blind to wide horizons, and bent solely on material acquisition."
. . . "They have deals, . . . but their ideals are usually naive, incredibly childish, and guided with a meritricious gaudiness. Through the control of power they are able to impose these mediocre ideals upon civilization, and thus set a standard of achievement which is unworthy of the human spirit."
That may be an overdrawn picture, but I think it is very largely true. We have gone a long, way from the time when the biggest biceps marked the superior man in society to the time of the man who happens to have some peculiar gift of cunning in his grey matter and a good nose for profit. But we have gone that distance and we have not gone very far because there is not very much to choose between the two; the principle is the same-
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.
And it is very easy for them to keep it, because until recent years they have had the assistance of the parliaments of the country. And even at the present time these same gentlemen-not all of them, but one or two of them-think that men in this House who represent the common people and who are sent here at their expense are no more or less than intruders. One hon. gentleman stood up in his place the other day and referred to them as ignorant trash or something of that kind. That is something very significant. I have been surprised at the new note that has been struck in this parliament by a certain member from Montreal. I do not recollect that ever in this House we have heard the hectoring, dictatorial tones that that gentleman sometimes see3 fit to adopt towards the group in this corner of the House. I do not know, but I think that hon. gentleman sometimes thinks he has been sent here in the fulness of time to discipline these insurgent groups that have come here for the first time in the history of this country to voice the needs of the producers of Canada. I do not know whether that gentleman has any proclivities of the Mussolinic kind, but it seems to me sometimes that he is thinking that way. I do not think that in these days our manufacturers and captains of industry can command the old-time subservient worship that they did. I do not think they can get away with those manipulations of legislation so that the producer and the consumer has to pay the expense every time. I do not think they can; I am very much mistaken if they can do it any more.
One of the supreme duties of a government in these times is to get out of the old idea that the functions of a government are to preserve life and property. We have outlived that conception of government, or at any rate we must enlarge our conception of life. We must read into that conception of our duty as a parliament a certain standard of living that every born Canadian has a right to, and we must consider it our prime duty to see that that standard of living shall be maintained, no matter who has to be sacrificed for it, because the necessities of the people should always be the first charge upon the surplus production of revenue of our country. It is the business of government so to adjust themselves that that will become their end and aim. I do not think we have reached the stage yet where there is a sufficient consensus of opinion to make that the legend on our political banners.
I do not know how true it is, but I will take it for what it is worth that this budget is not decreasing the income tax. I sincerely hope that no Liberal, no Progressive, will ever lend his support in any movement of that kind, to take off the burden of these profiteers, these men who sit at the receipt of custom, wear fine linen and fare sumptuously every day, and unload it on to our hardworking and toiling multitudes in the cities and on the prairies of this country. They will not get my support for one moment in any movement of that kind.
I want to say just a word as to my private and personal view of the attitude of western farmers as to tariff and other issues that we have to face in this House, because I think in some sections it is badly misunderstood. The pivotal fact in the attitude of mind of the western farmer towards the tariff, for instance, is the surplus that he has to market outside of this country every year. The western farmer at last has acquired a sufficient knowledge of elementary economics to know that that fact is fundamental; that that is the basis of his whole position as a producer; that he cannot add one cent to the price of his produce by taking thought or by any effort; and as a corollary, that every cent that you put on to him by way of taxation, by way of freights, transportation, by way of interest, must of necessity come not out of his profits or his dividends, because he does not know anything about that, but out of his living. He knows that it means that he must degrade his standard of living; that he must ask his wife to work harder; that he must deprive his children of some of the
2S28
The Budget-Mr. Bird

elementary rights of Canadians. That is what it means in plain terms; that is the incontrovertible fact concerning the farmer of this country. Knowing that fundamental fact as he does, I wonder sometimes that he has not gone to greater extremes than he has when he has witnessed constant attempts to unload on to him extra costs so that by little an|d little his living has been reduced and his hardships and privations have been multiplied. 1 think the farmer of Canada-and I have known him intimately for fifteen years or more-of all classes in the community takes the most moderate, the most conciliatory attitude towards all other classes in the community. That is what I think about him in spite of all that has been said about him to the contrary.
I will tell you why the farmer, notwithstanding his stark economic position, is what he is-a law-abiding, enthusiastic Canadian. In the first place it is because he is a Canadian who will bear comparison with any other individual in the nation. Most of the farmers in my constituency are the sons of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. Many of them are getting old now, but many years ago when conditions in the east compelled them to go out from their homes, instead of going south as the sons of the east are doing now, they went west and they laid deep and true in the west the foundations of what some day will be Canada. Those men, as I know them, have nothing but the most loyal sentiments towards their countrymen, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary. I believe, perhaps in contradistinction to the opinions of some of my colleagues, that the average western farmer does not dream and never has dreamed that protection in Canada can be wiped off the slate in a moment, or perhaps in a generation, or perhaps ever. The western farmer knows his country well enough to know that protection during a generation or two has become so embedded in our social, commercial and economic structure that it might be disastrous to take any radical and sweeping action with regard to it. In all my experience with farmers I have never heard them talk nearly so widely about free trade as I have heard hon. gentlemen in this House talk about protection. The farmers have a right to talk wildly about free trade, not only from their basic economic position, but because it has been the traditional policy of their native country for many generations.


Eccles James Gott: What is the hon. member's native country?


Thomas William Bird: I am not ashamed of my native country.


Eccles James Gott: What is it?


Thomas William Bird: No native of the country towhich I belong ever needs to say which country he belongs to. I was proceeding to say that the Canadian farmer during all his organized history, as I have known him, has talked moderately about the fiscal question. He wants stability just as much as my hon. friends wants it, only he wants it at a somewhat lower level than they want it. The farmers want it at a sufficiently low level to enable them to live in decency with their families in their native country. That is all they want; they are not the wild-eyed fanatics that my hon. friends think they are. It takes a fanatic to see fanaticism in others.
Now, the fiscal question in Canada is not a purely economic one at all; it is a political question, having -been associated with party politics for a generation or more. For two generations now it has been a football in the politics of Canada. Parties-to change the simile-have see-sawed upon this question until the farmers have become sick of parties and have shown a disposition to be done with them. The farmers do not criticize the parties for not having gone very far in fiscal matters, and I do not think that this is what precipitated the agrarian movement in Canada. In my opinion it was something wider than that. I believe the farmers felt that so long as this game was going on, so long as the old parties were prepared to engage in this sham battle every few years to the exclusion of everything, else, the interests of agriculture would not derive very much benefit from governments. Nor have they done so. The old parties in this parliament for two generations have played this miserable game and, what is worse still, they have not played it sincerely. In fact, they have been shockingly insincere, and the manner in which they have treated the whole question is a black mark against our political history. Unfortunately, during alt these years, the people chiefly concerned have not been here to put an end to the game. While the parties have been engaging in this futile business, such problems as transportation, interest rates and other matters even more vital to the farmer than the tariff have been held in contempt. And why? Simply because the old parties-I am not speaking now about parties as presently constituted-accepting their election funds as they did, from our banks, our transportation companies

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone (Cape Breton)
and such institutions, could not do otherwise, in relation to the producers of the country, than to neglect them altogether. That is one of the reasons why the farmers of Canada are not so fanatically intent upon the tariff today; they have come to see that there are many other things that are vital to their interests.
There is one more point, w'hich I have left to the last in view of its importance. In recent years the farmer has lost interest in the fiscal question because he has caught the vision of a great co-operative effort. From [DOT]one end of Canada to the other, especially in the west, the farmer for the first time in his history has glimpsed the mighty potentialities of co-operation. As one who has been keenly interested, in a more or less detached wTay, in the prosperity of the farmers of western Canada I may say that it came to me, as it came to others, as a thrill of satisfaction and hope when we discovered one fine morning that the farmers had at last awakened to the fact that in co-operative effort there lay the solution of a great many of their problems. I believe that in the co-operative movement of the farmers at the present time there lies the germ of a new order of things in Canada. The farmers in a marvelous way have blended two elements which sometimes it has seemed impossible to reconcile-a purely visionary thing and a very practical idea. And this co-operative movement in the west, which today markets between 70 and 80 per cent of the staple products of that part of the country, is going to make itself felt in the history of Canada as nothing else has done since confederation. I am making no vain boast; it is plain to be seen by anyone who cares to recognize it. The producers of Canada for the first time in their history find themselves to-day, without the help of governments, capable of organizing their economic power and able boldly to confront other organizations which so long have exploited them. That is something which every sincere Canadian must sooner or later take notice of. I am not much concerned about the fate of parties. It would not have -worried me much if at the last election the Progressive party had sunk into oblivion.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will the next time.


Thomas William Bird: It may, and so may the Conservative party, as it nearly did in 1921. Political fortunes are not certain at all. But ( do not care whether this happens or not. There is something more vital, more farreaching, more dynamic in the life and thought of Canadian farmers to-day than ever there was in any party in Canada,


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: An hon. gentleman behind
me-I do not know who it is-prefers cachin-nation to argument, but I wish he would be courteous enough to allow me to proceed.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Order.
M. BIRD:	The hon. member should admonish his own colleagues; I do not think that he himself would indulge in such childish antics.	I was proceeding to tell the
House my personal belief regarding the future of Canadian farmers, who are only beginning to realize their economic power. And what difference is there in the long run between economic power and political power? Let me warn the House that however contemptuously parliament may have treated the vanguard of this new movement it will not be able so contemptuously to treat the main body when it arrives here.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Go ahead.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is only twenty minutes after ten.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to congratulate the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Johnston) who spoke this evening. I followed his discussion of the various governments that have held power during the last ten years. He has had peculiarly good opportunities of judging the merits of those governments, as I understand he gave valuable support to them all, and I have reached the conclusion that his judgment of the word '"wobbler" should be taken without question.
I must congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on giving the country a very attractive programme. In fact I might almost term it a very fine piece of election propaganda. Still it looks as if the minister himself had forgotten a very important point -that the Maritime provinces are still in existence. One would imagine that after all the discussion which has taken place in this House on Maritime rights he would at least have remembered the name, for I am sure it. must be familiar to the ear of every hon. member. I certainly thought, Sir, the govern-
2830	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnstone (Cape Breton)
ment would have done something for the only two stable products we have in Nova Scotia, namely, coal and steel, to the continued existence of which adequate tariff protection is vital. These are two of our greatest industries, and because all things are not equal in competition where /these industries are concerned, they being subject to conditions over which this country has no control, they must be protected if they are to live and prosper. Therefore it was a disappointment to us in the Maritimes that the government failed to correct the mistake .made last year when the duty on bituminous coal was lowered three cents instead of being raised; failed to make anthracite screenings dutiable at the same rate as soft coal with which it competes, and failed also to adjust the duties on iron and steel.
I notice in the Speech from the Throne that mention was made of the prosperity this country was enjoying. I fail to see how prosperity could exist in one part of the country while destitution is prevalent in another, factories closed, our people leaving by the hundreds, a depleted population, and our country robbed of its best blood. Now, Sir, why is this? Why in a country which contains everything that goes to make up a prosperous and contented nation should such things exist? There is only one answer: something must be wrong with the government of the country. And who is responsible for the mismanagement? The government that rules the country. The policy of the government must be wrong and the personnel of that government is incapable of appreciating the wants of the people.
Three things to my mind are necessary: Stop the stream of our raw materials going into other countries and allow such imports to come into Canada as can be used by our own people in increasing industries and the manufacture of the finished articles. That'is the only way to keep our people at home- put a duty on all foreign goods that come into Canada to compete with our own natural products, our industries and our manufactures. Now, why should we allow our raw materials to go into other lands, in many instances to be returned to us as the finished article, the labourers often being our own people, perhaps the sons and daughters of the men who helped to send the material out of the country. I could refer in this connection to pulp wood, minerals, and so on; why not use those products at home?
The flow of emigration must be prevented, and the best immigration policy that I know 
of is protection. We are exporting the best asset that Canada can produce-our sons and daughters-educated at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, giving their brains and brawn to a foreign country. How can we stop this flow of emigration? By simply making our country more attractive to our own people, passing legislation that will in many instances appeal to our young people, establishing industries and manufacturing centres, thus giving them work and building Canada up.
We have got within our own borders everything to work with. A bountiful Providence has dealt well with us in giving us a beautiful country and endowing us with an immense natural wealth, much of which has not yet been developed. But to take full advantage of this great heritage we need government help and encouragement. Think of the rich mineral deposits of all kinds not yet touched by the hands of man. Now, Sir, we want the government to understand that Canada is not entirely dependent upon other nations. England was until recently the greatest cotton manufacturer in the world but she grows no cotton; the greatest woollen manufacturer, but she imports most of her wool. Ireland imports most of her flax, and yet it is a great linen manufacturing country. The United States manufactures 70 per cent of all silks in the world, but she grows no raw silk; she is the greatest rubber manufacturer, but grows no rubber; the greatest manufacturer of asbestos, nickel and sugar, but all the asbestos and nickel come from Canada and all the sugar from Cuba. She lets this raw material in free and places a duty on the finished article. She can dictate her own ways and means because she does so behind a high tariff wall. All the articles mentioned are just as available to Canada's factories and consumers; all we have to do is to allow them in free and protect the finished article. In that way we could have large industrial centres which would give work to our young men. Then agricultural conditions would improve, and our farmers would have a large market for their produce. I know in Cape Breton we have a beautiful farming district entirely dependent upon our coal and steel industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, what we want to do is to have a strong government, with a solid, stable policy, a government that the people of Canada would have confidence in, not such a government as this, with a different policy for each province, but a government under the leadership of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), wdio has so definitely laid his policy

The Budget

Mr. Johnstone (Cape Breton)
on the table. There is no use in fighting 110,000,000 people with 9,000,000 unless we have something to fight with; and that something, Mr. Speaker, is a strong protective policy. Every country in the world, with few exceptions, is for protection. Even England, the great free trade nation, is talking protection. The United States was built up under it. I am a protectionist by conviction.
I well remember the first political speech I ever heard; it was on protection, in the year 1878, when Sir Charles Tupper-then Dr. Tupper-first formulated the great National Policy. I think I am safe in saying it was his first speech on the subject. He spoke in the town of Sydney-now the city of Sydney. At that time there was great destitution in Cape Breton. Hon. Alexander Mackenzie's government was in power. My hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Johnston) this afternoon stated that history did repeat itself. Let me remind him that on this occasion it did not. The people appealed to the government, and the government sent down food, a great deal of it being corn meal. To this day the old people there speak of that government as the "corn meal" government. But, Sir, in 1925 when the same class of people asked this government for relief they were turned down. Sir Charles Tupper in 1878 spoke from a platform in a field, part of an uncultivated farm, with very few houses in the district. There was only a wooden pier extending into the harbour, with a few fishing vessels at anchor. Sir Charles Tupper predicted the time would come when instead of one wooden pier there would be six steel piers; when instead of wooden vessels there would be iron and steel steamships made of steel manufactured in our own country. At that time there were no mines working on the southern side and only one on the northern part of the island. Sir Charles Tupper lived to see his prophecy fulfilled: steel piers, steel ships, important ' steel and coal industries, and flourishing towns. In a word, the district became prosperous.
The duty on all coal in 1879, regardless of size or quality, was 50 cents per ton, but a year later it was raised on bituminous coal to 60 cents per ton. In 1887 anthracite, Which is not produced in Canada in any great quantity and which is essentially a household coal, was put on the free list. It was not until 1897 that soft coal was rated at 53 cents, and I am sorry to say that it was a Nova Scotian-a gentleman who is held in the greatest respect by the whole country-who first made the change and reduction.
I believe in protection-I do not mean high protection ali round, but I do mean a protection that will prevent Canada from becoming the dumping ground for foreign goods. I want, Mr. Speaker, a national policy all over Canada so that the east can do business with the west; and all Canada should unite together in working for one common cause, namely the uplifting and building up of our country, taking her out of the rut into which she has fallen.
I believe immigration is the principal ques-1 tion to-day; the greater the number of people who go away the harder it is to keep our country up. Look at our closed industries, our vacant farms, the amount of head money spent in the last number of years, and it seems little surprising to me, Mr. Speaker, to find that although there is said to be great unemployment in the United States, our men and women always find something to do. Of course, brains and education will tell, and our American friends readily appreciate our skilled labour, no matter where it comes from. Our Canadians are not afraid of work, and when they cannot get it at home they have to go abroad for it. But, Sir, does it not mean something that there should be this great gathering of our best brains and muscle in another country? I do certainly think that the government are not taking this matter seriously enough; they seem to shut their eyes to the fact of immigration. It is time, Sir, to sit up and think; the leaders of our country should take this problem seriously into consideration and in some way try to solve it.
I wonder what would happen if such a thing as secession took a start? I hope that such a thing will never be seriously considered, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it ha* been freely spoken of. We must remember that there is hardly a family in Nova Scotia -and I am speaking of that province alone just now-that has not one or more sons or daughters in the United States, and if a vote were taken to-day, or ten years hence, would it not have a bearing on the question? The fact that so many of our race are over there might be the means of blending the family together; even to-day I know of several instances where young men and women have sent for their parents to join them on the other side. Mr. Speaker, this whole problem of immigration should be well considered; surely there are men in Canada who can solve it and save our country before it is too late.
I am sorry the government did not go into the protection question a little more; it may
2832	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnstone (Cape Breton)
be that they left it to the tariff commission to deal with. We in our province want more protection on coal and steel. The transportation difficulty should also be rectified. Our coal mines down by the sea have the right of way in the summer through the St. Lawrence, but our navigation closes about December 1. Then our mines must be idle, because the rates on the people's railway are prohibitive and no work of any kind takes place, the result in many cases being misery and destitution for six months. Surely, Sir, we in the east are entitled to fair play at the hands of the railway people. Our steel should be protected, because when the steel works are running we have a market for our coal, but now foreign steel products are coming into Canada cheaper than they can be made in Sydney or landed in Montreal. With our steel works protected and working full time, and our mines doing the same, just think what a change would take place. The farmers would have a market; they would be encouraged; business would look up, and the effect would be felt all over the province. Then why, Mr. Speaker, should we not have these things? We are part of Canada; why deny us our rights? At present we use about 80 per cent of our own farm products. If we shut out the United States farm products, as they have done to ours, and promote our own industrial products, we could consume at home the other 20 per cent of our own farm products; we could sell at Canadian prices instead of at the world's prices, and put our farmers on a better basis. Exporting our products forces us to low prices.
Agriculture is one of our mainstays. The American tariff is prohibitive except as concerns raw materials, which Canada would be wiser to keep, or ship out in the finished state. Our farmers and fishermen have been turned out of the American market and our industries were never allowed in. On the other hand, American farm products, fishermen, industries and minerals are welcomed with almost open arms.
On the question of protection I would like to repeat what the president of the Steel Company of Canada said at the annual meeting of that company:
Canadian products show an increase of less than per cent in fifteen years, while in the United States the increase has been 75 per cent. Canada's imports in recent years have almost equalled the tonnage of the Canadian output. We can never hold up Canada and pay Canadian wages by buying our requirements from foreign factories. We can only develop Canada by developing our Canadian industries.

When the United States was buying her steel in Great Britain, Lincoln said:
If we buy steel in a foreign country, you get the steel and the foreign country gets the money, but if you buy steel at home, you have in your own country both steel and money.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to quote from Haliburton on Intercolonial Trade; Our Only Safeguard Against Disunion. This was written in 1867; it is ancient history but very interesting, and I would like to show the similarity between affairs as they existed then and those existing to-day. He says:
Nova Scotia having already become familiar with this foreign trade, Halifax must become the entrepot for the outlet of our produotions, which must be sent by the St. Lawrence via Pictou to Halifax during the summer, and in winter by the Intercolonial Railway. But to make the trade profitable, we must reduce fre ghts to the lowest possible point, and this can only be effected by providing a remunerative return freight. The only return freight which can be sent is coal, and even if the price of fuel were increased by the imposition of a similar duty to that imposed by the United States, it would be amply repaid by its reducing freights, and ihence enhancing the value of the flour and other products and manufactures of the west. It is necessary, if for no other purpose, in order to create a large trade without delay, and to get us into a new groove. It is necessary for the cheap transport of the productions of Canada to the seaboard, which will have to be as low as possible in order to enable them to compete abroad with the cheaply carried products of the United States. It is necessary in order to render the Dominion independent of the United States in the all important matters of fuel, and to prevent the serious consequences which the sudden stoppage of our supply in the autumn might entail upon us. It is necessary, in order that Ontario and Quebec, instead of strengthening the hands of those who are endeavouring to crush the coal interests of the Dominion, .may teach them some of the fruits of their own policy, and convert them into advocates of more rational measures. It is necessary, to prevent the Americans from starving the Nova Scotians into annexation. It is necessary, to promote intercolonial trade; but above all it is necessary, in order to unite the people of the Dominion by the only bond that can endure-'that of common interests and commercial sympathy.
In addition to these considerations, there are others which are, at the present juncture, of equal moment to us. I have hitherto avoided dealing with this subject in a sectional or local point of view, but knowing , as I do the serious disaffection which exists in Nova Scotia, I believe that the imposition of a duty on American coals, similar to that which is levied on ours, will cut the ground from under the feet of agitators, who represent the Dominion government as indifferent to our maritime and mining interests, and watchful only of the welfare of the two great provinces that hold the reins of power in their hands. That prompt action in this matter, and a desire to sacrifice everything for the general interests of tfte Dominion, will in time soothe the alarm that has been excited in Nova Scotia, and the prejudices that have been aroused, we cannot doubt. Looking at the matter from their point of view, we cannot be surprised at their indignation, nor should we condemn that spirit of independence which they have exhibited, without which no people are fit' for self-government. The day will yet come, we must hope, when they will contend with equal vigour and earnestness for the permanence and per-

The Budget-Mr. Fish
petuity of the New Dominion. As matters now stand, assuming their views to be correct, the fate of Nova Scotia has no parallel except that of afflicted Job. She has had her coal trade and her market for her fish and other products cut off, and her wordly possessions depreciated. Political Sabaeans have robbed her of her birthright, and the cup of affliction is filled up by the conduct of ungrateful friends. It is possible also that the parallel may go a little further and that the evils have been aggravated by the temptations of an agitator, who exaggerates her calamities, and endeavours to make patience an impossibility.
I have read that, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it had a bearing on the case.
In conclusion, I would ask the government to consider these matters either after or before they have the tariff commission's report. There are three ways to improve the situation in the Maritimes: First, by an increased duty on coal and steel so that our people can be kept at home; secondly, by the establishment of coke ovens to take our coal, encouraging, by also imposing a duty, the use of coke to take the place of the outside anthracite that is coming into Canada. I firmly believe that our people can be educated to the use of coke instead of anthracite -I am speaking on the authority of those who have used both-and in that way we would be helping each other and working for a common cause, namely, the building up of Canada for Canadians. The third point is transportation. As I said before, we should have cheaper rates on our railways so that our coal could be shipped in the winter months and our mines be kept working, instead of lying idle for several months. We should work shoulder to shoulder in these things, so that Canada may take the place the Fathers of Confederation intended she should take, that of the brightest gem in the crown of that great empire upon whose flag the sun never sets.


Mr. C. E. FISH (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, the budget which is now before us opens up a field for very wide discussion; at least, I judge so from what I have heard since its presentation to the House. I cannot say, in fact the House would not expect me to say, that I entirely acquiesce in all the proposals contained therein. I am not so sure that even hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House, if they were to make an investigation as to our country's ability to stand the reductions now proposed, would find that the country could afford these reductions. In view of our enormous debt and the very little we have done towards reducing our war debt since the conclusion of the war, we can hardly make the reductions 14011-180
now proposed without a need for additional taxation cropping up somewhere else.
I also want to state that I am not one of those who believe in these special taxes.
I like to see them thrown out. I believe the source from which we should obtain most of our taxes, in fact, practically all of them, is the revenue tariff. I believe that is the most equitable method of taxation, because it gives every man a fair chance. The man who wants to be economical can go without certain classes of goods that are taxable; he need not buy them, and then he does not have to pay any revenue in that way, and as for those who can afford to buy these goods, they get good value for their money. That is why I believe the tariff is the proper source of raising taxation. The tariff, if it is put on for the purpose of raising revenue, is not protection, according to my idea. Protection is the protecting of an industry against the inroads being made upon it from outside countries. You protect it so that it may survive, and I believe industry is entitled to protection for a certain length of time. My ideas of protection run back a very long way. It was my fortune to be sitting in this House in 1878. When Sir Charles Tupper introduced the National Policy I was sitting in the Speaker's gallery, and from that day down to the present I have been a consistent protectionist.
I remember very well the time before confederation when we had a reciprocity treaty with the United States. Older Canada enjoyed the privilege of reciprocity with the United States for a period of ten years. During that time the Americans unfortunately were engaged in a civil war, and due to protection and the extra money that was in circulation at that period, we had most excellent times in older Canada. That, of course, was to be expected. We can always account for good times by one of two causes; either some great expenditure is being made, or we have good crops. That has been the rule, according to my observation, as far back as I can remember.
Prior to confederation we in the Maritime provinces had to depend almost entirely on the United States as a market, and for reasons with which most hon. members are familiar, we were quite intimate with the Americans in those days, practically our whole trade being with the New England states. But at the close of the American civil war that reciprocity treaty was annulled by the American government. Two reasons were given for that. One was that the Americans had discovered that we were too intimate with the Mother



The Budget-Mr. Fish
Country; but that reason was disputed. The other reason, and I believe the true one, was that the Americans had discovered that in the ten years during which the reciprocity treaty was in force we in Canada had escaped paying them somewhere in the neighbourhood of forty-five or fifty million dollars, and they decided that that would be quite a good sum to help them in their difficulties and in paying off their debt. The treaty, therefore, was cancelled. Then came dire times for us in the Maritimes, and that was equally true I think of older Canada. At any rate, we set out to get a market for ourselves, and while we were exploring in that direction confederation came on the horizon. Just as we were on the eve of arriving at a conclusion with regard to securing a market for ourselves, the older provinces came down to us and induced us to enter confederation.
I remember very well the election that took place after that. The slogan was: The great Quebec scheme-because it originated, I believe, in the convention that was held in Quebec. When we accepted that proposal offers were made to us that I do not think have been carried out. I will not touch further on the subject-it will come up later in the session -but it brought us to the position where we had to abandon a great deal of our trade and our methods of doing business down there. At that time about five thousand of our seagoing vessels were registered in the Maritime provinces, and we had some twenty-five thousand seagoing men. To-day we have neither. At any rate the seagoing vessels are very few, and the number of sailors is almost nil. I merely mention these facts to illustrate the sacrifice we made when we abandoned our trade channels and went into confederation.
Reference has been made to the word "secession" a number of times during this session. Now, down in the Maritime provinces the majority of the people are not aware what the word used in that sense, signifies. It does not and never did mean disloyalty to the British flag; it means we thought there were other ways in which we could improve our trade than by hanging on to confederation. That was all that secession meant in the Maritime provinces.
When confederation was inaugurated the Conservative party were in power. For sixty per cent of the time which has since elasped they have held the reins of power, the Liberals having been in office the remaining forty per cent. The Conservative party may regard with disdain the imputations cast at them across the floor of the House, because their record is to be found in the history of Can-

ada and it is one of progress and achievement. From the beginning of confederation the Conservative party took hold of the development of our railways. They built the Intercolonial, they bought out the Hudson's Bay Company, they constructed the Canadian Pacific. Some trouble then occurred and the Liberals came into power, and Canada had four or five years of the bluest time the country ever experienced; there never was any experience equal to it either before or since. Once more the Conservatives were returned to power, and the National Policy was adopted, which policy has been in force to a greater or lesser degree ever since. Although the Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier governed Canada for fifteen years they never interfered with the National Policy. I do not think they improved it very much; whenever they acted they departed from its principles. I believe that if the policy of the Conservative party had been strictly adhered to the country would have been farther on the road to prosperity than it is to-day.
May I be permitted to say that the Conservative party have no idea of introducing legislation that would strangle or injure any branch of industry? The idea that anything of the kind is contemplated is a great mistake. They do believe, however, that if an industry can be improved by granting it protection that course should be followed. Other countries believe in the policy of protection after trying it out-the United States for example. In the country to the south they do not take very long to decide what is best to do in regard to any industry. Whenever an industry is found to be in need of protection they extend protection immediately. That is
11 p.m. what the Conservatives propose to do in this country. Of recent years a new element, the Progressives, have entered the public life of Canada. Their idea seems to be that the farming interests shall be exempt from taxation of all kinds. I do not know where the revenue would be obtained if such a policy were carried into effect. Putting selfishness altogether to one side, I do not think they have very much to complain of. I wonder what our Progressive friends would do if they were in the same position as the original settlers of the Maritime provinces. Those people did not ride in Pullman cars into a land flowing with milk and honey; they came to the promised land by water, and they were obliged to locate upon the banks of streams. At first they could not go inland because there were no roads and no way of getting them. They had to settle down where they landed, and go to work. None of the

The Budget-Mr. Fish
blessings of paternalism were available for them; they had to stick there and work hard. It was a case of "root hog or die"; nothing else for them to do but win or lose. The farmers in the west have not had to meet the hard conditions such as the old pioneers in the lower provinces had to overcome. They have a fertile soil and they have had much encouragement in carrying on their occupation.
I do not for the life of me see why they want to interfere with the manufacturing industries of the country. We cannot get along without manufacturing, and the farmers themselves would be very much better off if manufacturing in Canada were carried on to a greater extent than it is. Take the woollen industry for example. What do our farmers get out of wool? They go to all the trouble of raising sheep, and doing all the hard work incidental thereto and they receive thirty-five or forty cents a pound for the wool of a pelt.	Altogether they
probably benefit to the extent of $2; they put this in their pocket and go home and think they have done well out of the transaction. On the other hand if the conditions were such that that wool could be manufactured in this country, instead of their getting only $2 the country would probably benefit to the extent of $12 to $14. It reminds me very much of a contractor I once knew whose occupation was sawing wood. His plant consisted of a woodhorse and a crosscut saw, and two men working for him. He took a contract to saw a pile of wood for 111. The men's wages amounted to $10.40 and when he was paid off he only received sixty cents for himself. He asked if that was all that was coming to him and received a reply in the affirmative. When receiving that information he said that it didn't matter, that he had bossed the job anyway. If you go into a store and purchase a blanket you have to pay $8 or $9 for it. For the wool used in the manufacture of the blanket the farmer only receives $2.80. Would it not be much better for him if the $8 or $9 which that blanket costs represented money spent on its manufacture in this country? To manufacture a ton of wool would mean employment for 60 men for about a month. Surely it would be much better in the interests of all concerned that that wool should be manufactured in Canada than that it should be shipped to some other country and manufactured. And the same argument applies to many of our natural products.
The farmer is always complaining about the price he gets for his wheat, setting up the 14011-1801
claim that agriculture is the basis of production. Well, wheat is a commodity that can take care of itself. It is a pretty sure crop provided the weather conditions are all right. When we try to export our wheat to the United States we are up against a duty of 42 cents a bushel. There is no question but that the Yankees are enterprising; and I have to admire them for that quality. They import our wheat, mill it and their government refunds 41 cents. I do not believe the United States can increase their output of wheat much more than they have 'been doing during the last few years, and their population is increasing so rapidly that I believe they will be one of our best customers in a very short time. There is no need to worry about our wheat; ah our farmers need to do is to grow more and more of it and they will find a market for it. I think the same thing may be said in regard to all our agricultural products.
We must however try not to let our people be imposed upon. Our farmers are being imposed upon now in regard to the idea of letting Australian butter come into this country, and they cannot see it. Last winter our farmers in the Maritime provinces got as much as sixty cents a pound for their butter, but this year the buyers are very independent and the price does not come within fifteen cents of that. The buyers say: We will not give any more; there is plenty of butter in Canada. These importations of Australian butter have made our market a big one; we have our own butter and the Australian butter together, and this influences the buyers so that they are quite independent and do not care whether they buy from our farmers or not. Notwithstanding all the quotations about the price of butter in Montreal and Ottawa where, in my opinion, it ought to be cheaper than anywhere else in the Dominion, in the Maritime provinces last year we were getting from sixty to sixty-five cents a pound for butter and to-day we cannot get more than forty to forty-five cents. That is the effect that the importation of Australian butter has had upon us.
Our friends the farmers would do better if they would give up the idea of free trade. It was played out long ago; it is moth eaten, and the proof of that can be seen just by looking around. England is the mother and home of free trade and there are reasons why she is so. Situated as she is with her marine, she can go all over the world, gather the raw products everywhere, bring them home and manufacture them. But she is now having a hard time to continue doing that and within

The Budget-Mr. Fish
a very few years she will be protectionist as much as any other country. In fact she is that now. When the Labour government came into power in England automobiles were entering that country under a preferential tariff, but our friends the Labour government over there immediately cancelled that. We continued sending automobiles to England and were doing a good business, but when the present government took office they restored the tariff and what has been the result? Today in England they are manufacturing cars better and cheaper than we can make them, and although Mr. Ford's car had the call on their market at that time, 'he does not have it now. When the present government in England put a tariff on automobiles and protected that industry, the automobile manufacturers there went to work and produced a better car and they are selling a cheaper car there to-day than we can manufacture.
Of course, the great question is protection, and until that is finally settled in Canada I do not know that we shall ever get any further ahead than we are. Looking back over the time since I first began to pay attention to politics-which is as far back as I can remember, because I have practically always taken an interest in public affairs,-I think something must be done in order that this country may progress as rapidly as it should. Why is it that with the unlimited natural resources we have we are practically marking time? I am not prepared' to lay down a policy for the country, but from the success that other countries have won through protection I think we also ought to be able to gain something by it.
This meddling with the tariff will never get us anywhere. The delegation that came to Ottawa the other day is only one instance of what might come from several other sources under similar conditions. Those people who came here were really more than simply a crowd of people coming and going away again. They did not buy tickets to come down here merely for the sake of making a show; there was something more than that at the bottom of their visit. They must have seen that the wolf was at their heels, or was likely to be there, and I think far more attention should have been given to their case than was given. The proposed reduction in the tariff on automobiles certainly means that many of these people will be deprived of a living. We are always preaching in this country about the necessity for a good, decent living, about our advancing civilization, and so on, but when such a stab is given to this industry as this House has given or will give,
fMr, Fish.l
it is time for us to sit up and see what we are doing. The automobile industry was going along very quietly and nicely; large numbers of fine, respectable men and women were employed in it, living in contentment; and without any warning whatever consternation is thrown into their camp. What do we find? We had an exhibition of what the result was in their coming to Ottawa to see us. When that industry was going along as it was, why should we not have let it continue and have a chance to breathe?
These reductions are .being made simply because somebody wants to get an automobile cheaply. I am not in the automobile class and I do not expect I ever shall be; indeed, I think there are already too many automobiles in the country. A very respectable old gentleman and a very wealthy farmer was here last fall and I said to him: "Where is your automobile?" He said:	"I sold it;
I had to sell either the automobile or the farm. It took all the money the wife could make in butter, milk and eggs to pay for gas and tires. Worse than that, last year I lost about half my crop through gadding around the country, and the best thing I could do was to sell either the farm or the automobile, so I sold the automobile." I think we are better off without these automobiles, with people joy-riding and running around] the country morning, noon and night, and dear knows what is going on. The automobile is really a luxury; no one can prove to me that it is a necessity. People can get around in some other way than by owning an automobile, which is a very expensive toy. These automobiles were bringing a fine revenue to the country, and we should let gentlemen who can afford to buy them either pay for them, or stay at home, or go on foot.
As regards the hydro developments in our province, we have a proposition that I think hon. members from Quebec and Ontario ought to foe familiar with so that they will understand that they have not the prospects of any greater power than we shall have down there. It is proposed to harness the bay of Fundy tides. This is something new in the way of developing power, and I think later on this question may come up in the House when we shall have an opportunity of discussing it. In the meantime I want to remind hon. members that there is a possibility of developing a power there that will far exceed anything in Ontario and Quebec, not excepting the Niagara falls. It is a power which may be depended on at all times irrespective of rainfall or snow; it goes on continuously with the rise and fall of the tide.

The Governor Generalship
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the patient attention with which you have followed1 my remarks, though I have not said all that I should like to have said.
On motion of Mr. King (Kootenay) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Tuesday, April 27, 1926.