1926-04-28

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Flas a reduction been made m the wage paid to the cleaning staff of the House cf Commons since the end of the fiscal year?
2.	If so, what amount, and why?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	The wages of the temporary servants of the House of Commons have varied between $3 and $3.65 per day for men doing exactly the same work and working the same number of hours. This caused discontent. As the bonus was discontinued last year, it was decided that in order to equalize the pay it would be fair and just to all concerned to fix a uniform rate of pay at $3.50 per day. This has been done accordingly.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LOBSTER FISHING SEASON
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) based upon two telegrams received by me this morning? I shall read only one of these as the substance of the other is contained in it.
Have been requested by fishermen Sapin to Richi-bucto cape to ask you if you could not bring before parliament very serious charge against A. and R. Loggie, W. S. Loggie of Escuminac. Last week fishery overseer ami Barry of Newcastle notified all packers lobster season would not open before th.rd May and not to set any lines before that date. Understand request for this change made by partif*? names above on account conditions along shore. Yesterday great number fishermen were ready to set lines. The shore was free of ice. They again phoned fishery' overseer asking permission set lines which was refused and threat made heavy fine imposed for each boat who would go out and set lines and traps. Nothing could be done before fourth May. Yesterday afternoon the Loggies allowed their men to go cut, take the best ground, set their lines. Fishery overseers were notified. Barry chief overseer also notified by phone by packers and myself and again notified this afternoon.	No action has been taken. The
Department Marine Fisheries has been notified the Loggies instead of taking their lines back ashore are now hauling traps outside. Fishermen do not understand why Loggies have not been asked by this time to go out and take their lines back ashore. We kindly request you to protest and force the department* to oblige packers named above take all lines back ashore so all interested in the districts between Burnt Church and Chockpish will have equal rights. Fishermen anxiously awaiting your answer. Please advise me. Am keeping in touch by phone with all of teem.
E. Paturel.
My question is:	Has the department
directed the parties mentioned to take their lines and traps ashore?	If not, does the
department intend taking such action?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have no direct information in regard to what is contained in the telegram just read by my hon. friend, but I am quite ready to make any inquiry in regard to the situation and to take proper means to deal with it.	In regard to the

Oil Companies
change of date, I may say that it was not made upon the recommendation of the gentlemen mentioned in the telegram.


Mr. HANSON:: On whose recommendation?
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland):
I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) a question in connection with the change in the lobster fishing season on the Northumberland straits. This particular zone borders on the constituency of Cumberland, and I Shave a telegram here from a reliable fisherman of that district which states the question clearly. With the permission of the House I will read the telegram :
Lobster season changed from April 26 to May 4; unsatisfactory to majority fishermen and packers. Please ascertain on what grounds and representations this change was made. Cumberland county inspector or packers not consulted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The change has been agreed upon as a result of numerous representations to the effect that on account of ice conditions it was impracticable to start the fishing season on the 26th, which is the normal date for the opening of that season in this particular district. Representations have been made to the department and to myself personally bymembers of this House, as well as by telegrams and letters from interested parties. All the representations were based upon the ice conditions in this part of the country, but in the meantime we have received word that the ice is gone and that conditions now permit the opening of the season. Accordingly we issued orders this morning that the opening of the season should not be delayed any longer, and that fishing can be commenced this morning.


OTTAWA-ENLARGEMENT OF CONNAUGHT PLACE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement in the press yesterday regarding expropriation proceedings by the government to acquire a couple of blocks of land in the centre of the city of Ottawa, may I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) if he has any statement to give to the House as to the cost involved and the purposes to which this land is to be put? It is a very important matter and I think hon. members would be interested to have these particulars.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: It is the intention of the government to expropriate a portion of the property
lying between Wellington, Elgin and Sparks streets. In that triangle the government already own from one-third to one-half of the property, back of the post office, and it is now proposed to take over the balance. The cost, of course, will be settled by the expropriation proceedings. The assessed value of the property is about 8450,000; the price the government will pay is unknown as yet It is hoped that eventually these buildings will be removed and that area made part of a public square.


Robert James Manion: Is it the intention of the government to put up other buildings in the place of those now standing?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: No, it is intended to leave an open space there.


INCORPORATION OF OIL COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he is now able to give a further reply to my question of Friday last regarding the oil companies of the province of Alberta, the charters of which have been withheld, and as to whether the oil companies to which he promised charters have as yet received them?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Secretary of State):: Referring to the second question I have given instructions that these charters should be sent to the parties applying for them, and I have no doubt they have been forwarded. In reference to the next part of this question, I have prepared a statement which I desire to read:
Until quite recently applications for the incorporation of local mining and oil ccmpau.es have not been made under the Dominion Companies Act. It is the practice of the Department of the Secretary of State not to incorporate companies having local activities only. Such companies are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The Dominion, however, incorporates companies where it is stated in the applications that the operations will be carried on in more than one province.
The recent oil development ;n the province of Alberta has been the occasion of a large number of applications for the incorporation of oil companies. In each case it has been alleged by the applicants that they propose carrying on business in more than one province. It is impossible to investigate the genuineness of intentions, and tile department has been forced to accept these statements.
It is suggested, however, that ihe reason for these applications being made to the Department of the Secretary of State, is the decision of the Supreme court in Ihe case of Lukey versus The Rutiienian Farmers' Elevator Company, in which it was held that Dominion companies are not subject to the Sale of Shares Acts of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If this allegation is well founded, the immediate inference is that many of these companies are what is generally known as "wild cats", brought
Fraudulent Companies

into existence for the purpose of selling shares rather than boring for oil. The fact that Dominion oil company charters are advertised in the Calgary press, indicates a very unsatisfactory condition.
The western provinces are agitating for an amendment to the Dominion Companies Act under wh'ch Dominion companies would be made subject to the Sale of Shares Acts of these provinces. This is a difficult question and it raises many others which should be discussed when the necessary amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration. For that reason such an amendment could not be submitted to parliament at the present session and could not likely be dealt with until the next session of parliament. By then the deluge of oil company flotations may be over, and in the meantime it is necessary to take some action to protect the investing public.
It is a widely-held belief that the voluntary provision of the Companies Act, under which shares without nominal or par value are issued, are more effective in protecting the public than "blue sky" legislation. This was one of the principal arguments put forward when these provisions were adopted. It has been decided, therefore, that in applications for the incorporation of oil and mining companies, which are suspected to be purely local concerns, the charter shall limit the issue of shares to shares without nominal or par value.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the Secretary of
State if that regulation is to be made retroactive?


Ernest Lapointe: It will not be retroactive concerning those companies mentioned by my hon. friend, to whom assurances have been given that charters will be issued, but for other companies it will be retroactive.


ALLEGED FRAUDULENT COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for West York
(Sir Henry Drayton) on March 26 called the attention of the government to certain comments appearing in the English press with regard to two companies, the British Associated Oil Company, Limited, of Canada and the Westminster Finance Company, Limited, of' Canada. These comments suggested that these companies were fraudulent in character, exploiting the public, and so forth, and my hon. friend asked the government to see whether incorporations had been granted by this House or by any department of the government, and what the remedy might be.
I have directed that an investigation be made, and 1 am informed that these two companies, the British Associated Oil Company, Limited, and the Westminster Finance Company. Limited, were both incorporated by the province of Ontario on November 26, 1925. They are therefore provincial companies, not under the control of this government or this parliament.


NATURAL GAS AND PETROLEUM LEASES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) say whether his department have substantially altered the regulations with respect to oil exploitation, or whether it is proposed so to do. The alteration which I have in mind as possibly under review is one looking to the restriction of individual exploitation of oil, and what, is believed to be the more economical development under large territorial rights.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I did not follow my hon.
friend's question. Is it the areas of leases that are in question?


Arthur Meighen: I am informed that attempts have been made to secure the rights of the larger operating companies, to the exclusion from certain territories of the individual oil company or oil borer. Have the regulations been so changed as to make it more difficult for the individual oil borer to secure his lease ?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that I am aware of; however, I will make inquiries and see if anv changes have been made. Applications are coming in for the subdivision of existing leases, and I know that is being done, so 1 do not think there would be any attempt made to set aside large areas.


NOVA SCOTIA SENATE VACANCY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: May I ask
the leader of the House if it is the intention of the government in the near future to fill the vacancy in the Senate caused by the death of Senator Roche, and thereby relieve very much the aspirations of the five or six gentlemen who have been in the capital during this week.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that the vacancy will be filled in due course.


PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on March the 16th I
asked the government whether any action w^as being taken in regard to the recent decision of the Privy Council in the Alberta appeal

The Budget-Mr. Smith
case. I should like to ask again whether the Minister of Justice has read that decision, and whether he is prepared now to make a statement as to the action of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I have read the decision, but no
action has been taken, and I am not prepared to tell my hon. friend what decision will be reached.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 27, 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. ROBERT IC. SMITH (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, with the permission and indulgence of the House, I intend to make some observations on the budget in its particular application to some of the many interests in the eastern portion of the Dominion of Canada and the Maritime provinces. The House has been treated, if I. may be permitted to use the phrase in that sense, to many matters of concern directly affecting us in the east, and what I shall have to say will not be in any sense a survey of our Maritime situation or a review of the seriousness of the difficulties under which we are labouring, which have already been quite fully stated, or of the grave burdens which we are forced to bear under ordinary circumstances without relation to the customs tariff.
It will be recognized at once that many of our troubles and difficulties have a close bearing on the tariff-coal, steel, agriculture, and our industries, for instance- while other problems apparently difficult of solution, such as transportation, have no bearing on the tariff. It is with the former-coal, steel, agriculture and industrial pursuits, or certain phases of them-that I desire to place some facts before this hon. House, and it will be observed that the remarks I have to offer apply not alone to the Maritime provinces, but to other portions of Canada, in fact, to the whole Dominion.
My first, word, Mr. Speaker, on the budget as brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is that it is a notable one, notable I believe mainly for its omissions and its startling disregard for some of the main interests of this country, most particular'/
the labouring class. It is my purpose to place before the House some of the very striking omissions affecting materially, in my opinion, the portion of Canada from which I come, and having a general effect throughout the country through lack of recognition in a protective manner.
We from Nova Scotia have stressed the urgent need and long overdue protection essential to our two main industries, coal and steel. This government in its frantic desire to cater entirely to the western portion of Canada has entirely overlooked our legitimate and reasonable request for protection on these two main key industries. This request has been treated with somewhat of a silent and unwarranted contempt. I presume that some members may think that our mouths from the Maritime provinces should be closed because a royal commission has been appointed to investigate Maritime conditions. Whatever may be thought in this connection, I wish to make perfectly clear to the House that I do not intend to surrender my constitutional privilege, yes, my bounden duty to represent as best I can my riding by placing before parliament the views of the people who sent me here, royal commission or no royal commission. I trust that the royal commission appointed will serve some good purpose in the province of Nova Scotia after they have reviewed our distressing situation, but whether they do so or not, it is not my intention to forfeit what I consider to be my plain duty to the riding which sent me here, and that is to place the situation and circumstances affecting us as I see them before the House, and to offer whatever suggestions I can in my humble way to remedy the present conditions.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the House for and against this budget, appertaining to the changes, forecasts and their effects. It will be my humble task to deal as best I can with matters entirely overlooked by the Minister of Finance, some of which, and one in particular, have been brought very pertinently before this House during this session, but have been entirely disregarded by this government of lower tariffs and many diversified elements. I refer particularly to the question of coal.
First let me repeat what I stated in this connection in the House some weeks ago, that the frantic demand for increased duty on coal was brought to a head in Nova Scotia in December, 1924, when Liberals, Conservatives, and all others united and sent a delegation to Ottawa demanding more duty on coal and steel. That delegation was headed by the Hon. E. H. Armstrong, who was at that time
The Budget-Mr. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Liberal premier of the province of Nova Scotia, and with the permission of the House I should like to quote some of the appeals made by the delegation through their spokesman, ex-Premier Armstrong, to the government on that occasion. These appeals are tersely stated, being extracts from the memorandum which was presented to the government by the delegation on that occasion. I quote:
"The allied coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia have been for some years in a depressed condition."
"The prospect for the future is that there may be even more serious depression and resultant poverty."
"The Province of Nova Scotia is largely dependent upon these industries which are the main, and in some instances, the sole support of the population in important centres."
"This will be easily understood when it is considered that from 20.000 to 25,000 men are employed in the mining of coal and its associated industries."
"And that directly dependent on these there are not less than 100,000 to 125,000 people, or more than ore-fifth of the population of the Province."
The delegation asked the King government for adequate tariff protection to prevent foreign coal and steel products from flooding Canada's markets:	to
stabilize and promote the coal and steel industries in Nova Scotia; and give the workingmen engaged in them steady and remunerative employment.
That delegation was splendidly received by the government. Their appeals were taken into consideration by the Prime Minister and his government, and the result was that when the budget was brought down in 1925 it contained an increase in the duty on slack coal from 14 cents to 50 cents a ton, and a decrease in the duties on screened and run-of-mine coal from 53 cents to 50 cents a ton. This change did not produce the favourable results that were desired in connection with the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia. Now, I call attention to the fact that in this House a few days ago, speaking about the increases last year in the duty on slack coal, the Prime Minister stated that this was a case where relief was necessary and where the exception proved the rule; that it was a good thing to give our slack coal more protection, and he urged his Progressive friends to support the exception. If it was necessary to make an exception then I ask why not make an exception noV? The conditions are worse now than they were then. Therefore, why not follow the exception to its logical conclusion, and give the industry the protection it requires? The Prime Minister realized the necessity and admitted the urgency of more protection on slack coal. He is quoted as having said that no legitimate industry in Canada Would suffer from the fiscal policy of his government. This industry is suffering, has been suffering, and will continue to suffer until it is relieved by

adequate protection. It is suffering under the fiscal policy of the present government, and we would like to take the Prime Minister at his word in this matter. I might refer to the fact that some of his candidates in Nova Scotia in the campaign of 1925 advocated higher duty on coal and steel.
For the information of the House I will review the duties on coal in Canada from 1867 to date. From December 21, 1867, to May 12, 1870, coal and coke were free. From May 12, 1870 to April 1, 1871, there was a duty of 50 cents per ton on coal and coke. From April 1, 1871 to March 15, 1879, coal and coke were free again. From March 15, 1879, to May 7, 1880, there was a duty of 50 cents per ton on coal and coke. From May 7, 1880, to April 20, 1883 there was a duty of 50 cents per ton on anthracite coal, a duty of 60 cents per ton on bituminous coal, and a duty of 50 cents per ton on coke. From April 20, 1883, to May 13, 1887, there was a duty of 50 cents per ton on anthracite coal, a duty of 60 cents per ton on bituminous coal, a duty of 20 per cent on bituminous coal dust, and a duty of 50 cents per ton on coke. From May 13, 1887, to March 28, 1890, anthracite was free. There was a duty of 60 cents per ton on bituminous coal, a duty of 20 per cent on bituminous coal dust, and a duty of 50 cents per ton on coke. From March 28, 1890, to March 27, 1891, anthracite coal and anthracite coal dust were free. There was a duty of 60 cents per ton on bituminous coal, a duty of 20 per cent on bituminous coal dust, gas coke for Canadian manufacturers was free, and there was a duty of 50 cents per ton on coke. From March 27, 1891, to April 23, 1S97, there was no duty on anthracite coal or anthracite coal dust. On bituminous coal there was a duty of 60 cents per ton, a duty of 20 per cent on bituminous coal dust, and coke was on the free list. From April 23, 1897, to November 30, 1906, anthracite coal and anthracite coal dust were on the free list. Cn bituminous slack coal such as would pass through a half-inch screen, there was a duty of 20 per cent. On bituminous coal -round and run-of-mine-there was a duty of 53 cents per ton, and coke was on the free list. From November 30, 1906, to March 25, 1925, there was no duty on anthracite coal or anthracite coal dust. On bituminous slack coal there was a duty of 14 cents per ton. On bituminous coal-round and run-of-mine- there was a duty of 53 cents -per ton. From March 25, 1925 to date, anthracite coal and anthracite coal dust are on the free list. There is a duty of 50 cents per ton on bituminous coal and coal not otherwise provided for. Coke is placed on the free list.

The Budget-Mr. Smith
It will be noted that in the placing of the duties, from April, 1867, down to date, there has not been a very great spread in the amount of duty on the product of coal; the duty has ranged around 50 cents per ton ever since it was first placed. It will be recognized at once, I think, by every reasonable person that if 50 cents per ton was adequate protection back in the seventies it is surely not adequate protection to-day. The increased cost in the price of coal is so apparent and so evident, and is felt to such an extent by every manufacturer and householder in this Dominion, as to obviate any necessity of labouring that particular argument. As a matter of fact we have not one-half the protection on coal to-day that we had back in the seventies on account of the increase in the price of the product; and in Nova Scotia we are urging that this particular point be taken into consideration by the government and that it be regulated in accordance with the price of coal to-day.
It has been stated that in order to have more of our own coal used, a campaign of education should be carried on in this country. This may be so, but if there is to be a campaign of education there must also be one of example. The largest publicly owned corporation in Canada that I know of is the Canadian National Railway. I should like to ask the House what example it sets with regard to the use of Canadian coal on the National system of railways. The figures I will quote, and they are figures contained in answer to questions put to the government in this House during the present session by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall), tell the tale. Last year the Canadian National Railways purchased coal to the following extent:
Tons
Coal mined in the mines of Nova Scotia.. 718,826
Coal	mined	in	the United States	2,671,706Coal	mined	in	Cape Breton	
21,430Coal	mined	in	western Canada	
1,146,667
It will be observed on examining these figures that approximately three million tons of the five million tons of coal used by the Canadian National Railways in the year 1925 came from the United States. More coal by nearly one million tons was purchased by the Canadian National Railways for use on the National system from the United States than was actually purchased from mines in this Dominion.
May I give some idea of the importations of coal into Canada, covering the last ten years from 1916 to 1926? This will tell the story of the enormous sums of good Canadian money forwarded to the United States for coal when our own coal mines were idle, our miners out of work, their families in dire want, and general commercial stagnation existed in the coal provinces, as a result of want of adequate protection for this basic and highly important industry. I find that in 1925 the total importations of coal into Canada amounted to 15,671,635 tons. I have the figures, Mr. Speaker, for the last ten years covering the importations of coal from the United Kingdom, from the United States, and from all other countries, and with the permission of the House I would like very much to have these figures placed on Hansard. The statement is as follows:
Imports of Coal and Coke into Canada, 1916 to 1926.
-	Total Imports into Canada	Imports into Canada from-	United	kingdom	United States	Alaska	Australia	China	Japan	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueTotal Coal-	ton	s	ton	S	ton	$	ton	$	ton	S	ton	i	ton	iYears ended March 31:	1916	14,060,244	30, 679,777	5,564	22,806	14,054,672	30,656,938	3	15	5	18	1917	17^503,515	42,076,426	2,744	14,592	17,500,771	42,061,834	1918	21|656,294	74,324,941	12,085	39,265	21,644,209	74,285,676	1919	21 i 321,813	70,603,005	627	2,514	21,321,186	70,600,491	1920	16,643,677	60,072,629	344	2,578	16,643,333	60,070,051	1921	20^274,555	111,298,100	1,481	8,492	20,245,347	111,283,188	1	27	726	6,393	1922	17'168,314	78,258,725	5,193	31,975	17,162,897	78,224,950	224	1,800	1923 (a)	14,329'050	72,184,477	898,164	5,730,825	13,428,756	66,435,556	504	2,464	1,225	13,112	185	9891924 ...	20 495 360	88,432,856	475,719	3,198,271	20,019,637	85,234,500	4	85	1925	15 i 671,635	62,710,473	312*478	2,752,149	15 i 356!807	59'945,986	27	414	643	3,674	1,680	8,25011 months ended Feb. 28:	1925 ...	14,399,809	58,017,246	306,633	2,692,334	14,090,826	55,312,574	27	414	643	3,674	1,680	8,2501926 (b)	14,846,991	50,073,041	661,797	5,920,553	14.179,004	44,084,391	479	2,034Coke, ground, when imported	by manufacturers of elec-	trie batteries-	Years ended March 31:	1916	376	376	8 095	1917....	443	9 998	443	9,998	1918	592	592	14,232	1919 ..	726	25 076	726	25,076	1920	624	32,118	624	32,118	1921 ...	443	23 839	443	23,839	1922....	480	26 836	480	26,836	1923	740	35 364	740	35,364	1924....	521	29 482	521	29,482	1925	657	40,747	657	*40,747	11 months ended Feb. 28:	1925	546	33 176	546	33,176	1926	733	49,101	733	49,101	Coke-	Years ended March 31:	1916	693,607	1 750 711	563	4,883	693,044	1,745,828	1917	756 602	2 686 881	850	8,875	755,702	2 677 849	1918	969,932	7*154 014	969,932	7|154,014	1919....	1,075,491	8,160,916	1,075,491	8,160,916	1920....	381,606	2,476,450	381,606	2,476^450	1921....	548,582	6,247,931	548,582	6,247*931	1922....	232'174	1,673,171	232,174	1i 673 j171	1923	443 j 883	4,290,974	2,907	23,371	440,976	4j267!603	1924	691 641	4 983 587	'820	9,661	690,821	4 973,926	1925	578,84 3	3,506,717	1,701	11,913	577,142	3,494,804	11 months ended Feb. 28:	1925	511,809	3,078,673	1,701	11,913	510,108	3,066,760	1926 ...	836,761	5,687,963	11^ 200 .	83,186	825,561	5,604,777	
(a) In 1923, from Newfoundland also, 76 tons, $781; from Philippines, 140 tons, $750.	(b) In 1926, from Germany also, 5,711 tons, $66,063.
The Budget-Mr. Smith

The Budget-Mr. Smith
The importations of coal into Canada for the past ten years show an average of over 15,000,000 tons per annum. This is most significant, in view of the fact that there has been stagnation of a very startling character in the coal mining districts in the Dominion of Canada. As I stated, our coal miners are not able to procure work. They are not able properly to feed and clothe their families, but at the same time we are importing from a foreign country over 15,000,000 tons of coal annually. Think of an industry in Canada being exploited, our miners thrown out of employment and our coal provinces commercially stagnated, not to mention the Canadian money, over a hundred million dollars, being spent for the purchase of American coal, providing employment for American miners to the detriment of our own miners, and incidentally increasing the wealth of the United States, at the same time reducing our own wealth in Canada, and allowing our Canadian market for coal to be robbed by American operators. If we follow this suicidal policy in other things, I think it will be found before long that, as a business country, we will have to pull down the blinds, nail up the shutters, lock the door and disappear. Our coal resources in Canada are of a very substantial character. Our consumption of coal in Canada annually is nearly 29,000,000 tons. Cur own Canadian coal supplies only 12,000,000 of that market, approximately 17,000,000 tons being supplied by foreign countries, and still we have no relief from this government in this connection. Let me quote the importations in 1925 into this country. They are as follows:
Anthracite	Bituminous	Lignite3,249,497	12,957,738	18,308
Importations from the United Kingdom included 606,832 tons of which 57,585 was bituminous. The total importations for last year amounted to 16,832,435.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that it is necessary to deal with those figures which are accurate, being government figures, and which speak very loudly in regard to the great disadvantage the coal miners all over the Dominion of Canada are labouring under on account of being robbed of the Canadian market which is going to a foreign country and, as I said before, being exploited by foreign mine operators. There is invested in Canadian coal mines the colossal sum of $146,000,000. The value of the output of coal in Canada in the past has reached a total of over $82,000,000. In 1925 the selling value of coal was $49,092,649, being below that of 1924 by over $3,000,000.
Let me examine for a minute the policy of the leader of the government in Canada in connection with the coal mining industry. I am quoting from a Canadian press report of an address of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, delivered at Orillia, Ontario, October 15, 1925, and I find the following:
As at Parry Sound, Mr. . King attacked Mr. Meighen's proposal to put a tariff on foreign coal, and to give assistance out of federal taxes to transportation rates from Maritimes and the west to the central provinces. "I do not think/' said Mr. King, "that the people fully realize what this proposal means. At a moment when the nation is striving to throw off the burden of taxation Mr. Meighen is proposing to add to the burden of taxation. I have seen some winters in Canada when we have almost had to go down on our knees for the coal needed in the homes and factories of this country."
I think that the policy as outlined by the Prime Minister at Orillia last October is a policy, if followed, so far as we are concerned in the eastern portions of the Dominion of Canada, will ruin our coal and steel industries completely and entirely, and the importance of this industry in our province I think may be gauged from the fact that one-fifth of the entire population is wholly dependent on it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in this connection I wish to deal with the source of supply today from the American coal mines. I think this applies particularly to the anthracite coal mines in the United States of America. The supply is not inexhaustible. It is estimated, an.l I think it was mentioned by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) in this House not long ago, that twenty-five years at the outside will exhaust the supply of anthracite coal from the United States. So that we in Canada, whether we desire it or not, will be driven to the use of our own coal after that period and perhaps before. If we must in the end be driven to the use of our own Canadian coal, why not adopt that policy now? Why not build up our own Canadian market for our own Canadian, miners, and then when the time comes we will be ready for any exigency on account of the exhaustion of the supply in other-countries?
I think it might very reasonably be expected tha* if double the present supply of the Canadian coal were granted to the Canadian miners in the future, if they could secure double the market in Canada that they have to-day, there would be a material decrease in the price of coal. I am positively sure that if there was a market for Nova Scotia coal double the market of to-day, it could be reasonably expected that there would be a substantial decrease in the cost
The Budget-Mr. Smith
[Stage Direction]
of coal to the consumer. It seems to me that if it could be guaranteed to our Canadian mine operators that we would receive approximately 20,000,000 tons of the 29,000.000 tons consumed, we might have every reason to hope for a reduction in the price, and if we were to place, as we must place in order to protect this industry, a duty of $1 a ton on coal, it would not mean that the consumer would have to pay more for his coal, because the increased production and the volume would more than offset any other disadvantages in this connection. I think it is reasonable to argue, Mr. Speaker, that this industry would prove to be one of very great importance to Canada, much more so than it is to-day, and the Canadian consumer would also be almost guaranteed a reduction in the price of coal
I desire to quote from the report of the Royal Coai Commission investigating this matter in Nova Scotia last year. The reason I do so is that in the addendum to the main report, which was presented by Major Hume Cronyn, the coal situation is dealt with in very terse language. In the addendum Major Hume Cronyn says:
As a native and resident of the one, and a life-long admirer of the other, I take the liberty of making this appeal on behalf not only of Nova Scotia, but indeed of the well-being of the Dominion as a whole.
It will appeal from our report that one, perhaps the greatest, cause of distress and discontent is due to irregularity of employment in the mines. At the moment this statement is being penned there have been further outbreaks of violence in Cape Breton due to lack of employment with the destitution and ill-feeling consequent thereon.
The reasons for unemployment have already been explained, but to my mind that one which overshadows all others is -the inability of Nova Scotia coals to compete in the St. Lawrence markets with those imported from the United States. This condition is due to the fact that in certain of the American coal fields, notably those of West Virginia, coal can be produced at a much lower cost than is possible in eastern Canada. Some of the factors explanatory of this lower cost may be briefly set out:
(1)	-The ease with which coal can be mined and conveyed to the pit mouth.
(2)	-The absence of gas and the benefit accruing from natural drainage.
(3)	-The many economies possible, due to the fact that submarine mining in unknown, whereas more than half the output in Nova Scotia is mined several miles under the sea.
The marked difference in mining costs due to the above causes enables American coals to be transported, largely by water, from the field named and, after payment of the present Canadian import duty of 50 cents per ton, to be sold in Montreal and other Canadian -markets at prices below the actual cost of production and transportation of Nova Scotia coal.
Most of the remedies suggested and set out below were forcibly brought to the attention of the Dominion government in December, 1924, by a representative delegation headed by the then premier of Nova Scotia. It would be a lengthy and perhaps unprofitable task to examine in detail the merits of each; suffice it to
[Mr. Smith.)	-
say that in my opinion the two first named are those best fitted to bring relief to what is little less than a national calamity.
1st.-Federal assistance towards the establishment of coking ovens. This remedy has been fully discussed in section 36 of our report and need not be further elaborated.
2nd.-A substantial increase in the import duty on all bituminous coal and anthracite screenings; or, in the alternative, a federal bounty on coal shipped from the Maritimes to Montreal or beyond, and on coal shipped from Alberta or British Columbia to Winnipeg or eastward.
Further on Mr. Cronyn states:
The economist may logically ask why an industry which cannot survive competition should be allowed to exist and consumers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario may denounce any increase in the tariff as that must inevitably raise the price of bituminous coal. As one whose academic ifcrainiing -has been that of the Manchester school I must admit the cogency of both question and denunciation. But there are considerations involved in this problem which transcend cold-blooded political economy or even the losses which may fall on the more thickly settled portions of Canada.
May I attempt in the briefest fashion to outline these considerations.
More than one-fifth of the population of the province of Nova Scotia are directly dependent upon its coal industries and the subsidiaries thereof and over 12 per cent of the revenues of the province are derived from the royalties -paid on coal mined. After spending weeks on the ground and discussing the question with many residents of the province -in all walks of life I concur in the statement made by -the deputation before mentioned that "It is not possible to exaggerate the calamitous consequences to Canada should coal mining in Nova Scotia be permitted ,to decline."
Let us consider -but two of these consequences. We in Ontario are accustomed, if not hardened, to the accusation made in the prairie provinces that -the east treats the west unfaiMy but the sense of grievances unredressed which prompts -this charge is as nothing to the depth of feeling which exists in the Maritimes against the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. That resentment is of old standing and one of its causes is the belief that the Atlantic provinces were more or less cajoled into confederation by promises and alluring prospects which have failed of fulfilment. It is indeed not going too far to say that the tie of sentiment which binds Nova Scotia to the Dominion has worn very thin.
If then we of the central provinces are unwilling to sacrifice something of our prosperity on the altar of common citizenship to aid, perhaps indeed to save, the main industry of Nova Scotia, we may witness an estrangement of far reaching consequences. For it is not exaggerating the situation to say that the inhabitants of the Maritime provinces are in a frame of mind that insists upon relief from the disadvantages under which they labour.
Then he goes on to state:
My appeal then to my friends (if I may so term them) of Quebec and Ontario and through them to the parliament of Canada is on the highest ground of national unity. Let us, overlooking the pecuniary sacrifices invoked, take the necessary measures to safeguard the welfare of our brothers by th'e sea.
The second calamitous consequence to central Canada which might follow a collapse of coal miming in Nova Scotia will become clear if we but exercise sufficient foresight to discover what will be the probable course of events in regard to the supply of American anthracite upon which to-day we almost wholly depend for

The Budget-Mr. Smith
domestic heating. As our reports sets forth the lifetime of the mines from which we are supplied is limited and -their exhaustion is already in sight. At the same time -the demand for the American market has enormously increased. In the Light of former aotions, political and otherwise, and bearing in mind the warnings already given us, we need not be surprised if at some not far distant future an embargo be placed upon the export of anthracite. Should we not then be forehanded enough to protect ourselves against this day of reckoning by so encouraging the development of a native -industry as to have avaiilo-b-le a plentiful supply of that unexcelled substitute, to wit: Canadian coke?
Lest objection be taken that from one cause or another Nova Scotia might be unable to supply the coal or coke necessary for our requirements it is suggested that the increase of the customs tariff or bounty grants should only remain in force so long as it is clear that the supply of the native product is ample for all purposes.
The reason I read that quotation at some length was because of what I consider the very sound commonsense displayed therein.
We want only sufficient protection 4 p.m. on our coal to protect the industry in order to protect the Canadian market for our Canadian coal miners. If a dollar a ton duty will serve that end, well and good; if seventy-five cents a ton duty will serve it, all right. We have no objection; we are not making a particular plea, stating any positive and specific amount of duty that should be imposed, but we ask that a sufficient duty be imposed to protect the industry and keep the Canadian market for Canadians.
I should like to discuss for a few moments the question of steel. It will be and is recognized by all-and I think this has particular application to Nova Scotia-that the industries of coal and steel are inter-dependent and interlocked. It cannot be denied by any hon, member that the steel industry in the Dominion of Canada has been sufficiently protected to enable it to survive and compete with other industries along the same lines. I read a few minutes ago in connection with the coal industry an extract from the report of the committee that waited on the government in 1924 requesting additional duties on coal. In the same report I find there are extracts in connection with the steel industry in Canada. Let me read some of them:
The steel industry of Nova Scotia is the only portion of the general steel industry of Canada which is in any real sense self-contained, or able to produce manufactured material of genuinely Canadian origin.
It is the one industry of iits kind in Canada the output of which is the result of the expenditure of practically its total cost in the form of wages paid to Canadian or other British workmen.
The coal used is mined by Canadians, the ore by Canadians assisted iby their neighbour Britishers in Newfoundland, while all the work of smelting and refining is done in Canada by Canadians, many of 14011-184
whom have given years to the acquisition of their art which is now a valuable asset that is in danger of being lost to their native country. In the other steel plants in Canada both coal and ore for making pig iron and refining it to steel are imported from the United States, and should that source of raw materials for any reason become unavailable, iron and steel manufacture and the fabrication of iron and steel into finished goods would necessarily cease.
For this reason the steel industry of Nova Scotia deserves especial consideration. It is the only possible native source of the primary material of the iron and steel arts, and for national preservation, and to avoid complete dependence upon the outside for iron and steel supplies, requires to be kept in existence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am informed it is estimated that for the past seventeen years Canada has, in round figures, imported over 500,000 tons yearly of iron and steel in the form of pig iron, billets, plates, bars and rods, due wholly to inadequate protection, and in some instances to inequality of freight rates. Our steel importations from the United States alone now closely approach, if indeed they do not exceed, 2,000 tons per working day. Belgium is shipping iron rods into Canada at prices several dollars per ton below our cost of production. Meanwhile, our furnaces are cold and thousands of our men idle, with a certain percentage of our coal output uncalled for.
Our importations of iron and its products for the year ending February 1926 amounted to $171,165,943. Of this amount we imported from the United States alone over $150,000,000 worth. During the same period we exported to the United States $7,225,561 worth. That leaves a difference against us of over $145,000,000. During the same period we imported from the United Kingdom $17,638,2312 worth, and we exported to the United Kingdom about $8,000,000 worth. For the year ending February 1926 we imported from all countries iron and steel products to the value of $174,165,943, and we exported $72,855,942. In other words, there is a balance against us on iron an-d its products of over $100,000,000.
A short time ago, Mr. Ross H. McMaster, the president of one of our large steel industries in Canada, made the following statement in connection with the steel industry:
Steel manufacture is a basic industry in 'this as in other countries, but iit has been exposed in recent years to growing competition, facilitated by tariff reductions. An average duty of less than 10 per cent does not protect, the result being that steel imports have nearly equalled the domestic output, and that Canadian production has increased by less than one and one-half per cent in fifteen years, as against an increase of 75 per cent in the United States, the Canadian production for 1925 being actually lower the output in 1912.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Smith
[Stage Direction]
An examination of out tariff reveals that there are fifty-five items which admit steel and iron of various descriptions duty free or provide a drawback of substantially the entire duty when intended for particular purposes.
Mr. McMaster goes on to say:
Some in Canada will state that the profits of the Steel Company are large.
He refutes the assertion, and in the concluding paragraph states that they have earned a dividend rate of but 2^ per cent on the capital invested. That d-oes not appear to me to be a very exorbitant rate of interest for that or any other industry.
I am also reliably informed, Sir, that 51,600 tons of steel rails were imported in 1924. Had those rails been bought in Sydney, hundreds of men in the steel mills would have had three months more work, while the coal miners at Sydney would have had 115,000 more working days and $2,000,000 which left this country would have been kept here.
Statistics show that the production of steel ingots in Canada has been as follows:
1912	 821,000 tons
1925	 734,000 tons
That is, in 1925 we produced nearly 100,000 tons less than we did in 1912.
A recapitulation of our steel imports over recent years, embracing rolled products and other lines of iron and steel which this and other Canadian companies produce, shows the duty on imports is at the following ad valorem rates:
Average rate of duty
Year ending	March	31,	1922	
10.65Year ending	March	31,	1923	
10.59Year ending	March	31,	1924	
9.29Year ending	March	31,	1925	
9.48
Or an average rate of less than 10 per cent.
I understand also, Mr. Speaker, that in 1922 the value of fuel used in our iron and steel industries was nearly $8,000,000. The production of pig iron in Canada in 1913 was 1,129,000 tons, and in 1923 it was only 880,000 tons, while in. 1924 it was less than 600,000 tons. At the same time our imports of iron and steel increased from 110,000,000 tons in 1922 to 138,700,000 tons in 1923. I do not think the question of the inadequate protection of steel in Canada need be laboured; it is most obvious. The steel industry has been crippled; the production has fallen below that of fifteen years ago; other countries of the world are absorbing our Canadian market; our manufacturers are losing the home market -all these indisputable facts call for a complete revision upward of the tariff on steel. I urgently suggest to the House that this is fMr. Smith.]
another of those matters overlooked in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
Now I want to pass on to the textile industry. This is one of our most important industries; it employs 19 per cent of our total industrial workers; it pays 15 per cent of the total industrial wages; it produces 14 per cent of our total manufactured products and employs 9 per cent of the total industrial capital engaged. To show the magnitude of this industry-and I am sure this will be interesting to my western friends-within the past ten years there have been times when the value of the textile products manufactured in Canada was greater than the value of the wheat crop. In 1923 the value of our textile products amounted to the colossal sum of $334,439,196.
Mr. FORKE:: I would like to ask the hon.
gentleman a question in that regard. In making up these figures of the value of the total production of this industry, was the price of the raw material deducted?


Mr. SMITH:: I do not think the cost of
the raw material has been deducted from these figures.


Robert Forke: I would like to point out to the hon. member that in order to ascertain the actual value he must deduct the cost of the raw material entering into the production of the finished article.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: These figures were taken
from the Canadian Textile Journal, and I believe them to be reliable. I think my hon. friend's question is quite fair, and I also believe that his statement with respect to the consideration of the cost of the raw materia! is quite correct. But I do not think that detracts from my argument. In the fiscal year ending March 1925, the total imports of manufactured textiles into Canada amounted to $124,592,074. Of this total 77 per cent came from countries where the standard of living is lower than in Canada, and where the wages paid are from one quarter to one half less than those paid in Canada. In the same year. 1925, the total imports of wool, manufactured, amounted to $40,220,768, of which 94 per cent came from low standard of living countries. Manufactured cotton imports amounted to $34,406,109, of which 64 per cent came from low standard of living countries. In 1923 there were 1,817 textile establishments in Canada, representing a total investment of $283,248,204: employing directly 92,669 workers and providing an annual payroll of $81,244,205. These establishments produced goods to the value

The Budget-Mr. Smith
alieady stated. The raw materials purchased by the industry during that period amounted to $176,445,427.
In the fiscal year ending March 1924, which approximates the calendar year of 1923, raw textile fibres to the value of $40,611,749 were imported into Canada, and the importation of manufactured textiles amounted to $129,183,911. I would like to point out also that in the fiscal year 1925 Great Britain exported to Canada 82 per cent of the manufactures of wool coming to this country; the United States 6 per cent, and other countries 12 per cent. In the calendar year 1923, the latest I have showing both home production and imports, the total value of all manufactured woollen and knit goods imported into Canada amounted to $40,700,908, of which goods to the value of $33,111,173 came from Great Britain. That is, the imports totalled over 50 per cent of the value of the home products, and over 22 per cent of those imports came from Great Britain. In 1924 we imported from Great Britain 30,154,200 square yards of woollen and worsted cloth. English manufacturers of textiles are applying for protection in the Old Land; they ask for a 33J per cent ad valorem duty on foreign woollens and worsted cloth.
I pass from that phase of the subject, to return later. In the fiscal year 1925 the total imports from Great Britain amounted to $151,100,207, of which $72,128,723 represented textile produets. Of this total, manufactured textile goods represented $67,594,121; manufactures of wool amounted to $33,005,358, and manufactures of cotton amounted to $18,701,523, with the remainder other or mixed textile products. On examining the imports from Great Britain it will be immediately seen that approximately 50 per cent were in competition with our own textile industry, while the remaining 50 per cent is spread over all the other industries in Canada.
Now we come to the effect the French treaty has had in Canada, and I would like to classify it briefly as having two main effects. In the first place it increases the amount of goods made in France and sold in Canada; in the second place it replaces goods made by workers in Canadian mills. The increased imports of cloth from France under the French treaty and the increased importation from Great Britain are closing our mills, and to-day many of our Canadian workmen are out of work. It is an undeniable fact, I think, that a good many of our textile workers are without employment, and a great many of them have left for the United States, which amply protects its textile industry. In H011-1841
the town from which I come we have a very good example of the effect the tariff is having on the textile industry. An industry which in 1921 employed approximately 200 men today employs but two, a night watchman and a day watchman.


Mr. HEAPS:: What has been the effect of the United States tariff on the textile workers, in that country?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am not in a position to
give my hon. friend exact information as to conditions in the textile industries in the United States, but I can give him a quotation with regard to the conditions among the workers in the textile industries in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. gentleman was
saying just now that the textile workers in this country were being forced to the United States on account of-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have the privilege of asking a question What I am getting at is this:	The hon. gentleman says that the
textile workers of this country are leaving for the United States because conditions in the textile trades there are better than in Canada, and I am asking if he has information to show that that is the case.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I hardly need any very accurate information from the United States on that point, because we have the fact that our textile workers are leaving this country and going to the United States. I know personally that men who were working in the textile industry in the town of Amherst have gone to the United States. I am not in a position to say whether they were absorbed into the textile industries over there, but this fact is perfectly clear:	We are importing into the Dominion of Canada a very substantial quantity of textile products that could very easily be manufactured in Canada, and the result must be to throw our own textile workers out of employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not disputing that fact, but is the hon. gentleman aware-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I could not
hear the hon. member. Is he asking a question?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have the permission of the hon. member who has the floor to ask a question, and I do not see very much courtesy in hon. gentlemen opposite trying to prevep' my asking a question.
2901)
The Budget-Mr. Smith


William Duff: As long as
the hon. member has the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, he is in order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I have no objection.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was going to ask the hon. gentleman if he was aware of conditions in the textile industries in the state of New Jersey at the present time.
Mr. SMITH. I am not familiar with conditions in New Jersey, nor am I very greatly concerned about industrial conditions in the United States, but I am agitated, as I think everybody in this country, and as I am sure my hon. friend as a Labour member is agitated, over the fact that our Canadian workmen m the textile industries have left and are still leaving this country and that our own textile industries are being shattered by the importations of textile goods from other countries, particularly Great Britain. That is the only point I am making in this connection. It may be as my hon. friend in-*timates, that there is curtailment of production in the textiles industrie in the United States. That may be due to various causes. I do not know what particular causes may be bringing it about, but there are many that could bring it about. But the point I am making is that our own Canadian market is being absorbed by other countries.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: What protection do the textile industries of this country enjoy on woollen goods, for instance?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The preferential rate is
24f per cent. I can give my hon. friend the tariff on all the items, if he wishes.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that certain firms in the Old Land applied for protection against the goods imported into Great Britain from other countries. It is a fact that the Bradford manufacturers in England requested a duty of 33i per cent on woollen goods imported into England. Now if they require that duty on goods imported into England from countries where the production costs and wages are lower, countries perhaps where there is depreciated currency and non-union labour, and in some cases, I believe, child labour, it seems to me that we in Canada must have an equally high duty against the goods imported into this country from Great Britain, because our relative positions are the same. What I mean is that wages in England are about one-half what they are in Canada, and wages in European countries are just about one-half what they are in England, so that relatively we are in the same position to England that England stands
to the European countries, and if England requires a duty of 33 J per cent against these goods it seems to me that we shall not be able to compete with England unless we have an equally high duty.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) a few days ago mentioned the question of wool. It has been mentioned before, but it is important and will bear repetition that in Canada we have only about 2,500,000 sheep, which is practically the number we had thirty or forty years ago; in other words, there has been no growth whatever in the sheep raising industry in this country. I am informed that we use in Canada annually 70,000,000 pounds of wool, and that our sheep supply only 15,000,000 pounds of our annual consumption. I have also observed from various sources that our sheep raised in Canada are of the best quality, as I think was evidenced last year or the year before when they swept the boards in prizes at the International Live Stock Show at Chicago. The Commonwealth of Australia has about 30,000,000 sheep, and Great Britain 25,000,000 as compared with our 2,500,000, so there appears to be something radically wrong with the sheep industry in Canada. I realize the fact, whidh has been pointed out before, that Australia is particularly well adapted to the raising of sheep because they can graze there practically the whole year. This advantage is offset, however, by the fact that the sheep in Australia have to endure droughts, and are also subject to diseases to which our sheep in Canada are not susceptible. I will read what the Canadian Textile Journal of January 10, 1925, has to say on this very point:
In 1897 a system of specially low duties on goods manufactured in Great Britain was granted by Canada and increased to one-third off the general tariff in 1900. These low duties are collectively known as the "British preference." As Great Britain had the advantage of mass production and a much lower wage, more than eighty-eight woollen mills in Canada, with just	about half	of	the cards and looms	in the country,	were forced	to	close their doors and	the employeeswere thrown out of work and much of the capital invested lost, creating hardships in numberless small Canadian towns. Up to this time the increase in the sheep population in Canada was keeping pace with the increases in other live-stock. It is regrettable, however, that in round figures there are no more sheep in Canada to-day than there were when the British preference was first granted. Sheep breeding got a black eye because at that time the wool growers sold	their wool	to	the local mills, who	graded, sortedand	used it; and	with the closing of	the Canadian
mills the market was gone, as there was no machinery available immediately for the careful grading and preparation which is necessary for obtaining markets abroad.
It seems to me that this is a very serious matter for the Dominion of Canada. I do not know that I would want to venture any

The Budget-Mr. Smith
definite opinion or assertion as to where the responsibility should be placed. It is a fact, however, that we have a country which is suited in large measure for the raising of sheep and yet it is not being done; at any rate it is not being done to a degree which is at all comparable with the commonwealth of Australia or even with the British Isles.
With respect to the importations of fibres and textiles. In the year ending February, 1926, we imported from the United States into Canada 878,850,608 worth of these products. During that same period we exported $4,721,979 worth of these articles to the
United States. We imported seventy odd million dollars' worth during the same period, and to offset that we exported to the United Kingdom the small sum of $1,457,781 of fibres and textiles. I have here a table showing the imports of manufactured textiles and of imports manufactured and raw; of manufactured wool imported, imports of wool manufactured and raw; of manufactured cotton imported and imports of cotton manufactured and raw. I do not wish to weary the House by reading them, and should like to have them placed on Hansard. They are as follows:
Manufactured Textiles Imported into Canada from Great Britain, United States,
and Other Countries
More than one half, or an average of 521%, of manufactured textile products imported into Canada come from Great Britain. Over 70% of the total manufactured imports come from countries where the rate of wages paid in the trade are from one quarter to one half of the rate of wages paid in Canada. The proportion of manufactured textiles imported were as follows:-
Manufactured Textiles Imported
Fiscal year			1924	1925	
From:-				of 3 years
Great Britain	
51%	52%	54%	521%United States	
32%	28%	23%	271%Other Countries	
17%	20%	23%	20 %Imports Manufactured and Raw	Imports of textile manufactures:-	1923	1924	1925From:-	Great Britain	
$65,006,028	$67,967,878	$67,594,121United States	
41,864,612	36,315,502	29,475,236Other Countries	
21,765,046	24,900,531	27,522,727Total	
$129,235,686	$129,183,911	$124,592,874
Imports of raw materials:-
From:-
GreatBritain	
$ 3,733,796	$4,316,488	$ 4,534,602United States	
35,418,860	38,448,334	34,538,214Other Countries	
1,758,616	1,846,927	1,875,858T otal	
$40,911,272	$44,611,749	$40,848,674rmports manufactured and raw:-	From:-	Great Britain	
$69,339,824	$72,284,366	$72,128,723United States	
77,283,472	74,763,836	64,013,450Other Countries	
23,528,662	26,747,458	29,298,584T otal	
$170,146,958	$173,795,660	$165,440,757Manufactured Wool Imported	
Wool.-An average of 831% of the Manufactures of wool imported come in from Great Britain. While over 90% of the total manufactured wool imports come from the low wage paying countries, where the standard of living is lower than in Canada. The proportion of manufactured wool imported was as follows:-[DOT]
Fiscal years	1923	1924	1925	Average
From:-				of 3 years
Great Britain	
86%	82%	82%	83J%United States	
8%	7%	6%	7 %Other Countries	
6%	11%	12%	9i%Imports Wool Manufactured and Raw	Imports of manufactures of wool:	- 1923	1924	1925From:-	Great Britain	
$34,506,176	$33,000	,521	$33,095,358United States	
3,257,892	2,625.	,567	2,131,882Other Countries	
2,359,414	4,398	,857	4,993,527
Total
$40,123,482	$40,024,945	$40,220,768
The Budget-Mr. Smith

Imports Wool Manufactured and Raw-Concluded
Imports of raw wool, Noils, waste:- From:-
Great Britain	
United States	
Other Countries	
780,280 	
1,574,112	$4,744,575 1,883,749 665,099	$3,882,798 2,567,990 943,347Total	
$5,610,899	$7,293,423	$7,394,135Imports Manufactured and raw:- From:- Great Britain	
United States	
Other Countries	
$37,762,683 	
4,038,172 	
3,933,526	$37,745,096 4,509,316 5,063,956	$36,978,156 4.699.873 5.936.874Total	
$45,734,381	$47,318,308	$47,614,903
Manufactured Cotton Imported
Cotton.-The imports of Manufactures of cotton in 1925 as compared to 1923 have increased in proportion from Great Britain as against those from the United States. The proportions of manufactured cotton imported was as follows:-
Fiscal years	1923	1924	1925 Average
From:-	of 3 years
Great Britain	
44%	50%	55%	49|%United States	
48%	42%	36%	42 %Other Countries	
8%	8%	9%	8J%
Imports Cotton Manufactured and Raw
Imports of Manufactures of Cotton:-	1923	1924	1925
From:-
Great Britain	
$17,864,982	$19,168,557	$18,701,523United States	
19,392,130	15,838,965	12,540,426Other Countries	
3,128,646	3,029,499	3,164,160Total	
$40,385,758	$38,037,021	$34,406,109
Imports of Cotton raw:-
From:-
Great Britain	
$	2,183	$	39,715	$	2,582United States	
28,318,681	28,332,723	24,903,707Other Countries	
3,840	18,840	31,962Total	"	
$28,324,704	$28,391,278	$24,938,251
Imports of Manufactured and raw:-
From:-
Great Britain	
$17,877,175	$19,208,272	$18,704,105United States	
47,710,811	44,171,688	37,444,133Other Countries	
3,132,586	3,048,339	3,196,122Total	
$68,720,272	$66,428,299	$59,344,360
Comparing the government figures for the first four months of the fiscal year 1925-that is to say the months of April, May, June and July-with the same months in 1923 and 1924, the imports of raw wool, worsted tops, noils and waste, on an estimated grease wool basis, amounted to:
Four months-	Pounds
1923		 13,658,060
1924		 8,728,501
1925		 6,726,543
The importations of yarns for further manufacture in Canada during the same period were as follows:
Pounds
1923		 1,278,944
1924		 943,905
1925		 855,678

Coincident with this tremendous reduction of raw and semi-raw materials to be further manufactured by Canadian workingmen, the importations of woollen and knit goods further advanced than yams, for the same four months' periods reached the following tremendous totals:
1923		 $11,154,203
1924		 10,938.474
1925		 10,603,207
In other words the imports of raw material for manufacture during these comparative periods was 130 per cent greater in 1923 than in 1925, with all that implies to the pay envelope of the Canadian worker.
The tremendous increase in the importation of goods made by workers abroad since the

The Budget-Mr. Smith
reductions in Canadian duties on goods from Great Britain in 1922 and 1923 are shown by the British government figures of the exports to Canada of woollen and worsted cloth for the calendar years as follows:
Square yards
1921		 13,095,400
1922		 27,014,500
1923		 28,834,700
1924		 30,154,200
These figures do not include blankets, furniture stuffs, flannels, carpets, hosiery, underwear and fancy knitted goods.
The effect of the reductions in Canadian duties on goods made by workers in France, which went into effect in September, 1923, is shown by the Canadian government figures of importations of woollens and knitted goods from France for the twelve months ending March in each year. The figures are as follows:
1922		 $ 699,838
1923		 1,020,122
1924		 2 061,935
1925		 3,284,976
As will be observed the figures in 1922 were $699,000 odd, but in 1925 they jumped up to over $3,000,000. That shows the effect of the reductions under the French treaty in that line of goods.
With respect to the way in which the Commonwealth of Australia deals with the question of the importation of textiles into their country it may be interesting to note that woollens from the United Kingdom enter Australia under a duty of thirty per cent, whereas in the case of similar articles from other countries the duty is forty-five per cent. In other words the Canadian manufacturer is discriminated against by fifteen per cent in favour of the British manufacturer.
Now let me give a comparison of the woollens imported into the United States and those imported into Canada during the years 1923 and 1924. These imports include cloth, carpets, knit goods, yarns, made-up, and felts. The figures are as follows:
Importations into United States in 1923.. 552,467,059 Importations into Canada in 1923	 40,700,908
In other words, the imports per capita into United States of the articles I have mentioned for the year' 1923 were 43 cents as compared with $4.79 per capita in the case of imports into Canada. It seems to me this tells a very striking story of the difference per capita between importations into the United States, where these industries are protected, and importations into Canada, where the industries are not sufficiently protected Covering the same articles in the year 1924 there was very little difference. The per
capita importations from the United States amounted to about 42 cents per head, and in Canada in 1924 they amounted to $4.69 per head. Speaking again about the Australian tariff, to show how tariffs work out, compare the duties paid on a yard of tweed or of worsted cloth invoiced at five shillings a yard,
and 36 inches wide,	when imported into Can-	
ada and Australia.	The	rates of duties are:
	<3 TJ 1 5	Australia
	per	per
	cent	cent
British preference ..	.. 24|	30 plus 1/-per sq. yd.
France, Italy, Belgium,		40 plus 2/-per sq. yd.
Switzerland		.. 29f	
Intermediate	
,	.. 35	40 plus 1/6 per sq. yd.General	
.	.. 35	45 plus 2/-per sq. yd.
Coming back for a minute to a further comparison between the United States and Canada: one and one-quarter square feet of woollen and worsted cloth per head of population was imported by the United States from Great Britain in the calendar year 1924, while during the same period Canada imported 32 square feet per head of population. As to Great Britain, the comparative figures are as follows:
To Canada was imported 30,154,200 and to the United States 17,189.500. The population of the two countries being taken into consideration gives a per capita of 0.14 in the United States as against 3.54 in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to show the attitude displayed towards this very important industry in the United States by the president. He said:
I confess that I desire to see our country prosperous;
I am aware there can be no prosperity in which the textile industry does not have a generous share.
President Coolidge said at Washington, April 6:
There are sound and accepted historians who date the beginning of the modern phase of the industrial epoch from the invention of power-driven machinery for textile making.
From our national beginning it has been an almost uniform policy to conserve to the American producers the rights of first opportunity in the home market. The American home market is the most wonderful commercial development in all human experience.
The fact that our buying and consuming capacity is so great proves that, despite some inequities, we have on the whole maintained a more equitable distribution of the proceeds of industry than has been possible in less favoured communities. We are reaching a very fair approximation of democracy in industry.	_
Tiie pride of quality and craftsmanship has always been maintained to a notable degree throughout most of the textile industry. It necessarily denotes the payment of as liberal wages as the business can justify, and thereby the establishment of a great community of skilled and intelligent workers. Industrial prosperity depends almost entirely on men and women of skill.
The Budget-Mr. Smith

Industry has come thoroughly to recognize its responsibilities towards its employees. The government approves of and shares in that responsibility. It has come to be recognized almost universally that only upon justice to wage-earners of the nation can there be reared any lasting prosperity.
It seems to me that if we would adopt a similar motto in this country we would be doing something of a very substantial and commendable character toward this industry. I spoke a few minutes ago about an industry in the town of Amherst, which is in the constituency I represent. I have a letter from the president of the Stanfield concern which was located there-the buildings are still there but they are not in operation-in which he relates some matters of interest. In reference to the Amherst mills he states:
We found we were not getting a new dollar back for the old dollar expended; were wearing down our plant, and it was better to close down-take our liquid assets and convert them into cash and loan same out. The past twelve months have proved to us that this was a wise course for us to take in the interests of our shareholders.
He states further:
A beautiful mill like the Amherst Woollen Mills, if in the States, would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and would be employing hundreds of workmen. The same thing applies to a less extent to the Oxford Woollen Mills. *
He further states in his communication to me:
Years ago there were in the province of Nova Scotia woollen mills at Yarmouth, Eureka, Hopewell, Amherst, Oxford and Truro.
I think I am correct in saying that of all those mills referred to, the one at Truro is the only one in operation to-day. The Oxford Woollen Mills recently commenced operations on a small scale in the hope that they may be able to compete under the serious disadvantage to which they are subjected. I had a letter which I wished to read for the benefit of my hon. friends from Winnipeg in connection with the attitude of labour in the Dominion of Canada towards the textile industry. I am sorry I have mislaid it, but it was quite significant and stated in substance that the textile workers in the Dominion of Canada were not being treated fairly by the government in that their markets were being absorbed by foreign countries, and that if this policy of allowing other countries to come in and absorb the markets was continued they could not hope for anything of an encouraging nature for the workers in the textile industry of Canada.
I desire to speak for a few minutes on the question of the boot and shoe industry and its relation to the tariff, another matter that 
has been entirely overlooked by the Minister of Finance. The manufacture of boots and shoes is usually one of the first things to start in any country. Footwear is undoubtedly a necessity. There usually is a domestic supply of hides, so that one finds the primary condition for manufacturing, namely, a demand for the product and a supply of the raw material. This is another industry which, I submit, is suffering on account of unfair competition, and an industry for which there has been no relief under the tariff. This industry is one of the oldest in Canadian history. As far back as 1667, the Jesuits wrote to France that as a country could not be formed entirely without the assistance of manufactures, an industry was already in operation making shoes and hats and another was in contemplation for linen and leather. From its early beginnings the shoe industry has been completely revolutionized, and the manufacture of fine shoes in this country may be said to date from only about 18S5 or 1890. This development has been accomplished against tremendous odds and in the face of many handicaps. United States factories for a long time supplied a very large proportion of the fine footwear sold in the Dominion, our factories not being able to afford to manufacture those finer types and styles.
It may be interesting to note that during the war the shoe industry consolidated its position and proved to the world that its product in all lines was second to none. We made 3,000,000 pairs of army shoes during the conflict, and in the years 1919 and 1920 we exported to twenty-five countries, our exports of boots and shoes amounting in 1920 to $5,678,720. After the war other countries started to adjust their tariffs and Canada's export market was shut off, the result being that Canada's exports of boots and shoes for the twelve months ended February, 1926. amounted to only $265,000 as against $5,678,720 in 1920. The industry to-day is operating at approximately seventy-five per cent of its full time capacity.
It is significant that the production of boots and shoes in Canada last year was less than the output in 1912 by 1,800,000 pairs and, that while Unitecf States factories increased their production from 313,230,157 pairs in 1921 to 323,553.055 pairs in 1925, the Canadian output dropped from 15,800,000 pairs in 1924 to 15,500,000 pairs in 1925. It is estimated that more than a hundred shoe manufacturing firms have failed or been forced into financial reorganization since 1920. During the last four or five years the shoe factories have been operating at a loss.

The Budget-Mr. Smith
The industry certainly requires protection, but what has beeD the situation? In 1922 the government reduced British preferential rates on boots and shoes from 17! per cent or 20 per cent, depending on the class, to 15 per cent or 17* per cent. In 1923 a further reduction was made and the lower duty now stands at 15! per cent. Importations of British footwear into Canada for the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, showing the number of pairs and the value, are as follows- I cannot supply the number of pairs for
1922:		
Year	Number of pairs	Value1922	records nort complete	$ 456,0731923	341,814	738,7601924	652,925	1,186,0971925	805,201	1,132,850Hon. me	imbors will note the	striking difference between the imports in 1922, amounting	to $456.07.':	i, and those in 1925,	amounting to$1,132,850.	This shows quite	conclusively, I
think, why so many of the factories I have mentioned have been forced either to close their doors or to go into financial reorganization.
English manufacturers have the important advantage of lower wages and the importation of all their raw materials free of duty.
Leather tanned in Germany and other European countries is used in the manufacture of English footwear. The duty of 15| per cent afforded our Canadian shoe industry is practically offset, it is estimated, by lower wage costs in England. There are 190 shoe factories in Canada. British manufacturing plants have been so slack that it is stated that they have been cutting their prices to a non-profit basis and in many cases quoting, prices for export without figuring any charge for overhead in order to get the export business, their overhead being carried by the home market. Another important point is that Canadian regulations allow goods to be sold here at prices five per cent less than those in the country of origin before the dumping duty is applicable. Canadian appraisers in most cases have no knowledge of shoe costs and values and are unable to. check alleged fair market prices in England.
I have in my hand a statement of the importations into Canada of boots, shoes and slippers for the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 showing the number of pairs and the-values. With the permission of the House I will ask the liberty of placing it on Hansard.
The statement is as follows:
Official statistics of importations into Canada of boots and shoes and slippers (rubber footwear not included)
From the United Kingdom only
Table No. 1-Value
January___
February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August...
September. October... November. December.
1922	1923	1924	1925	1926S	$	$	$	$18,204	20,336	50,300	60,077	40,194-24,636	33,495	64,140	90,452	65,67456,183	72,980	126,546	121,594	32,765	41,395	60,819	68,855	23,767	41,474	75,969	69,765	28,915	45,220	77,138	81,004	39,722	41,299	96,170	76,647	45,997	98,132	134,609	140,835	44,650	97,275	131,154	153,291	56,399	85,749	187,970	113,799	52,141	99,217	99,249	89,570	32,694	62,188	81,973	66,961	456,073	738,760	1,186,097	1,132,850	
The Budget-Mr. Smith

Calvin E. Coolidge, President of the United States, said:
We have built agriculture squarely into the structure of our protective system, and the American farmer must not be undersold at 'home by New Zealand mutton, Argentine beef, Canadian wheat, Danish butter, Bulgarian tobacco, Chinese eggs or Cuban sugar.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have been following since 1922 a most mystifying and peculiarly absurd fiscal policy in this country. In the light, knowledge and complete understanding of what tariff measures practically the whole civilized world has adopted since the war affording more adequate protection, we in Canada stand as the only country of importance adopting a policy of an opposite character, namely the lowering of our tariff barriers.
That the question of trade is one of international niceties and fraught with intricacies, we all admit. That we must adhere to some extent to international trends, to hold our own in international trade relations with the world, is axiomatic. The world's policy is against us in our costly experiment. We are a strong, virile and intelligent people; our country is teeming in a wealth of natural resources, the envy of civilization. A great deal depends on our international attitude under the world's trading policy as to whether we will be able to forge ahead in the race for international trade supremacy. With our country's fiscal policy out of step with the world; with our markets held for andl being absorbed by foreign countries; with our industries shattered or stultified; with our exodus to highly protectionist countries, we should learn at least the simple lesson that, clever as we may be, proud and courageous as our government may wish to appear in the eyes of the world, we are as yet a small, struggling nation bent on building up our country. We should be following a main essential recognized world policy of protection that will inure to the safeguarding of our small and crippled industries; to keep our Canadians in Canada, to hold our Canadian markets for Canadians, and to protect all other interests. We fail in our purpose, in our obligations to the labouring classes, to our agricultural interests; to our industrial structure; we fail to promote our country's general welfare and to recognize our duty to posterity unless we pursue the course of recognized international advantage by safeguarding and protecting every legitimate interest in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Cotton duck	
Grey cotton fabrics	
Cotton sheets	
Cotton shirts, costing more than $3 per doz	
Cotton sewing thread
20!0
The. Budget-Mr. McMillan

The following is a Comparison of the Rates of Duty Under the Conservative Tariff of 1896, and Under the Liberal Tariff, on Certain Well-Known Articles-Concluded.
	Conservative	Liberal Tariff		
				
Article	Tariff	British Preferential	Intermediate	GeneralTariff	Tariff	TariffAgricultural Implements-Concluded	25%...	171%	221%	25%10c. per doz. prs. and 35%	25% If wholly of pure wool,	321%	?5%5c. per lb. and 25%..	n\%	30%	35%Equivalent to 39%.. 10c. per doz. prs. and 35%	If not of pure wool, 30%	35%35%	25% 221% 30%	321% 30% 35%	35% 35% 35%Undershirts and drawers	35%'.'.	Woollen cloths	5c. per lb. and 25% Equivalent to ad.	
Flannels, plain		val. duties ranging from 39 to 60%. 5c. per lb. and 25%	22|% 40c. per bbl. 50c. 100 lbs.	30% 50c. per bbl. 65c. 100 lbs.	35% 60c. per bbl. 75c. 100 lbs.
Wheat dour					
Rice, cleaned					
	Specific rates, equivalent to 15%				
Wail paper			Free	Free	Free
	Average rate, about 39%				
		221% Free Free	321% Free Free	35% Free Free
Head ropes for fishermen		l}c. per lb. and 10% 20%				
Refined cotton seed oil, for canning fish..				
				
May I also observe at this point that special trade agreements with individual nations are now so common as to have become the more popular means of encouraging international trade, and the present government has very wisely sought to break down international trade barriers by proceeding along these lines.
In addition to the substantial reductions which the Laurier government made in the tariff, it gave to this country a record of clean, efficient and progressive government, and, Sir, the brightest page in that fifteen years' record is the page which records the fact that that administration was asked to step down and out because its great leader staked its life on a question of high principle, without even a breath of scandal having been attached to its name. The fact that that administration was defeated fighting on the finest low tariff platform ever presented to the people of Canada is the pride of every Liberal, as it was the crowning satisfaction of our noble leader.
Following that record, we had a ten year term of Tory government in this country, of which the less said the better. Had it not been for the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) yesterday, I would have let it go in silence, but, Sir, after fifteen years of progress such as this country attained under the Laurier ad-
]Mr. McMillan.]
ministration, and with only an increase in ordinary expenditure of some $4,000,000 per annum, their successors in the three years before the war increased the ordinary expenditure by over $36,500,000. They had become so extravagant that even their own political friends were saying freely that they were squandering the money of this country like a lot of drunken sailors.
Then came the war, and in its direction and prosecution, together with the debasement and desecration of the franchise through the medium of the War-time Elections Act and the Soldiers' Voting Act, both of which are the special children of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), we had the most diabolical government record of mismanagement and maladministration which ever stained the pages of Canadian history. In the face of such a record, and after the way they borrowed money and added to the national debt more than Canada's entire war cost and cost of demobilization, at a time when they could have and should have collected hundreds of millions of dollars in war time taxation-in the face of such a record, it is a wonder to me that hon. gentlemen opposite are not reticent, rather than charging this government with delaying the return of prosperity to this country.

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
As a result of the record of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power, no Canadian government ever assumed office under greater difficulties than the present King administration. Their first act was to bring order out of chaos. Their work of reconstruction was necessarily slow, and it had to be done with care. They had to face enormous annual expenditures of nearly $464,000,000, and they could only effect reform through lessened taxation and otherwise as their carefully planned gradually reducing expenditures would permit. But their record is good. In the four years time, without taking the National railways into account-I believe we should discuss the business of the National railways in this House, but I say again now, as I said in my remarks on January 21, that I believe we should keep the business of the Canadian National Railways separate from the general public business of this country-this government has been able in the four years to reduce the expenditure by $354,000,000 below the basis of the last year of the Meighen administration.
The very first act of this administration was a marvellous stroke of business for the Canadian people. In the appointment of Hon. P. C. Larkin as High Commissioner, this government obtained the services of a man of outstanding diplomatic and business ability. His record to date is one of which every Canadian may well be proud. While the Borden government had received the promise in 1917 that the cattle embargo would be removed, yet they sat on the fence until the Hon. Mr. Larkin went over there in 1922, and in eight months' time, on the 15th day of December, 1922, he was able to see the statute finally removing the emhargo obtain the royal assent.
Apart from the ordinary duties to which the office of High Commissioner had previously confined itself, Mr. Larkin has been able to collect for the Canadian government $136,313,795 from different countries. These were debts w'hich had been lying idle for three or four years before he went over, and our government was receiving neither principal nor interest on account of these debts. He has also succeeded in funding the $24,000,000 Roumanian loan and the $11,000,000 loan to Greece, on account of both of which we are now receiving interest, and sinking fund payments regularly. These were debts which Sir Vincent Meredith, president of the Bank of Montreal, had considered hopeless, but the high commissioner has been able to secure in those, obligations which are as good as gold.
Coming now to the budget proposals ami the reductions proposed in the tariff, I am
not surprised at the calamity howls that have been going up from across the way. Why, it would not be the Conservative party if they did not indulge in that kind of thing, and the very fact that they offer such a half-baked amendment to the budget shows to us that they are not sincere in what they are saying. I go further. I believe that we will get ninety per cent of the people to favour these budget proposals. What did the Conservative party do two years ago? Their howling was the same when this government reduced the agricultural implement duties They said the agricultural implement industry was going to be destroyed, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) even went so far the other day as to say that it had been destroyed, and that there were very few mowers and self-binders being manufactured in this country now, but that we were supplying our needs from the United States. What are the facts? For the fiscal year 1921-1922, 1,271 mowers came into this country from the United tSates; for the twelve months ending February, 1925, only 396 mowers came into Canada. For the twelve months ending in February of the present year, only 353 mowers came into this country. So that we have an importation of 353 mowers in the year ending February, 1926, as against 1,271 in the year 1921-22 when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. When it comes to self-binders what do we find? For the fiscal year ending March, 1921, the imports of self-binders into Canada numbered 5,485. For the twelve months ending February, 1924, the number was 3,226, and for the year ending February, 1926, there was an importation of 2,118. But hon. gentlemen opposite told us nothing about the exports of agricultural implements from Canada to the United States. What do we find to be the case in this regard? In 1921-22 the export amounted to $583,005. For the twelve months ending in February. 1925, the figure had grown to $1,201,179, and for the twelve months ending February. 1926, it had increased still further to $2,324,073. These were exportations into the United States, meeting the competition of American manufacturers in their own country. Now let me take the total export of agricultural implements.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The hon.
gentleman has given the amounts in dollars. Has he the figures at hand showing the number of machines?


Thomas McMillan: No, I have not those
figures at hand. The total export of agricultural implements for the year ending February, 1924, before the tariff reductions were effected, amounted to $9,028,596. For the

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
twelve months ending February, 1926, the total export amounted to $13,516,407, showing that the manufacturers of agricultural implements were thriving as they had never done before.
It will be the same in the case of the automobile industry. We hear very humiliating references to the manufacturers of automobiles; a reference of that kind was made last evening to Mr. Henry Ford. May I be permitted to say that Mr. Ford is the kind of manufacturer that we want to see in this country? We want here men who are willing to rely on their own resources rather than on government favours. I am surprised to observe how hon. gentlemen opposite endeavour to decry the standard of the Canadian people. We have the best people in the world, able to meet competition from any country. We farmers are ready and willing to do that, and I believe that if the matter were fairly placed before them the majority of the people of this country would support that stand. We hear quite a lot about automobiles these days, but in my opinion at no distant date there will be more automobiles sold than ever. The increased production will give employment to more workingmen, a greater number of men will be engaged in the trade, and the same satisfactory results will be noticeable in the case of that industry as in the case of the agricultural industry today.
Coming to the matter of electric light plants for the farmers, hon. gentlemen opposite have not much to say about it. If there is one class in the community that are entitled to the benefits of electric lighting plants in their homes where they cannot be served by the hydro it is the hard-working farmers of the country, and more especially the farmers' wives. The present government is entitled to the highest credit for reducing the duties on the machinery necessary for power and lighting purposes on the farm. What are the facts in that connection? There was formerly a thirty-five per cent duty, but when we required repair parts we had to pay fifty per cent over the American price list. It was time to make a reduction of duty in that direction. Oh, the poor farmer I Hon. gentlemen opposite have been shedding tears over the state of the poor Ontario farmer, and claiming credit for the manner in which they wish to come to his relief. The hon. member for South Wellington, in his speech the other day, declared that the farmers of Ontario were thoroughly protectionist in sentiment. He made that statement in the face of the fact that the six townships in his own rid-
]Mr. McMillan.]
ing turned him down by the handsome majority of 1,709 votes, the largest Liberal majority, I believe, that was ever accorded in the history of those townships. When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite express so much solicitude about the Ontario farmer, I am reminded of the many arguments that have been advanced in this House since 7th January, which depend so greatly upon the little word "if". Let me say that "if" hon. gentlemen opposite could only shed enough tears to float themselves on to the treasury benches, the floor of this chamber would become a lake in less time than is occupied in making this statement. WThen we hear hon. gentlemen opposite arguing that we should impose high duities upon agricultural products in order to benefit the Canadian farmer it reminds me of the words of Thomas Carlyle respecting the corn laws of England, when he said:
Impartial persons have to say with a sigh, that for bo long back they have heard no argument for it but such as might make the angels and almost the very jackasses weep.
The arguments of hon. gentlemen are on a par with this expression. Perhaps the present moment is an opportune time to refer to a statement made during the general election by the right hon. leader of the opposition. The statement in question was that when two hundred thousand people left this country they carried with them a purchasing power in agricultural products to the value of $100,000,000. What does this mean? It means that every man, woman and child carries with them a purchasing power of $500 per capita. According to the press reports this statement, or its equivalent, was made at Wing-ham, Chatham, Charlottetown and Calgary, showing that the right hon. gentleman wished to give it nation-wide publicity. What are the facts? As I have already shown, in 1923 the total agricultural production of Canada was $1,342,132,000, of which $543,601,734 was exported, leaving less than $800,000,000 to feed our live stock and support our 9,000,000 people, which is not $500 per capita but less than $90 per capita. Is it possible that the truth in this case was not sufficiently high sounding to suit the right hon. gentleman's purpose, and in order to make it so he was willing to stretch the figures to over five times their breaking point? In view of such expressions on the part of these public men is it any wonder if the farmers of Canada pause and hesitate, and ask themselves the question: Must we, or can we, put any degree of confidence in these would-be champions of the farmer's cause?

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
Now, Sir, take that same production and that same exportation, 1543,601,000 which is sent out to the markets of the world, where the price is set, and which regulates the price of the same articles at home. Knowing that, the most superficial observer ought to know it would make no difference to the price if the government put one hundred per cent duty on this class of products. You cannot through the medium of a high tariff increase the domestic price of any article of which there is a large exportable surplus. So that this whole talk about high tariff duties on farm products is a blind; and higher duties on small fruits and vegetables simply a lure to commit the Canadian farmer to sky-high protection for the benefit of another class. Small fruits and vegetables come in now under a 30 per cent duty. Is that not sufficient?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does the hon.
gentleman not think the producers of these fruits and vegetables ought to be fairly good judges of what they want, and how is it they are passing resolutions and sending them in to the government asking for protection?


Thomas McMillan: I will deal with the
vegetables first. They only come into the country in any considerable quantity at a time when the Canadian farmers are not putting them on the market. In such a sectional matter as that involving small fruits and vegetables, or any other sectional matter, the interest of the great body of the people should always be the paramount consideration. Any government worthy of the name will always take a national rather than a parochial.point of view, and when it comes to the matter of vegetables we are shipping more vegetables to the United States by a considerable margin than they are shipping to us. For the twelve months ending February, 1926, our exports to the United States were as follows:
Potatoes (for 12 months ended Feb., 1926).. $3,968,893 Vegetables (.for 12 months ended Feb., 1926).	5,127,898
We imported from the United States $4,709,150 worth, so there is nothing to complain of in that. I say again that doubling the tariff duty on those articles which in the main do us no good will be used as a justification to double the duty on manufactured goods, and that will have the effect of increasing the price to the farmer himself and to the general consumer of this country.
Then my hon. friends talk about raising the duty. Have we heard one of them say in all their arguments that they desire higher duties on the goods which the manufacturer requires HOll-185
in his business? Not at all. In that respect they are absolute free traders, in that they want everything they require at the lowest possible price; but they are human, intensely human in that when it comes to their finished product they want to get the highest price they can, even to the extent of persuading the government to jack up the tariff to such a degree that like productions from other countries will not come in and as a consequence they will have the consumers of this country entirely to themselves. That is high protection such as this country will have if we ever allow hon. gentlemen opposite to take their seats on the treasury benches, but that is what we are going to prevent. Whenever a government begins to hand out special favours to any line of industrial activity through the medium of high tariff duties, they do an injustice to those who buy those goods; those people become dissatisfied and come to the government asking them to increase the duty on their finished products, and thus the vicious circle is begun and continued by one class of producers or manufacturers handing the increase on to the other. It goes all the way round the board until it comes back to the farmer, who cannot pass on his increased cost of production because the price of his goods is set in the markets of the world. So that it is a burden on the farmer which he cannot possibly remove, and it is also a burden on the working class consumer, who is required thereby to pay more than he ought to pay for every requirement on which high duties have been levied.
If there is one class in this country more than another to which the government should give special consideration, one class more than another to which they ought to be considerate, it is those God-fearing men and women who pledge themselves to each other for life, who establish homes, who raise families and bring them up to become the best citizens of the world. Such families are usually found upon the farm and among the middle and struggling classes of our people. To that great class a system of high protection is untrue. It places an unjust burden upon every home and family in the land in the unduly high prices they have to pay for every requirement upon which high duties are levied. Never was this fact more strongly impressed on me than on November 29, 1920, in London, Ontario, when I sat for hours while three members of the late Meighen government-sworn ministers of the crown, sworn servants of the people, sworn to do justice by all the people-sat fairly courting the evidence of men representing one manufac-



The Budget

Mr. McMillan
turing concern after another, as they came forward pleading for higher duties upon the goods they produced-and for what purpose? Simply to enable those manufacturers to put their hands a little deeper into the pockets of the people and take from them more than they ought to take for the goods they must buy.
That, Sir, is undoubtedly what high protection does, and assuredly what many producers will be allowed to do if the present Tory party are ever allowed to take their places upon the treasury benches of the government of this country.


Mr. MULLINS:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas McMillan: Yes.


Henry Alfred Mullins: No doubt the hon. gentleman is a farmer. When the duty was 27} per cent you could buy a binder in Manitoba for $150, and to-day, when the duty is 6 per cent, you are paying $258 for a binder in Manitoba.


Thomas McMillan: If my hon. friend would study economic conditions for a moment, he would know better. By his question he reveals the fact at once that he does not know anything about the principle of economics, otherwise he would not have asked it.


Mr. HOCKEN:: What is the answer?
Mr. .McMILLAN: The answer is that economic conditions to-day are not at all what they were at that time. We have heard a great deal about foreign countries imposing high tariff duties and thus preventing us from trading with them and possibly I shall have something to say about that before I conclude.
Place me in a position whereby I can take a little toll from every individual in a community and I will rapidly become wealthy. It will take all the people in the community some little time to realize that my additional wealth is obtained at their cost, that they are being robbed for my benefit. That is precisely the way in which high protection acts, and if we ever allow these people to get on to the treasury benches of this country, that is what will occur. I say again: One class above all others to which a high protective tariff is unjust is the working classes and the farmers, so that the Liberal party are fighting the cause of the common people as against the encroachments of the specially privileged interests, fighting the battle of the struggling fathers and mothers who are busily engaged in providing their families with the necessary ]Mr. McMillan.]
food and raiment which ought to be given to them at the lowest possible price, and which, if this government continues to remain in power, will be given to them at the lowest possible price consistent with the revenue requirements of this country.
I have often heard it said that high tariff duties will give the artisans, the mechanics and the working classes better wages. Such is not the case; it is not borne out by the facts. I am not going to put the statements on Hansard again, but if bon. members will turn to page 329 of Hansard of the present-year they will find out what the heads of labour organizations and the president of the textile trade in the United States tell us regarding conditions in the textile trades in that country of high tariffs. We are also told that we ought not to encourage the importation of foreign manufactured goods; that we should produce at home everything which can be produced at home and so to such a degree discourage international trade. No greater mistake could be made by any Canadian government.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without, question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 29, 1926