1926-04-23

INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved that the first report of the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations be concurred in.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: What is the subject
matter? Is it simply a question of printing?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Mr. Morin (Bagot) be substituted for that of Mr. Cardin on the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Welsh Miners jor Canada
INCORPORATION OF OIL COMPANIES On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that in the province of Alberta there is a large number of companies whose applications for charters have been accepted, to whom promises of the issue of charters have been given and who acting on that undertaking have actually entered into contracts with drilling companies. I notified the Secretary of State that I intended to ask this question to-day, in order to ascertain what the government was prepared to do and why the charters were not issued.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Acting Secretary of State):: I received the notification
of my hon. friend that he was going to raise this question to-day. The number of people who are asking for incorporation of oil companies at the present time is simply appalling, and the matter has been engaging my attention for some time. It is a matter of very considerable importance. I expect to reach a decision to-morrow and will inform my hon. friend in regard to it, but those to whom intimation has been given, as has been suggested, that they would receive their charters, will receive them.
CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Will the hon. Minister of Justice inform us if the government has yet considered the report of the Civil Service Commission regarding the permanent revision of salaries of civil servants?


Ernest Lapointe: The matter has been submitted to
a sub-committee of the Privy Council which is considering it at the present time.



POLICE ON DUTY AT PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: I ask the Prime Minister, why the necessity of such a large force of police as that on duty between half past eleven and half past one to-day?


Mr. CAHAN:: To keep the members
away.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I submit that my hon.
friend should address his inquiry to Mr. Speaker, as His Honour is the custodian of the parliament buildings.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say to the hon.
member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) that the Sergeant-at-Arms is the custodian of this building and the surroundings are under the surveillance of the federal police. This morning the usual number of police were oh duty, and I may add that since one o'clock from all parties, in the Senate and in the Commons, I have received great commendation on the orderliness of the crowd of people assembled here. I take this opportunity of congratulating in the name of the House of Commons the Sergeant-at-Arms and his force, and of course, the people themselves.



CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE WINNIPEG STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made an inquiry yesterday and on behalf of the Postmaster General I desire to give him the information to-day. The memorandum I have is as follows:
Representations have been made to the Post Office Department on behalf of the postal employees who were connected with the Winnipeg strike. These representations affeot both the men who have been re-employed without regard to their seniority as well as the men who have not yet been re-employed. The matter is now under consideration and when a decision is reached legislation will be introduced in due course.


Arthur Meighen: Then I may take it that legislation will be introduced.


Ernest Lapointe: The memorandum states:
The matter is now under consideration and when a decision is reached-
Of course I do not know what the decision will be.


Arthur Meighen: The Postmaster General says that when a decision is reached legislation will be introduced.


Ernest Lapointe: If necessary, of course.


Arthur Meighen: He does not say that.



WELSH MINERS FOR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWiORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):	I should like to call the
attention of the Acting Minister of Immigration to the following news item which appears in the Empire News of Manchester under date April 4, 1926:
10.000 miners for Canada.
£11 a week wage and five years' agreement.
Big scheme to develop new coal fields.

The Budget-Mr. Millar
An Emipire News representative cables from Canada news of a scheme to transport en bloc ten thousand experienced Welsh miners and their families to work certain coal measures for a group of British financiers.
It is proposed to pay the miners £11 a week, and group them in little "colonies," so that they will be in friendly and congenial circumstances. A five years' agreement is suggested.
Later on this statement is made:
Major Robbins told me he had just returned from England, having laid the proposition before the British industrial magnates, inviting them, along with their investigating engineers, to visit the mining area here.
He had also laid before the cabinet important data regarding Canada.
"Under the scheme," said Major Robbins, who is a native of Penarth, South Wales, "we propose by the aid of the experienced miners of the Welsh mining district to revolutionize coal mining in Canada and retain in the country millions of dollars that go over the border every year for this commodity."
Can the minister give us any light on this proposed immigration scheme? If it is so, will he kindly outline it a little more definitely? If not, in view of the unemployment in this country will the actual situation in Canada be given to the people in Great Britain?
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: This is the very first intimation I have had of anything of the kind. I know nothing of the scheme nor of the proposed development. I will however make inquiry and see if we have any information in the Department of Immigration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 22, 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. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night at eleven o'clock I was being pressed to give information in regard to profits made by Canadian automobile manufacturers. Considering the action that I and others in this corner and other parts of the House have taken who voted some time ago for a resolution to reduce the customs tariff on automobiles, I think it is only fair to give such information as is asked for. It is our desire to get at the facts. If at any time we present what seems to us to be facts and they are proved to be otherwise, we are willing to yield.
I will give the profits in connection with the Canadian Ford automobile factory. In 1925,
the earnings of this company amounted to $6,131,352 on an issued stock of $7,000,000 This is what was asked for. They earned in the year 1925 what would have been equal to a dividend, if paid, of 82.73 per cent. I understand that the full amount was not paid, but a dividend of 20 per cent was distributed. Now that the cut has taken place in the customs tariff on automobiles, provided that the company are not able to make any profits during the coming three years, this will still leave sufficient for them to pay a 20 per cent dividend for each of those three years and have 2.73 per cent left. Those figures may not be right, but they are taken from the Financial Post of February 12, 1926, which is, I believe, a very reliable paper.
In connection with that I wish to read from a clipping taken from a paper called Labour and this will close my remarks in regard to automobiles:
An investment company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is urging its patrons to buy stock in the Ford Motor Company of Canada. This plant is located in Ontario, right across the river from Detroit.
The circular urging this investment points out that the Canadian FoM Company lias paid $9,000 in cash dividends on every $100 originally invested; that for fifteen years it has paid an average of 32 per cent cash and 75 per cent stock dividends per year; and is all set to go ahead to still greater prosperity.
It happens that W. E. Raney, a distinguished citizen of Ontario,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Millar: (Reading):
-has analyzed and explained this extraordinary prosperity. What is not due to Mr. Ford's well known methods of massed production is due to the Canadian tariff of 35 per cent on automobiles. Mr. Raney summarizes the result:
"In a general way and roughly speaking, the Canadian purchaser of a Ford car of one type or another paid from $150 to $250 more than he would have paid if there had been no protection to Ford automobiles made in Canada."
What the Canadian tariff enables Mr. Ford to do in Canada, the tariff enables the textile trust and the aluminum trust and other trusts to do in America, and in the same way, by overcharging the consumer.
That is all that I wish to say in regard to automobiles except that I might refer in a few remarks to the delegation that is here to-day.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Would the hon. member be good enough to give the profits of the Overland, Dodge and Durant made in the same period? Hon. members always quote the Ford company.


John Millar: I cannot be expected to
carry all that in my head.


David Spence: You do not
want to.



The Budget-Mr. Millar


John Millar: I suppose, if I had given
the Dodge hon. gentlemen would have asked for the Ford.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Raney
might have carried it in his head.


John Millar: I believe that the company about which hon. gentlemen ask is part of General Motors, which is really an American concern. I take it that companies that are manufacturing under similar conditions and under the same tariff, if they are equally efficient and have the same mass production ought to make about the same profits. I have cited one instance and it is open to any hon. gentleman who speaks after me to prove that I am wrong.


David Spence: The Dodge
and the Durant are independent companies.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Millar: The hon. member will
have an opportunity to speak later; I would rather not be interrupted now. The delegation that is here from Oshawa is one of importance, and I desire to make a few remarks in reference to it. It is rather a formidable delegation and one which I have not the slightest wish to treat lightly; indeed, I believe that these people are sincere and are convinced that they have a grievance. What I saw on many of theii banners led me to believe that they were taking the matter seriously. If I mistake not there appears on one ensign the declaration that they are fighting for their homes and families. Now there are very few members in this House who would willingly do anything to endanger the homes of Canadians in any part of the country. I am absolutely sure we are all anxious to do justice to every section of the community. In connection with this matter some of our members have made a very exhaustive study, having spent, not weeks but months on it; and during the discussion that took place recently on the automobile situation we have all of us, I believe, listened with the greatest care to the various views that have been put forward. We have weighed the matter very carefully, and we have not taken action before being thoroughly convinced.


James Dew Chaplin: Which one of you took the action? We thought it was the government that was taking action.


John Millar: When I speak of taking
action I am referring to the support we have given to the reduction which has been made in the tariff. I may remind the House that a resolution in favour of such a reduction 
was moved a short while ago by a member of this group, so that in one sense action was first taken in this corner.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Millar: Hon. gentlemen to my
immediate right occasionally have an hilarious spell, but I noticed that during the presentation of the budget their faces were so long it would have cost some of them a dollar to get a shave. If I may proceed without further interruption, I want to say, speaking for myself alone, that the matter having been decided, the time for negotiation is past. If, however, it is found that a readjustment in small details in any respect will facilitate matters, I have no objection.


James Dew Chaplin: Is this an announcement of the government's now?


John Millar: I do not need to have
eyes in the back of my head to know where that "meow" came from. In reference to the delegation, I do not think there is a single member in this corner of the House who would willingly vote for the reduction that has been proposed if he believed that it would force Canadians out of the country. I am convinced that after the water has been squeezed out of the stock and the industry has been made efficient, as in many instances I fear it is not, it ought to operate successfully. Some of the companies, I know, are efficient but others have not perhaps been operated as economically as possible, because effect of too much protection is to lead to inefficiency. So that after all efforts have been made to promote efficiency I am sure that the motor industry can continue to operate -without lowering the standard of living of its employees to a level which we should not like to see reached in this country, a level lower than that which obtains in other walks of life in which men are engaged in similar labour and under similar conditions. If in future, after a thorough investigation by the tariff board, it is found otherwise, then it will be time enough to take further action.
There were some engaged in the manufacturing of implements two years ago who believed that the reduction on farm machinery made at that time would injure their business, and while I do not propose to give any names, I know that some of these people have found that as a matter of fact they have been able to prosper to a greater degree than before. The reduction did not work out the way they expected. If, therefore, the people who are here to-day in this delegation will put their shoulders to

The Budget-Mr. Millar
the wheel, making up their minds to rise to the highest state of efficiency, they will find that they also can operate successfully. And, those who are buying automobiles among whom are many returned soldiers, just as there are in the delegation, will be able to get their cars at a lower price, while the feeling that now prevails in the country, that an industry has been receiving too much protection, will have been removed.
I want to refer briefly to a statement made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), that the western farmer is being given protection in the way of freight rates. That is a common fallacy. There are in the esat, I believe, many people who are under the impression that the west is being bonused, that our grain is being carried at a freight rate that represents a loss to the railways. An official of the Canadian National Railways recently made the statement that the western wheat crop was carried at a loss of 16,000,000.


James Dew Chaplin: Who would
know better?


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Millar: When I have finished this.
It is surely rather strange that the railways make their best net profits in the months when they are carrying our grain. If they are carrying that grain at a loss, how is it they make a greater profit at that time than at any other period of the year? Yet that is what they do. What does that statement mean? Does it mean they lost $6,000,000 by getting less than they would have got under the old rate? When he was asked to give the proof, he stated that he would do so, but later he changed his mind and, I understand, stated he would give the commission an opportunity of looking through the accounts. If any member of this House or any officials of the railways can prove that the freight rates in western Canada, not on wheat alone-we would like the figures on wheat to be separated and see where we are at on that traffic-but taking the freight rates with the express rates, are less than they are in eastern Canada, we will be quite willing to equalize them. It might be news to some people who say that the east is carrying the west in this way to find that the freight rates on other commodities are considerably higher in the west than they are in the east. Statements have been made that our railways are losing money because they are carrying freight at rates less than those prevailing in
14011-174J
the United States. True, they are carrying grain for a less rate, but all the conditions must be taken into consideration. A railway official in United States when laying the difficulties that United States railways have to face before a rate tribunal in North Dakota made this statement:
A large number of figures showing the amount of (rack operated by the two railroads, and comparisons on the rate of taxes per mile and per $100 revenue, were produced by the witness.
The two lines were the Great Northern and the Canadian Pacific.
He declared that the Great Northern in 1924 paid taxes at the rate of $1,243 per mile, while the Canadian Pacific paid $311 per mile.
That in itself enables our Canadian railways, other things being equal, to carry commodities at a lower rate.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask the question now?


John Millar: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Does not the hon. member know that in a return prepared by the statistical department, and presented to the House by the Minister of Railways of this government which my hon. friend supports, it is stated that the operating ratio on wheat is $1.26?


John Millar: I shall require a little
further information before I answer that question.


Peter McGibbon: The explanation is that it cost the railway $1.26 to do a dollar's worth of business. In other words, that is the operating ratio.


John Millar: Was that on wheat alone?


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


John Millar: Without	further information I would not undertake to deal with that statement at the moment. Considerable effort was made by an hon. member last night to show that if our farm products were protected we would be better off-at least that was the implication. He stated that farm products in the United States were protected, and in every instance they rose in price. There is just one serious oversight there. If you have two lakes separated by a ridge of land, and you cut away that ridge, the direction of the flow of water will depend on which lake is higher. Now, it is quite understandable that in the United States, where the prices of those commodities are higher because of the larger population, protection is sure to raise those prices; but to jump at the conclusion that the effect would be the same in a sparsely settled
The Budget-Mr. Millar

country like Canada, where we are exporting ail those commodities in large quantities, and where the prices are lower than on the other side of the international boundary, is to say the least rash; such an argument is fallacious. Can you imagine that a tariff against American wheat is going to raise the price of our commodity? Why, never! Suppose there were no tariff, would the Americans ship their wheat over here when they can get several cents a bushel more in their own country? It would only be practicable for them to ship to some corner of Canada inaccessible to our wheat supply and close to an American wheat field. There a certain quantity will pass backwards and forwards it is true, but you cannot protect by a customs tariff a commodity where the price is low against the similar commodity of a country where the price is high. It is useless to attempt it.
In conclusion let me say that we from the west will always strive for greater unity of thought and action throughout the Dominion. There are difficulties in the Maritime provinces, and I hope that something will be done to overcome them, to assist the people there to get back to a sound economic basis. Notwithstanding the great wilderness of a thousand miles between central Canada and western Canada, I hope there will be nothing but justice and fairness on the part of all. We ask no more. In the past I am afraid those outlying parts of the Dominion have not received that fair consideration to which they were entitled. One reason why it is difficult now to get back to a basis of fairness and justice is that errors were made in the past; too much protection in some cases and too much government assistance in others were given to certain favoured sections. We are striving only for the square deal. There is no thought on our part to injure the manufacturing or any other industry. There is no wish on the part of anyone in this quarter of the House, so far as I am aware, to get back at those Who have accumulated large sums of money. They may have gained their wealth fairly, they may not, but if they are using it properly, if they are investing it to give work to other Canadians, we have no desire to injure them in any way. We would, I believe, readily take action to extinguish that class which has gained its money by means that are questionable, by exacting too high prices for the commodities it has sold, by securing from governments grants of natural resources in the way of timber limits and mines. We desire to prevent a recurrence of that state of affairs. But as a representative

from the west, I can say that we want to pay our share of freight rates and everything else, we want to do justice by all the other parts of Canada. With the limited knowledge I possess, Sir, I am striving to understand our national problems so that I may vote intelligently with respect to their solution. In short, I desire to do justice by all and give favours to none.


Mr. PETTIT:: In what respect have the
Maritime provinces not been fairly dealt with?


Mr. FORKE:: Leave that to the Maritime
people themselves.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the budget it is not my purpose to follow at any considerable length the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. There are just one or two things on which I would like to touch very briefly. The hon. gentleman referred to the statements issued by the railway companies in such a way as to lead one to believe that in his opinion at least, and in the opinion of those who think with him, the statements as to earnings and operating costs cannot be relied on; that when the Minister of Railways brings down a statement in this House to the effect that it costs more to earn a dollar than the dollar itself in handling grain in western Canada under the present freight rate, the statement is misleading, and the officials who prepared it are not making a correct statement.
Mr. MILLAR- I made no comment on that statement; I refused to comment on it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I submit that the only conclusion we can draw from the remarks of the hon. gentleman and from similar remarks made in regard to that question is that the hon. members are not prepared to accept as genuine the figures presented to parliament by the Minister of Railways. At the moment it is not my purpose to go into the transportation question at any length, because a time will come later when we may deal with that. In the meantime I might just put to my hon. friend and those who sit around him this question: Do they feel disposed to support a government that would wilfully issue false statements in order to deceive those who invested their money in the construction of what is now a portion of the Canadian National Railways? That is exactly what is being done, if the statements-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to ask
if it is appropriate for the hon. member to say that the government wilfully issued false statements in regard to this matter. I noticed

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
the right hon. leader of the opposition conferring with the hon. member; I hope this language does not emanate from him.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman referred to me, and I have the right to make a reply. The language used by the hon. member was not given him by myself, but I support every word of it, and every member on this side of the House supports it.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the Prime Minister feels it necessary for me to go around the House borrowing language, there is no one to whom I would rather go than the right hon. leader of the opposition. But let me repeat my statement. I simply asked my hon. friend whether or not he questions the reliability of the statements given to this House by the government as to what it costs to earn a dollar in the transportation of grain under the rates now existing in western Canada. My hon. friend implied that he was not disposed to accept these figures as genuine. The figures are given by the government; there is an issue of $25,000,000 of income bonds against the construction of the Canadian Northern Railway, the lines of which are to a very large extent in western Canada. These income bonds provide that interest will be paid to those who have put their money into the construction of that line, just as soon as that interest is earned. But no interest has been paid since 1910. Why? Because the government, which is in reality responsible for the payment of the interest, says that the freight rates in western Canada did not make it possible for the railway to earn the interest. Let me again ask my hon. friends; jf they feel, as they say they do, that the statements are not correct and that the government or the servants of the government are issuing these statements for the purpose of deceiving these bondholders, do they consider that in supporting the government they arc representing the feeling of the Canadian people? I submit, Sir, that if the Canadian Northern Railway, now a part of the Canadian National Railways, is earning the interest on that money, the people who purchased these bonds have a right to that interest, and it is for the government and my hon. friends to discuss now as to who is right and who is wrong.


Robert Forke: Would the hon. gentleman
mind stating what he means when he speaks of the lines in western Canada?


George Brecken Nicholson: All lines west of Port
Arthur and Fort William. My hon. friend
knows as well as I know that when anyone refers to the railway lines in western Canada and the special rates on grain in western Canada, he refers to those parts of the railway lines west of Port Arthur and Fort William.


Robert Forke: To Prince Rupert?


George Brecken Nicholson: The special rates only apply from prairie points to Port Arthur and Fort William.


Robert Forke: Then let me remind my
hon. friend that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway said that if Mackenzie and Mann had been content to build railway lines to Fort William they would have been the richest railway men in the world.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend finds
a very easy way to beg the whole question. What the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway said with regard to Mackenzie and Mann has no bearing on this question. My hon. friends contend that the special rates applicable on grain from prairie points to Fort William and Port Arthur give an adequate return to the railway company for the traffic handled. I am not going to stop at the moment to dispute that contention, but I do say that the government supported by my hon. friends has given to this House and to the country a statement that these rates are not equitable, because^ the lines do not earn their operating costs in the handling of grain. My hon. friends can take one of two positions; if they support the statement of the government they deny their own statements; if they support the statements made by themselves, they charge the government with deceiving the people who put their money into these bnnds. That is clearly the
Referring to the delegation which waited on the government this morning, my hon. friend said that there were very few members of this House who would wilfully injure any class of people in this country. I think perhaps that is true, but the great difficulty is that this country is in such a position, in regard to its national government, that all that is required is two or three men desiring to do something, and the government gets down on its knees and yields.
Just one other point, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend said-and this is an additional warning to the delegation which arrived here this morning-that the time for negotiation had passed. When did the time for negotiation begin? When was there an opportunity given to the manufacturers of automobiles or to the representatives of the men who are

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
engaged in this industry to come and lay their case either before the government or the tariff board which the government have appointed to deal with tariff matters?


Mr. MANION:: Or before the Progressive
party?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, or before the
Progressive party? When did my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), before he reached the decision to hold the gun to the ear of the Prime Minister, ask these men to come here and lay the facte of their case before him? When did he do that? When? But now that the axe has fallen-


John Millar: Is there any reason why,
at any time since the House met, a delegation from Oshawa could not have come here if they wished to present their views to the Progressive party?


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend thinks that all those who are engaged in industry in this country are capable of reading the minds of my hon. friend and his friends to know just who is going to be singled out next? What reason had the automobile industry to expect that this attack would be made upon them? They had the definite declarations of the Prime Minister, made from one end of this country to the other, and made specifically in the Speech from the Throne delivered at the opening of this House, that the tariff would not be touched until an independent body had given the matter consideration. I am sorry he is not in his seat, but I wonder if my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) is worrying in his home town whether he should come down here and present his case to the government, and ascertain whether the duty is to be taken off furniture next.
The next point on which I would like to say a word is this:	My hon. friend says:
If, after investigation by the tariff board, conditions are found to be such that this industry cannot carry on, we will reconsider the matter. They will reconsider, not before the industry is closed, not before these workingmen are forced to leave Canada. No, but after they have gone to the United States to get work, then they are prepared to listen to any representations they may make as to whether there is any possibility of re-establishing themselves in this country.
My hon. friend referred to the implement industry, and to the fact that it was found that certain firms engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements could carry on notwithstanding the reductions made in the tariff. That is true. I believe some of them are

carrying on, bufc let me from memory just give you the statement of Mr. Vincent Massey in relation to that. Speaking in the county of Durham, where he was a candidate for the House of Commons in the last election, he said:	When the duty was taken off agricultural implements, there was very great concern in the agricultural implement industry, but we waited on the government. Who are we? Mr. Vincent Massey. Then what happened. He says: Concessions were made to us by taking the duty off steel and other products of allied industries which go into the manufacture of agricultural implements, with the result that we were able to carry on and make just as much money as before. But, Mr. Speaker, the steel industry went out of business.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Did Mr. Massey say that the steel industry of Canada went out of business?


George Brecken Nicholson: It was not necessary
for him to say that. I will come to that in a moment, and tell of conditions of which I have personal knowledge, to show what has taken place in the steel industry.
Passing from the remarks of my hon. friend, and before touching on what I really want to say in relation to the budget itself, I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to refer, as my hon. friend did, to the delegation that came to Ottawa from the industrial centres all over the province of Ontario and parts of Quebec to present their case to the government this morning.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Were there any people
in that delegation from the province of Quebec, and if so, who were they?


George Brecken Nicholson: I did not take a census of the delegates, but I had the privilege of listening to His Worship the Mayor of Ottawa, who introduced the delegation, and he definitely made the statement that there were present representatives of a large number of municipalities in the province of Ontario as well as some in the province of Quebec. If His Worship the Mayor of Ottawa made a statement that was not true, then I submit my hon. friend can discuss that matter with His Worship.


Mr. PARENT:: Discuss it yourself. You are speaking now.


George Brecken Nicholson: If my hon. friend does not like to have the province of Quebec linked up with the province of Ontario even in a matter of this kind, he can settle that matter also for himself. I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident that anyone who

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
looked into the earnest faces of these workingmen and their wives, who paid their own transportation costs to come here and present their case, could not be otherwise than impressed, and very greatly impressed, with the seriousness of the situation that faced them when they would undertake to do what they did at very great expense and sacrifice to themselves. After all, Mr. Speaker, they are Canadian citizens. Many of them have demonstrated that very fully; I shall not refer to that at the moment. I take it that the tradition of the fitness of things in relation to a question of that character is this: That the first citizen of Canada, in the person of the Prime Minister, surrounded by his government, will be prepared to receive any delegation of Canadian citizens presenting their case, it matters not what it is; that he will be prepared to consider the justice or injustice of their claim; that he will receive them in the dignified manner in which the Prime Minister of Canada should receive them; and that he will hear their case and either give them a decision or advise them that he will take the matter under consideration and give them a decision later. That is what one would have expected from the Prime Minister to-day in connection with the delegation that waited on the government in the railway committee room. But what did we find?
First, the Prime Minister, accompanied by the Finance Minister, went to see these people where they had assembled in a downtown theatre, and there he made a speech to them, and what was the character of that speech? Just perhaps what one might have expected from him. He told them in his speech in the theatre that his government were prepared to hear what they had to say, to consider the representations made, and reach a decision;
perhaps not exactly stating it, 4 p.m. but at all events leaving the impression in the mind of anyone who listened to him that the government had an open mind on this question. But as I said, he was accompanied by the Finance Minister, more inclined perhaps than the Prime Minister seemed to be to state definitely and at once what was in his mind. He stated: "So far as I am concerned, I stand by my guns," thus administering a rebuke to the Prime Minister for side-stepping the issue in the first place. Then what followed? The Prime Minister met such of the delegation as could be accommodated in the committee room, but instead of meeting that delegation as he and the government should have done, what did we listen to? A political
speech pure and simple. I venture the statement that never before in the history of this country have men been called upon to listen to a Prime Minister meet a delegation of Canadian citizens as the Prime Minister did this morning and listen to a statement such as that. What, after all, did it amount to? As I stated, it was purely and simply a political speech, and if it was not designed to deceive the delegation, then the words uttered had absolutely no meaning at all. The Prime Minister in the first place said:	The government is in the
hands of parliament. What does this involve? The government comes down with this legislation. Does the Prime Minister mean to say that parliament had anything to do with the preparation of the budget? I am perfectly aware of the fact that the budget was prepared under the dictation of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), without any question; but parliament had nothing to say in connection with it, it is the first time I submit, in the history of this country where a Prime Minister, in connection with the budget statement, comes before a body of Canadian citizens and says: In relation to our budget we take no responsibility. We wash our hands of the whole thing. If it suits parliament all right, and if it does not suit them they can do as they wish with it. That practically Is the statement, but the Prime Minister went further, and let me say again, if his words were not designed to deceive that delegation and to make political capital out of what he said to the delegation, then they had no meaning at all. He undertakes to fasten on the opposition in this House, or members of parliament here assembled, responsibility for the position the government took in the matter. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) would have been entirely out of his place if he had even presumed to meet that delegation or to say anything to them. It was the government's business, but notwithstanding that fact the Prime Minister takes advantage of the opportunity, when no member opposed to him could with decency even interject a remark, to undertake to fasten on this side of the House the responsibility for what has taken place. And in doing so, what did the Prime Minister say? He stated that no member of parliament in this House had moved a resolution or taken one step to remove the grievances that these people were complaining of. It is true the Prime Minister did not use those exact words. He stated that no member of this House had taken any step or moved any resolution to

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
restore the tariff. Has any member of the House, except the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), the right to submit a resolution to restore the tariff on an article which the Minister of Finance has taken off. Let us see what hon. members on this side of the House have done. On Tuesday April 20, my hon. friend from Fort William moved this amendment to the budget:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the late general election campaign assurances were repeatedly given by the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown that before further tariff changes were made an opportunity would be given industries affected thereby to be heard before an advisory board.
After reciting the entire resolution this is the conclusion of it:
And this House regrets that in the case of drastic changes announced in the budget such assurances have not been fulfilled.
The language of the memorandum presented to the government, placed in the hands of the Prime Minister by the delegation this afternoon, was practically identical with the language used by my hon. friend from Fort William in that resolution-the only language that could be used-the position taken being that the assurance was given by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and assurance given in the Speech from the Throne that these matters would receive consideration, and that this whole question would be referred to the tariff commission appointed by the government. But the Prime Minister, endeavouring again to make political capital out of the tragic position in which these workingmen and women find themselves, makes the statement-let me repeat-which if it means anything, had for its purpose nothing more or less than the deceiving of this vast delegation of Canadian citizens: "that no member of this House had made any effort or moved any resolution to grant these people redress.v
Passing from that and coming to the budget itself, I desire to deal only with three phases of it, first, the public debt; second, the changes that have been made in the taxation, and, finally, the tariff changes and their relation to the whole industrial and economic life of this country. Perhaps I might be pardoned for repeating from memory, if I can, what was said by the hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Forke) in the introduction to his speech a few days ago, when he congratulated the Minister of Finance on the manner in which he performed his difficult task. Whether we disagree with the hon. member for Brandon on other things or not, we agree with him that the task

which was put in the hands of the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Brandon and those who support him, was indeed a difficult task for the Minister of Finance to perform, because those of us who know the Minister of Finance know that he realizes just as well as any man in this House and out of it the effect the budget will have on the industrial and economic life of this country and on Canadian citizens generally.
Coming now to the statement of the Minister of Finance in relation to the public debt, we had again the same profuse assurances with regard to the abundant revenues and reduction of expenditures and of the public debt; and as I listened to the statement of the minister, I could not help but feel, how long are the Canadian people going to submit to have an annual financial statement given to them by the Minister of Finance ,or by those who prepare the financial statement for the minister, which, if made by the president or directors of an incorporated company on which to secure a loan from the bank, would land them behind the bars. In reality that is the character of statement we have been receiving because of this fact, that the annual statement, and particularly this annual statement, does not disclose the actual conditions in relation to the public debt of this country. It does not disclose what our assets and liabilities in reality are. The minister says we have a surplus of revenue over expenditures, ignoring entirely $18,000,000 of bonds, referred to by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) last evening, issued by the Canadian National, ignoring entirely $63,000,000, the amount which the Canadian National went into debt last year, and wiping out the so-called surplus, and making a deficit of $50,000,000 on these two items, ignoring entirely the bond issue of $5,000,000 guaranteed in December last, to what we termed in this House previously and may term again, the 1925 election campaign fund railway, which is being built up in northern Quebec. There in the aggregate, Mr. Speaker, is $85,000,000 in these three items entirely ignored, and that is the character of statement we have.
I do not intend to go any further into the general financial situation, because I know that, as soon as his health is sufficiently recovered, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) will deal with this question exhaustively.
Coming to the reductions in taxation, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, and everyone will agree, that it is time Canada put her house in order, and reached the point where there

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
would be genuine reductions in taxation, and if I might digress for a moment again, I would say that if the government would give some consideration to the complete reorganization of the finances of the country, they could save 825,000,000 in interest on the national debt, a saving which could have been effected at any time during the years since 1922. Every country in the world with a debt as large as ours has done it. The United States did it, Great Britain did it, and France, notwithstanding all her difficulties, has done it. Germany is doing it and countries in southeastern Europe, the new states created out of the war, have undertaken to fund their debt, spreading it over a long period of time, but we have the government going back and forward, between Ottawa and New York, issuing treasury bills and bonds at six months or a year, and all that kind of thing, at the highest rates of interest, and with the expense of issuing and re-issuing the series of bonds that is involved.
As regards the question of taxation reductions, a reduction has been made by doing away with the stamp tax on receipts, a tax which was imposed by this government itself. There is a further reduction in postage from three cents to two cents, and then there are the changes in the income tax which have been heralded as a means by which the Canadian people are to be saved, perhaps, $20,000,000 to 822,000,000. But, Sir, if you will analyse the provisions of the new income tax law you will find that instead of a reduction in the income tax there has simply been a transference of the burden from one set of people to another It may be that the set of people to whom the income tax has been transferred are the people who should pay lhat tax; but when the Minister of Finance came forward to make his budget statement, he should have manfully said: I am going to relieve one class of people and impose the tax burden on the other. Instead of that he camouflaged the whole situation by saying: We are making a reduction in the income tax, whereas it will work out as I have stated in transferring the incidence of the tax from one class of people to the other and transferring it to that class of people where it will do more injury to the economic and industrial life of this country than any other kind of taxation that could be imposed.
If the Prime Minister, as he did during the 1924 budget debate, had gone down to New York and surrounded himself with Henry Ford, representatives of the International Harvester Company and representatives of the United States Steel Corporation and asked
them to work out a plan by which the investment of money in Canadian industry could be completely discouraged, he could not have arrived at a better plan, because this is what has happened. A man who puts his money,
'f he has any, into United States securities, Brazilian securities or government bonds, is taxed once; but il he dare invest a dollar in Canadian industry, if he should undertake to do anything for the development of his country, he is immediately taxed twice.
Let us see how the new tax with its so-called reductions works out in relation to the old. On an income of 85,000 that is earned in a Canadian industry, under the old act the tax was 8525. Under the new act, you pay a company tax of 8450 and an individual tax of $160, making the tax $610 instead of 8525.
On a $10,000 income earned in the same way, whereas you formerly paid $1,165, now you pay $1,460 or an increase of $295, because you invest your money in Canadian industry.
On an income of $20,000 secured in the same way, whereas you paid formerly $2,990, now you pay $3,340, or an increase of $350.
How does the new tax work out in relation to the man who invests his money in Canada and the man who invests it outside of Canada? A man who invests money outside of Canada or in non-productive bonds of some character where his money is not doing anything to develop this country, on an income of $5,000 pays a tax of $40. If he is the type of man who wants to assist in building up this country, he pays $490 on the same amount.
On a $10,000 income in the same way, the man who invests his money outside of Canada pays a tax of $290, whereas the man who puts his money into business or industry in Canada pays a tax of $1,190.
On an income of $20,000, the man who invests his money in foreign securities pays a tax of $1,540, whereas the man who invests his money in Canada pays a tax of $3,340 and so on.
The government is not satisfied with that double form of taxation and if a man happens to invest his money in a northern Ontario mine, for instance, he is still further taxed. I may say just at this point that if the government would give some attention to assisting in the development of the vast resources of this country and encourage the men who are willing to go out into the newer parts of Canada and spend their lives and money in building up this country, it would be doing something worth while for the Canadian people. Let us illustrate the

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
26 per cent on the invoice price, plus 10 per cent on labour, inland freight, ocean freight and so on.
Now with regard to export. The point so frequently stressed against the Canadian industrialist is that he can sell his goods in the world markets. On cars he exports the manufacturer gets a drawback of ninety-nine per cent of every cent of duty he pays on the materials entering into their manufacture. But in his home market he is at this disadvantage, that he must pay a sales tax of five per cent and an excise tax varying from five to ten per cent, according to the value of the car, or fifteen per cent in all. Now, if the desire of the government, as has been stated, was to give the Canadian people cheaper cars, and if the desire also was to give the industry a chance to live, why did not the government take off the sales tax or the excise tax? Instead, they preferred to take off the duty and leave those taxes as a bonus to the United States automobile manufacturers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, it is not my purpose to argue that the duty on automobiles is what it should be, but I do say that if we are to deal fairly with all classes of Canadian industry and all classes of our people, the automobile industry should have been given an opportunity to present their case before their protection was interfered with. If the government were serious in appointing the tariff board rather than simply taking this means of sidestepping their responsibilities and deceiving the people, as they have frequently done by appointing commissions of all kinds during the last four and a half years, why was this automobile industry not allowed to submit their case to the Tariff Advisory Board?
This morning I listened to the Prime Minister address the delegation of automobile employees in the Railway committee room, and I was amazed that he should make such statements to a lot of intelligent working-class Canadians. You will recall, Sir, that last year in Kingston, in Oshawa, and in a score of other places the Prime Minister stated definitely that no changes would be made in the tariff until expert advice had been secured and the whole question investigated. How are you going to investigate a question if one party to it is left out altogether? The Prime Minister stated to that delegation of workingmen and their wives that this whole matter had been under serious consideration during the last session of parliament and during the intervening period, and that the government had arrived at its

conclusion only after the most careful investigation. Where did the government get their facts? Was anyone employed in the automobile industry given an opportunity to present the case of the workingmen? The great majority of these men are members of recognized bodies of organized labour, and they could have sent delegates to give the government expert information on the manufacture of automobiles. Where did the government get their expert advice? In the resolution presented to this House by my hon. friend who sits at this desk (Mr. Coote) and in the representations from those sitting around him. No one associated with the automobile industry had an opportunity to say a single word.
But if the Prime Minister was correct in what he said at Kingston, Oshawa and other places last fall, and if subsequent to that we are to assume that some investigation was made and the government reached that conclusion, why did they go further and undertake the deception of His Excellency the Governor General, of this parliament and of the country in the Speech from the Throne? Here is the language they put into His Excellency's mouth:
We believe that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes; that changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation-and report by a body possessing the necessary qualifications to advise the Ministry with respect thereto. A Tariff Advisory Board will accordingly be appointed" forthwith. This Board will be expected to make a careful study of the Customs Tariff, the revenue to be derived therefrom and the effect of the- tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture..
That was presented to parliament on January 7, a little more than three months ago. Speaking to the delegation this morning, the Prime Minister said:	We have been
giving the most careful consideration to this whole question. Then why this paragraph in the Speech from the Throne? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reduction in the automobile tariff not only affects that industry, you cannot name a single industry of any account whatsoever in this country that is not also affected by the reduction. When the duty on automobiles and trucks was reduced, I repeat, Sir, the last stone was taken from the foundation of the whole industrial structure of this country. Let me go back over this again:
We believe that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes.

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Does the uncertainty created by the tariff reductions in this budget tend to stability in our industrial life? You could not find anyone in Canada to-day or outside of it who knows anything about our conditions who would be fool enough to invest one single dollar in a Canadian industry in the face of this interference with the tariff, notwithstanding the undertaking given in the Speech from the Throne that no tariff changes would be made except on the advice of the Tariff Advisory Board which was there promised, and which has since been appointed by the government. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was either deceiving His Excellency the Governor General and this House when he put those words into the Speech from the Throne, or he was deceiving the delegation in the speech he made to them this morning.


Hewitt Bostock: May I remind the hon. gentleman that it is not parliamentary on his part to say that either the government or any member of the House has spoken or acted in a way to deceive anyone. I would refer him to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, where at page 63, paragraph 238, he will find the following:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind ; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
The language used by the hon. gentleman a little earlier in his speech was apparently somewhat involved, otherwise I would then have called him to order. Whether it be the government or a member of the House, as I said the other day, individually or collectively, neither can be accused of deceiving. Such language is not parliamentary. I would therefore call on the hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling with very great pleasure, and I will say at once that not being able to understand the implications the Prime Minister was making in his remarks to the delegation this morning, nor the language used in the Speech from the Throne, he perhaps was not deceiving either the delegation or parliament.
Just in relation to that matter of stability m industry and the result of this instability, T wonder if the House would bear with me if I very briefly went back over the fiscal history of this country. Those who are old enough will remember the condition which prevailed before the introduction of the National Policy in 1878, and we know the conditions which prevailed thereafter. As soon as the National Policy was introduced the country began to prosper, and continued to prosper until an attack was made on that fiscal policy in 1889. That continued in three different specific phases until 1896-as commercial union, free trade, unrestricted reciprocity and so on. Hon. members will remember all the different phases of that controversy. Then the country became unsettled; those who had money to invest were afraid to invest it; industrial establishment did not expand and the country stood still. There were two political parties in the country, one a declared protectionist party and the other declaring that if and when it came into power it would destroy every vestige of protection.
Then what happened? In 1896 a general election took place; that so-called free trade or commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity party came into power, and the great leader of that party secured the Hon. W. S. Fielding, now Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, as Minister of Finance. There is no man in the public life of this country for whom Canadians have more respect, because of his steadfastness of purpose during the whole of his public career, than the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. In 1897 Mr. Fielding introduced his first budget, and this is what he said:
It would be folly not to remember that we are dealing not with the protected manufacturers only but that the interests of labour have to be considered as well as the interests of capital. ... I hesitate not to say that if we should to-day, by some rash step, do that which some hon. gentlemen say we are bound to do. . . . we would not only break down the manufacturing interests of the country, but we would deal a blow to other interests of a wider and more serious character.
Then again, Mr. Fielding said:
We submit that it is a wiser policy to wait and see what shall be the outcome of the present uncertainty in the United States. ... We submit that pending such negotiations and pending the settlement of the American tariff question and a clear understanding of what will be the effect which their policy may have upon the affairs of Canada, it is the part of prudence that we should to-day hold our hands
Further on Mr. Fielding said:
I have to tell the House that it is not the intention of the govemement. ... to propose any great reduction in the tariff as applied to those countries which are not disposed to trade with us.
Then what followed? Will anyone disagree when I say that as soon as that statement was issued the Canadian people took heart and the country again went ahead under a protective policy maintained by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by Mr. Fielding as Finance Minister, just as the country had prospered under the previous government?

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
The total changes made in the customs tariff, between 1896 and 1911, was less than six-tenths of one per cent, and in many items the tariff was increased. The country continued to progress until the outbreak of the Great war.
We need not go into the conditions prevailing during that period, but what followed? In 1919 Canada had the greatest opportunity that has ever come to a people of the same numbers in the history of the world. Europe was completely devastated; complete chaos followed the war, and millions of people were anxiously looking for some place to make homes for themselves. Canada has the greatest store of undeveloped natural wealth of all the countries of the world. If we had had the vision and the wisdom to maintain an economic and fiscal policy which would have made it possible for us to develop Canada we would have gone far, but again what happened? A political party, more anxious for office than for Canada, declared that if they came into power the tariff would again be attacked, joining with the United Grain Growers of western Canada in their declarations for the wiping out of every vestige of protection afforded Canadian industry.
That party came into power in 1922, with Mr. Fielding again Minister of Finance. In his first budget speech Mr. Fielding practically repeated what he had said in 1897, that we must have stability in fiscal matters. Following that statement there was a reheartening, to some degree at least, of the Canadian people, notwithstanding the fact that the clamour continued for the wiping out of protection to Canadian industry. At the end of 1923 Mr. Fielding's health broke down; he could no longer carry on and a new Finance minister came into office. I do not wish to say one harsh word against my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance, for whom I have the highest personal regard. I will say, however, that he did not have the strength of character to stand up and do what he knew should be done if this prosperity were to continue, so the tariff was again attacked. What was the result? In very much less time than Mr. Fielding anticipated, industrial stagnation has taken place all over this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Hon. members may
laugh if they wish, but let me repeat this question, which I have asked in this House more than once. Will someone rise and tell any dozen of these workingmen who have come here from the city of Toronto, having

lost their jobs through the closing down of the automobile factories, where they can go in Canada with a reasonable assurance of getting profitable employment? Will anyone answer that question? I say you cannot point out a single-


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Yes; let
them come out west and we will give them employment.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will come to the
west in a moment, if the hon. member will just have patience. Will anyone guarantee these men permanent, profitable employment in western Canada?


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: In western
Canada we do not guarantee things; but if a man goes out there he has to work and look out for himself. If any man comes out west and wants to work he will find employment which will give him a fair return for his labour.


George Brecken Nicholson: What about the 10,000 people who went west last year, paying their own transportation, who were unable to earn enough money to pay their fares back home? What has my hon. friend to say about that?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would say to the hon. member that if that is true surely he should give us some chance, and make the implements of production a little cheaper.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me tell the hon.
member something. I happened to be in western Canada last fall on two occasions during that period, and I assisted men to come back from the west when they were unable to earn sufficient money to bring themselves back home. I will come to this question of cheaper implements of production and give my hon. friend some information if he will just possess his soul in patience for a few moments.


An hon. MEMBER:: He farms the farmers.


George Brecken Nicholson: There are a good many men in this country who are farming the farmers. Let me repeat: That condition has been created in this country, notwithstanding the fact that more than a half million Canadian citizens have been forced to leave Canada during the past four and a half years because they were unable to get employment at a living wage in their own country. I challenge any hon. member of this House to show me a single village, town or city from North Cape Breton to the west coast of Vancouver island to which a dozen of these men who have lost their jobs in Toronto, Oshawa, Windsor and St. Catharines could go, with a

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
reasonable prospect of getting profitable employment. Will anyone undertake to answer that challenge?
Now I will come to my hon. friend's question. He suggests that the farmers of the west be given a chance through cheap implements. That is the theory of the free trader, of the man who wants to destroy Canadian industry: Give us cheap implements! Let me repeat,
I know what it means to buy implements, and I say that implements of every variety have increased in price since the cuts were made in the tariff of this country. It is the same with everything else: just as soon as you put yourselves in the hands of the industrial corporations in the United States, the price immediately goes up.
In 1919 a committee of this House earned on an investigation, and they asked the grain growers of Saskatchewan to send here someone who was an expert on the production of wheat. The man who moved that resolution, as a matter of fact, was the then representative for the constituency of Mackenzie, Mr. Reid. Mr. Hugh Thompson, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, was sent down here by the grain growers of Saskatchewan to give evidence. He went into complete detail in relation to the growing of wheat on 320 acres of land in Saskatchewan, and after he had given these full details to determine the value of machinery of every description he was asked the question: Assuming that the Canadian manufacturer adds the full duty, plus a reasonable profit, to the cost of manufacture, which every sane man who knows anything about the business knows he does not do- but assuming that he did, for the sake of the western free trader's argument, not mine- what effect would that have on the cost of production of wheat on a 320 acre farm in western Canada? Now remember, this man was under oath, and in reply to that question he gave his own figures: he said, six-tenths of one cent per bushel. That would be the effect based on the assumption, which is wholly fallacious, that the Canadian manufacturer added the full amount of the duty, plus a reasonable profit, to the cost of production.
Another witness was brought before that committee to give evidence, this time from the province of Ontario, sent here by the United Farmers of Ontario to give evidence as to the cost of producing foodstuffs on an Ontario farm. It was the Hon. E. C. Drury, the leader of the United Farmers of Ontario, the Progressive party in this province, the man who was going to usher in a new day in the province of Ontario, and who
certainly did, but the kind of day the Canadian people never want to see again, and Mr. Drury's sworn testimony was this:	If the
manufacturer added the full amount of the duty, it had the effect on the cost of producing foodstuffs in the province of Ontario of less than 2-i per cent.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, I know something about purchasing implements, and I know that the price of implements has gone up, and it goes up every time we place ourselves in the hands of the industrial corporations of the United States. May I, in passing, say just one word with regard to that? If there is any country that has given the whole world an example in industrial economics and one that we at all events would do well to follow, it is the United States. From 1866 right down to the present day, taking their whole tariff on the average, the United States has been the most highly protected country in the world, and what have they accomplished under that policy? They have multiplied their population three and one-half times during that period, they have multiplied their industrial wealth almost one hundred times, and with what result? They have raised the standard of living to the highest level known in any country in the world, and their standard of wages is the highest of any country in the world. Their production of implements and of everything else that they produce is the lowest in cost of any place in the world. They sell their steel products in free trade Manchester. Steel rails made by the United States Steel Corporation are laid on the streets of the city of Manchester for the street cars to run on. Hon. gentlemen all over this House have proclaimed that they can buy their goods cheaper in the United States than they can in Canada. Why? The United States is the most highly protected country in the world. They have mass production, and yet some say that we should subject ourselves, our industries and our workingmen, to the competition of that country. I have said a score of times in the last three or four years that unless Canada adopts a different course from the one she has been travelling along economic and industrial lines in the last few years, this generation will see Canada absorbed industrially into the United States. As a cold matter of fact, we are now vassals of the United States industrially and economically. I am going to take the liberty of quoting again an extract quoted by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in the speech he made in this budget debate. It is taken from the bulletin of the United States

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Department of Commerce, an official document presented to the President of the United States by an official board set up to inquire into all economic and industrial matters. It says:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States, our trade, with Canada being in many respects more like domestio trade than our foreign trade with other countries. The movement of industrial raw material from Canada into the United States and the return flow of a miscellaneous assortment of manufactured goods is not unlike a similar flow between the west and the south and the more industrialized eastern part of the United States.
Again, quoting from the same report, and if anyone desires to check this up they can do so by referring to page 265 of the bulletin
of the United States Department of Commerce, dated November 3, 1924, they say this, in relation to what this government is doing:
Against the set policy of the Conservative party of building up a thoroughly protective tariff to favour Canadian industries, has been oiperating the influence of the Liberal party who stand for a moderate level of import duties and a generous measure of preference to empire products.
Again:
Each of the three budgets presented by the present government have carried changes m the Canadian import duties, and almost invariably downward.
Then here is the sting:	[DOT]
United States manufacturers have been the principal suppliers to Canada of most of the classes of goods on which the duties into Canaxia have been reduced during the last three years.
In other words, United States manufacturers and United States citizens, instead of our own Canadian manufacturers and Canadian citizens are the beneficiaries of the policy of this government, and have been beneficiaries for the last four years.
I said a moment ago that we were, if not completely, rapidly becoming vassals of the United States, and that we cannot maintain our national identity if we continue in the course we have been travelling the past few years. Already 500,000 Canadians have gone to the United States in the past five years, and what class of people are they? Are they men and women who came here as immigrants, stayed with us only a short time and then left? Many of them are, no doubt. Last week I took occasion to go to the office of the registrar general for the province of Ontario, in the city of Toronto, and I learned that during 1924 and 1925 the registrar general of this province had issued duplicate birth certificates to native sons or native daughters of the province to the number of one hundred per day, to permit these young men and these young women to become permanent residents of the United States. Has the exoduz

stopped? During January, February and March of this year the average was something a little over seventy per day.
Last year the Hon. Senator Beaubien put on Hansard-I have not got it here-a statement showing what has taken 5 p.m. place in our sister province of Quebec. How long, Mr. Speaker can we continue to export our native-born sons and daughters and maintain our national identity?
What else? A return brought down in this House prepared by Mr. Grant MacNeill of the Great War Veterans' Association showed that some 100,000 of the men who put on uniform, and pledged their lives to save civilization during the Great war, have found conditions on coming back to Canada such that it was necessary for them to leave this country and go to the United States, and still this movement keeps on.
Let me now quote from the Manitoba Free Press of the 6th of October last:	Mr. Johnson, registrar of aliens in the United States, speaking at Providence, Rhode Island, on October the 6th last said:
A new deportation law and a more easily workable Naturalisation Act were advocated by Chairman Johnson, of the House Immigration committee, in a prepared address to-night before the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island.
Citing "the increasing percentage of arrivals from Cuba, Mexico, South American countries and Canada" Mr. Johnson said these arrivals would provide a basis for fixed quotas 1
And so on. Mr. Johnson, the registrar of aliens in the United States, includes as aliens those coming from Canada and those coming lrom Cuba, Mexico and South American countries. The influx of these people has become so great, Mr. Johnson says, that steps will have to be taken to restrict the number of Canadians, Cubans, Mexicans and South Americans entering the United States. Still hon. gentlemen tell us this exodus is merely a myth. Go into any town, village or country place you like, in any part of Canada, gather twenty-five people together, and ask them if it is a myth. Ask the fathers and mothers of the boys who have gone if it is a myth.
I have a letter from a Roman Catholic priest in my own riding pointing out that since October last seven families have left his parish and gone to the United States to find employment.
Hon. gentlemen opposite referred to the steel industry and the effect of the tariff on it. I will deal briefly with that matter, because my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) will speak on that question later on. The industry to which I refer, the Algoma

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Steel Company, is located in his riding. That company operating to capacity would employ 7,500 men, a potential population of 50,000 people. What has happened since 1922? It has not been working half time since that year, and never more than 2,000 men employed in it. I have somewhere under my hand the quantity of pig iron we import into Canada which I will give to the House. But the Algoma Steel Corporation, on account of pig iron being a heavy commodity, and transportation charges being very high, had worked up a business in northern Minnesota and Michigan for the small quantity of pig iron they could produce; they were doing this to give employment to their men, and the total amount exported in 1924 was 3,600 odd tons. The United States did not consider it necessary to raise their duty on pig iron, but the United States tariff board said, "We cannot afford to allow 3,600 pounds of Canadian pig iron to come into the United States. We will put a barrier against it, and not one single ounce of that pig iron will come into our country." This was done notwithstanding the fact that we are importing millions of dollars worth of the same commodity from the United States. I will give the House some figures of what we have imported. I have the latest bulletin issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under the signature of J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, and these figures are extracted from this book. The
figures are as follows:
Binder twine	 $ 6,671,823
Fertilizers	 2,831,411
Paints and Varnishes	 3,853,853
Soap	  1,128,154
Fire bricks	 1,397,342
Cotton	yams	
2,718,190Cotton	fabrics,	bleached	
1,724,189Cotton	fabrics,	dyed	
10,104,458Cotton	fabrics,	printed	
1,754.807Wearing apparel	
2,314,234Miscellaneous glass	
7,155,760Window glass	
1,248,712
And three window glass plants in Canada have been closed down as a result of that tariff, which has turned 2,500 Canadians out of employment. Window glass and glass of every description is 20 per cent higher than >t was before the import duties were removed and we are now importing our glass from Belgium and the United States. The table
continues:
Plate glass	 $1,829,007
Hats and caps	 2,951,753
Boots and shoes	 1,670,054
That is the reason the men have already .'eft their homes in Quebec.
Electrical apparatus	 $15,501,301
Pig iron ingots, etc	 1,551,783
And yet the Algoma Steel Company is forbidden to export 3,600 tons of pig iron from their plant in Canada to the United States:
Rolling (mill products, general	 $38,006,810
Tubes, pipes and fittings	 3,142,701
Wire	 2,648,403
Engines and boilers	 11,603,174
Farm implements	 11,234,839
Hardware and cutlery	 3,369,937
Machinery	 30,158,936
Now what has happened to the steel trade? The great majority of these things are the manufactures of iron. That is what has happened to our steel industry. The changes in the tariff have placed the industry at Sydney in a position where it is unable to operate and that is the reason every steel industry in the whole of this country is tied up. The man who will say that the steel industry in Canada has not been ruined knows nothing about the conditions. The table continues:
Miscellaneous tools	 5 1,912,204
Vehicles	 36|4ie!906
Freight automobiles	 1,693,369
Passenger automobiles	 12,855,940
Automobile parts	 20,690,989
Nuts and bolts	 4,567,451
Oil cloth	 729,273
PaPer	 9,142,177
They take our raw products to the States and send them back in the form of paper.
The next item is:
Pneumatic tires	 $ 492,473
Furniture	 1,269,331
That is in spite of the tariff my hon. friend from North Bruce enjoys:
Dress goods of wool	 $2,643,850
I want to turn to another phase of the matter. My hon. friends to the left say that they are anxious to improve the condition of the farmer in Canada. I heard an hon. member to my right say that it was a case of desiring to farm the farmer. Be that as it may, some of us would like to feel that we are living in a farming country and that we should, if we are going to develop this country, laise in our own country all the farm produce we require. If we destroyed all our industries end reverted to the stone age, surely we should be able to raise enough maize and grind it between two stones to enable us to live. Last year we imported the following:
Agricultural and vegetable products.. .. $196,041,785 Animal products	 45,703,203
Total	 $241,744,988
If the House will permit, I will put the details on Hansard without reading them, but I wish to refer to one or two special items in connection with this matter.

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson


Ernest Lapointe: Is it just the figures my hon. friend wishes to place on Hansard?


George Brecken Nicholson: Just the figures to
make up the total.


Ernest Lapointe: If it is only figures I
have no objection.


George Brecken Nicholson: Those figures are taken from the document from which I have quoted. We imported $12,046,315 of books and printed matter. I had intended to say something about the advisability of placing a duty on American magazines coming into this country, because this item is made up to a considerable degree of American magazines.


Mr. BIRD:: I thought my hon. friend was
going to comment on that list of articles.


George Brecken Nicholson: Imports Into Canada, 1925
Agricultural and vegetable products.. ..$196,041,785 Animal products	 45,703,203
Total	;	$241,744,98*

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Including the following:
Live animals	$ 2,408,507
Cheese (10,274,388 pounds value)	 2,304,167
Eggs in the shell (2,721,606	dozen).. ..	957,708
Fruits	 27,022,194
Grain and grain products	 15,409,018
Hides and skins, raw	 9,185,128
Lard and compounds (3,650,269	pounds).	513,341
Leather, unmanufactured	 3,834,972
Leather, manufactured	 3,405,864
Meats	 4,984,456
Bacon and hams	 181,562
Fresh pork	 1,166,960
Pork in brine	 1,041,029
Fresh vegetables	 4,272,027
Canned vegetables	 13,076,577
Raw wool	 6,545,476
Woollen yarns	 2,797,645
899,106,631
Miscellaneous woollen goods, manufactured or partially manufactured.. 3 46,595,874
Tweeds	 3,065 564
Worsteds and coatings	 12,487,601

Special Items
Books and printed matter	$12,046,315
Chemical products	 27,653,819
Fish	 2,234,262
Grease for soap	 1,049,463
Settlers effects	 6,163,523
Settlers effects exported.. .. $7,540,201 Difference	 1,376,678

My hon. friends referred to Saskatchewan and the west. I took the liberty of going through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta two or three times in the last few years. In 1924 I motored 800 miles through Alberta; I met a large number of farmers, went to their homes and discussed their problems and my own. One afternoon I met a group of twenty-five or twenty-six farmers and their wives at a little gathering in a little town in Alberta and we discussed the common problems of Canada. I asked this question: Will you tell me, you men who have been in this country the time you have, what it is that is holding this wonderful province back? Why is it that you are literally standing still? Why was it necessary for the United Farmers of Alberta on one of the days that I was in that province, to hold a meeting, pass a resolution and send it to this government, pleading with them not to send any more men on to the land in western Canada until conditions changed? The answer came immediately: Because we have no markets. One man said: The only thing we can sell is wheat and we have to transport that across two continents practically in order to find a market for it. If one-half of the farmers are hailed out and the world supply is low and the price is high- we can make a living; but if there is a good 14011-1754
crop throughout the world the price goes down until we cannot make a living. I will say this to my hon. friends as one of those raw easterners who are looked upon with such ignominy by my hon. friends: I have lived in the open spaces of this country for forty-two years; if the growing of wheat is the destiny of western Canada, then western Canada has achieved its destiny because you are growing all the wheat you can find a profitable market for. If there is a member in this House, either of the government or of any of these two groups that can show me or the House- and I say he cannot-where you can market, an increase of fifty per cent in the wheat production of western Canada, I will apologize for everything I have said. But if you do make that increase you cannot find a market for it within the confines of the habitable globe.


Mr. HO  WHEN@: Does the hon. gentleman
know that we grow the best wheat in the world in western Canada and does he know that there is always a market for the best products and that there is no danger of our running short of a market for the wheat we grow in western Canada?


George Brecken Nicholson: I know that we grow
the best wheat in Canada in western Canada,


Mr. HOWDEN:: The best in the world,


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, the best wheat in the world in western Canada, and no one is prouder of the fact that we can grow the best wheat in the world than I am. But I do not know that the rest of my hon. friend's statement is correct, because I do know there have been years when you could not market your crop profitably in western Canada because you had too much wheat. One of those years was 1923, not so very long ago, when the price of wheat in the world market went down to a point where the western wheat grower himself said that it was impossible to grow wheat profitably. I will repeat my statement that if you increase the volume of wheat in western Canada by fifty per cent you cannot find a market for it within the confines ot the habitable globe.
Let me repeat what these Alberta farmers, real farmers, men who are endeavouring tc develop that country, said to me. They said: If we had a market for our cattle, hogs, butter, cheese and our vegetable products, this would be the Garden of Eden for the farmer. I asked them: Why is it that while the two cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have been adding half a million people to their population and furnishing a market for the people in the northern
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

and northwestern states, the cities of Winnipeg, Brandon, Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Edmonton and Calgary have added less than 100,000 to their population? The answer is simply this, that Minneapolis and St. Paul constitute the industrial centre for the northwestern states and for a large part of northwestern Canada due to the fact that we are encouraging United States industry to the discouragement of Canadian industry. Is there any reason in the world why Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with all the illimitable resources they have, should not be industrial centres just the same as the northwestern parts of the United States? None whatsoever. Until the people in all of Canada see that the policy that this country should follow is the development of Canadian industry of every single type on a fair and reasonable basis, Canada will continue to stand still or drift backwards. That is the condition.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What was the
position of the United States farmer just below the line at the same time?


George Brecken Nicholson: He was getting more
for his wheat.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Why?


George Brecken Nicholson: If hon. gentlemen want to get the details they have only to consult Hansard, and if they do not want to accept the figures there given they may go to the Department of Trade and Commerce of the United States and have them confirmed.


John Power Howden: Does the hon. gentleman think we could get more for our wheat by having a protective duty?


George Brecken Nicholson: This country would not import wheat anyway. I do not want to beg the question at all, and I will say that in my opinion we cannot enhance the price of wheat by a protective duty. But if wheat growing is to be the destiny of western Canada then I say that western Canada has reached its limit. I can tell my hon. friends what we might do-my hon. friend shakes his head. I will not argue the question further. If any hon. gentleman can submit any facts to disprove what I have said he is perfectly at liberty to do so, but I would ask my good friends to tell us where they could find a market for their wheat except such as they have at present. The world's market for wheat is limited; do not make any mistake about that. And let me assure hon. gentlemen that Russia and eastern Europe are not going to remain forever in the condition in which they have been recently.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Was Russia always in that position?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, and when Russia was in the world's market for wheat Canada was producing less than half the wheat she produced in 1924.


John Vallance: Yes, and the United States was exporting more wheat then than she is now. Not only that; we had not at that time the oriental market which is being developed to-day.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Does my hon. friend know that 1925 was the largest crop year we have ever had in the history of Canada?


George Brecken Nicholson: I have not the figures before me but I do not think my hon. friend is right. Now, western Canada must do the same as eastern Canada has done; she must create a market out there for agricultural products other than wheat. The western farmer must raise cattle, hogs, sheep and other products of this nature. I heard an hon. member make the statement in this House the other day that we raised enough cattle in the Dominion to supply 50,000,000 people. If that is evidence of the extent of the information hon. gentlemen have on subjects of this kind then I sympathize with them. Why, one industrial city the size of Hamilton consumes more beef cattle in a single year than the whole Dominion exported last year, and that was the greatest exporting year we have ever had.
Before I conclude I want to refer once more to the delegation that waited upon the government this afternoon. As one sat and looked into the faces of those men and listened to their plea, which was characterized by an entire absence of the slightest tinge of anything partisan, a plea for mere justice, a plea for hard-working Canadians to be allowed to live and labour in their own country, one could not help being impressed with their grievances. As I heard one greyhaired veteran relate the condition of the war veterans in the city of Oshawa, I recalled the experience I had some years ago when visiting the battlefields of France and Flanders. Going through that devastated area in 1920, I saw the trench systems, the dugouts, the shell craters, all bearing testimony to the heroism of our soldiers; and above all I saw what was literally a forest of crosses covering the whole area. As I looked upon this scene I asked myself why those 60,000 Canadians were lying there, and why they had made that sacrifice. Why did they leave their homes to lay down their bodies in a foreign country, and why was it that 450,000 other

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
Canadians made the potential sacrifice?-for they were all, every one of them, just as ready to give up their lives. Why was it that these brave men went and fought over there, so many of them dying in the struggle? It has been said that it was done for France. Well, that is true; it was to save France and Belgium. But the sacrifice meant more than that.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Does the hon. member really believe that?


George Brecken Nicholson: If I did not believe it I should be the most desolate man in the world.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the hon. gentleman willing, then, not only to support, but if possible to strengthen, a policy that can only perpetuate international friction and discord?


George Brecken Nicholson: We may disagree as to methods, but in relation to anything that can by any possibility prevent a recurrence of what took place between 1914 and 1918 there is not a man with a soul in his body who is not prepared to help to the utmost of his power. I am sure that every one of us would do everything under heaven to prevent a cataclysm of that kind ever occurring again. But I ask, what was it that caused these men to go over there and lay down their lives? It was to save France and Belgium, it was to save civilization, it is said. True; it was to save civilization. But it was to save Canada as well. These men made the sacrifice in order to protect the homes of Canadians so that the mothers and wives, the sisters and sweethearts, the women of this country whom my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) represents in this House, would never again be called upon to endure the tortures and to go through the hell of the experience which the women of northern France and Belgium could not escape in those years.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the hon. member admit that what caused the late war causes all wars? Will he admit that the prime cause was an economic one, and that the protection of women and children was no part of it?


George Brecken Nicholson: I will not admit anything of the kind. I will not be drawn into a discussion at the moment as to what the cause of the war was, but I do know, as we all know, that 60,000 of the best of our Canadian manhood went forward and willingly laid down their lives to save Canada in that war, while 450,000 made the same sacrifice potentially, having been willing to die if necessary. Those who were not killed have returned, and their representatives this
afternoon appealed to this government for the right to earn their living in their own country. That is all they were doing; they asked nothing but justice. One hundred thousand of their number have already been forced to leave Canada, and as a result of the proposal this government brings down in the present budget thousands upon thousands more of them will be compelled to migrate from Canada to seek employment elsewhere. As I said at the outset, if the government had engaged a group of Wall Street experts to devise a policy that had for its object the transference of the whole industrial and economic life of this country to the United States, they could not have got a more complete plan than that which they themselves have suggested to parliament in the budget now under consideration.


Mr. J. GORDON ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, no section of the budget has aroused more interest than the lowering of the tariff on automobiles. The reason is clear. The man who owns one feels that he will some day buy another. He who does not possess a car always retains a hope. We live alongside the great American republic. Our people cross and recross the boundary line. We read Canadian and American publications. A motor car is a definite thing. We know what it is and we know that motor cars on the Canadian side of the line are approximately 35 per cent higher in price than on the American side. There is here no case for academic dispute.
Hon. gentlemen opposite love to tell us that tariffs lower prices. They try to tell us that if the tariff is applied long enough and high enough the price will come down. They imply, I presume, that the Canadian manufacturers' Association is an organization for lowering prices-they seem to suggest that the Oshawa delegation has constituted itself into a committee to lower the cost of living and that all they seek is a chance to bring down prices to the point that will permit the people to buyl No sane man holds such views. The case was plainly stated by the Hon. A. J. Balfour-now Lord Balfour- when he said:
The object of a tariff is to raise prices-if it fails to raise .prices, it fails in the accomplishment of its object.
I accept the definition of Lord Balfour.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the hon. gentleman tell
us where that quotation is from?


John Gordon Ross: From a speech
made by the Hon. A. J. Balfour during the Chamberlain high tariff campaign.
2758	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
Mr. BUR\ : Cannot the hon. member give us the publication?


John Gordon Ross: In that sense
protection has not failed in Canada. I quote-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Will the hon. gentleman please give the name of the publication?


John Gordon Ross: I will give it to my hon. friend if he will call at my office in the morning.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am asking for it now.
Some- hon. MEMBERS:	Order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. gentleman kindly give the name of the publication?


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker, I
have not yet said that I would permit the hon. member to ask me a question.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am merely asking
the hon. gentleman a question.


Mr. BOIVIN:: You have no right to do
so.


Arthur Meighen: Was it not published in the Moose Jaw Times?


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker, I
have not yet permitted the right hon. gentleman to ask me a question.


Ernest Lapointe: Or else he has been
misquoted by the leader of the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Like the Prime Minister.


John Gordon Ross: I quote in this
connection a few words from the Automobile Trade Journal. It is published by the MacLean Publishing Company.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Why not give the name *of the other publication?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Gordon Ross: A copy of the
publication was sent to every member of this House. It was full of pleas for the. retention of protection. They give the figures showing the increased cost of automobiles. Permit me to read briefly from their editorial :
We have before us comparative prices upon one line. While the parent concern operates in Detroit there is an extensive Canadian plant, and in the "Canadian Automotive Trade" has been shown a comparison of the American list price and the Canadian list price. We will take one line in particular. In the touring model the increase in the Canadian list price is 36.87 per cent; in the roadster, 37.08 per cent; in the sedan, 37.19 per cent.

In a higher priced line the increase of the Canadian list price over the American list price is as follows: in the phaeton, 33.33 per cent; the roadster, 39.69 per cent; the sedan 34.22 per cent; the brougham, 34.32 per cent; the coupe, 34.26 per cent; the coach 34.60 per cent.
Interesting, isn't it? The increase all round is a little over 35 per cent-strange numerical coincidence, the tariff also is 35 per cent. But I want to read further, and to stress this item. I hope that my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) who quoted with such fervour the statement in Molesworth's Fiscal Facts and Fallacies that tariffs did not raise prices, will take this message to heart. The editorial goes on to say:
It is very clear that there is scant advantage of the Canadian protective duty taken here, and we have no doubt Canadian manufacturers generally can show equally forcible statistics.
Note the words, "equally forcible;" that is, equally capable of forcing 35 per cent additional out of the pockets of the Canadian people. We have now reached the point of frank admission by practical men that tariffs do increase prices. Against that may be set the remarks of a theorist like the hon. member for Fort William, who tells us the exact opposite. We may leave it at that, and the public and this House will judge rightly in regard to these contentions.
Now, I want to make myself perfectly clear upon one point. We on this side of the House are anxious to build up the industries of Canada. We are just as anxious-I will not say more anxious-than hon. gentlemen opposite to do so. We hold that these industries would be vastly expanded and enlarged, not by more tariff but by less. Sometimes we are challenged to state if we are absolute free traders. I will answer that question when hon. gentlemen opposite tell us if they are absolute exclusionists? We differ as to what constitutes "adequate protection."
In my humble judgment-and I intend to give reasons for the faith that is in me- the tariff upon automobiles is far too high, and industry generally, including the automobile industry, will profit, and profit greatly, from the lowering of the tariff on automobiles and the other reductions in the budget this year. Let me give a few examples. The tariff on automobiles is as you know 35 per cent. We imported into Canada of dutiable goods during the first nine months of the fiscal year $430,000,000, on which the duties collected were $106,000,000, or roughly 24 per cent. The tariff on agricultural implements runs from free to 20 per cent; on cottons it averages on all imports of dutiable goods 2S: per cent; on woollens 23 per cent; on boots

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
and shoes under the British preference 171 per cent. Why should automobiles be favoured with 35 per cent? May I point out that there is justification for the argument that the duty on autos should be lower than on cottons and woollens? We import very few autos from France, Italy and Germany; in the main they come from the United States. Cottons and woollens do come from these protectionist low wage countries. We have heard the plea of low wages in other countries. It seems to me that automobile manufacturers, not having to compete with the low wage production of continental Europe but rather with the high wage rates existing in the United States, need less and not more protection than the textile industry.
But there is one thing that is supremely British about our manufacturers. It is not their courage-they are far from being courageous; it is not their faith in Canada-barring only the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the Tory party out of office. No single section of the community ever exhibits such evidence of the blues 1 But they have one British conception-what they have they hold. Give them a toe-hold and they will worm in their whole bodies. They are like cats; let their head but get into a rat-hole and their whole anatomy will follow. Give them the right to exclude some goods to their own aggrandizement and they would exclude all. Yes1 What they have they hold, yet by the eternal they ask for more!
Was ever, in all the history of parliamentary institutions, such a spectacle presented as that which we have recently witnessed] in this House? The net earnings of the Ford Motor Company of Canada last year were $6,131,352; the original cash investment on which that earning was built up was $63,500. Their "net" on a capital of $7,000,000-and that capital built up out of earnings-was 82.73 per cent. The people of Canada built the Ford Motor Company of Canada; they paid for it out of their own hard earnings, yet Ford owns it. The net gain to him from his investment in this Canadian enterprise was $21,000,000. Yet, their pockets bulging with wealth, their coffers crammed, scattering out melons right and left to their American shareholders, their representative comes suppliantly before this House, and asks that these things shall continue. Meanwhile Mr. Ford himself tells us the industry would profit even by absolute free trade. I want to tell you that lower tariffs will not hurt this giant industry. I want it to prosper, I want it to prosper as the agricultural implement industry has prospered under lower tariffs.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may differ from me in regard to this. For my part I am going to discuss realities; we members from the province of Saskatchewan have long since ceased to live in a land of dreams and nightmares. I am going to make particular reference to one item-binders. If my hon. friends are anxious to do so, we shall be delighted to follow them into further fields. The figures are:
Imports of binders, Fiscal year-
1914	 3.770
1920		 1,661
1921		 3.485
1922		 1,316
1923		 1,606
1924		 3,332
1925		 1,091
I am trying to face these figures fairly. I have left out the war years and the. post-war years as too much disturbed to indicate real conditions. What do we find under these conditions? In no single year since the Liberal tariff came into force have we imported as many binders	into	Canada	as we	did in theplacid,	peaceful	pre-war	year,	1914.	"	Oh,"
I hear you say, " this tariff has not been long in effect, wait and see." There is something tragic in Toryism, always looking forward to a day of gloom. I have cheering news for you. In the first nine months of this fiscal year we brought into this country-and they are nearly all imported in the first nine months of every fiscal year-only 1,865 binders. That is more than last year, but not much more than half the number imported in 1923 before the tariff was reduced.
May I mention mowers also. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was alarmed about the imports of mowers. He told us of thousands leaving their native land because of the imports of mowers. Well, here are the figures-in each case they are for the first nine months of the fiscal year:
1923	
531	nine	months	ending	December1924	
390	nine	months	ending	December1925	
286	nine	months	ending	December
These are facts taken from our trade reports. I set them up against the dreams-nay more, the hopes-of hon. gentlemen opposite. They were anxious that imports might increase and an industry or two fail so as to give point to their arguments. We must realize the facts: tariffs do not keep goods out, tariffs only make goods dear.
Meanwhile, what has happened to the Massey-Harris Company, our largest manufacturer of farm implements? The figures are:
1921	Loss	$1,456,0001922	"	643,0001923	
"	409,5781924	Profit	87,0001925	
"	1,411,1742760	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that much of our implement production now comes in in parts because of the reduction in the tariff? They are merely assembled here, which gives a profit to the manufacturer but takes away the jobs of the men.


John Gordon Ross: I know that is done in the motor industry, but I do not know about the implement industry.


Arthur Meighen: And it will be done to a greater extent in the automobile industry under this budget.


John Gordon Ross: It is facts like these-and the industrial history of Canada is full of them-which should cause hon. gentlemen opposite to change their ways. Why will they not recognize the facts? Why will they not now, at this late date, admit their error and say: " We have sinned; we have failed to recognize the industrial needs of this great country. It is not a tariff ' adequately high ' that is needed for industrial development: it is one sufficiently low"? Will they do it? Well, listen to their wail when the tariff on agricultural implements was lowered. Here are the words of the right hon. leader of the opposition in his address on the budget in 1924:
There never was a more violent assault on stability in the last thirty years than there is in this budget, nor has the effect of that assault ever been more immediate and more apparent.
That sounds rough, doesn't it? But that is nothing. Hon. gentlemen opposite have wept so copiously since October 29 that the source of their tears has all but dried up. The tears and wails of to-day sound like the sighing of the soft sea waves compared to the outburst when the British preference was first introduced in 1897. Listen to this from Sir Charles Tupper, the war horse of Cumberland-


Mr. ROBINSON:: Will the hon. gentleman say who wrote his speech for him?


Mr. McMILLAN:: Not the Tory treadmill upstairs, anyway.


John Gordon Ross: Although I do not believe I have any very great ability, I am pleased to say that I am responsible for this speech.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Gordon Ross: I will do as the hon. member for Toronto East Centre

(Mr. Bristol) did the other day; I do not want to be interrupted. Here are the words of Sir Charles Tupper, the war horse of Cumberland:
I confess, Sir, that I listened with the most profound astonishment to the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). '
And to-day the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) patted Mr. Fielding on the back for that budget. But here is what Sir Charles Tupper had to say:
I did not suppose it possible, whether in one section of the empire or another, for a great parliament such as that which the Dominion of Canada possess, to have presented for its consideration a bill of such entirely illegal and unconstitutional character. I have no hesitation in saying you will search the history of parliamentary government throughout the British Empire in vain to find any parallel for the position in which we find ourselves in relation to the budget speech of the ^on. Minister of Finance.


Ernest Lapointe: Same language to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question, or does he still not hear? Is he not aware that that speech was made with reference to a budget which, finally, never went into effect?


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker, there is another leader of the opposition misquoted. Sir Charles Tupper went on to say:
I listened to this most remarkable address with the most profound astonishment because it violated the most plain, clearly understood and well-known laws governing the parliament of Canada. It was in antagonism with the constitution of the country and in violation of everything that hon. gentlemen on either side of the House had a right to expect from the Minister of Finance.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 4, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 5, respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, to provide for changing the names of certain Pension Fund Societies.- Mr. Mercier.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Orr.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Melville James Andrews.-Mr. Duff.

Private Bills
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Harry Reginald Oddy.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Mildred Roxie Horner.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Prances Muriel Burnet.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Ada Toms.- Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Vera Sanderson. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Noel Leslie Deuxbury.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Lillian May O'Reilly.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Jean Victoria Dillane.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Ethel Alberta Barker.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Annie Hazel MeCausland.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Sterling LeRoy Spicer.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Amy Bell Corney.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 39. for the relief of David Frank Croiser.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Ethel Gildea Nye Brown.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of 'Edward Thomas Faragher.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Bertha Viola Lidkea.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mike Ayoub (otherwise known as Michael Ayoub).-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Alice Marion McGinley.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Harold Edgar Perinchief.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Hendel Tuerner Lubrinetsky.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Paul Hugh Turnbull.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of .Helen Elby Pollington.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Alexander Stewart.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of William Melville Moore.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of John Samuel Milligan.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-HighPark).
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Marion Richardson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Isadore Boadner. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of William Albert Thomas.-(Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Gertrude Isabel Clark.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Helen Seymour O'Connor.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Yetta Selma Trachsell.-Mr. Wright.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Alexander Dewar.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Florence Burrell. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Edith Marion Byam.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Charles Davidson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doris Selina Irvin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Frank John Davis.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of John Norman Smith McMurray.-Mr. Charters.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Archie Claire McIntyre.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Harcourt.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Louise Gordon Pook.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Ezillah Harriet Cole.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Gertrude Bum-side.-Mr, Kay.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Cora Mae Murray.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Janet Thornhill Gorrie.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Du-Bord Bulloch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Henrietta Schierholtz.-Mr. McClenaghan .
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Maude Elizabeth Gilroy.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Richard Howard Buckley.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of William George Darlington.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Arthur Watson. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Frances Majorie Warren.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Charles Douglas Palmer.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Isobel Lam-ontagne.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Jane Johnston Mitchell Wells.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Jeremiah Gibbs. -Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Caroline Elizabeth Risbridger.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Cassie Woodley -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Isabella Freeman.-Mr. Harris.
2762	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
Bill No. 86, for the relief of George Guthrie. -Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Lily Stead.- Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. S8, for the relief of Alice Grace Hopkins.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Vera Catherine Searle.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Sidney Charles Frost.-Mr. McClenaghan.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker,
when the House rose at six o'clock I was reading one of the wails of the protectionists in a speech of the Hon. Sir Charles Tupper in the budget debate of 1897:	It is quite
similar to the wails that we have heard in this House. I will continue it:
Now, what is the result? The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already .paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the daplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
What happened is a matter of history not conjecture. No sooner had the government passed that budget than industry sprang into life. Canada went forward as never before. But the wail goes on, and the leader of the opposition kicked about every reduction. Then for a while the Liberals did not do much reducing of the tariff. What happened? The ramparts of gold speech from the right hon. gentleman from Portage la Prairie! He was avid for tariff reduction then! My hon. friend kicks at everything. He reminds me of a remark made by a friend of mine in regard to the late Hon. Joseph Martin, a very able man and known to many in this House. He said of Mr. Martin:
He kicks the living and the dead,
He even kicks himself in bed.

One would think that my hon. friend would get weary, but he holds the courage of despair-despair of ever getting into office!
Now there is another matter to which I wish to refer. My hon. friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said the other day:
Who is being helped by this budget? The Americans largely. I know very little help that is being given to Canadians by it. What we have delivered to us here is simply an American budget.
I shall not follow my hon. friend further in this quotation. At this point he brought in the Pyrenees.	When these mountains
come into the hon. gentleman's speech we may step out.
Well, what do we find? A delegation comes down to Ottawa and asks the government to put back the duty on motor cars to 35 per cent. Who comes? Who are the fiancial interests back of that delegation? Mr. Henry Ford will not be here; he is too big to go on his knees before even this government. Besides, he knows better. Mr. W. R. Campbell comes along and tries to tell us that he knows more than Ford. Listen, Mr. Speaker and hon. gentlemen of the House of Commons, to this petition:
I am a maker of cars. You have by means of a high tariff given us a chance to make 82.73 per cent out of you last year. The Liberals are trying to change the rules of the game. Heretofore, I have been able to extract that amount for the benefit of myself and my American friends. Be good, please. Please put back the duty on motor cars to 35 per cent.
That is the plea of these American stockholders. But Ford says that increased production would cause even greater progress under free trade.
And what about General Motors, Limited? The entire stock of that corporation is owned by the General Motors Corporation of the United States. Canadians have no direct voice in its affairs. The American parent concern is one of the great industrial organizations in the United States. Its assets are given in Pool's Manual as over $592,000,000. Its net earnings amount to $71,802,000. It controls eight great manufacturing divisions; fifteen accessory groups; eleven affiliated industries; one hundred and thirteen sales divisions; six accessory sales divisions; eight export and overseas departments. This again is closely linked up with the Dupont powder interests who control also Canadian Explosives and Northern Giant Explosives, Limited. We are told now that the general manager of the United States General Motors, says:
We will manufacture in the United States unless you amend this budget, which lessens by 15 per cent our power to exploit the Canadian people.

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
Well, I know my answer. I know too the answer of the hon. gentlemen in the front benches opposite. The Duponts and Morgans crack the whip, and the hinged knees of my hon. friends bend! My reply is different. Our ancestors kicked kings from their thrones; manned the tiny ships as the great armada bore down upon England; stood with the martyrs on the fields of death; fought tyrants as tyrants only can be fought-by risk of life and fortune. They would not bow down to the Duponts of New Jersey! I say to our manufacturers: Go back to your factories- devote to business the time now spent on lobbying. You have the capacity and ability for great national service. In Heaven's name do not waste it in seeking for government favours!
My hon. friend the member for Fort William, with all the capacity for mock heroics which fits so naturally on to his ample frame, tells us:
It will not be long before the international boundary line will no longer exist between these two countries.
I yield not so much as the width of one blonde hair to my hon. friend in devotion to my native land, but I say calmly and deliberately and with a full sense of the meaning of the words: if this parliament is to form its budget under the dictation of the Duponts and the Morgans, then the sooner we obliterate that line the better.
One word more and I am through. Before the English occupied Egypt, when that country was under the domain of the Turk, the collection of taxes was " farmed " out to certain gentlemen throughout the country. These men gave the government a certain amount and they squeezed the hapless fellah or peasant of Egypt to the last drop that was in him. We have developed that custom here. We give to certain United States gentlemen the right to exploit the Canadian people by means of a high tariff. They come over here and build branch factories; they squeeze us to the full extent of the tariff protection we have given them, and they send their profits back to the land of their birth. And hon. gentlemen opposite applaud and cheer and say: Isn't it great? Long live Canadians so they may be exploited by their neighbours!" Well, the British came into Egypt. The exploiters were driven out, and they wailed as every protectionist wails. But the taxes came down; good government was established. " We made a man out of Pharaoh," and in that land of oppression prosperity came. We are going to do that in Canada. Liberalism is alive in Canada; it has found its soul. We have been living in the shadows. You have
seen a tree grow up in the woods that way; the foliage is pale and the growth stunted. Then something happens to let in the light and the tree grows; the leaves take on a richer colour, and it reaches out into the sunlight. Above all the others, it stands sun-crowned, a monarch of the forest! Just so with Liberalism. It has had its shadows; there have been dark days when the road seemed hard and the task heavy, but the Liberal spirit has triumphed at last. Its sinews have strengthened; the mists have rolled away from before its eyes; the path before us is plain and straight, and in the light of that clearer vision, not only Liberalism but Canada goes forward to the achievement of a newer and a grander day.
Mr. A. M. EDWARD'S (South Waterloo):
I rise with a good deal of hesitation and [DOT]timidity after the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Belonging as I do to that very much hated class, the Ontario manufacturers, perhaps I may take from the hon. gentleman some very good advice inasmuch as he has referred to those engaged in the manufacturing industry. The hon. member in speaking this afternoon about the wonderful strides which the agriculture implement industry had made during the past two or three years made the statement that in 1925 the profits of the Massey-Harris Company were something over $1,000,000. That, I believe, is quite correct, but he did not inform the House that whereas, under normal conditions, the company employ from four to five thousand men in Canada, to-day they are employing perhaps only fifteen hundred, although their production is larger and they make more money than formerly. The only explanation that can be given for this, in view of the tariff reduction, is the fact that in 1925 they imported on a very large scale from the United States. Instead of making agricultural implements in Toronto they got them from their factories in Batavia, New York. Last year there were brought into Canada a sufficient quantity of malleable iron castings for the agricultural implement trade to keep 150 men employed 300 days in the year. Surely that employment is worth something to Canada.
Something has been said about the amount of steel used in the manufacture of agricultural implements. It is perfectly true that not much steel is actually used in the implement, but I would remind the House that as our machinery makers have to tender with the branch factories of huge United States concerns, a protection of five per cent does not
2764	COMMONS
The Bridget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
help them to any great extent. The American branches in Canada import their machines from the United States where owing to greater facilities aid better equipment the production is cheaper, so that a tariff of five per cent affords our manufacturers little or no protection.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred rather slightingly, I thought, to the huge deputation that waited upon the government to-day, and I inferred from his remarks that he thought they were here at the instance of the manufacturers and who were financing their visit. He spoke particularly about the McLaughlin people. Now this is quite at variance with what I was given to understand this afternoon. In conversation with a number of men from Oshawa I learned that in very many cases where the men in the factories were asked to come to Ottawa they said that they could not afford the trip, but that they would contribute their bit to the expenses of anyone who could come. A collection was taken up and contributions ranging from fifty cents to $2 were made. This does not seem to be in keeping with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman that the whole thing was financed and really initiated by the manufacturers themselves. I think the hon. member will find out, as time goes on, and when it is discovered that a vast army of workmen have been thrown out of employment in Oshawa and elsewhere, that the present budget proposal will come home strongly to the government. It is a serious thing for a man to go to work in the morning and find the door locked; he must return to his family in a very depressed state of mind. Surely it is not the function of a government to contribute to such a situation.


John Power Howden: Does the hon. member
think that the manufacturers were justified in closing their doors the day after the budget was delivered?


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: I am not
justifying the manufacturers of motor cars, but I must point out to the hon. member that what really happened was this: the doors were closed until a readjustment could be made and the manufacturers could ascertain just where they stood. I know of one dealer who went to get cars and who was refused for the reason that the manufacturers could not fix the price, not having yet made the adjustment. Furthermore, the question of storage facilities had to be considered.
The outstanding feature of the present budget is, of course, the reduction in auto-
EMr. A. M. Edwards.]
mobile duties, a reduction which was made regardless of the facts and, indeed, without any desire on the part of the government to ascertain those facts. It is entirely a measure of expediency submitted to under pressure from the western adjunct of the government, contrary to the pledges of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the country and also in contravention of the undertaking contained in the Speech from the Throne. I do not intend to quarrel with the amount of the reduction as such, nor do I intend to commend it. Frankly, I do not know what comment it calls for, and I am safe in saying that no hon. member in this House can tell whether or not the reduction in the tariff on automobiles can be justified. On the other hand, perhaps the government has not gone far enough in this regard; or perhaps it has gone too far. One thing is certain, however, no consideration was shown to the motor companies nor to the small stock holders interested in it, and there was an absolute disregard for the welfare of the working people in these concerns. As I understand it, those interested in the motor industry were ready and willing to put all their cards on the table. Therefore I contend that this matter should have been referred to the newly created tariff board, and the tariff lowered or raised, according to the findings of that board. If this was not a case for the tariff board, why was that board created? Surely it was created to be of service to the country, to deal with tariff questions affecting automobiles and other manufactured articles? Or was it simply intended to be a haven for derelict politicians? I would suggest that any industry which may be suspected of making unfair profits under its tariff protection should be brought before this board and investigated. If this were done, I am confident the continual howl that we hear from certain sections of the country would rapidly subside.
The industrial portions of Canada, My. Speaker, have been built up by a policy o.' protection, this policy having compelled large United States concerns to establish branch factories in the Dominion. Is this policy to be ditched now after hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in plant and equipment and workingmen's homes? Or are we to have a sane policy that will give sufficient protection, and sufficient protection only, to all productive enterprises? In the city of Galt where I live there are five factories devoting part of their space to the manufacture of parts and accessories for motor cars. In some cases these factories have been estab-

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
lished by foreign capital brought in under the policy advocated by our leading statesmen. After listening to these letters hon. members will be able to decide whether or not a slight reduction in the price of Ford cars is sufficient justification for curtailing these businesses and throwing thousands of people out of employment. These communications are in reply to letters I sent out. The first is a telegram:
Letter arrived yesterday, but was off sick, so just received to-day noon. Since changes in tariff we are only operating fifty per cent, also night shift discontinued, *orders cancelled.
Elliott & Whitehall,
Machine Tool Company, Limited.
The next reply is from the Dominion Tack <fc Nail Company Limited:
Replying to your enquiry, quite a considerable portion of our business was from automobile makers. This has been cut off, and will undoubtedly result in a loss to our plant and the release of a number of employees.
Here is another letter:
Thanks for your favour of the 20th instant. Now, with reference to the effect the recent tariff reduction will have upon our output, it is at this moment hard to say other than that it will be of a very serious nature. Taking into account the screws and parts which we make, and which go directly into automobiles, and also screws and parts for automobile accessories, which will be indirectly affected, wi* would say it will affect about fifty per cent of our business.
The main difficulty with this whole matter is that in an endeavour to give automobile manufacturers some redress, there will be an attempt made to further reduce parts and other raw material, which in many cases is somebody else's finished product. In other words, our finished product is the raw material for the automobile and automobile accessory industries. Were we then in turn to seek some redress, we would have to go back at the steel men, such as the Canadian and Union Drawn Steel Companies of Hamilton, which would again in turn affect them. The thing is of such a far-reaching character that if it is at all possible to do so, some supreme endeavour should be made to have this matter referred to the tariff board, which if done would enable not only the automobile manufacturers but all other lines affected would have an opportunity to place their case before them.
This letter is signed by the Galt Machine <fe Screw Company Limited. I have still another letter which I wish to place before the House. It is from the Galt Art Metal Co., Limited, the managing director of which writes:
I am in receipt of yours of the 20th inst., and in reply would say that the change in the duty as proposed in the budget in connection with the automobile industry, will have the disastrous effect of closing that department of our factory.
We have been doing an annual business of around $100,000 in manufacturing automobile parts for various automobile factories, and last Saturday we received instructions to stop all work. Of course we had to let all the men in that department go, some of whom, I am told, have already gone to the United States.
During the dull times, which all business has experienced. during the past few years, we looked around for something additional which we could manufacture
to advantage in order to increase and help out our business. We finally succeeded, after a lot of work and expense, in getting this line going. The result of the change of tariff means that all our labour and expense has been thrown away and we are afraid to go to the expense of taking up anything else, for we cannot tell what will be hit next. Making the change at this-time of the year, just when the busy season was starting, has spoiled the business for this year.
That is the story of how our industries in Galt are affected by this reduction in the tariff on automobiles.
While reading the clause in the budget referring to the tariff on automobiles, the thought came to me as to what would have been done providing even one automobile factory were located east of the Ottawa river. It seemed to me that that would have put an entirely different slant on the situation. Something apparently must be done to chide the great industrial province of Ontario. I would suggest that the government have a care, as there is always the possibility of "killing the goose that lays the golden egg.'' It might not be out of place for me to give a few figures as to what Ontario actually pays into the treasury compared with the contributions from the other provinces. When I state that out of the 225,000 taxpayers contributing to the treasury over 100.000 are located in Ontario, it will give hon. members some idea of what that means in Dominion revenue. Quebec comes second with over 43,000. Following this line I am going to quote from a paper that by the wildest stretch of the imagination cannot be considered to be favourable to the Conservative party-the Toronto Star Weekly. The feature article of last Saturday's issue was on taxation. Before quoting a few extracts from that article, I might state that Ontario's 100,000 taxpayers pay $11,000,000 into the treasury, while Quebec's 43,000 pays $8,000,000. so their contributions are not so very wide apart. It may be suggested that the total for Quebec is accounted for to some extent by the enormous number of big incomes enjoyed by people in the city of Montreal. But that is not the fact. Last year Quebec and Ontario had exactly the same number of people, 355, enjoying incomes of over $30,000 a year. These 355 wealthy men in each province paid in taxes in Ontario $4,122,088, and in Quebec $4,034,776. Of incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 Quebec had 282 and Ontario 480. Let us see how they contribute, taking each province of Canada. In Ontario there are 99,597 taxpayers, paying $11,370,769; Quebec has 43,646 taxpayers, paying $8,352,203; Manitoba, 19,870 taxpayers paying $1,684,154; British Columbia, 19,630 taxpayers paying $1,468,565; Alberta, 14,641 taxpayers paying
<*766	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
$730,510; Saskatchewan, the province we hear so much about, has 14,200 taxpayers paying $615,842; Nova Scotia, 7,134 taxpayers paying $446,085; New Brunswick, 5,743 taxpayers paying $415,126; Prince Edward Island, 479 taxpayers paying $26,914.
Included in this total of 225,000 taxpayers there are 3,061 farmers, who pay into our treasury $162,944 in income. I think hon. members will see that perhaps it is not the wisest thing in the interests of the country to destroy the profitable enterprises of Ontario and Quebec. It will be seen that the unfair position into which the province of Ontario is being forced will have a tendency to react adversely upon the country generally, a result which will not be in the best interests of Canada.
With reference to the income tax, I regret to note that the dividends received from corporations which are not now included in income returns, become taxable. These dividends are already taxed by the municipalities, and the proposal to tax them further will work a hardship on many people depending on income from these sources of revenue for their maintenance. As explained by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) in his speech on Tuesday last, the widow with an income of $5,000 made up of dividends will now have to pay a tax; under the old ruling she was exempt. She will also have to pay a tax to the municipality in which she resides. The reduction in sales tax, the return to penny postage and the abolition of the receipt tax are very welcome, and very long deferred.
During the speech of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) he quoted from speeches made at the Canadian National exhibition last year, and also from speeches made during the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at Hamilton. One of his quotations was from the speech of Mr. Fortier, of the city of Quebec. I happen to know Mr. Fortier very weil personally, and any person who knows him-


Mr. SEGUIN:: He is a Tory.


Alexander McKay Edwards: 2770	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
These statistics given above re French and British imports are taken from Canadian Trade and Commerce reports, and Bradford Board of Trade reports.
The building up and safeguarding of the woollen and knitting industry would therefore not only affect the actual workers engaged in the mills, and the workers engaged in the subsidiary industries, and the retailers and professional men and women supported by the workers, but also would affect our railway problem and the prosperity of -the nation as a whole.
I would like to make a comparison of the weekly wages paid in Yorkshire with the weekly wages paid in Canada, in order to give some idea of the difficulties with which the woollen industry in this country has to contend. I had the privilege a few weeks ago of going into a mill employing some 800 odd hands and of checking these figures thoroughly, of going through the industry and checking their pay sheets. I wili give the weekly wages in Yorkshire, including costs of living bonus, as shown by the Minister of Labour as at the end of 1924, exchange value computed at the same date. I will give the weekly wages in Canada as averaged from figures supplied by Canadian mills and compared as to hours of labour and sex of worker. The figures are as
follows: Yorkshire		Canada
Winders	*5 92	I13-J15Twisters.	0 34	13- 15Spinners	5 77	13- 15Reelers	8 52	17- 20Doffers	5 22	13- 15Overlookers	17 03	35- 60Warehousemen	12 06	19- 22Blenders, carbonizers, labourers	12 06	18- 20Mail help in grey rooms; stock room, packing department	12 30	19- 22Firemen	13 89	30.00It is only fair to say that these	wages werecompared as at the end of	1924.	Since that
time there has been a reduction of ten per cent in wages paid to Canadian workers. Wages in Canada are not top high; it is the wages abroad that are too low. There is frequently a confusion of mind over the effect of money wages paid in different countries on competitive prices for selling goods and the purchasing power of the wages. The money wages paid for labour at the exchange value give the true basis of comparison in order to show the advantage gained by United Kingdom manufacturers over Canadian manufacturers when selling goods in Canada. What the wages paid to the operatives will buy in the respective countries has nothing to do with the selling price of the goods; it relates only to the standard of living of the operatives. The average wages in gold paid to skilled textile workers in Germany is 11 cents per hour, or $5.72 for a 52 hour week.
Let me now give the House in detail the effect of this competition on the home market as regards imports into this country. These figures allow complete comparisons for the calendar years 1921 to 1925 both inclusive. If the House will permit me, I will hand the figures to Hansard. They are as follows:
Imports into Canada (From Monthly Trade of Canada)
These figures show that the too heavy imports in the calendar year 1921, have been tremendously exceeded in all succeeding years.
The total imports of manufactured woollen and knit goods for these five years reached the tremendous total of $187,535,772.
It will be noted that there are slight reductions in the yardages of cloth imported in 1925 as compared with 1924, but this did not mean that Canadian mills got more business in 1925 than in 1924; in fact, they got even less. Owing to the decrease in the total purchases in Canada, due to general industrial depression and loss of population, the total market was greatly reduced, and consequently the import figures show that mills abroad actually obtained a greater share of the Canadian market than ever before.
Calendar Years	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925Cloth	$ 18,154,459 1,453,956 4,194,100 2,205,280 2,793,269 392,948	$ 22,287,466 1,677,953 6,957,370 4,112,356 2,684,406 388,671	$ 23,688,991 1,732,055 8,039,228 4,048,965 2,903,087 288,582	$ 25,030,674 1,732,150 6,858,974 3,616,323 2,406,603 269,753	[DOT]$ 23,830,884 1,924,681 7,273,139 3,788,010 2,509,613 291,826Carpets and rugs	
Knitted goods	
Yams	Made-up	
Pressed felts	
Totals	$ 29,194,012	$ 38,108,222	S 40,700,908	$ 39,914,477	$ 39,618,153
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
Imports in yards, pounds or pairs
Woven Goods	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925Tweeds, in yds	1,579,315	$ 2,777,406	$ 4,630,529	$ 3,626,529	% 3,201,819Overcoatings, in yds	48,457	135,726	302,660	328,947	252,788Flannels, plain, in yds	479,337	976,784	1,499,246	1,018,095	770,779Worsteds & serges, in yds	5,002,582	7,597,800	6,942,844	10,290,990	9,201,298Lustres, mohairs, alpaca, yds	1,558,623	2,603,707	2,145,261	2,083,038	1,837,324W. & C's dress goods, sq. yds	3,239,397	5,512,419	4,938,361	8,075,539	5,531,513Blankets, in pairs	
and in addition and not shown in yard-	43,187	60,471	140,203	159,655	127,174age, the following woven goods.	$ 5,047,774	$ 5,215,651* 4,189,708	S 5,009,740	S 5,330,025	Knitted goods	Socks and stockings, of wool, prs	2,920,464	7,460,556	8,240,592	6,077,340	6,585,600Socks and stockings, of silk, pairs	275,220	469,968	481,992	587,052	778,322Socks and stockings, cotton, pairs	
And in addition the following knitted goods which are not shown in garm-	3,990,880	6,464,496	6,540,624	5,204,938	5,913,936ents:-	$ 3,218,350$ 2,039,317	$ 2,989,313	$ 3,573,915	$ 3,093,319	Yams	Woollen and worsted, nop... lbs	213,493	389,880	310,584	231,409	192,13330c. per lb. or over, lbs	
and in addition the following yarns	1,584,604	2,862,259	2,895,480	2,649,992	2,452,113which are not shown in lbs.:-	$ 191,693$ 60,998	$ 85,417	$ 169,700	1 137,290	Felt pressed	All kinds, lbs	628,150	707,719	419,477	437,609	425,888
Piece goods manufactured from wool exported from Great Britain to Canada and from Great Britain to United States
January	January	February1925	1926	1926To Canada:	sq. yds.	sq. yds.	sq. yds.Worsted cloths..	.. 1,143,000	1,413,000	1,278,000Woollen cloths..	.. 960,000	1,167,000	1,139,000To United States: Worsted cloths..	.. 563.000	713,000	440,000Woollen cloths..	.. 872,000	1,095,000	773,000Lion, members	can see quite readily	the great
disparity notwithstanding the huge population of the United States as compared with ours.
I have just a little I should like to say about the shoe business, which has been mentioned so often. Upwards of 2.000 people are engaged in the shoe business in my riding. These statistics are gathered by the Shoe and Leather Journal of Toronto and other sources.
As a result of the reduction in the tariff on boots and shoes under the British preferential schedule, the duty on leather and felt footwear from the United Kingdom is now
only 15J per cent-17i per cent, less a rebate
of one-tenth of the duty on direct shipments. This is the lowest rate since 1874. The above refers to tariff item 611a, which applies to most importations, small quantities of work boots enter under a British preferential tariff rate of 15 per cent tariff item 611.
The Canadian customs regulations permit British manufacturers to sell to customers in Canada at prices lower than their prices in their own home market to the extent of 5 per cent, before the Canadian anti-dumping clause is applied. In some cases at least, British firms have taken advantage of this provision, with the result that the protection to the Canadian factories is reduced to only 10J per cent.
British trade commissioners in Canada are actively engaged in helping the representatives of British shoe manufacturers, even to the extent of making appointments with leading retailers.
In the calendar year 1925, boots and shoes from the United Kingdom, exclusive of rubber footwear, were imported into Canada to the value of $1,132,850. The value of English footwear imported into Canada in 1922 was only $456,073. The number of pairs imported
2772	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
in 1925 was 805,201, as compared with 652,925 in 1924 and 341,814 in 1923.
While there has been some falling off during recent months in importations of certain classes of British footwear, the Canadian factories making 'high-grade shoes for men and the felt footwear factories in Canada still are suffering severely from the competition of British footwear, imported under the low rates of the British preferential schedule. The Canadian business, which is lost to the Canadian shoe factories as a result of the British preference in turn means a loss of business to many other industries supplying materials to the shoe manufacturers and a reduction in the earnings and purchasing power of the shoe workers in Canada.
The total value of Canadian shoe business is limited and there is no way in which the Canadian factories can make up for the business which is now going abroad unnecessarily. South Africa has withdrawn its preference to Canadian footwear and, as practically every country in the world has a well developed footwear industry of its own, it has been'found impossible for the Canadian shoe factories to develop any considerable export trade.
Export of Canadian footwear have fallen from $5,679,720 in the fiscal year 1919-20 to $28o,634 for the twelve months ended February. 1926.
Canada's total production of machine-made boots and shoes

leather and felt-last year was approximately 15,500,000 pairs or about 1,500.000 pairs less than in 1912 and 4,500,000 less than in 1916.
If the shoe business now going abroad unnecessarily were retained in Canada the Canadian factories could handle it without any increase in plant or equipment and would be able to operate more efficiently and more *economically by reason of the larger volume.
The keen competition amongst the shoe factories in Canada ensures that the manufacturers' selling prices at all times will be exceedingly close to production costs in the most efficient factory and that any economy resulting from increased production will be passed on to the public in the form of lower prices. The Canadian shoe manufacturers require additional protection against importations of English footwear, not in order that they may charge higher prices, but that they may enlarge their volume of production.
More than 100 shoe manufacturing firms in Canada have failed or obtained compromises or extensions since 1920. While many causes have contributed to this heavy mortality,
rMr. A. M. Edwards.]
the principal cause has been that there has not been enough business available for all. This situation has been made worse by the British preference, which has permitted British shoe manufacturing firms to cut into the Canadian business and take out of the country orders which have been much needed by the factories here.
The wages paid by the shoe manufacturers in England are much lower than those paid in Canada, machinery costs in England also are lower, and the British manufacturers have important advantages in respect of cheap water freights to the Pacific coast via the Panama canal. The British manufacturers get all their equipment, materials, supplies, etc., duty free, while some of the equipment, materials, supplies, etc., required by the Canadian shoe manufacturers have to be imported, mostly from the United States, and are dutiable at rates ranging up to 30 per cent. These items still further offset the very meagre duty on boots and shoes imported into Canada under the British preferential schedule.
I come now to a consideration of the rates of customs duty on boots and shoes from the United Kingdom imported into the British dominions. New Zealand charges an import duty on British boots and shoes of 25 per cent of the value for duty, which comprises the invoice value plus ten per cent for freight and insurance, and a primage duty of one per cent. This represents a total ad valorem import duty of 28} per cent. New Zealand also requires that for British shoes to enter under this rate, which is lower than the general tariff, the proportion of British materials and British labour must not be less than 50 per cent. Australia charges an import duty on British boots and shoes of 35 per cent of the value for duty, which comprises the invoice value plus 10 per cent for freight and insurance. This represents a total import duty of 381 per cent. English shoes will not be admitted to Australia, under the above preferential tariff rate, unless the proportion of British materials and British labour is not less than 75 per cent. Newfoundland gives no tariff preference to British boots and shoes, but charges a duty of 40 per cent, plus a surtax of 5 per cent on invoice cost, freight and duty. This represents a total import duty of more than 45 per cent. South Africa gives no tariff preference now to British boots and shoes, but charges on most classes of British footwear an import duty of 30 per cent. Canada admits British boots and shoes under a British preferential tariff rate of 171 per cent, less a rebate of one-tenth of the duty on all direct importations, which rebate reduces the import duty to only 15} per cent.

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
Under the present British preference, goods manufactured in countries with depreciated currencies are imported into Canada as British goods at the expense of British and Canadian labour. This is altogether absurd, unsound, anti-national and un-British, and it is a condition which ought to be removed without further delay. So much for the boot and shoe business.
Now I come to the Canadian National Railways. The country during the year which has just passed was abundantly blessed by Providence with a splendid crop, not alone in the western country, but also in eastern Canada, and as a national result our financial position is considerably improved. This in turn is reflected in the statement of the Canadian National Railways, a report which I am certain will be received with a great deal of enthusiasm throughout the country. In our National railway system we are experimenting with the greatest public ownership scheme ever attempted; and upon the handling of this vast enterprise, upon the fairness shown the management, upon the total absence of governmental and other interference, coupled, of course, with capable management, the success or failure of the enterprise depends.
We in Ontario know something of that great municipally owned enterprise, the hydroelectric, but we are also well aware of the fact that the success of that great undertaking was accomplished by the indomitable perseverance of the founders, coupled with the outstanding ability of its management and the determination at all times to keep it clear of politics and all outside interference. It may interest the House to know that the birthplace of the great hydro-electric enterprise was in the good county of Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent in this House jointly with my good friend the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). The birthplace of that great Canadian through whose efforts much of the success of the enterprise was accomplished is also in my riding, the village of Baden in South Waterloo. I refer, of course, to the late Sir Adam Beck.
The people in all parts of the country from coast to coast are watching with a great deal of anxiety, and I may say with no little uncertainty, the efforts of the management to make the National railways a real asset to the Dominion of Canada, and if there is one point in this connection which I wish to emphasize more than another it is that no handicaps be placed on this great undertaking, that it should be given a square deal, and that no outside interference should be tolerated.
We listened recently in the House to a presentation of what appeared to be a very serious condition of affairs in the province of Nova Scotia, particularly in the Cape Breton section of that province. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and his government should be congratulated on assisting to relieve the situation in at least a temporary way.
This brings me to the coal situation in general, upon which I wish to say a few words in the hope that whoever has the framing of a policy with regard to this great question will approach it in a broad way, having in mind a policy that will be of real service to the entire Dominion. Too long we have confessed a dependency upon the United States for our fuel supply. Owing to constantly recurring strikes there, the prospect is that in the no great distant future-as time is counted in the life of a nation-we shall be faced, as in fact we are faced at the present time, with the necessity of framing legislation that will adjust this great question. In this connection may I assure the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) that I am in accord with the sentiments expressed by him in the House recently, when he stated that owing to geographical difficulties some concession would have to be made by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in order that difficulties that now appear great indeed may be surmounted.
Between the western province of Alberta and the eastern province of Nova Scotia, coal sufficient to supply the necessities of all Canada for hundreds of years can be obtained, and we shall be recreant to our duty if we allow minor difficulties to stand in the way of the development of our great coal areas. The opportunity in this regard cannot be overestimated, and when we consider the fact that we are at present purchasing from the United States yearly over one hundred million dollars' worth of coal, sending the money to a foreign country, assisting to keep a foreign population employed, to the detriment of our Canadian citizens, it seems to me that this is one of the most pressing problems before the House to-day. In fact I am at a loss to understand-perhaps some hon. member can enlighten me-the reason or reasons why this question was not settled long ago. If we in the central provinces stop for a minute to consider what the immense purchasing power of the hundred millions spent east and west would mean to the industrial sections, surely our united interests lie in this direction. Great purchasing power, coal moving from the west
2774	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
and from the east, giving greater business to our railways, and carrying the manufactured goods from central Canada to these coal producing provinces, would very materially assist in relieving our transportation difficulties. If it is necessary to increase the duty slightly on this commodity, I trust the Minister of the Interior will not stick literally to his "death knell of protection" utterances.
In the constituency of South Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent in this House, we have the happy combination of the agriculture and industrial, a most striking example of what a home market really means. When I tell you that about 95 per cent of the products of the farms of Waterloo county are consumed in that county, some idea can be had of what it means to have the industrial section of the community fully employed. During the past four years this unfortunately has not been the case, and many hundreds of our finest mechanics and young men graduating from our schools and workshops have been forced to go to the United States to secure employment. They do not want to go, neither do they want to become United States citizens. They are all loyal Canadians desirous of living their lives under the Union Jack, but they are forced to migrate in order that they may obtain employment. But just so long as we pursue a policy of exporting our raw materials either wholly or partly unmanufactured, and giving insufficient protection to our productive enterprises to enable them to produce their goods in competition with mass production in the United States, low wages in mid-European countries, and depreciated foreign currencies, just so long will this condition of affairs exist.
Earlier in the session the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. McClenaghan) referred at some length to the great business done by the mail order houses of the Dominion. I was greatly interested in the case which he so ably put forward as it applied to our retail merchants, and he convinced me that the mail order house competition is most unfair. The countries of the world are scoured by the purchasing agents of these concerns. To have the products of foreign sweatshops and child labour distributed in this country, largely through these mail order houses, is bad enough; but when we consider that the ordinary retailer throughout the Dominion is forced to pay a stiff tax in his community, while these great octopuses are practically free of this tax, it will be seen that he suffers from a handicap that is very serious indeed. As a result, the small rural village is rapidly disappearing, which is to be regretted, as 
these centres have assisted in no small degree to make rural life more desirable. In fact, Sir, I think I would be justified in saying that one of the chief causes of the trek from the farms to the bright lights of the cities and towns is largely due to the gradual wiping out of these small centres. This condition of affairs, I submit, is largely due to the inroads of the mail order competition under the unfair circumstances I have related. I hope the senior member for Ottawa will introduce legislation that will give us an opportunity of investigating the matter further this session.
With reference to the immigration problem, I quite realize that in order to do more business we have to have more people. I am in hearty accord with an immigration policy that will bring in selected immigrants to increase production by the cultivation of the vast untilled lands not only of our western prairies, but also of hundreds of thousands of idle acres in the other provinces. But care should be taken not to bring in industrial workers until such time as our industries are fully employed and our citizens-who through the paralyzing policy of the government during the past four years have been compelled to leave their native country to secure employment in the great republic to the south- have been permitted to return to their homes.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House for the very patient hearing which has been accorded me.


Air. ARTHUR BETTEZ (Three Rivers-St. Maurice) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as a
new member in this House, I think I would not be fulfilling my duty, should I not mingle my voice with those who have preceded and will follow me in this debate, so as to appreciate to the best of my ability the budget which our Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has just brought down. Rest assured, Sir, that it is not without a certain apprehension that I rise to discuss, in the most moderate way possible this budget, being content with emphasizing the important points and leaving to hon. gentlemen better qualified than myself the task of scrutinizing them more carefully. This budget, I state without fear, has been received by all classes of society with the greatest satisfaction, and has very much alarmed many of our opponents who never expected such important reductions. I am aware that, as in all wordly matters, some details which are not perfect may be found; however, as perfection does not inhabit this world, there can be no reason to worry, for we are free to fill the wants in the next budget, knowing that the Liberal party dislikes to leave a task unfinished.

The Budget-Mr. Bettez
I wish to point out a few of the many reforms carried out. First, there is the total disappearance of the receipt stamp, a rather annoying and expensive formality to our business men. Secondly, there is the reduction from three to two cents on postage stamps, a measure which will be a blessing to everybody on and after July 1. Thirdly, the wiping out, I might say, for the small wage earner, of the income tax and in a reasonable proportion a tax decrease for others, a measure which I advocated in my first speech in this House on February 1, last; a measure which will give to the wage earners more comfort and will help them to provide for the dull days of old age, and, it will leave to others a larger portion of their profits to apply to the development of their trade. Finally we come to this most discussed question of the reduction of customs duty on automobiles, a duty which has been lowered from 35 to 20 per cent on automobiles of less than $1,200, and from 35 to 27J per cent on automobiles of luxury, from $1,200 up.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the circumstances, all conscientious manufacturers who do not want to make political capital with this question, will be more than compensated of this decrease in the tariff by the reduction of 25 per cent on all parts imported which enter into the manufacture of automobiles, providing that 50 per cent of said parts is manufactured in Canada. Is that not an incentive afforded to our Canadian manufacturers to the detriment of foreign manufacturers? Is that not, I ask you, a truly national measure which will be beneficial to the Canadian workman who has as much need of protection as the foreign workman? A manufacturer who cannot carry on with a tariff in his favour of 20 to 27-2 per cent, moreover, with the appreciable margin which gives him the freight charges over his foreign competitor, is of very little use to his fellow countrymen.
Do you think, Sir, that we must everlastingly provide such a high rate of protection to that industry which, it is true, employs a great number of people, though, in much smaller numbers, after all, than the citizens which it exploits by means of' such a high tariff?
As a mere suggestion, and as a way out, may I point out the desirability of reducing for this year the tariff on motor trucks only, with the understanding that the reductions mentioned in the budget will but take effect next January 1, on the other automobiles, in order that we may not be taxed with having taken these industries by surprise, and
also in order to allow time for those who have large stocks of automobiles on hand to sell them without too great a loss.
As to the tax on dividends, is it not more equitable to impose a tax on those who are in receipt of dividends than on those who have but their daily wages and have no other revenue bearing assets? The policy of our opponents has always been that of favouring solely the large interests to the detriment of the small wage earners and those deprived of wealth. They would prefer, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) stated yesterday, to see the tax paid by a widow possessing absolutely nothing than by a widow drawing dividends. How logical!
One thing which will always reflect shame on the Conservative party, and that the public will not forget for a long time to come, is the exemption from taxation which they granted on the victory bonds, most of which were purchased by friends, war profiteers, of the Conservative government of that day, when it is these same people who should have paid the bill instead of the small industries and wage earners. If the Conservatives had not acted in this manner, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) would not have had to deplore, yesterday, the fate of the widows forced to pay a tax on their dividends.
As I am neither a free trader nor an extreme protectionist like our Conservative friends, but rather a moderate protectionist wishing to give fair play to the consumer and the honest manufacturer, I want, on behalf of my county, to congratulate the government on the appointment of a tariff commission which I feel sure, will be able to give us a just and well considered tariff, studying on the spot and separately the numerous questions on tariff affecting our various industries and applying to each of them a tariff in keeping with the needs of the times, in order not only to assure their existence but especially in order to further their expansion.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a follower of those who believe that, alone, a high tariff can ensure our success, but I am one among many who believe in a moderate tariff affording us an oportunity to make treaties with other countries. Such as the treaty with Australia that has been so much criticised since I have been in this House, but which, to my mind, has been most profitable to our country, inasmuch as it has thrown open to us a vast market for the sale of our paper, in quantities such as we have never known before, giving employment to hundreds of thousands
The Budget-Mr. Bettez

of Canadians. In fact, what do we witness since the ratification of these treaties? An ever increasing number of paper mills employing thousands of people. You have quite close to here, at Chelsea and at East Templeton, a company which is going to spend between $20,000,000 and $25,000,000 for the development of that industry, creating a large city of 20,000 to 25,000 of a population, bringing prosperity not only to the citizens of that town but to all those in the neighbourhood, and spreading affluence everywhere in the district. There are, at present, towns like Shawinigan Falls with a population of
14.000,	Grand-Mere with a population of
9.000,	Cap-de-la-Madeline with 8.000 people, La Tuque with 5,000 of a population, Chicoutimi which has nearly 10,000 of a population, Kenogami, Jonquieres, and many other towns which are centres of paper mills. If we had not those treaties, we would not have such an increase in the number of manufacturers. I must tell you, Sir, that this industry not only supports hundreds of thousands of people, not only does it bring happiness to those employed there, but also to all the farmers in the vicinities of said places where a market is at hand to sell their products among the workmen of the lumber yards; and moreover the farmers can both in winter and summer send their sons to work in the lumber camps. I find evidence of the good results secured through the beneficial policy of the government in my native city itself, in Three Rivers. A few years ago, our municipal valuation was but $14,000,000; to-day it has reached $42,000,000. I must further add, Sir, that the population has increased from 12,000 to 34,000, and this thanks to the beneficial policy of the present government.
Since 1921, American, English and Canadian companies have erected paper mills at a cost of $45,000,000. These mills have an annual output amounting to $25,000,000, and it will reach the figures of $37,000,000 next year. These companies to-day have a payroll amounting to $10,000,000 yearly, and these figures will probably increase to $15,000,000 by next year, as they are at present putting in additional plants. This money is expended within a radius of 100 miles from my home town. Do you not think, Sir, that the farmer, within said radius, gets his share of the profits accruing from such development, since in a great many cases, he works during the winter, with his sons in the lumber camps, and moreover he easily finds a ready market for his products? Do you not think, Sir, that in return he is willing to allow a small portion of the Australian products to enter Canada,

such as, for instance, butter, cheese and eggs, in order that the paper manufacturers who are the mainspring of his livelihood the year around, and who are responsible for his prosperity, may for these considerations be allowed to sell their paper to Australia and other countries?
I have no hesitation in saying that before long Canada shall control the paper industry in America. Are not these advantages granted to Australia and to other countries on their exports of certain farm products to our country more than compensated by the exports to these countries of our manufactured goods? For, after all, the prosperity of our young country will only rest on a sound basis inasmuch as we shall know how to take advantage of our treaties with other nations and mutual concessions shall be made by the various classes inhabiting our Dominion. Even admitting as a fact that the Australian treaty might be a little to the detriment of our farmers, do they not themselves also find it profitable to sell, at better prices, to our workmen their eggs, butter and other products of the farm?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the benefit of the Liberal policy is felt a little everywhere. Look, for instance, at the phenomenal development which is taking place in the lake St. John district, where at present an aluminum industry is taking root, and expending from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 for their plants, this will found large towns in localities which yesterday were practically unknown.
There are other signs of the benefit resulting from the carrying out of the Liberal policy; such as a very marked decrease in the operating ratio of the National railways which gives us hope that before long these railways, which w7ere so to speak in bankruptcy when we assumed power, will soon pay their way and contribute to a large extent to the progress and expansion of Canada, thanks to the wise and enlightened policy of our government who have entrusted the management of our railways to very competent men.
A further undeniable proof of the benefit conferred by the Liberal policy, is the marked increase of our exports over our imports, an increase never heard of, up to this day, and which figures out in the $400,000,000.
A number of members on the opposition side have stated that Quebec favours protection. It is so, my county comprising especially the cities of Three Rivers and Shawingan Falls is more in favour of a policy of moderate pro-

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
tection than of one of profiteering as understood by the opposition, and that is the policy I advocate.
The conscientious manufacturers of my county are in favour of a moderate tariff, giving equally fair play to the consumers. And that is the reason why these two large towns, Three Rivers and Shawinigan Falls, have approved of the Liberal party's policy by a majority of 5,000 votes. And note, it is as a candidate of King that I came forward and not under false colours. The large majority of people in my county are aw^re that it is not under a high tariff that- we shall have prosperity, but under a moderate tariff and especially one which ia well thought out, in conjunction with new treaties, such as that of Australia.
Were we to listen to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), Providence alone is responsible for the good work accomplished by the Liberal government.
Other members of the opposition will propound that the Progressives alone are to be thanked for certain changes in the tariff.
I wonder if these people are in earnest and what they think of the mass of the people whom we represent in this House! For, after all, are not the Progressives the representatives of the people to the same extent as any other member and what can be the superiority of other parties over them? Was it not the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who made the most alluring overtures so as to rally their party to them?


Ernest Lapointe: Hear!
hear!


Arthur Bettez: Our friends the Conservatives have kept on speechifying during two long months, this session, simply to express their disgust in finding themselves in the opposition and to try and persuade the community as a whole that the Liberal policy is not the, one which should predominate in this House. Are they not to blame for this loss of time which has cost the country, according to my estimation, millions of dollars?
No, Sir, it is not through such tactics that they will win back the public's trust and that they will again become the great party as in former days. They had better try something else, -let them drop their futile recriminations and accept as true Canadians the medicine that the majority of the country has administered to them, at the last general elections.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear!
hear!


Arthur Bettez: In regard to the Old Age Pensions Act, I would ask that this measure which is most humanitarian, be simply a Dominion Act without taking into consideration the provinces. In my first speech in this House, in February last, I advocated such a measure. This very day, I was reading a pamphlet which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) has just published. I noticed with much pleasure that a great number of countries have adopted an old age pensions measure. I think the time has come, in Canada, to -look after our old people in stringent circumstances who, by a whole life of labour, have largely contributed to the prosperity of our country. They are not to blame if they have not had the chance to succeed as well as many others. To my mind, it is an additional reason to look after them. Knowing the spirit of equity and progress of my leaders, I feel convinced that they will have this excellent legislation adopted.
As regards the rural credit measure, there is no necessity of adding anything further, for everybody knows that agriculture is the prime industry in this country and that the government must neglect nothing to help the toilers of the land.
Before I take my seat, I deem it my duty to congratulate the government on its programme in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and I trust they shall have sufficient money left to carry out the urgent improvements required in the eastern provinces.
I also wish to sincerely congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on his masterly statement on the budget, this year, and I cherish the hope that next year's budget will bring forth new and appreciable reforms which will contribute, in a large measure, to the expansion and progress of this beautiful Dominion.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Owing to the incidents of to-day, Mr. Speaker, I was requested at a late hour to say a few words on the budget. On account of the limited time at my disposal for the preparation of anything in the form of an address I hope the House will bear with me while I endeavour to say something upon this occasion.
I would like to refer in particular to an important question before this House and before the country generally, that of what we are to do with the automobile industry. It has been argued that the automobile has become what is termed a necessity. That may be true, but I wish to refer to a statement which seems to have gripped the minds of the Progressive element especially in this House. It has been argued that any industry
The Budget*-Mr. Kaiser

which cannot stand upon its own feet with a 35 per cent protection should go down, and starting with that premise, I would like to submit a few facts. I ask hon. members whether knives and forks are a necessity; they are protected to the extent of 30 per cent. Railway locomotives have a protection of 35 per cent; fire engines, 35 per cent; sewing machines, 30 per cent; tools of all kinds, 30 per cent; window shades, 35 per cent; all the fabrics of cotton, 32J per cent. Are blankets a necessity in this country? They have a 35 per cent duty; wall paper, 35 per cent; envelopes, 35 per cent; soap-I wonder if that is a necessity-32J per cent. Writing ink has a duty of 25 per cent; drain pipes, which we use in order that our homes may be made sanitary, have a duty of 35 per cent; marble for fire-places 35 per cent; furniture for the homes of this country, 30 per cent; spectacles-I wonder if they are a necessity, I know they are to me-30 per cent; sterling silverware, 35 per cent; clocks and watches, 30 per cent; springs and axles for cars, 35 per cent; screws-I wonder if they are a necessity-35 per cent; bath tubs-I wonder if that is a necessity in this country; it all depends, I suppose-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not for the Progressive party.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: If the Progressives want a bath they must pay a duty of 35 per cent, or go without.


An hon. MEMBER:: They won't pay it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: My point is this: When you look over the list of articles that are now paying a duty of 35 per cent or thereabouts, why should our automobile industry be singled out from all the rest and have this drastic cut made? I think that is a fair question to ask.
We had a delegation of workingmen and returned soldiers come here to:day from the city I represent in order that they might express their opposition to this cut in the duty on automobiles. There is no question that in their minds and hearts there is a feeling of protest against the action of this government. For the last three weeks there has been a feeling of unrest in the city of Oshawa and in the county I represent, because information had gone out from the capital of this country that something might be done in connection with the tariff on automobiles. The people of our city were disturbed by this report. They came to me as their representative and I said to them: "Do not be afraid." The reason I told them not to be afraid was that we had as Minister of Finance a Scotchman and a fair-minded man, and in

order that I might back up my opinion I took my old Hansard and I read to them the words the Minister of Finance used one year ago when he pointed out that this country needed the revenue from the automobile tariff, when he said there were too many automobiles in this country, and when he told the House and the country he was not prepared to vote for the amendment offered on that occasion by a representative from one of the western constituencies. I argued that this man would never stand up in the House and say that this industry should be shot. I expected that he would defend us because of his past record, and because of the faith we had in his common sense. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the outraged feelings in my mind and the widespread disappointment in the city I represent when these men read in the press that the Finance Minister stood up in this House and without warning, without giving our industries a chance to explain their case, reduced the tariff to such an extent that it threatened the very existence not only of our industries but of the city I represent? I stated, when I went home, that I was amazed and alarmed at the situation; that the only satisfaction I had was that as I listened to the Minister of Finance when he announced this cut in the tariff on automobiles, I ob served that he said it with a lump in his throat. We are amazed; we W'onder at the situation; we ask ourselves how came this about? Why this change of mind? It drives us back to the original conclusion that" the one thing that is wrong is the effort of this government to hold power at any cost, and at the dictation of a few men whom they would otherwise expect to vote against them.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government was absolutely defeated on the 29th of October last. We believe that the people of this country pronounced against them, and pronounced against their policy, but we never dreamt that in order to hold on to power they would think of destroying an industry of the size to which the automobile industry in this country has grown, and further, that they would not for one moment contemplate the destruction of one of the youngest cities in the Dominion of Canada. I have read modern and ancient history to see if I could dig up a parallel, and only one case comes to my mind. When I read the budget resolutions this year and those of last year and the statements made, I am reminded of the ancient story told in Plutarch's Lives where old Cato came to the Senate every day with his little bunch of figs and stated that "Carthage must be destroyed." Carthage in this case is the city of Oshawa.

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
Some hon. gentlemen sitting opposite say that we are unduly alarmed. They tell us that our captains of industry do not know what they are talking about. They tell us that if we take this reduction, and consider the present attitude of this government, if our men should go to work and our industries try to continue, the industries will go forward and do better than ever. Yet the men who are at the head of these industries told the government and this country to-day that it was utterly impossible for them to go on under existing circumstances. Is it possible that the government and those who support the gov-vernment to-day imagine that these men do not know what they are talking about?
I pass on, not to deal with the economics of the question but to try to bring home the situation as I see it and as I know it. The people at the head of General Motors have never deceived the city of Oshawa. Thirty-five years I have lived among
10 p.m. them; thirty-five years I have observed their struggle and progress; for that length of time we have listened to their statements regarding their industry and their relations to the city, and during all those thirty-five years they have always taken ns into their confidence and told us the truth and what the actual situation was. Do hon. gentlemen suppose that this is one time that they do not know what they are talking about, or that they are trying to deceive the city and deceive the people of this country?
Lest I forget, I desire to pay tribute to the kindly remarks of the Speaker of this House when he paid the delegation that came to this city to-day the compliment of saying that it was the most orderly and respectable delegation that he had ever had the pleasure of seeing come to this city and the House of Commons.
Let me point out to this House that in the city of Oshawa, which employs a larger percentage of people in proportion to its population than any other city in the Dominion of Canada, among these men who work in our factories within the limits of that city, there has never been a crime of the first order committed-never in the history of the city. There has never been an execution there-never a trial for the more felonious and heinous crimes-and why? There are two reasons. In the first place, the people who work in our factory come from the townships in the counties surrounding Oshawa, and in the second place they are so busy, so -thoroughly employed, that they have neither the time nor the inclination to commit offences of that kind. I will admit of course
that in recent years they have turned into the coffers of our country tremendous sums in respect to a little thirsty difficulty that we in the province of Ontario understand quite well.
The people who formed that procession to-day were almost entirely labouring men; they were not representatives of capital, they were not representatives of the factory management. It included, however, hundreds of women workers in that factory who, in their innocence, imagined they had one representative in this House who might sympathize with them in their struggle. Sorry am I to know that this representative told them that they were sent here at the expense of the General Motors Corporation. I stand here to deny the truth of that statement; they came here at their own expense. The expenses of those who were unable to pay were defrayed by other workmen in the city. They were here representing nobody but the owners of three or four thousand little homes in that city.
We had in that procession 784 returned soldiers. The Prime Minister to-day intimated that those ex-soldiers may be working for the automobile trade, but that there were hundreds of other soldiers who might require to buy an automobile. That may be so, but let the hon. Prime Minister remember that in 1918-19, when the soldiers returned from the front, the automobile business was growing and expanding; labour and assistance was required in the factory at Oshawa, and they took on, I may say, a greater percentage of the returned soldiers than any other industry in the Dominion of Canada. Those soldiers reclaimed their jobs and to-day a returned soldier in Oshawa is given a preference over any other applicant for a job. We sent from our city to the front between 1.600 and 1,700 soldiers to fight the battle of civilization and of Christendom. Of this number 132 never came back; they fell in France. During the last few years we at home endeavoured to have our city represent our ideas in stone, and we erected a monument to the memory of those who fell in France. We did not erect a monument to glorify war. We placed upon that monument a statute of a retured soldier in his garden home, and we called it "The Garden of the Unforgotten." We hoped and trusted-and our hope was realized -that the people of our city, when they passed that monument, would remember that they owed something to the returned soldier.
I should like to say something about that little monument, which is probably one of the most unique monuments of its kind in

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
the British Empire. Our aim was to build a symbolic monument, one that would carry also to the memories of the allied countries which joined with England in that struggle the fact that this British Empire passed through that terrific struggle and came out triumphant. We tried to bring to the minds of Canadians the battlefields upon which the great struggle took place, and the way we did it was this: we asked every allied country to send us a stone to put in this monument. We asked1 every part of the British Empire to send1 us an Empire stone. From some of the great men of the war we received stone from the very battlefields where Canadians fought and fell. And what is the result? We have in that monument a stone from the ruins of Louvain, a stone from Loos, a stone from Passchendaele, a. stone from Cambrai,, a stone from Mons, the Governor General of Canada sent us a stone from Vimy Ridge. We asked various cities of Europe to send us, if possible a stone that might have some little historic value. Let me read a letter we received' from one of the cities where Canadians fought and fell. This letter was directed to me, and it reads:
Dear Sir:
The city of C&mibrai considers it a duty to respond to your desire and to send you the souvenir stone which you ask, for your memorial to the Canadians who fell in the war, 1914-1918. May it, by the name of Cambrai, which we have had engraved on it, recall to those who see it in your city that our city testifies to the bravery and self-denial of your men who fell here in the cause of liberty.
You have asked that this stone come from an edifice destroyed by the war: we thought we could not do better than take it from the ruins of our city hall to which so many memories are attached. You will have thus a symbol not only of the recent war but also of our struggles prior to this time, and for the same object.
The period 1914-1918, in fact, is not the first in which we have had to submit to the heavy yoke of the German empire, the tyranny of its governors and the brutality of its soldiers. Almost 1,000 years ago our ancestors have had to live in the same difficult days and, as deliverance was slow in coming, they wished to get free from the bonds that were ' heavy upon them.
<( 0ne day in the year 956 united together in the Peace Hall" they took a community oath to unite their efforts to get back their independence, and the most bloody atrocities did not make them renounce it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Were all those atrocities committed by the kaiser?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What does the hon. member mean by that question?


Hewitt Bostock: Go on.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I would like the hon. gentleman who interrupted to answer that question. Right well I know the object of his reference. Let me answer it. Mine is an Anglo Saxon name; my family has carried it for five 
hundred years. The kaiser of Germany was not known before 1871. My ancestors were not Germans; I want that clearly known. On my father's side they were United Empire Loyalists; they fought on behalf of the British cause in the revolutionary wars of 1776. My grandfather on my father's side fought at Queenston Heights and at Lundy's Lane in 1812 and 1814 to preserve this country for the British crown. In 1837 he stood for ordered government in Ontario and he opposed the grandfather of the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King). In 1866 likewise my uncles assisted in bringing about order in Ontario. Twenty-six of my close relatives were on the line in the Great war of 1914. On my mother's side my grandfather belonged to the 79th Highlanders and helped to make the famous charge at Waterloo. As a Canadian I do not think I need stand for any insult from the hon. member or from any other man in the Dominion of Canada. It is because I am a Canadian and a Canadian first that I wish to have this House listen for a moment while I finish this letter and when I have finished hon. members should all feel prouder that they are Canadians:
On the day of triumph, in 1070, the "Peace Hall" was taken over as the seat of 'government: to-day it is our "City Hall", still devotedly preserved in the same spot, as a witness.
For the same reason, our city hall has been made .precious to us, because it has had to submit to the enemy's outrage, as when it was ordered to be destroyed under Emperor Henry in 1095 and under Emperor Frederick in 1226, and again when it was burnt down under Emperor William in 1918. Each time we built it again and this time, too, we propose once more to raise it from its ruins, because dt united in its structure the sufferings and the glories of our thousand year struggle for liberty, for our own liberty, and the liberty of France. We are proud to remember that the German invasions of 1792 and of 1870 have come to its steps and then expired without being able to go beyond it, and that in 1914 even, if the invading tide has overwhelmed it, that tide has scarcely been able to reach further.
We remember also that when in October, 1918, the privilege was given to the few scattered inhabitants remaining in the city of thanking those who had delivered them, in the very first rank was your General Loomis and it was in the ruins of our city hall that they thanked him.
This last remembrance would have been sufficient in itself alone to fix our choice in .providing the stone that you desire. Other remembrances are added to it, however, since they will make you feel that having often suffered we know how to understand and appreciate sacrifice. Now, no sacrifice is so entire as the sacrifice of one's life, and numerous are your dead on our so.il. We do not forget here-and I will cite only this example-that it was the Canadian battalion that on October 9th, 1918 forced the passage of the bridge at Gantimore in the west suburb of Cambrai; the battalion lost 380 men out of a force of 640, i.e. two-thirds. We do not forget either that it was to the efforts of the survivors that we owe the stopping of the fire by which the enemy had hoped to reduce our city to ashes.

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
So, believe us, we are heartily with you in the homage you wish to show to the fighting-men of 1918.
Kindly accept, sir, the assurance of our best and highest feelings.
The Mayor of Oambrai.
Mr. Speaker, my object in mentioning this is to show you the spirit of the returned men of the city which I represent. It is on account of what they have done, on account of the fact that most of them are married men and that most of them relied upon the pledges given to them in 1921 in the armoury at Oshawa when the Prime Minister of Canada stood up in their midst and assured them that if he were elected no industry in that city would suffer. Nevertheless, in two years' time, through their juggling with the tariff, this government destroyed one of the greatest industries we ever had in Oshawa, namely, the malleable iron industry.
During the last election a similar visit was paid to our city by the same Prime Minister of our country, and there he gave the same kind of promise. Our soldiers and our workmen returned to their little homes resting assured that no injury would be done. 1 know from personal contact with them that there are to-day in that city representatives of three or four thousand little homes with a few hundred dollars paid upon them, and these men are endeavouring to pay the balance in monthly instalments. It is little wonder that they feel alarmed over this situation; that they feel that they have a grievance in their hearts and that they are going home to-nighjt dissatisfied with the answers and assurances that they have received. The answers given by the Prime Minister were evasions of a strange character. He told these people that in the House of Commons no amendment was made to the budget, and then he split hairs by saying that the automobile itself was not mentioned in any amendment, that [DOT] no pointed effort was being made by members of the House to save the automobile industry, although he knew that the amendment of the Conservative party pointed to that as directly as the compass points to the north pole. The Conservatives are in the minority in this House as regards voting strength, but it is my belief that the great body of Conservatives and two-thirds of the Liberals of this House sympathize with the efforts we are putting forth to save the industrial fabric of the province of Ontario. We fear not only for the automobile industry itself, but for the people of Ontario who have spent $200,000,000 in developing the water-powers of that province, which depend for their success
upon the continued operation of our industries. The greatest customer the hydro-electric enterprise of Ontario has east of Toronto at the present time is the General Motors Company of Oshawa, and the representatives in this House from western Canada, it seems, are going to destroy or very seriously impair that concern along with all the others throughout the province, curtailing in consequence the operations of the hydro. When this happens, how are the people of Ontario going to bear the tremendous burden of debt that will follow the collapse of industrialism in the province? Is it not clear that the farmers of the province will have to carry it? Cannot the farmers of the west realize that there are other people besides themselves engaged in agriculture in Canada? And do those farmers imagine that they can go on forever selling anywhere from four hundred to five hundred millions of bushels of wheat a year? Do they think the soil of western Canada can indefinitely yield such a crop? Why, science has demonstrated that this cannot be done, for it is imperative that the soil be replenished with some portion of the fertility that is taken from it. Let hon. gentlemen from the west study the history of China, where some of the fertile valleys are just as productive to-day as they were two thousand years ago. Why is this? The reason is that even the Chinese know better than to produce to the limit without putting back something of the fertility they take from the soil. I agree with those who say that Canadian producers should grind all their wheat at home and export it in the form of flour, because this country needs the offal in order to replenish the soil.
Some of the theories that are being preached in Canada to-day will ruin the country if they are carried very far into practice, with the result that Canada in the end will find herself in an inextricable mess. Look at what has happened to the sheep industry as a result of our free trade tendencies. In 1870, fifty years ago, we had in Ontario 3,500,000 sheep, whereas to-day we have only 2,500,000. I have letters on this subject, from some of the leading agriculturists of our country, and of the Dominion for that matter, all going to show what an advantage it would be to Canada to develop the sheep industry. The sheep is the best scavenger that is known in any country. You will not find a dirty farm where there are sheep in any large numbers, but in Ontario many sections are growing wild with weeds, and the same is true of Manitoba and the west. This country, in my opinion, should have at least 30,000,000
27S2

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
sheep, which would represent an asset of some 8300.000,000, but we cannot hope for any development of the industry without protection. Protect the industry and you will have woollen mills throughout the country affording employment to our people.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the hon. member imply that those who are engaged in agriculture know less about it than he does?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I have the authority of William Dryden and Robert Miller, gentlemen who are known throughout the Dominion as among our greatest agriculturists, and I am prepared to take their opinion in preference to that of my hon. friend. I am not giving the hon. gentleman my views; I am simply quoting the views of those who are in a position to speak authoritatively, having made their names famous in agriculture in Canada. I come from a county which is perhaps the .Mecca of Canada so far as good stock is concerned, and I know what the possibilities are if the people are given a chance.
As regards the proposed reduction in the duty on automobiles, I am convinced that this whole Dominion expects the government to heed the voice of the delegation which visited the capital to-day. I know what the result of this attack on the tariff will be to thousands of our workingmen. Now, these people are making a reasonable request of the government. All they ask is that this question be referred to a tariff board of experts for careful consideration, and that everyone concerned be given an opportunity to state his case clearly. This is what the people of Oshawa want and they are prepared to stand by the verdict of such an investigation.
I am pleading with the government to-day simply to honour the pledge which the Prime Minister himself gave to the country, and the pledge which the government put into the mouth of the sovereign's representative when he read the Speech from the Throne. Can the government solemnly give an undertaking in that speech and then in a quiet moment repudiate it, especially when, as we know on the authority of men who are well versed in the matter, this breach of faith will bring about the destruction of thousands of homes in Canada? I have lived among these people. As a doctor I helped to bring into the world many of the boys and girls who will be affected by this action of the government, and I have seen them grow up from infancy. I know the kind of people they are, and I am sure it would be with feelings of deepest regret that they would

leave Canada to find employment elsewhere. But this is what they will have to do if the government persists in its present intention. The situation is unparalleled in our history, and all we ask is that the government and the Prime Minister carry out the solemn pledge they gave to the people and which they put into the mouth of the Governor General of Canada.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: We have listened to a very able defence of the action of the people of Oshawa, but it is difficult for us to believe that these people are always consistent, and we question whether they were consistent in their visit to-day. I have here a copy of Hansard of last year in which I find that Mr. Clifford, the Liberal member for what was then the constituency of South Ontario, which included, the city of Oshawa, voted against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) to reduce the duty on automobiles. The Coote amendment of last session read:
That in the opinion of this House a substantial reduction should be made in the customs tariff on automobiles and motor trucks.
We find that the then member for South Ontario, Mr. Clifford, a supporter of the government, voted against that resolution, but at the general election the people of Oshawa rejected him. I learn further that on that division six Conservatives who are still members of this House voted in favour of the resolution, namely, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for York-Sunburv (Mr. Hanson), the hon. menber for Kent (Mr. Doucet) and two others whose constituencies I do not recall.
Now, we are told that the government is going to destroy the automobile industry. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is an old chestnut; we have been hearing it for a great many years. I well remember reading years ago the same story whenever the tariff was reduced.
I am not a particularly old man yet, but in my younger days I followed the occupation of a veterinary surgeon. I found a few years ago that t'he horse industry, which meant my livelihood, was largely ruined-I say, ruined-in the same measure as that word is now applied to the automobile industry. Therefore it is just putting the shoe on the other foot. The horse industry has been hurt to a certain extent by the automobile industry,-more, I believe, than the automobile industry will be hurt by this reduction of

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
fifteen per cent in the tariff, yet no one ever suggested a government subsidy to horse breeders.
Before I proceed with the general trend of my remarks with reference to the budget, I desire heartily to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the clear, comprehensive and concise manner in which he presented his budget to this House and the country last week. For a number of years now it has been my duty to prepare at certain stated periods financial statements for organizations with which I am connected. Of course these statements are on a much smaller scale than the budget, but what I have done in a small way enables me to appreciate how the Minister of Finance must have felt when he was able to present such a favourable report on the financial condition of the country. It was always a source of satisfaction to me when I was able to bring in a financial statement showing a financial improvement in the organizations with which I was connected, and I am sure the hon. minister must have *been deeply gratified to be able to record such a substantial improvement in the affairs of this Dominion.
For a number of years past I have studied the budgets-to a limited extent it is true- and when I listened to the Minister of Finance last week the thought struck me most forcibly that this was the best financial statement that had ever been presented to this House. I was particularly pleased a day or two afterwards when no less an authority than the veteran member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) stated that it had been his privilege to sit in the House of Commons and hear twenty-five or more budget speeches, and he believed this was the best. I think this warrants my saying that the minister has probably presented us with one of the best budgets since confederation, in that it contains, at least when coupled with the legislative programme of this session, something that appeals to our people in all walks of life. For instance, the reduction in the national debt by $22,000,000 is a welcome piece of news to every Canadian. We believe and hope that this is only the beginning of a number of similar reductions and that before many years we shall be relieved of the great menace of our enormous debt, thus getting back to the conditions which prevailed before the war. We are all pleased to note the increased trade, and the resultant increased revenue approximating $30,000,000. This, coupled with the decrease in expenditures leaving a surplus of revenue over expenditures of some $55,000,000, is" indeed very gratifying in comparison with the conditions which prevailed when the government took office in 1922. The reductions in taxation also appeal to all classes of people. The reduction in the income tax will probably appeal more to some than to others. But we have the reduction in postage and the abolition of the receipt tax, and altogether it is estimated that there will be a general reduction in taxes amounting to some $25,000,000. This does not apply to any particular section of the country or to any one class, but everyone will benefit in some measure.
In connection with the finances of the Canadian National Railways we are gratified to find a more satisfactory condition. There has been a gradual improvement since the coming into force of the present system of operation, and during the election campaign I stressed this point particularly. If there is one thing more than another for which this government deserves credit I believe it is the improvement shown in the Canadian National Railways. When this government took office the condition of affairs was very unsatisfactory. There is no use in enumerating the conditions which then existed, but we find now, after some four or five years of operation, a surplus over all operating expense of some $32,000,000, almost double that of 1924. It has been stated-and I am not sure of the truth of the statement-that certain items which are considered as assets and included in the capital account of the Canadian National Railways do not represent real value. If that is the case I would suggest a revaluation of the assets in order that the railway may receive encouragement, and the management be given a proper opportunity of making an earlier success than would otherwise be obtained.
Returning again to the budget, I believe it is one which will be accepted with almost universal satisfaction. A day or two after the presentation of the budget I was interested in reading the comments of the daily press. It was very noticeable that, irrespective of the political leanings of individual papers, almost every one had some favourable comment to make with regard to this budget. These things must be far from consoling to some hon. members of this House, and to some of the people who went on platforms in every part of Canada picturing dire calamity and prophesying certain ruin unless the King government were defeated and a Conservative government elected. On October 29 last the electors of Canada did not elect a Conservative government; the King government is still in power, and desolation and ruin have

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
not yet overtaken us. That the country has on the contrary made remarkable strides and shown great vitality is exemplified by the fact that in this budget it has been possible to reduce the taxation as I have already indicated. Moreover, we learn that the export trade of the country in the last year showed a favourable balance of some $381,000,000, as compared with an unfavourable balance of $29,000,000 in 1921. Is it any wonder that the people do not want a Conservative government in power?
In connection with these prophecies of financial ruin and dire distress we cannot help observing the reports brought in by our banks, insurance companies and financial institutions generally during the last few months. Almost without exception they have shown increases in business, and managers and directors have expressed confidence in the future. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there were any evidence of the dire distress predicted by our Conservative friends it would be reflected in these financial statements. A number of manufacturing concerns also, some in the central part of Ontario, have reported the year 1925 very good in a business way. These statements can hardly be said to be issued for political purposes, because our financial institutions do not enter into politics to any great extent.
_ We have heard a great deal about conditions in the Maritimes. I do pot know very much about that question, but a few days ago I received through the mail a paper called The Evening News, of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. Page 2 was marked, and in turning to that page I found an item which, although not truthful, at least shows that this paper is not favourable to the King government. It went on to say that the government is holding office by theft, and a few other things of that kind, but on the front page appears the following heading:
Business Conditions Improving in New Glasgow.
It goes on to say:
Merchants look with confidence to the future. Volume of business better than last year.
Then the remarks of several business men are given, and the conclusion is as follows:
The foregoing are some of the opinions expressed by a number of merchants taken at random througnout the town. Others added comment along the same line. The general consensus of opinion seems to be that there is a noticeable improvement, and that tihe summer should be appreciably better than last year.
If there is an improvement in conditions throughout this country, however, some of our Conservative friends are not prepared to give the government any credit for it. They say it is due to Providence, to crop conditions and that sort of thing; but, on the 
other hand, every ill that befalls the country is in their estimation the fault of the government. I was pleased the other day to hear the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) make, perhaps unwittingly, a remark that I should like to have appear again on Hansard1, because it is something that we people from the west believe with him to be the truth. Speaking on the 15th day of April he said-Hansard page 2458:
I believe I am within the mark when I say that Providence has blessed Canada during the past season with a wheat yield in the western provinces unsurpassed both in quality and quantity, a yield which is to-day commanding a good price in the markets of the world and this fact constitutes the most important feature of our commercial success. I do not believe I am far wrong in making that statement. But fortunately it is not only in the prairie provinces of the west that Providence has blessed us. Ontario, this great central province of Canada, has also been blessed with a wonderful harvest. So far as Providence has seen fit to act in the matter, He has poured out on this country an abundance which we have not enjoyed for many years past and we are to-day reaping the benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we in the west believe with the hon. member for South Wellington, as recorded there, that the crop conditions of the west have been largely responsible for the progress that has been made. We -believe that it is a great factor, and that the improvement of conditions in the west will do more than anything else to bring about the prosperity that we want in this country. We believe that if the farming industry of our prairie provinces is property nursed, and if we are given the proper -opportunity in that country, wre can bring back again something approximating the conditions of the early years of this century when there was a certain amount, of prosperity all over Canada. And let it be noted that while there was a great development taking -place on those western plains, the cities of Ontario were being built up and there was very little unemployment in these central provinces during that period. The cities of Ontario and eastern Canada generally developed and prospered, which development and which prosperity was largely due to the great market which was opened' up in the west for all classes of goods produced here in eastern Canada. They had! a market for all the lumber, all the machinery, all- the household furniture, clothing and other products that it was possible for them to produce, and as time went on they kept increasing the number of their factories because of the great market that was opened up on the western plains. We in the west, then-, are convinced! that it is impossible to bring about the improved conditions we are looking forward to by increasing tariffs, and we are n-ot going to -be



The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
the tariff upon an article enters into its cost to the purchaser. That was very well illustrated in the debate which took place here a few weeks ago in connection with the automobile tariff, where I believe it was amply demonstrated that the automobile industry was taking the full benefit of that tariff protection. We have heard the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) give his views in that connection, but I should like to read to the House the opinion of another man, who, I believe, is at least as capable of sizing up the situation with respect to the automobile industry as the hon. member for Ontario. This is a copyrighted article by Charles Vining, published in -the Ottawa Evening Citizen, stating the views of no less a person than Henry Ford. It reads as follows:
Dearborn, Mich., April 23-If Henry Ford became prime minister of Canada, Robert Forke could qualify as a good Conservative and the Robtb budget of 1926 would be abouit as exciting as 'hike warm iemonacfr.
Mr. Ford would not merely reduce the tariff on certain classes of automobiles, he would wipe out lit tariff. He would establish free trade, absolute and unequivocal. As a manufacturer of automobiles in Canada he believes the tariff to be a hindrance and stupidity.
Mr. Ford surprised people with something of this opinion in a brief remark after visiting his great Canadian plant on Wednesday. This afternoon he enlarged on the subject, confirmed his statement that free trade would benefit industry, gave his reasons and explained their application to the manufacture of Ford cars in Canada.
From the conversation came voluntary statements of pertinence and encouragement ito Canadians, that it is possible to manufacture as cheaply in Canada as in the United States, that Ford cars in Canada have been selling at a higher price than necessary because of the tariff, that the tariff encourages industrial indolence and tends to permit prices based on what the market will pay rather than on proper costs of production, that the Ford Company of Canada, and presumably other Canadian companies will develop greater efficiency and economy o>f manufacture as a result of the proposed tariff reductions.
Supplementing discussion of the tariff came a picture broadly sketched of industry twenty years from now, a thing of gigantic forces and stupendous organizations compared with which the great corporation of to-day is a "peanut."
I introduced the subject of my visit. Had he said that free trade would be a good thing for his Canadian company. Did he. the largest manufacturer of automobiles in Canada, agree with the proposed tariff reductions? Would he offer an opinion which might oe useful to Canadians who are -perplexed?
"You people are just waking up," said Mr. Ford in reply. "You ought to rub the other eye now, too, and clean out the tariff."
"Would it be a good thing for your company in Canada?"
"Cemtainly."
"The tariff is a hindrance to trade. I would have free trade. I believe in free trade everywhere."
"Do you mean by that that you can manufacture a Ford car as cheaply in Canada as you can here?"
"I can. Give me that plant at Ford City and I'll compete with the plant here at Highland Park any day. Why shouldn't I? Our unit in Canada can buy as cheaply as we can here. We make every part of the
fMr. McKenzie.]
car in the Canadian plant and ninety-five per cent, over eighty-five anyway, of the raw material is supplied right in Canada. We get our steel from Algoma, lumber, everything we need."
"The usual answer," I suggested, "would be that large scale production makes the difference. Many Canadian manufacturers believe that they cannot compete with American manufacturers because the latter have advantages in mass production."
"I don't see that," said Mr. Ford, "What do you mean by mass production? I think we've got large scale production in our Canadian unit. They're turning out six hundred cars a day."
"How many are you making here?"
"Oh, we're doing between seven and eight thousand a day, but I don't think that's any advantage after a certain point."
" Do you mean that large scale production ceases to be an advantage when it grows beyond a certain, degree?"
"Yes," said Mr. Ford, and explained that costs of manufacturing are almost equally divided between-labour and raw materials. In both of these items, he argued, the Ford Company of Canada is as favourably situated as the American plants.
"In fact," he added, "you have a better class of workman in Canada than we have here, more intelligent, more vigorous. I like to look at their faces. They're mostly Anglo-Saxon."
"If it is true then," I said, "that the Ford car can be made as cheaply in Canada as here, why have we had to pay a much higher price for it all this time?" "The old story," replied Mr. Ford, with a twist of: his shoulders, "Because they have been able to get the price, that's all."
"Because the tariff has made the higher price possible?"
"Yes, certainly they've been able to get a higher-price in Canada, naturally they've taken it."
"It is quite evident that the consumer will benefit from tariff reduction by lower prices," I said, "but you say that the automobile manufacturer will benefit also. Can you explain in what way?"
"Why, yes," replied Mr. Ford in some surprise, "It's quite simple. Lower prices mean more buyers, more buyers mean more business, more business means growth for the manufacturer. I would cut out the tariff," he repeated, "and have free trade. Free competition brings healthy business. I can tell you that those fellows over in our Canadian unit are going to manufacture more efficiently now. They'll have to, it's going to be a better plant over there, better organization. That's another reason why it's a good thing for the manufacturer."
"You believe then," I asked, "that to help the manufacturer one must first help the consumer, and if the consumer benefits the manufacturer is bound to benefit?"
"1 don't know any other way," replied Mr. Ford briefly.
"Some people," I explained, "believe in the reverse process. They say that tariff reduction will kill manufacturing in Canada, that there will be unemployment and no wages, and therefore no money for the consumer to spend, that you must first help the manufacturer in order to help the consumer."
"That's all wrong," said Mr. Ford.
It seems to me that after that it is unnecessary that -I should say anything further with reference to that phase of the tariff question.
We have heard a great deal in this House about the tariff question, and I should be glad if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) were in his seat now, while I say

Immigration Act
just a word in regard to my constituency. I was not a candidate in the election of 1921 in the constituency which I represent, but in the election of 1921 as well as in 1925, Conservatives, speaking on a good many platforms, stated that if the people of my constituency or the people of Canada wanted reductions in the tariff they would have to elect a Conservative government because Conservative governments had in the past reduced tariffs more than the Liberal party had. If the leader of the opposition were in his seat I would ask him whether he would own or disown that statement of his lieutenants out there. I would like him to tell this House what reductions have been made in the tariff by the Conservative party, and to state his attitude with regard to the tariff on agricultural implements.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about the tariff
on furniture?


Mr. McPHEE:: Does the hon. member
want to buy a casket for the party?
Mr. MeKENZ'IE:	The hon. member for
South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the other day was inclined to condemn the Liberal party because it had not lived up to its policy as enunciated even as far back as 1879, and particularly in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I believe that as conditions change in this country it is necessary for any political party to change its policy to a certain extent in order to meet changed conditions. To my mind, one reason why the Conservative party is as unpopular as it is at the present time in western Canada is because it is trying to stick to the old policy of 1879 and from then on, forgetting entirely that since that time there have located out on those western plains more than two million people who that party ignores. We people out there have a right to be considered, not only because we represent more than one-quarter of the population of this country, but, as I have stated, because those western plains are responsible for the vast majority of our agricultural production.
We have heard a great deal about unemployment in Canada. That there is unemployment I am well aware, but it is no new thing; it is not a matter that is confined to the last three or four years. There has been unemployment in this country for many years and probably the chief reason why there has been more of it in the last few years than 14011-1771
formerly is due to war conditions, the aftermath of the war. But to my mind the remedy is for us to set ourselves to make farm life so attractive that many of the unemployed from our cities will go on to the land where they will find employment the year round, for it is in that way that the situation in our cities will be relieved.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. King (Kootenay) the House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.
Monday, April 26, 1926.