1926-05-05

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I beg to move:
That the petition of James McCutcheon Coleman presented this day, praying for an act respecting certain patents of the said James McCutcheon Coleman, and the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon be referred to the select standing committee on Standing Orders pursuant to the provisions of rule 88.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questicms
[Stage Direction]
REPORTS PRESENTED	Mr. SPEAKER:
Report of tlie Department of National Defence (French) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925 (Militia and Air Service).- Hon. Mr. Macdonald.
Report of the Department of National Defence (French) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925 (Naval Service).-Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

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

[Stage Direction]
' Mr. PRICE:
1.	What amount of money has been spent by the government or the Canadian National Railways on the docks, buildings, tracks, or property appertaining thereto at Portland, Maine, since the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway property, to make it a more suitable port for export and import traffic?
2.	How many tons of freight were imported and exported through this port for movement by the Canadian National Railways for the years 1924-25?
3.	What amount of tonnage, both export and import, was handled by the Canadian National Railways through the port of St. John in the same years?
Hon. Mr. DUNNING *
1.	$15,344.24.
2 and 3. The management does not consider it to fee in the public interest to give this information, which would be useful to competitors of the railway, and detrimental to its business.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeCLENAGHAN:
1.	Has the government been petitioned by the wives and widows of contributors to superannuation funds Nos. 1 and 2, for relief?
2.	Does the government propose by amendment to the Superannuation Act to grant relief, and, if so, in what particulars?
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The recommendations are being considered.
HOUSE OF COMMONS-CLEANING STAFF Mr. HEAPS:
1.	What number bf men on the cleaning staff of the House of Commons have been reduced from $3.65 per day to $3.50?
2.	What number have been increased from $3 per day to $3.50?
3.	What is the length of service of the men who received an increase in pay?
4.	What is the length of service of the men whose wages were reduced?
I Mr. Power.]
1.	30.
2.	7.
3.	From January 7, 1926.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



SHOT GUN FACTORY

Mr. KAISER:: Having regard to items 453f and 502d of tariff changes in budget announcements of April 15, 1926, would the government state how many shot gun factories are located in Canada, stating the name and address of each company?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: So far as is known-none.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CAHAN:: For a copy of the annual report, for the year ending December 31st, 1925, of the Central Vermont Railway, whose capital stock is largely owned by the Canadian National Railways.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Soldier Settlement Board and any of its officials or employees, with reference to land purchased by the board through the firm of Kennedy and Kennedy, and for all orders and instructions issued by the board with reference to any further transactions with that firm.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask whether in the reorganization of the Civil Service Commission the government proposes to carry out declared Liberal principles and appoint at least one member from the body of civil servants.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think I can assure my hon. friend that the government will act on Liberal principles in its appointments but the question of who will be appointed has not yet been determined. The matter is under consideration.



AUTOMOBILE DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Last week when the Prime Minister was telling us from whom the government had sought expert advice before deciding on the reduction of duties on automobiles I asked whether the papers and documents connected with such consultation and advice would be brought down. The Prime Minister as re-

Automobile Duties
311?
ported on page 2917 of Hansard, in replying to this question, stated that he would leave to the Minister of Finance the decision on that point. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would bring down these papers and lay them On the table of the House.


James Alexander Robb: No person knows better than my hon. friend, who himself once held a position as a responsible minister, that from time to time the government receives information which it must necessarily consider confidential. It is right, I think, that this should be so because it is not fair to reveal all that we have. There would be no objection to bringing down any information that is not of a confidential nature. The question raised by my hon. friend is a fair one and opens out a rather wide field. If I may be permitted I would observe that during the debate I have been accused of making certain changes because of sentiment in the country. May I remind my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and the House that the sentiment has not been confined to one side. Last year there was a debate in this House and a vote on the question of automobile duties, and I see from Hansard-
Mr. MiEIGHEN: Is the budget debate on?


James Alexander Robb: No, but I am answering the question that has been asked.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What the minister says
has no relation to the question.


James Alexander Robb: I am within the ruling of the Chair. I observe, I say, that six members supporting my right hon. friend, voted for a reduction in these duties. Among the six was one gentleman who is now premier of his province, New Brunswick. The others were the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet), the hon. member for York, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones).


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Which York is the minister referring to?
Mr. MiEIGHEN: Is the minister in order in making his budget speech on this occasion? The question asked was whether the government would lay on the table the expert opinions and data with which it said it was armed.


James Alexander Robb: I was proceeding to say that I should have no objection to laying upon the table such information as might properly be brought down. I notice, too, that the chief
whip of the Conservative party (Mr. Boys), who is not in his seat at the moment, speaking at Barrie, is reported:
Protected manufacturers do not raise prices to correspond with foreign-made goods which pay duty. He quoted wholesale prices of auto tires in Canada and the United States, showing certain tires to be- somewhat cheaper in Canada. . . . He believed the tariff had been abused by motor car manufacturers and declared himself in favour of lowering the duty on autos.
I am willing to put this information on the table.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Did my vote last year influence the minister? If it did, I was going to say that it was his speech at that time that caused me to change my opinion.


Arthur Meighen: We are to take it from the government, I assume, that the Minister of Finance has now given us all the expert data that he had.


James Alexander Robb: I made it clear that there
would be no objection to bringing down such information as was not confidential, but certain information given to the government from time to time must be regarded as confidential.


Arthur Meighen: Are we to take it that everything, that is not confidential is down?


Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):: I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), inasmuch as he has made a second budget speech in which he mentions my name,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: -whether at the time the discussion to which he refers took place last year, a tariff board had been appointed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



FOREST AIR PATROL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), to the fact that I have received from High River, Alberta, numerous telegrams asking whether the aerial force patrol of Bow River and Crows-nest forest reserves is to be discontinued. Can the minister give some assurance that this service will be carried on this year?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yes. Perhaps it was unfortunate that any intimation should have been given that the service was to be withdrawn. Arrangements will be made for this service at High River and, in order to satisfy other gentlemen who may be perturbed, at Le Pas: In fact, wherever any service was carried on it will be continued this year.



S11S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: May
I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) whether any action is being taken by the government to secure a reduction of ocean freight rates with a view to helping the cattle feeders of Canada to get to the markets of the world.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways):	The question my hon. friend
asks can more properly be answered another time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 4, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, last night during the course of his speech on the budget, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) declared that in the election campaign which culminated on October 29 last, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the government went through the Dominion and opposed the system of group government, and he added that after the election was over and the matter had to be settled in parliament, the ministerial party of the day took advantage of group co-operation in order to retain power. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the time has come in Canada when the leader of a government or the member of a cabinet or the member of any political party may not on the hustings take a stand in support of such public opinion as he may see fit to advocate? Surely the Prime Minister was quite right in the stand he took. He felt that in doing so he was acting in the interests of the Dominion. Prior to the election he endeavoured to mould public opinion in the manner he considered conducive to the welfare of Canada, and after the people had given their verdict on October 29 he simply implemented the will of the electorate as they had expressed it. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the course which

the Prime Minister and the government have taken is in accordance with the principles of democratic government.
The hon. member for South Winnipeg said that the income tax returns for 1924-25 showed a decrease from those of 1921-22, thereby arguing that under the present Liberal administration the credit of Canada was going to pieces. He evidently took the view that the prosperity of the Dominion was at stake. In considering an argument of that sort we must bear in mind that if the income taxpayers of Canada cannot pay their tax one year they will certainly pay in another.
Now the most important characteristic of any people is the ability to carry on, and this Dominion must go ahead in spite of odds. In 1924 by reason of the crop failure in western Canada trade conditions from coast to coast were not what they should have been. Consequently the income tax that was not paid that year would be paid in a subsequent year, and therefore the argument falls to the ground.
At the outset of his address following the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said:
We realize quite as fully as does the government that this country has within the past season been blessed by Providence much more abundantly than in former years; yes, most marvellously blessed have we been in the abundance of crop which this country has yielded. 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.
The hon. member in his subsequent remarks attributed to Providence an even greater share of credit for the splendid crop in western Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is altogether the correct position to take. I believe in depending upon Providence-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. In justice to the hon. gentleman who has the floor, I must ask hon. members on both sides of the House to preserve silence.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe it is well, Mr. Speaker, to express our thankfulness to Providence for the bountiful harvest, but to give Providence the entire credit for it is, I think, a new kind of theology. I have always understood that Providence helps those who help

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
themselves, and that we should look upon Providence as working in and through personality in order to bring about a better condition of affairs. So in respect to the splendid crop of last year I believe that Providence cooperated with the tillers of the soil. It is important always to know that we are on the side of Providence, and I think the excellent crop wras due entirely to the co-operation of the farmers of Canada with Providence and of Providence with them.
Now, if we use the same line of argument with regard to the government of the day, we must conclude that since we met here on January 7 Providence has been good to us in preserving the government intact, and we believe Providence is going to be still better to us by co-operating with us in getting through this House a crop of legislation that will be of special benefit to the people of Canada. I believe, Sir, the fact that Providence has not annihilated it is proof that Providence is working hand in hand with the government of the day.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask the hon. gentleman a question? Might it not prove that Providence is merciful?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Providence is not only merciful; Providence shows mercy by the spirit of true co-operation. Consequently we have not only been able to keep together, but we have had new accessions of strength to our ranks since January 7.


An hon. MEMBER:: From where?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am just coming to
that. The first accession of strength to our ministerial ranks was in the return to this House of the right hon. Prime Minister, which means that the electorate of a part of Canada has made a favourable pronouncement upon the policies of this government. The name of the right hon. leader of this party brings to one's remembrance some of the eminent Liberal leaders of the past. Our first leader after confederation was the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and his integrity, his honour and his reputation as one of the leading statesmen of this Dominion will not soon be forgotten by the people. During his leadership he was loyally supported by the members of the party from coast to coast. His mantle fell upon the Hon. Edward Blake, and he in his intellectual attainments and statesmanlike qualities was easily superior to any of his contemporaries. His followers gave him
unfaltering support. He was succeeded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who after winning the respect and support of his native province, impressed his personality upon the whole Dominion. He was Prime Minister for fifteen years, and during that time won the admiration of the empire. He brought to the leadership of the Liberal party and to the direction of the affairs of this nation a vision and a statesmanship that will enshrine his memory in the esteem and affection of Canadians for generations to come. After Sir W'ilfrid's death the mantle of liberalism fell upon the present Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party. I need only add, Mr. Speaker, that just as the Liberals of the past stood firmly and loyally behind the eminent leaders of the party to whom I have referred, so the Liberals of to-day are going to stand enthusiastically behind our present leader. We are going to do so because we realize that he is eminent not only as a scholar and as an author, but also as a statesman, and his sympathy for and co-operation with labour has won him the respect and support of Liberals from one end of the Dominion to the other. He has given the Liberal party the highest kind of leadership, and we are only too willing to accord him our loyal aira hearty support. It seems to me that the sooner our opponents realize the intentions of the Liberal party in the House and out of it in this regard the better it will be for the public life of the Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, another accession to our strength has been the return to this House of a new Minister of Railways and Canals in the person of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Dunning). Before dealing with that point more fully I would like to refer to a statement placed on Hansard by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). It is perhaps not necessary for me to read the statement, but it was to the effect that the hon. member for Regina (Mf. Dunning) had given expression to a denial of what was given under oath in Saskatchewan during the grain investigation of 11S4. There was also another point in connection with a certain political yam which, although not true, had been repeated both inside and out of the House of Commons. In connection with the hon. member for Regina I must say that the argument of the hon. member for North Oxford was very superficial and undignified; when we are criticizing and judging public men we should be more careful. In that ar-
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

gument the hon. member took away from the context one or two lines or sentences, and formed judgment upon that dislocated statement. That argument is not worth anything, and consequently the foundation upon which it was based is too superficial to warrant attention. I would ask the House to remember the statement of Thomas Carlyle, when considering public men. In his Life of Bums appears this statement:
The world often, yea too often, is unjust in its judgment of men-"It decides like a court of law, by dead statutes; and not positively but negatively, less on what is done right, than on what is or is not done wrong. Not the few inches of deflection from the mathematical orbit which are so easily measured but the ratio of these to the whole diameter constitutes the real aberration". . . .
Instead of measuring a public man by a few lines in a superficial way, the hon. member for North Oxford should take the whole statement made by the hon. member for Regina in order to arrive at a conclusion. The Minister of Railways, who now represents the constituency of Regina, is well known in Saskatchewan; he rose from a poor British immigrant to the position which he holds to-day. He was first secretary of a grain growers' local; from there he went to the vice presidency of the provincial grain growers' organization an$ then to the general managership of the largest grain-handling concern in the world, the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator system. From that position he was called to the office of treasurer of Saskatchewan, and from there to the position of premier of that province. A man who can make such progress in his own adopted province certainly has a message and an influence for Canada at large, and I believe that as the hon. member for Regina continues in his present position he will give not only direction, but support and co-operation as well, to the railway systems of the country and that support and co-operation will be reflected favourably throughout the whole country in the near future.
We have had another acquisition to the strength of this government in the person of the new Minister of Health, Minister of Labour and Minister of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment (Mr. Elliott). I think I am right in saying that if he continues the success already attained he will go far. The hon. member has won success in his legal profession, and also as a member of the provincial legislature; he will be a source of strength to the government of which he is now a member and will give to the depart-

[DOT] ments under his control not only the best leadership but the best ideals as well.
Then we come to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who has brought down the present budget. This budget takes one back to some of the other ministers of finance of Canada. The first finance minister was Hon. A. T. Galt, who was noted for one outstanding qualification. When a new tariff was brought into existence in 1858 and 1859, before confederation, the Colonial Secretary of the day said the tariff could not be accepted. Mr. Galt said, "That is the tariff made by the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada; that is where we stand on fiscal matters, and on questions of taxation and tariff." So Mr. Galt stood his ground, with the result that Canada won what might be termed fiscal independence, and from that day to this the Minister of Finance, in co-operation with the cabinet and those in this House supporting that cabinet, has taken the responsibility of bringing in a budget from year to year, deciding on questions of tariff and taxation.
After Hon. Mr. Galt came Hon. Mr. Tilley, and perhaps the outstanding point about Mr. Tilley was that although he supported the national policy, he considered that if it could not show a favourable balance of trade from year to year it would not be successful. We find him taking that stand continually, but although he took that stand his contention did not work out, because from 1878 to 1896, during a period of eighteen years, in only one year was there a balance of trade in favour of Canada. That was in 1880, when the favourable trade balance amounted to about $1,500,000, but in that year the national debt was increased by roughly $9,000,000.
Following Hon. Mr. Tilley came Hon. Sir George E. Foster, and he also took the stand that from year to year there should be amendments to the tariff, proving conclusively that even under the National Policy it was impossible to have what we might call an exact tariff; it had to move up or down in accordance with the conditions of business in the country. Those who stand for a high protective policy to-day should listen to the pronouncements made by Sir George Foster in 1894. He said:
If there is to be a (protective system at all, everybody knows that it must be higher in its inception than as the years gradually pass, when industries have become established and when the industrial development of the country grows apace.
Again he said:
The time for revision has come, the time for a complete examination of the whole matter of our tariff arrangements in order that the anomalies exist-

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
ing might tie done away with and that the tariff might be brougiht down to the existing circumstances and changed conditions not only dn Canada but in foreign countries at the present time.
There we have two pronouncements made by Sir George Foster when Finance minister of Canada, to the effect that the one idea of the National Policy at its inception in 1878 was that when industries were being established there should be a higher tariff, and as those industries got started and gained strength, the tariff should be lowered, because they would be able to compete with other industries beyond the shores of Canada. In his last pronouncement he makes the statement that from time to time downward revisions of the tariff should take place if the industrial establishments of the country were doing what they should in solidifying their business, making themselves strong, and getting ready for national and international competition.
The next Minister of Finance was the Hon. Mr. Fielding. There is one prominent fact we have to note in connection with his administration, and that is that he introduced the British preference in the year 1897. Conservatives had been mooting that question in the eighties but they did not take any action, but when the Liberals were returned to power in 1896, they immediately took action and introduced the British preference. Today that British preference is Still in existence, having been broadened out from year to year to link up the different portions of the empire.
After the Hon. Mr. Fielding, we come to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and all we need to do in order to size up his ability as a Finance minister is to look at this year's budget. When we do that, we must come to the conclusion that we have in the Hon. Mr. Robb a man who can honourably and successfully follow the splendid Finance ministers that I have mentioned this afternoon. I am not discussing this question merely from a political standpoint. I am simply relating Mr. Robb to those who have gone before, Conservative Finance ministers and Liberal Finance ministers, because I think by doing that we put the budget discussion on a higher plane, and we give to men who have done nobly by the country in days gone by the honour that is their due.
The present budget has a few outstanding attributes. One of those outstanding attributes is that there is a surplus. This budget is a surplus or plus budget, not a deficit or minus financial statement. That is a very important thing, because if we wincT up the 14011-198
year on the wrong side of the ledger it certainly proves that as a country and as a people we are not prospering. The surplus is $33, 910,000 on government services, and there is a debt reduction of $22,353,000. Our public debt was $2,417,437,685.59 in the year 1925. In 1926 we reduced that debt by $22,000,000, and our national debt now stands at $2,395,084,685.59. The Canadian National Railways statement of earnings for the year shows $30,000,000 in excess of all operating and income charges exclusive of interest.
Another outstanding feature is that we have a favourable balance of trade. This is important because, as I showed before only once under the National Policy and Conservative administration from 1878 to 1896 was there a favourable balance of trade for the year. This year we have a favourable balance of trade amounting to $402,000,000. The total trade of Canada last year was $2,258,000,000. It is greater than the previous year by approximately $380,000,000. The total imports are greater by $130,000,000 than for the year 1924, and the total exports are greater than the preceding year by $249,000,000. Our empire trade in cattle has increased from approximately $3,000,000 in 1923 to over $11,000,000 in 1926. That is, although we have, as we heard in the House the other day some wonderful beef eaters in the city of Hamilton, we have been able to send over 100,000 cattle to the British market in the past year. There has been an increase of over 3C0 per cent in our empire shipment of cattle during the last four years.
Penny postage will be introduced on July 1st. That date is the sixtieth anniversary of Canadian confederation, and I think it is a favourable time to reduce the postage in this country from three to two cents. Not only did a Liberal government introduce penny postage, but cheap postage is an important factor in linking up one portion of the empire with another.
This budget also wipes out the receipt tax and reduces the sales tax in well defined directions. There have been certain reductions made in other duties, and certain drawbacks.
Perhaps one of the mosit important features of this budget, relatively speaking, is that since confederation we have had only eleven budgets where the national debt has been reduced. Seven of those budgets were presented by Liberal finance ministers and four by Conservative finance ministers. The debt re-



The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
ductions have been in round numbers as follows:
Under Liberal Administration
Amount of Debt
Year	Reduction
1926	$22,000,000
1925	 345,000
1924	 36,000,000
1907	 3,250,000
1904	 750,000
1903	 10,000,000
1900	 750,000
Now what about Conservative administrations, during the time that has elapsed since confederation?
Under Conservative Administration
Amount of Debt
Year	Reduction
1871	$	500,000
1882	 1.750,000
1912	 125,000
1013	 25,000,000
In other words, the total reductions under Conservative administration since confederation amount to $27,000,000 as compared with a total reduction of over $73,000,000 under Liberal administration, so from the standpoint of comparison with previous budgets, this one is certainly a success.
Now looking at it from another point of view there is in this budget a real touch of nationality, and that touch of nationality is found, so far as I am concerned, in the statement of the Finance minister that the British preference in the years to come shall be applied only in cases where the goods are shipped direct to Canada, where they are carried from one portion of the empire to another without any transhipment; that is when the goods are landed at any ocean, lake or river port of Canada. That is an important thing, Mr. Speaker, for the building up of inter-imperial trade, and also for giving a chance to our Maritime ports on the east and on the west. I have here a book edited by Watson Griffin. It is an epitome of industrial Canada, and I am sure my protectionist friends will not quarrel with what I read from it. I shall quote an important line or two from an article headed " Patronize Canadian Ports." This is an important question to-day for Canada, and I believe that the feeling of hon. members, no matter on what side of the House they may sit, is that as a people we ought to face and solve this question as fairly as possible; and if there are economic grievances and other difficulties before us, let us do our best as a people to meet and solve them in the interests of a greater Dominion. This writer says:
A considerable part of the export and import business of Canada comes through United States ports

in winter. This is not because Canada lacks good winter harbours of its own. It is chiefly due to the fact that the railway systems of Ontario and Quebec made connection -with United States ports before the ports of the Maritime provinces were connected with central Canada by the Intercolonial railway and because old established ports with numerous steamship lines attract business for the same reasons that the well established industries of an old manufacturing country have an advantage over the young industries of a new country.
It is as desirable that Canadian business should be done through Canadian ports as that goods for Canadian consumption should be made in Canadian factories. The business that goes through Montreal and Quebec in summer should pass through St. John and Halifax in winter. The government commission which has been appointed to study the transportation question should devote special attention to this problem. Canada cannot be commercially independent so long as our business is done through United States ports.
And then the book says further:
The best way to put an end to such threats is to do all our foreign business through Canadian ports in winter as well as in summer.
Another way would be to make the Canadian preferential tariff apply only to goods imported direct through Canadian .ports and ask the British government, in case of a preference being given to colonial products to make it apply only to goods shipped direct from colonial ports to Britain.
And then later on:
Owing to the fact that so much Canadian business goes through United States ports in winter the impression prevails in both the United Kingdom and the United States that Canada has no ice-free Atlantic ports.
And then it goes on to name ports of the Maritime provinces, such as Louisburg, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Halifax, St. John, and St. Andrews. I think the pronouncement in the budget on that subject is an important one.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend approve of the statement he has just read with respect to doing business through Canadian ports?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: So far as it is possible, and still do justice to all other portions of Canada, we ought to send every ounce of grain we possibly can through these Maritime ports.
Another important announcement in the budget was the one with respect to the duty on automobiles. That matter had been discussed previously in this House, and when the hon, member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) moved his resolution in favour of a reduction of the duty no amendment was brought forward in opposition to it. This would lead one to believe that since parliament is supposed to be the mirror of the country, since parliament is the nation writ small, so to speak, then the government of the day certainly had the right to take the stand that it did and reduce the duty on automobiles.

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Did the resolution carry?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, it was carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it was not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It did not come to a vote, but that was tantamount, in my way of thinking, to carrying it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If hon. gentlemen opposite were sincere in the stand they are now taking with reference to the duty on automobiles they would certainly have moved an amendment to the resolution. Then we would have had a vote, the resolution would have been passed, and it would have strengthened the hands of the government.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We did not get a chance to vote on it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A resolution can be proposed without your moving an amendment or voting against it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, a resolution can be proposed without moving an amendment or voting against it; but if hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere and very much in earnest in regard to a certain line of public policy we would naturally expect them to stand by that idea of public policy when a question of importance with respect to it is brought up in the House.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I certainly would have voted against the resolution if I had had the opportunity.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All I can say to hon. gentlemen opposite is this: If that is your stand at the present time it is a pity you did not show your sincerity and earnestness when the question was being discussed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me to say as a matter of privilege that I expressed myself in the strongest possible way at the time?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I should like to have
seen my' hon. friend go one step further; I should like him to have moved an amendment to the resolution and then hon. members generally could have shown exactly where they stood.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will
allow me to make an explanation I will say this:	I have never seen the propriety of
moving an amendment to a resolution to which I am directly opposed, and which I am prepared to oppose by my vote when it comes to a vote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon.
gentleman know that the Minister of Finance voted against that resolution in this House?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: When, a year ago?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is not applicable
to the question at the present time because any government has to adjust itself to the conditions which arise from year to year. A government that does not do so is not truly carrying out the idea of responsible government as we should have it in Canada. I believe the government did right by cutting the duty on automobiles, and that the country from coast to coast will support it in that action. I do not think there is going to be any doubt about that at all. By taking the stand it did the government of the day is showing the people that it is absolutely responsible to the popular voice 4 p.m. having regard to the revenue to be derived from taxation. May I be permitted at this stage to read a pronouncement made by the Prime Minister during the last election. Referring to the fiscal policy of the Liberal party he said:
In this the Liberals will hold themseflves responsible, not dividing or reducing the party's responsibility on the tariff or taxation.
I believe that view will be accepted by the country. There is no doubt, in my mind, that reduction in the automobile duty will be regarded as a step in the direction of a true national policy in the interest of the country at large.
In connection with the tariff on automobiles the question of the duties of a tariff advisory board naturally arises. A lot has been said in this House during the last week or so on this question, and reference has been made to it to-day. I desire to point out that in the appointment of a tariff advisory board the government has been influenced by the ideas prevalent in other nations. There is no question of national significance in any country which has not its roots sunk deep in the annals of the past. The idea of a tariff advisory board, or a tariff board, or a tariff commission of any kind is not an innovation of the present day. We find that in 1906 Germany, in the organization of a tariff board, appointed a special committee, for a period of five years, composed of thirty-two experts representing the agricultural, the industrial, and the financial interests of the country. Not only that but the German parliament availed itself of the services of two thousand technical and trade experts in coming
3124 .

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
to a conclusion on the tariff question, and when the investigation was completed there were about a thousand items in the tariff list instead of three or four hundred. Action along the same line was taken by the United States; and the Canadian government has followed suit in the appointment of the Tariff Advisory Board. The Tariff Advisory Board of Canada is not purely a tariff commission. It is a fact-finding board. It will investigate all the available facts, and then present those facts to the Minister for the information of the Minister of Finance who will do his best to provide a stable tariff for the country.
There are certain requirements to which the Tariff Advisory Board should pay attention. Among these I may enumerate the following:	There should be precision as to
schedules, classification and rates. A tariff revision in Canada should be one that will unite the east and the west and do away with sectionalism in the Dominion. There should be amplification of industry, and that is where we need expert knowledge. Some members ask: What is the use of appointing a tariff board? We cannot get this expert knowledge. I think we can say that investigation is the basis of knowledge and the basis of progress. We can investigate, systemize and present these facts; we can interpret
them,	and then we can apply them to the formation of a new policy. An important feature of this new Tariff Advisory Board,
then,	is that it will be a fact-finding board; it will get the facts and give them to the Minister of Finance and the government of the day, and in taking action on these facts we ought to be more certain of our ground and more actively identified in the work of framing a tariff that will be satisfactory to the country.
We shall have to arrive at new classifications and specialized rates because to-day industry and the processes and products of industry are very complicated in order to meet the discriminating tastes of the buying public. The investigation of customs laws and their effect upon tariff and industry is important and this fact-finding board will investigate questions of that kind. Tariff relations between Canada and foreign countries will have to be investigated because that is an important question in connection with our foreign policy. The tariff board will have to investigate preferential tariffs, commercial treaties, economic alliances and other tariff relations between Canada and countries with which we are trading. It will also have to

co-operate with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Finance and other important departments of the crown, and through this co-operation with these departments, surely the facts of any important case can be brought to light, placed before the Minister of Finance and acted upon.
- An important fact in Canadian history is that since 1878 we have had varying tariffs in this country. We have had tariff amendment after tariff amendment. We had tariff amendments in 1871, 1872, 1873; we had them in the eighties; we had them in the nineties, and this policy of "hit and miss" is not good for the country. Consequently, I believe the appointment of a Tariff Advisory Board is a step in the right direction and it is justified when one considers the innumerable tariff changes that have taken place in Canada during the last twenty-five or thirty years. When tariff changes become too numerous they upset business, demoralize trade, and consequently are not giving the industrialists and producers of the country the oportunities they should have.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What justification does the hon. member give for not bringing the matter of the automobile industry before the Tariff Advisory Board?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought I had dealt with that question. I will say, just in reply to the question, that I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of any member of the ministry as to what ought to be done in connection with the tariff on automobiles. I believe the reason the question was not referred to the Tariff Advisory Board was because the consensus of opinion within the ministry was absolutely and unqualifiedly in favour of reducing the tariff instead of referring the question to a tariff board and thus wasting time and mulcting the people of the country of millions of dollars.


George Halsey Perley: The reason it should have been referred is because the Prime Minister made a pledge that it would be, and officially confirmed that pledge in the Speech from the Throne.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not understand that he did, but if he made a pledge he would certainly be man enough to carry it out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If he could.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe the tariff cut on automobiles had to be done at once. It should have been done a year ago. The

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
feeling of the ministry was that it was useless to waste another year; why not tackle the problem at once and have it settled? If this tariff cut is not fair, if it is against the true interests of the automobile industry of Canada, the facts in relation to that industry can be investigated later on and if the results are going to be as our hon. friends say, namely, the ruination of the industry, it will be possible to take action in that connection. I do not however think it will be necessary to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the hon. gentleman ever learned the reasons why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and their colleagues have changed their minds since last year?
Mr. McINTO'SH: I would like the hon. member to inform me on that question. I am always ready to learn.
Mr. CAHAN; I do not know. I have been waiting to find out some reason why they have changed their minds. I am asking if my hon. friend knows.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not very important in any case. The important thing is that the tariff is cut and the people are going to reap the benefit. I believe the Tariff Advisory Board will be an important department. I do not say it is going to be the saviour commercially of the people of this country, but I believe it is worth while experimenting with it. The success of the tariff board will to a large extent depend upon the way in which its members will carry out their duties. If they go at their work with a will, investigate in a national way every question that comes before them and do their best by the industry and the people of this country, they will do a great deal of good and will justify the establishment of the board from year to year.
I have in my hand an article which I am not going to read, but which I would like to place on Hansard. It is from the pen of Mr. Alexander Smith, "Barrister at Law, Ottawa. This opinion is taken from a publication entitled "A period of New Beginnings for Liberalism." It was written in 1921 and the statements which follow are important because they are in line with the pronouncements of the present government and because they contain facts which are important to the customs tariff and other methods of public taxation. The article is in accordance with the appointment of a tariff board and in line with any government taking action toward the adoption of new methods of meeting public questions and meeting them successfully.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Does the hon. gentleman understand that the article is prepared by a man who was the chief organizer of the Liberal party for many years?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand that fully.
I was looking at the question from the standpoint not of any particular organization but of the product the man brought out. I was looking upon it from the standpoint not of what party he belonged to or of what he had done for any party, but of a pronouncement of a citizen of Canada. The article is as follows:
As far as possible taxation should be direct and unconcealed so that each taxpayer may know what he is doing and may be able, by his style and scale of living to dictate the measure and ratio of his taxation:
The customs tariff, the largest source of revenue, should, before being submitted to the judgment of parliament, be immediately and searchingly revised line by line, word by word, and rate by rate by fair and open-minded men (not by a partisan minister and officials coached by special cliques and interests) with a full and clear understanding of all essentiail facts pertaining to each industry, so that in the framing of the new rates the 'interests of the revenue should be paramount, and that incidentally all round justice be Tendered, in a spirit of compromise, .which is the true basis of wise 'legislation where there are conflicting interests.
Immediate efforts should be made to reconcile any divergent views of the east and the west, and thereby improve -the path to united national effort.
The day is gone when any sect, clique, interest, class or body of men, east or west, can be permitted to impose their uncompromising will on the rest of the people.
In the framing of measures for securing revenue special attention should be given to the wealth created for individuals by the involuntary co-operative methods of communities, and not by the efforts of the individuals themselves.
The Ottawa Citizen makes the following comment on this opinion:
The publication of this pamphlet and the discussions which took place generally on the matter of a tariff board have helped .the government to gauge public opinion and appoint a board such as anticipated.
In conclusion I w'ould like to deal with the question of the British preferential tariff. The British preferential tariff was introduced in 1897; in 18198 it was increased from i to 215 per cent and in 1900 it was increased to 33^ per cent. That tariff to-day is wrapped up with the fiscal policy of Canada, the motherland and other parts of the empire. The Liberal party of the day in making a move in the direction of a preferential tariff took an important step forward in the history of Canada or the British Empire. Not only did it link up Canada more successfully with the United Kingdom and other portions of the empire, but it developed in this

312G

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
country a greater power not only in productivity but in introducing a competition that benefited the people of Canada by millions of dollars, made us a great exporting nation, and gave us a new viewpoint in the way of trade between ourselves, other portions of the empire and foreign countries.
I said before that the Conservative party had mooted the question time and again but that they did not take action upon it. The Liberal party took action and I believe this preferential' tariff which has been a great means of regulating prices in this country, has helped to place Canada since 1913 in the position of making the greatest gain of any country in the world in the way of trade. This success has been based upon three factors : first, the continuance of the British preference; secondly, the fact that the Conservative government after the war did not dare to raise the tariff; and, in the third place, the fact that the Liberal administration since 1921 has been moving in the direction of a fair tariff for all Canada. These are the three factors which have contributed to the upbuilding of our foreign trade and the development of our industry, and to reinforce this argument I should like to place on Hansard the following series of figures. The first table, taken from the trade returns, shows the imports from and exports to Great Britain, including the period since the adoption of the British preference:
Great Britain
Year	Imports	Exports1S6S	$ 37,617,325	$ 17,905,8081818	
37,252,769	45.917,6931883	
51,679,762	47.011,1801896	
32,824,505	66,689,2531911	
109,934,753	136,962,9711922	
117,135,343	300,363,1931925	
151,083,946	397,168,048
It will be noted that the imports in 1868 and 1878 are almost the same there being a decrease for the latter year approximating half a million dollars. Exports show an increase of $28,000,000 odd.
The following table shows the percentages of increase or decrease in imports and exports from 1878 to 1925:
Imports
1878-1883 show increase approximately 46 per cent.
1883-1896 show decrease approximately 36 per cent.
1878-1896 show decrease approximately 10 per cent in 18 years.
1896-1911 show increase 240 per cent.
1922-1925 (3 years) show increase 33 per cent.
Exports
1878-1883 show increase 46 per cent.
1S96-1911 show increase approximately 100 per cent.
1922-1925 show increase 33| per cent.

The following table shows the total imports and exports, all countries, for different fiscal years between 1878 and 1926:
All Countries
Year	Exports	Exports
1878.. ..		$ 79,154.678
1896.. ..	.. .. 105,361,161	116,314.5431911.. ..	.. .. 452.724,603	290.000,2101922.. ..	753.927,0091925	.. .. 796.932,537	1,081,361,6431926.. ..	.. .. 927,000,000	1,330,000,000Approximate	Approximateincrease	increase17 per cent	23 per cent
All Countries-Canadian Manufactured Goods Exports
Iron and its products,	all	1922	1925countries	
Iron and its products,	to	$28,312,272	$57,405,940United States	
Iron and its products,	to	4,693,020	5,063,148United Kingdom	
Included in item of and its products to	iron all	4,758,888	6.689,169
countries are vehicles, such as automobiles, railway cars, bicycles and parts,
tractors, etc	 12,113,847	31,401,839
Agricultural	implements,
mowers, binders reapers, hay rakes, cream separators, cultivators, harrows, drills, ploughs, threshing
machines	 5,345,308	11,342,712
Textiles and textile products such as cottons, woollens, linens, hemp, etc., gloves hats, caps, mitts, binder twine, underwear, clothing,
Literature-books etc	622,501	1,030,930Leather	406,585	682.714Rubber and its products..	4,061.809	11,358,456Hardware and cutlery.. ..	1,253,124	2,150,475Machinery excepting agricultural (Calculating machines, lawn mowers, typewriting,	washing machines)	2,581.018	5,043.581Stoves of all kinds	62,108	128,775All other iron and steel pro-	ducts	516.649	1.104.277Aluminum and its products..	1,571,913	5,910,547Brass and its products.. ..	355,784	907,149Copper	*<6,329,105	12.722,677Lead	1,718,967	10.36S.130Electrical apparatus	485,321	1,585.511Total fertilizers	2 213,351	4,196,201Musical instruments	354.339	687,936Binder twine	431.128	1.562.942Pneumatic tires	2,721,819	6.183,491Inner tubes	1,012,130Imports	Fertilizers	1.881,805	2.387,970Rubber and its products..	3,325,006	3,248,042Raw rubber	18,952.465	34,386.858Pneumatic tires, tire casings..	940,267	550,146Inner tubes	114,846	64,670I am placing these figures on Hansard to	prove that Canada, far from being	commer-
The Budget-Mr. Slansell
eially decadent, is developing more and more into a great exporting nation, and that under the benign influence of the preferential tariff and the wise policy of the Liberal government she will attain to still greater proportions commercially as the years go on.
Before I conclude I feel it my duty to discuss for a moment the vital question of Canadian unity, and in this connection I want to offer this opinion to the House and to the country, that there should be neither east nor west in Canada. I am reminded of a story once told by Abraham Lincoln. He said that he had heard of a certain bridge committee having been appointed to construct a bridge across a deep, wide and dangerous river. Contractors and architects were heard before the committee and after a certain number of meetings of the committee one member named Brown expressed the opinion that they had not made very much progress. He suggested that a certain friend of his, one Jones, be consulted, for Jones, he said, could build a bridge over any river. Jones was called upon and asked whether he could build the bridge across this particular river, and he replied with assurance that if necessary he could not only build the bridge in question but could also build one from there to the infernal regions. Upon his withdrawal from the meeting, Brown, on being interrogated by one of the members of the committee, expressed the view that if Jones said he could build a bridge to the infernal regions he could no doubt carry out the undertaking, but he, Brown, was doubtful about the abutment on the infernal side. Abraham Lincoln, applying the story to the subject he wgs discussing, said that he had been in touch with public men from all parts of the country and had tried to get their views upon the great question of securing the union of the northern and southern wings of American democracy. He said he was of the opinion that it could be done, but he was rather doubtful about the abutment on the southern side. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is pretty much the way it is in Canada. The people of the east feel that unity is quite feasible but for the difficulty of the abutment on the western side. Similarly the people of the west are doubtful about the abutment in the east. Now we must get together and devise some means of bridging east and west, and before this can be done we must banish all sectionalism. Only in this way can we build up a great and united Dominion.
Perhaps I might venture to put in the form of a parable the position in which any gov-14011-1995
ernment of the country would find itself under conditions such as prevail at present. Suppose any hon. member in this House had sold all his earthly possessions and had committed the gold he got in return to the care of some man, who, having it upon his person, was given the task of crossing the Niagara gorge on a tight-wire. While that man was balancing himself on the wire would we proceed to badger him, to rock the wire and advise him to bow a little to the east this time, then a little to the west, next a little to the north, and then a little to the south, to stand up straight, to go a little slower or a little faster? I do not think so. We would do our best to encourage him until he had reached the other side in safety. That, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat like our position politically to-day. We have got practically to bridge a political gorge, we have to do that wisely and well, and I believe we shall do so if we remember the substance of the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when standing by the bier of Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest father of confederation:
Let not our grief be anxious grief. Let us rather give to confederation, the instrument which Macdonald brought info existence, our love, our admiration and our solid support. If we do that Canada shall and will live forever.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we can unite in such a way as to do our best for the national welfare we will bridge the gorge between the east and the west, and by doing that we will ensure a still greater future for this Dominion, we will make it a still more splendid part of the British crown, and in the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we can rest assured that Canada shall and will live forever.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (Norfolk-Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the opening part of the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McIntosh) reminds me of the practice of promoters of certain wildcat companies in seeking to use the name of an eminently respectable man as an honorary director so that his reputation may inspire confidence in the public to buy the worthless stock placed on the market by those wily gentlemen. The desperate effort of the hon. member to couple the name of Providence with the acts of this government, however much it might, under certain circumstances, increase the use of would not tend to increase the reverence in which that name is held.
While I cannot congratulate the Minister of Finance upon all the provisions of his budget, I can offer him my sincere congratulations on the practical and brief form of its presentation. I go further, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome
The Budget-Mr. Stansell

a change in the rules of this House to limit the speeches of private members to thirty minutes except by unanimous consent. The result would be beneficial in every way, it would expedite the sessional work, and would increase the respect in which this House is held by our people from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and last, but not least, such a rule would be of distinct benefit to the member himself whenever he had occasion to state his views. If the ideas contained in most of our speeches were compressed into thirty or forty minutes instead of being stretched out over two or more hours-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sometimes five hours.


John Lawrence Stansell: -those speeches would not so much remind us of the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Before touching on the budget proper, Sir I desire to review briefly the general situation m this House. I do not propose to enumerate the platform pledges of the government and its supporters when the last parliament was dissolved; they are common knowledge. We were told that problems which pressed for solution could only be dealt with by a government commanding a strong majority in the House. We all know after the new parliament was convened why changes were made in the Speech from the Throne. We may take it for granted that the results of the election were a distinct disappointment to the Prime Minister, who selected his own time for appealing to the country, and who named the issues which made the election necessary. He himself was defeated as were most of his ministers. With the calling of the members together to decide which party should be given the responsibility of government, I have no fault whatever to find, but I do criticize the methods adopted to secure that deciding vote. We well know that in the speech which was put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General certain issues were included that were not before the country in October, but it was believed that they might be acceptable to certain groups in this House, and they were incorporated in the hope that a sufficient number of votes would be secured to enable the defeated party to carry on. Even that was not considered sufficient to ensure support ; we were told by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) that voting for the Address itself would not be construed by the government as a vote of confidence! Under those conditions a small majority was secured by the government which now occupies the treasury benches.
_ It is possible to make water run up hill only in limited quantities, and by paying the price.

I submit to you, Sir, that under the conditions which prevailed when we were called together early in January there was only one precedent that this House should have established-that the group having the largest number of members should be given an opportunity to form a government. I know it was frequently stated by members and supporters of the present government that there was no way of harmonizing the views of the Conservative party with those entertained by other parties in the House. Well, the only proof was to make the effort. I assert without hesitation that, regardless of party considerations, when there are a number of groups in the House, the only sound and logical course to pursue is to give to the largest group the first opportunity to form a government. Then if that largest group in the Speech from the Throne enunciated a policy that failed to secure the approval of a sufficient number of hon. members, the second largest group should be given an opportunity to see what they could do, and in case of their failure we might appeal to the country again. But in giving the second largest group control we are attempting to make water run up hill, and for this unnatural action we must pay the price.
A part of the price in this instance will be the practical annihilation of the Progressive or Independent party. Like myself, Mr. Speaker, you were here during the sessions of the last parliament; we well know how often and how ably members of the Independent group to my left contributed to the work of the House and frequently offered constructive criticism. But let me point out to you, Sir, that during this session the proverbial oyster is a shrieking siren as compared to the silence in that corner of the House. The charge has frequently been made in the past that the Independent or Progressive party are nothing more than camouflaged Liberals. I was never inclined to adopt that view, but rather gave them some credit for being an independent party. From one end of Canada to the other to-day, however, you would have difficulty in making people believe that that is not so, and that is a part of the price the Progressive party will pay for the mistake made early in January. But, Sir, what concerns me most is the price the people of Canada must pay for the lack of business administration, the disturbance of industry and the general uncertainty prevailing at present, which will continue to obtain while this government, with its present policy, retains power.
It is impossible to speak in this budget debate without referring to protection. I am always interested in the arguments adduced

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
on both sides of the House, and it is sometimes wondered why this argument never ends, and why someone does not establish which side is right, I think the reason is self-evident. When a man, for various reasons, has grown up imbued with free trade or protective ideas, he approaches all arguments of this kind looking only for proof in support of his own belief, and for that reason rve are never enabled to come to a sound conclusion. I think, however, that we can well afford to look at a few essential facts which do not admit of argument. Let me say at the outset that I believe protection is the settled policy of Canada, and in spite of arguments made in this House, in spite of the personal beliefs of other hon. members,
I believe Canada wull continue to maintain protection as a settled policy. The time has arrived when it is vitally necessary to announce that policy to the world in general, in order that everyone may know what is our policy. We have only to look at some of the highly protected countries to realize that in those countries there is very little unemployment, wages are comparatively high and goods are cheap. We have only to consider our nearest, neighbour for proof of those statements, and when we accept those essential facts we must surely realize the futility of advocating free trade for a country such as Canada. As proof of that we have, I submit, the determined requests and repeated arguments on the part of those who profess to believe in free trade for a lowering of our tariff barriers, in order to permit cheap goods produced under high wage conditions to enter from the United States. That shows, I submit, how foolish is the argument that protection increases prices. I admit that that is so under certain circumstances, but it is not always the case. Those countries which have consistently pursued a policy of protection find themselves to-day almost without exception with very little unemployment, with a satisfactory scale of wages and the ability to produce cheap goods in large quantities. So much is that the case with our neighbour to the south that we look upon her with jealous eyes, and some of us advocate a reduction of duties in order that we may purchase these cheap goods, produced in a highly protected country.
Having declared that protection is the settled policy of Canada, or that such should be the case, our main concern must be to see that, so far as it is humanly possible, it is equally and fairly distributed. This has not always been the case in the past, but let me say that the policy of the Conservative party, as I conceive it, is not one applying to individuals or separate interests but one which considers rather the protection of Canada as a whole, and we should approach discussion of this subject in that spirit only.
Why should we have a protective policy at all? Let me remind hon. members of this well known fact, that there are certain expenses incidental to all methods and forms of government. We pay certain municipal taxes, school taxes, direct or indirect provincial taxes, as well as federal taxes. These comprise our contribution to the expense of government, to the overhead necessary to run the business of this Dominion. The man who comes to Canada and invests his capital in Canadian enterprise or industry, whether in a farm, a factory or a mine, assumes his share of that overhead and pays without complaint his share of the expenses of the country. In return for that payment he receives, or should receive, the privilege of supplying goods to the home market. The producer of similar goods in any other country who gains possession of our market pays nothing in taxation and does not carry one ounce of the load of taxation; that market to him is a free gift. I say without hesitation that the average protection Canada should have, the very least under which she can exist, is a protection sufficiently high in favour of the home worker and producer to enable him to carry that burden. Then and then only, is he placed on a parity with his competitor from outside.
It has been calculated that the total amount of our overhead, including all forms of government, is about 17 per cent of our production, and therefore the least possible protection Canada should have must average about 17 per cent. As a matter of fact we do not have more than that at present. When we consider the question in this light we realize that all through the past years Conservative and Liberal governments, no matter what their policies or professions were, when faced with the responsibilities of office have kept the measure of protection at about that level. That explains why the Laurier-Fielding government, which was largely elected on a policy of free trade, not onfy kept the average at that level, but in certain particulars raised it, so in the general result the average during that period was fully as high as, if not higher than under the Macdonald tariff.	.
I venture to assert that if the Progressive party or my friends from Saskatchewan who profess to believe in the merits of free trade were suddenly faced with the responsibility of government, knowing all the facts of the case they would not have the courage to re-

The Budget-Mr. StanseU
duce the tariff very much below its present level. As I said before, there may be certain cases where the tariff is a little too high, but there are many other cases, and these apply particularly to farm products, where the level is ,too low. I believe that a measure of protection should be extended fairly to every industry and every class of production in this Dominion. Until we realize and announce to ourselves-it may be necessary for some of us first to convert ourselves-that protection is necessary, and until we announce to the world that protection fairly distributed is the settled policy of this country, Canada will never enjoy the prosperity and progress to which she is entitled.
I know that very frequently we are met with the argument, in support of reductions in taxation, that we must have trade, that we cannot sell unless we buy. I want to ask my friends from the west this: Is not trade between Saskatchewan and Ontario or between Manitoba and Quebec just as valuable ,to the provinces concerned as trade between those western provinces and any states in the American union? And is not this inter-provincial trade of infinitely greater benefit to Canada as a whole? These are questions that I think should be considered; these are facts that I think cannot be disputed. If Canada is made prosperous by a protective policy such as that, if we announce to the world once for all that Canada is a protective country and will look after the interests of the men and women .whom we hope to attract to our shores, if we assure those who have capital to invest that they will be fairly treated and their interests safeguarded if they invest in this country, our problem of immigration will be largely solved. We can spend millions trying to induce people to come to this country, but so long as we have a government that from the ambush of cabinet secrecy snipes here and there at the various industries of this country, and with none knowing where the blow will next fall, there will always be an element of uncertainty and distrust which will drive Canadians to seek employment elsewhere and be disastrous to us in our national progress.
If this prosperity and progress comes to Canada as a result of a protective policy, let me say to my friends from the west who have not the same faith in the protective policy that some of us have, they can rest assured that a certain measure of that prosperity will accrue to them. They have since coming to this House, particularly the members from Saskatchewan, shown that they do not lack in aggressiveness, and that quality I am sure will enable them to get their share of the 
prosperity that will come to Canada by the adoption of a sound fiscal policy.
This budget has been proclaimed by some sections of the press as a "poor man's budget." It has been said that it is a popular budget. Of course it is a popular budget; it was intended ito be. A government that had to attain power by methods such as were resorted to by this government, and knowing the danger in which they stand from hour to hour, realizing the necessity, perhaps I should say the advisability, of an early election, has skilfully prepared this budget with the idea of securing votes and popular support in the country. This explains why many provisions of this budget which were strongly opposed and voted against by members on the other side of the House, including cabinet ministers, last year and in previous years are now being strongly supported by them. The hope is that this budget will be so popular that in the event of the necessity for an election, it will enable them to get back on the treasury benches once more.
Now what are the provisions that make this budget popular? Reduction of taxation is always popular. The methods pursued by this government remind me of those followed by a municipal council, which in a desperate effort to make itself popular will strike a lower tax rate than it should in the hope that prosperity may come in some degree next year and thus prevent an unfavourable showing. There is just one sound reason, Mr. Speaker, for a reduction in taxation, and that is a corresponding reduction in expenditure.
One thing that is designed to make this budget popular and a poor man's budget is the reduction in the income tax, but I would point out that there are a lot of poor men who did not have to pay any income tax, and whom this reduction will not affect. There will be the feeling in the back of their heads that the necessary taxation to make up for this reduction will have to be provided by someone somewhere, and if the man who is wealthy enough to pay income tax is to have his load lightened, somebody somewhere must make up the deficit.
We have been told that this budget is popular because the receipt tax has been abolished. I wonder who put that receipt tax on. This government itself is responsible for that annoying tax, and surely credit is not to be given them now because they are taking away an injustice that they themselves put .upon the Canadian people.
We are also to have a reduction in postage. The Post Office Department is one government department that is shown to be in a fairly healthy condition. But the postage is one

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
form of taxation that people were not complaining loudly about. I wonder who is going to profit by this reduction in postage. Is it the poor man who writes a couple of letters a week, or is it the wealthy man or the business man who buys his postage by the hundreds or by the thousands of dollars? If this reduction 'is for the benefit of the wealthy, and it certainly is, someone somewhere must make up the deficit. Would it not have been wiser to have kept the postage, which people were not complaining about, as it was, and then use any surplus that might have accumulated to extend rural mail delivery to the outlying sections where farmers are denied that privilege to-day? There is nothing that does more to make life pleasant on the farm in isolated surroundings than the boon of rural mail delivery which enables the farmer to have his daily paper delivered at his door to keep himself and his family informed in regard to all the great questions of the day. Many parts of Canada are still suffering from lack of this convenience.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Is the hon.
member opposed to the reduction of postage?


John Lawrence Stansell: I was stating my views
very plainly. I know there are a few members in that corner of the House who are anxious to make records for themselves as champion questioners, but I do not see why I should assist them in that respect. I said that the reduction in postage was of the greatest benefit to the wealthy man and wealthy corporation, and was not of such great advantage to the poor man. I stand by that statement. I said that if the postage had been left as it was any surplus that accumulated might well have been used to extend rural mail delivery to the outlying sections which have not this privilege to-day, and any excess might be used to lower taxation in other directions.
These are some of the features that are supposed to make this a popular budget and " a poor man's budget ". But as I have pointed out in not one instance can it be shown that it is favourable or beneficial to the poor man. On the other hand there are some distinct failures in the budget. For years past, as I stated in my introductory remarks, the farmers have suffered under a disability, and this applies particularly to the dairy and fruit farmers as I have them in my constituency; they have suffered from a lack of adequate protection. They have not had the measure of protection afforded them that has been accorded to other industries. Since the present government came into power it has taken away the greater part of the protection that these farmers enjoyed, particularly by the negotiations of certain treaties. The results are already manifest, and will become more serious as the months go by. Supporters of the government argue that dairy products, eggs, fruit, vegetables, and so on are admitted to Canada when we do not have a surplus of these commodities ourselves, but that is not the real difficulty encountered. The difficulty consists in this: Because of an earlier season our farmer competitors on the other side of the line are enabled to take the cream of our market. That is they get the benefit of high prices, while the Canadian producer of fruits, vegetables, eggs, and dairy products, and so on, receives the low prices which rule when the market has been demoralized by the importation of products raised where earlier seasons prevail. How can you expect the farmers to be contented under such conditions? How can you expect men to invest money in farms in Ontario or elsewhere in 'Canada? They know that the government that taxes them for the privilege they enjoy is going to admit products of the kind referred to from another country exported by competitors who pay no taxes to this country and are free, or comparatively free, from payment of duty. That competition is unfair and unjust and should not be allowed to continue. But instead of providing a remedy the present government has actually made the situation worse.
Let me also say that if the government had been anxious to reduce annoying taxes they might very well have turned their attention to the tax now in force on notes and cheques. The tax on notes particularly is an unjust form of taxation. There are many farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country, many of them in the province of Ontario, who find it necessary to get assistance from the banks because they have insufficient capital. So far as my observation goes this assistance has been extended fairly freely and at a fair rate or at least not an excessive rate, of interest. But when a farmer thus situated, or for that matter a business man, secures an advance from the bank for a short time, he must plaster the note with stamps, and if he follows business methods and pays by cheque, the cheque also must be similarly plastered to the extent of two cents for every $50. This is an annoying and exasperating form of taxation in the case of men of small means who are obliged to 5 p.m. conduct their business on borrowed capital. If the government were anxious to bring down a "poor man's budget" that is one matter to which they would have devoted their attention.
The Budget-Mr. Stansell

Another serious criticism I have to make of the budget is this: Canada is possessed of wonderful natural resources, sufficient, if they were properly developed and manufactured and the products sold in a finished form, to go a long way towards reducing the national debt if not actually wiping it out. Nothing whatever is done to carry out a policy of that kind, in fact the opposite course is pursued. Encouragement is given to the export of our raw material, and supporters of the government then claim credit for the extent of that exportation, consisting as it does largely of raw materials that should be manufactured and sold in a finished form in Canada.
Now I come to the reduction of the duty on automobiles. We are all familiar with what the government has done; we are all familiar with certain incidents that have happened in recent weeks. Surely the first thing that should have been considered was whether we as Canadians desired to have an automobile industry in this country. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat referred to what he though was a desirable form of protection; that protection, he considered, should be high in the case of a new industry, and be gradually lessened as that industry established itself. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the automobile industry is one of the newest industries we have. Such being the case why should it be singled out for persecution when other industries that have enjoyed the same measure of protection for years have not been touched? I notice the Minister of Finance was careful to see that nothing was done to injure the milling industry in the budget. The Minister of Justice, too, was careful to see that boots and shoes were not touched, although that industry enjoys an equally high protective tariff. Furthermore, one of the prospective ministers has been careful to see, or at least someone took the necessary steps in his behalf, that nothing was done to prejudice the furniture industry. And only the other night the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), who criticized the protection formerly enjoyed by automobiles, said the tariff was all right as far as the industries in his own town were concerned. The industries I have enumerated have been left alone, but one of our newest industries has been singled out for persecution, if not annihilation, without being granted a hearing in its own behalf. Are we as a Canadian people to return to the dark ages when things of this sort could be done, when an individual, a city or an industry could be condemned and sentenced, without any oppor-
IMr. Stansell.]
tunity to make a defence? Now, it seems, we have a Tariff Advisory Board. The creation of this board is one of the few promises fulfilled by the government during the last four or five years out of the number which it made. That board has been in existence for some time, but it has not been given anything to do. Why was not the case of the automobile industry referred to this board for investigation, instead of bringing down suddenly a reduction of duty in the budget? Why did the government not make use of the machinery which it had created itself?
The question is whether we want an automobile industry in Canada or not. Will any hon. gentleman admit that we cannot have such an industry in view of the wealth of our natural resources, many of which could be utilized in connection with this industry, and the extent and population of this country? There can be only one answer to that question. Having admitted that we should produce automobiles for our own people, is it not reasonable that we should grant protection to the men engaged in that industry and the money invested in it? After all, what is it the Canadian buyer really wants? Is it a reduction of duty or the opportunity of being able to purchase the articles which he needs at a reasonable price? Surely if we can produce automobiles in Canada at a reasonable price there is no justification for a reduction of duty. These are questions that should have been duly weighed and considered. The manufacturers of automobiles have been deprived of the opportunity of presenting their case. Personally I am not concerned with the question of whether the protection is thirty-five, forty-five or fifty per cent. I am willing to afford the manufacturer of any legitimate industry in this country a protection sufficient to ensure him the Canadian market provided that in return he does not charge the people of Canada an unfair price on the goods which he produces.
Someone on the other side of the House will immediately say:	That cannot be done..
A short time ago we were told that this government in the exercise of its power could go out upon the high seas and control international shipping rates. A government able to undertake a task such as that should surely be able to control the price of an automobile in this country. I have reason to believe that if the automobile manufacturers had been approached in a reasonable spirit, if they had been given the Canadian market for a standard make of car, they-

The Budget-Mr. Stansell
would have been willing in return to reduce the price substantially this year and to follow that up by further reductions. The real essence and need of protection is that we protect the home market. All we want in return is a fair price and it can be given in some other manner than that adopted by the government of the day. If we are going to build automobiles, let us build them in Canada. We may not be able to build them as cheaply as they can be built in other countries; but let us build them as cheaply as we can and build them in our own country. The same thing applies to any other legitimate industry which is or could be established in Canada.
We have a Tariff Advisory Board. I am reminded that a short time ago a deputation came to Ottawa protesting against a reduction in the duties on automobiles without having the question referred to the board.
I listened carefully to the presentation of their statements; I observed the able manner in which they presented their case to the cabinet, and I heard an eloquent speaker on behalf of the veterans, many of whom were employed in that industry, say to the Prime Minister: "Mr. Prime Minister, when you were in Oshawa shortly before the election I, as a supporter, was invited to your platform.
I heard you say that no act of yours would De injurious to any industry in Oshawa; I heard you say that before any reduction in duties would be made there would be a reference to the new tariff board that would be created, the fullest right would be given to them to present their case and a decision would be made on the merits of the case. All I am asking to-day, Mr. Prime Minister, is not that you restore the duties to their former level but that you refer this question to the board that you have appointed; in other words, that you keep the promise you made to the electors of Oshawa before the election." Was that not a reasonable request? It was presented in a most fair and gentlemanly manner.
Has public life in this country reached such a level that a deputation of 3,000 people must come here to ask the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada to keep a promise that he made a few days before the election? Yesterday we had a debate on the merits of which I do not intend to touch in any way ; but it was a simple request on the part of a citizen of Canada, who claimed that he had suffered an injustice, to present his case to the House. A point of order was raised by the Prime Minister and an attempt was made to prevent that petition from being
received. Have things come to such a pass that a citizen of this free country, complaining of an injustice done him by one of the officers of this House is not to be allowed to present his case? The only defence, or substance of a defence, was summed up by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) who said in effect that this petition should be rejected because the government before they received it had decided that they did not intend to grant it. Those were not the words but that was the effect of his explanation.
If there is anything that we should cherish in our parliamentary institutions, it is the pledges and promises that we as public men make when we appeal to our electors for support. Time after time during the past four or five years have mushroom promises been made to be almost immediately and callously broken. So we have the spectacle of almost daily occurrences such as I have cited and the government, guilty of this, appealing to the House and the country for continued support on a policy of expediency instead of on a sound, business policy in the best interests of this Dominion.
We have the admission of the government when the duties were reduced on automobiles, that this was done in response to sentiment. We have the further admission to-day from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that that sentiment was supported by newspaper clippings that he had before him on his desk. This fully substantiates-I do not need to look for anything further-the charge I have made that this is a government of expediency, determined to cling to office by any method at its disposal instead of on sound, business principles. When the automobile deputation were told that sentiment was of no value; that the only requisite was argument and solid facts a principle was laid down, but when the government wants to take action, sentiment or newspaper clippings or prospective votes, or anything in the world will suffice. What this country needs most of all is change of government and an announcement to the world that we intend to think and act as Canadians; that we intend to safeguard and protect our citizens and our industries; in a word, a true National Policy. This and this only will restore confidence and hasten national progress and prosperity in Canada.


Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond-Arthabaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Stansell), and previous to him, a number of members of the opposition spoke of the in-
The Budget-Mr. Girouard

terest and friendship they have for the farming class. It is always somewhat shocking to hear them express feelings which are grossly in contradiction with the deeds and the past policy of their party. In order to judge of their lack of sincerity we have but to verify the attitude taken by the Conservative party, between 1911 and 1921, towards the farming class of this country. What benefits did the farmers derive during the ten years of their administration? You are aware, Sir, that the paramount question at the general election in 1911, was the reciprocity treaty that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had succeeded in concluding with the United States, and for which the farming class had been clamouring for years. This treaty so highly advantageous to the farming community was rejected. However the Conservatives will not readily forget that the crisis they went through was principally due to the fact that the American market was closed to them. As early as 1912, the farmers bitterly clamoured for new markets for their products. We are aware that the Conservative government of that date did nothing to help them, not only did they do nothing, but they attempted to cripple the development of the dairy industry, by allowing margarine to be imported. I must say, Sir, that the farmers of my riding are very thankful to the King government for having prohibited the imports of this product. A further instance, which establishes well the lack of sincerity of the members of the opposition, is the following:	At the time the King government cut down the duty on farming implements; when they wished to help the farmers so as to allow them to purchase at lower prices the articles of first necessity of which they were in need to work their farms, we witnessed the opposition having recourse to every possible means in order to prevent the farming class from benefiting by legislation which was all in its favour, and even more, we saw the hon. leader of the opposition state in this House that should he be returned to power, he would re-establish the high protective tariff. That is, the Conservative party, through the mouthpiece of its leader, undertook to abolish the advantages and favours which the King government was granting to the farming class.
Another very important feature for the farmers, the importance of which the Conservative government of the day did not understand or did not care to understand, was the necessity for the farming class to get new markets, in order to sell its products at profitable prices. The King government immediately dealt with this necessity endeavouring especially to revive the prosperity which the 
farmers enjoyed previous to the Tory government of 1911. Moreover, Sir, we have as an instance of the government's desire to help the farming class, we have as an instance, I say, the last treaty they have just concluded. I mean the West Indies treaty which the King government presents to the farming class with the firm belief that this treaty will benefit them, because it guarantees to the farming class an almost absolute monopoly on the products of the farm, such as butter, cheese, potatoes and other products. Behold then, Sir, these same gentlemen who, when they were in power, could have done something to help the farming class, yet they stirred not, and they come, to-day, in this House, shamming a friendship and an interest which their deeds belie.
The budget speech, Sir, was, especially this year, anxiously awaited. There is no question, I think, which interests so much the public as the discussion of the various measures which appear in the budget. We'have the patisfaction and joy to note, ini pending this speech, that our financial situation has considerably improved. There is one thing which nobody can deny and which I may be allowed to emphasize: it is that the budget speech has had on the Canadian people a great and beneficial effect which has in some way brought sunshine and hope where hon. members of the opposition would, perhaps, like to see but despondency and misery. This budget is a proof that our country, after struggling courageously, has finally emerged from the difficult situation caused by the economic disturbance brought on by the Tories from 1911 to 1921.
From the outset of the Liberal administration, we were made aware of what would be the policy followed. In order to better appreciate the various measures announced in the budget speech, it is well to glance rapidly over the past, for it is necessary that the people of this country should everlastingly remember what was the financial and economic conditions existing when the King administration came into power in 1921.
The Conservatives contend that our debt is enormous. They never miss an occasion of proclaiming that the taxes are heavy; but why, Sir, do they not also proclaim that they are responsible for such a state, and that if we have taxes, these have become necessary because of their administration. Do they expect to make us forget that they needed but ten years to increase our debt to more than two billion dollars. I think that, if the opposition wished to be sincere, they would admit that when they assumed power in 1911,

The Budget-Mr. Girouard
the country was prosperous and when they retired, we were on the verge of ruin. It seems to me that this has some weight. However this is not all. After being returned to power, the Conservatives began to spend, without the slightest thought of economy, and'one fact shows us clearly in what manner we were governed. During the fifteen years of the Liberal rule, under Laurier, the government had only increased our debt by about $40,000,000. The Conservatives possessing, no doubt; a great aptitude for lavishly spending money, increased, in the first three years of their administration, this debt by more than $80,000,000, and I want you, Sir, to pote that this was but an inkling of what was threatening the country. A crisis, often referred to in this House, succeeded to happy days. This was so evident that the government of the day, at the outset of the session of 1914, put the following words in the mouth of His Excellency, the Governor General, in the Speech from the Throne: "that business is at a standstill owing to a financial crisis." The Conservatives acknowledging, at the time they were in power, that business was at a standstill, we can easily conceive in what difficult situation the country found itself at that time, we can without fear of being in error, state that bad times were coming. In the midst of this, war broke out.
It was, Sir, as you know a period of extravagant expenditure. We then were ruled by a government that seemed to have lost its head, an administration that seemed to do its utmost to bring ruin upon us. The ratepayers of this country had hoped at least, that once the war over, this orgy would cease. But nothing of the sort happened. The debt unceasingly increased, and the people, who in 1917 were unable to give free vent to their opinions took their revenge in 1921.
The King government assumed power, becoming heir to a much involved estate. In 1911, the country's debt amounted to about $335'000,000. Under the Tory regime it had increased two billion dollars. What the people expected from the King government, in 1921, was the balancing of our finances, and this we have succeeded in doing to-day. The budget speech cleariy shows that we have at last emerged from the difficult situation created by the Tory government. And, by the way, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that, if there is one thing which should command our sympathy, it is the anxious desire shown by our ministers to realize, for the people of this country, the hopes which they put in them. This trust
was well placed. Thanks to a strict economy, foresight and a business knowledge which had been found wanting during ten years, thanks also to the honest desire to give to all citizens legislation which suited them best, Canada has risen from its ruins and our administrators, after having met the heavy obligations which were an aftermath of the war, after having provided for the other needs of Canada, present, to-day, to the people of thi3 country a budget which shows a substantial decrease in the public debt and a cutting down in the taxes, relieves the ratepayer and tends to increase among all the hope and confidence which a few years of Liberal Tule have imparted. That hope, Sir, each year sin'ce 1921, the ratepayer feels, is growing in him. No doubt everybody understood that uuder these circumstances, the task was a difficult one for the government, and everyone equally saw, each year, that there was an improvement. The ratepayer understood that it was easier to demolish than to rebuild, that it was impossible for the King government, in so short a time, to rebuild and restore what the Conservatives had taken ten years to destroy; yet, our leaders immediately tackled the task, with the result that after but a few years, the government had succeeded beyond the hopes of our people. they had realized the dream which all cherished, that is of at last seeing the balance of our finances re-established.
Most of the hon. members who have spoken on the budget have discussed at length the duty on automobiles. I have no intention to broach that subject, however, I shall remind them that the budget also discloses a great number of measures which are equally beneficial to the public. Why do hon. members of the opposition oppose the budget? The member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Stansell), a few moments ago, admitted that it was a popular budget; yet we shall see that he will be one of the first to vote against it; They, who are responsible for our financial difficulties, should be the first to applaud at the relief it brings to the ratepayers of this country.
I intend, Sir, to enumerate a few only ot the measures which have been disclosed by the budget speech. First, we note a decrease of $25,000,000 in the taxes, and at the same time the public debt is reduced by $22,3a3,000. What a difference, Sir, there is with that of the Tory administration! To cut down the taxes, decrease the public debt and obtain at the same time a substantial increase in our revenues, that seems to me what may be called good financing, a thing, perhaps, that
The Budget-Mr. Girouard


Mr. A. D. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):: 

END OF VOLUME III.

[Stage Direction]
o(