1926-04-21

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations.- Mr. McIntosh.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, before the order of motions is disposed of, I beg to move:
That the resolution of the House carried on Tuesday, April 13, concurring in the first report of the seilect standing committee on Agriculture, be rescinded.
My reason for asking that this resolution be rescinded is simply that the report does not contain a correct copy of the proceedings be-

Agriculture Committee
fore that committee. First I will read the resolution as presented to the House:
Mr. Kay, from the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization, presented the first report of the said committee, which is as follows:-
Your committee recommends that it be authorized to have its proceedings and such evidence as may be taken, printed from day to day for the use of .the members of the committee and of the House, and that rule 74 as relating thereto be suspended.
Now what actually occurred in that committee I shall show by reading to the House from the proceedings of the committee as they appear on the records of the clerk of the committee, Mr. A. A. Fraser. Here is a copy of the motion taken from the proceedings of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization at its meeting on April 14, 1926:
On motion of Mr. Armstrong, seconded by Mr. Letellier, the chairman was instructed to report to the House recommending that the committee be authorized to have its proceedings and evidence printed from day to day, and also' to have printed such addresses by government officials as may be presented and as it selects.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very different statement from that which appears in the report that was accepted by this House. I need hardly say that we have had two meetings of that committee. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture attended the first meeting of the committee and spoke for about two hours, giving an address that should receive the widest possible publicity. At the next meeting of the committee, Mr. Archibald, director of experimental farms, gave a most excellent address, covering a period of nearly two hours, in which he dealt with matters pertaining to the different experimental farms and illustration stations throughout the country. Surely copies of these addresses should be available not only to the members of this House but for general distribution as well. That is my reason for asking that the resolution be rescinded and represented in the form in which it passed the committee.
W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi): I think that my hon. friend the member for East Lambton has followed the wrong procedure in the motion which he has presented to-day. Had he done me the ordinary courtesy of speaking to me privately and telling me his troubles I think the matter could have been arranged most satisfactorily. However, I will make a statement of the circumstances touching this matter.
The motion which my hon. friend made in the committee on Agriculture and Colonization was not presented in writing as it should have been. The hon gentleman moved a motion at the end of our meeting
and the clerk of the committee took it down. I think the report which I presented to the House contains the gist of that motion which was a very short one. The motion, as far as I remember its tenor, was that I should be instructed to make a report to the House requesting that the committee should be empowered to have its proceedings printed from day to day for the use of members. The report presented to the House was drafted by the chief clerk of committees and he thought, after consulting with me as to what my hon. friend desired, that it would cover the hon. gentleman's idea. As chairman of the committee, my desire is to present a report which shall embody the substance of any motion which is passed by the committee. The report in question was presented on the 9th April and concurred in on the 13 th. It gives the committee power to decide what number of copies of the addresses made before it shall be printed. That is, the committee can decide at the end of a meeting whether it wants 500, or 1,000 or 10,000 copies printed. There is no limit contained in the recommendation. I think the hon. member for East Lambton, in the few words he uttered at the last meeting of the committee, stated that 10,000 copies should be printed. Another member suggested 100,000 copies, and a third very enthusiastic member suggested that the number of copies printed should be a million. There is no question but that the addresses delivered before the committee so far have been very interesting and very instructive to members of the committee and the House alike. One was an address by Dr. Grisdale, describing in brief form the work of the Department of Agriculture, and the other was an address by Mr. E. S. Archibald dealing with the activities of the experimental farm system. Now, I submit to the House that while these addresses are very valuable to the members of the committee, they are not such as should be printed and distributed throughout the country to the extent of 100,000 or a million copies. The Department of Agriculture issues a number of concise and illustrative pamphlets which in reality contain all the information to be found in these addresses. I am not sure from what my hon. friend from East Lambton has said to-day what he really wishes to be done. He has moved that the report of the committee which was concurred in be rescinded. I submit that he can achieve the result which he desires by making a motion at the next meeting of the committee that 10,000, or 100,000 or 1,000,000 copies be printed. That could be done and would be in perfect conformity with the report in which
Agriculture Committee

the House has concurred. I may say that since the report was adopted by the House the committee on Agriculture has met once and my hon. friend made no motion on that occasion. I submit that the proper procedure for him to have followed was to have made a motion at the last meeting of the committee-


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1 did.


Mr. KAY:: -asking for the printing of whatever number of copies he desired. I submit that the motion presented by my hon. friend be not accepted, and that at the next meeting of the committee on Agriculture the hon. member should make such suggestion as he sees fit.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I have no desire-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. If other hon. members wish to speak now is the appropriate time because the hon. member for East Lamb-ton will close the debate.
Hon. ERlNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):	I have no advice to give as to the
advisability of printing what the hon. member for East Lambton desires. But I really believe that it is difficult for those of us who are not members of the committee on Agriculture to decide to-day whether the report as concurred in by the House was or was not in conformity with the motion of my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman says it was not; the chairman of the committee says it was. As it is very easy to adjust this matter by the hon. member for East Lambton moving a further motion in the committee for the printing of the additional matter he wishes to have printed, I would suggest that this motion be referred back to the committee on Agriculture and Colonization so that the committee can settle the matter itself.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
happen to be a member of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization although I was not present when the report in question was agreed to. But it must be remembered that the statement made by the hon. member for East Lambton rvas that the report of the committee brought before the House is not in accordance with -the motion passed in the committee itself. That is something which ought to be carefully investigated. Whether there should be additional copies printed or not is beside the question at -the moment. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice, if my hon. friend from East Lambton will agree, that this matter should be taken up again in the committee-


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Refer it back
to committee.


George Halsey Perley: - that the motion be referred back to the committee, and then the hon. gentleman can see that the report to the House is in accordance with the motion as it passed the committee.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I do not intend to delay the House at all, I merely wish to say that the report as presented to the House is entirely different from that which the clerk of the committee handed to me as a correct copy of what he -has on his books.


William Frederic Kay: Did you write out a notice
to the committee?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I did not write out a notice to present to the committee, but at the last meeting of the committee I rose at the close of the address made by Mr. Archibald and moved that 10,000 copies of that address be printed. The chairman called attention to the fact-and he knows it well- that such a number of copies could not be *printed; that we could have only one copy for each member of the committee and one copy for each member of the House. He *will not deny that, but to-day he is willing to allow this matter to be referred back to the committee for consideration. I am perfectly satisfied that that should be done, but I do not like to hear the Chairman rise in this House and misquote me. At the last meeting of the committee I certainly moved that 10,000 copies be printed, and he gave the committee to understand that that number of copies could not be printed.


William Frederic Kay: With the consent of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his motion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Refer it to the
committee.


Hewitt Bostock: It cannot be referred to
the committee, but the matter will come back to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the name of Hon. J. C. Elliott be substituted for that of Mr. Prevost on the joint committee on Printing.
Motion agreed to.

Questions
. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The government blue book on statistics of steam railways for 1923 shows-freight originating on Canadian railway lines 67,888,325 tons-freight received from United States railways 34,370,000 tons. Approximately what proportion of freight received from United States railroads represented (a) American products destined for consumption in Canada; (b) American products from one United States point to another through Canada (that is-as from Detroit to Buffalo); (c) American products moving overseas via Canadian railways?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Withdrawn.
Question withdrawn.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION

Mr. BELL (St. John-Al'bert):: 1.	Who are the members on the harbour board commission of Montreal and of Quebec?
2.	What remuneration is received by each of the commissioners?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are: President Dr. Wilfrid L. McDougald, salary $7,000 per annum; Dr. Milton L. Her-sey, salary $5,000 per annum; Mr. Emilien Daoust, salary $5,000 per annum.
The Quebec Harbour Commissioners are: President Hon. W. Gerard Power, salary $6,000 per annum; Jules Gauvin, salary $4,000 per annum; Joseph Boutin-Bourassa, salary $4,000 per annum.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, permits, agreements, contracts, orders in council, reports of departmental officers, and all other correspondence regarding permits issued by the government for the removal of sand and fillings free out of Toronto bay from 1900 to 1918, including statement regarding results of legal action taken in the High Court of Justice of Ontario to cancel such pennits; the value and amount of the sand and fillings so taken by private parties and companies, and what steps were taken to stop such operations.



EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF T. W. FULLER AND R. C. WRIGHT

Mr. COTNAM:: For a copy of all vouchers covering expense accounts of Mr. R. C. Wright, chief architect, and Mr. T. W. Fuller, assistant chief architect, Department of Public Works, for the fiscal years 1918-19 to 1925-26, inclusive.



CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT

George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all applications for licenses, permits, or leases, or for approval of plans, filed with the government since June 20, 1925, affecting the Ottawa river at or in the neighbourhood of Carillon, and of all correspondence relating to such application, or of any order in council or memorandum expressive of any action taken respecting same.



RESTRICTED T. B. AREA IN FRASER VALLEY

Mr. BARBER:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the federal Department of Agriculture and the government of British Columbia or any officer thereof, in the matter of the establishment of a restricted T. B. area in the Fraser valley, British Columbia.



NIAGARA RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre):: I wish to call the attention of the
House to an article which appears in to-day's Gazette, headed "Settle with Chicago." It contains a statement with reference to myself and a statement which Mr. Magrath is reported to have made. It also indicates generally that Mr. Magrath and the commission were not backing up this motion. As far as I know, Mr. Magrath is personally backing up the motion which appears in my name. Then they want to know on whose behalf it is made. Well it is made on behalf of the province of Ontario, with the full knowledge, approval and co-operation of the premier of that province, who claims that one-half of the property at Niagara Falls affected by section 5 of this treaty, belongs, to the province of Ontario, and the other half to the state of New York. Objection is taken that we should not discuss this matter or deal with it, or speak to the people of the United States on it, so long as the Chicago matter is unsettled. When I make the motion I will take up this matter, but I wish to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this motion is made with the approval of the Premier of Ontario and with his full knowledge and assistance.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 20, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I am' glad of the opportunity which is furnished me to-day of congratulating the
The Budget-Mr. Marcil

I am sure that announcement was well received by the buyers of automobiles throughout Canada.
The reductions vary from $15 on the runabout, without a self-starter, to $45 on the Tudor, Fordor and truck, with starter models. The complete price list compared with the old is as follows:
And then the list is given. I think that is a pretty good start. It shows the people are not at all displeased with that cut in the tariff. I am glad to be able to give an appendix to this statement in the form of an extract from an article written during the past year by Mr. R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada, Limited'-Who at the present time is very much in the public eye -entitled "Automobile Industry has Record Year." In this article he does not condemn any of the trade arrangements made by this government. He concludes with this statement:
Export business has shown a good margin of increase over the previous year, as well as domestic sales. The very timely action of the Baldwin administration in effecting the restoration of the McKenna duties in Great Britain has been of immediate benefit to the industry, as well as an encouraging factor in regard to future trading.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Do you take
credit for that?


Charles Marcil: This is what Mr. Mc-
Laughlin says, the president of General Motors of Canada. He says that the automobile export trade in this country has been on the increase. We do not claim any credit for any action taken by the Baldwin government, but I think we may claim some credit for what follows:
The ratification of the Australian preferential agreement by the Canadian/ (parliament is also taken by the industry as a good omen for the future of Canadian export business in the Antipodes, where markets have been expanding rapidly of late. Canadian automobile manufacturers should be enabled to strengthen their hold on the Australian market as a result of the preferential agreement, especially if Australia sees its way clear to modify the regulation which requires motor vehicles to foe valued for duty purposes on the basis of price in the home market. The application of this rule at present works to the detriment of the Canadian manufacturer for .the reason that it costs considerably more to build motor cars in Canada than in the United States, even after taking into consideration the customs drawback allowed on exported material, and in consequence, higher duties are collected on cars made in Canada, than on cars made in the United States, even though the price to the Australian consumer be the same.
The way the matter strikes me, and as I think it strikes the average man on the street who is not familiar with the ins and outs of the automobile trade, is this: Why should the same automobile sell cheaper in the United (States than it sells in Canada? That is a point I have never been able to understand,

and that is what catches the fancy, I believe, of the Canadian people. The nearer we get to the prices that prevail in the United States, the nearer we shall get to ensuring the prosperity of the automobile industryYn this country, because it must not be forgotten that the more cars that are sold in Canada, the greater .will be the prosperity of the automobile industry in this country. It was prophesied in the old days when tariff cuts were made on this article, on that and the other, that different industries would be ruined, but the very reverse has taken place, and these different businesses have gone on improving very satisfactorily.
I had intended to speak of the pulp and .paper industry, but I shall leave that for another occasion, as well as many other extracts I had intended quoting, because I do not want to fatigue the House, and I know that our friends do not want to have this debate unduly prolonged.
Now I will go outside the House and quote a few lines from some of the leading newspapers of Canada, on both sides of the fence, to show how this budget was received the day after it was delivered, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall give these extracts as briefly as possible. Let us begin with the Morning Chronicle of Halifax, which says:
The budget, we believe, will be welcomed by the people of Canada as a great step forward in the fulfilment of the policy of progressive Liberal ism and equally for the promise it offers that the government has set i-ts face definitely in the direction o*f lightening the burdens of consumers and taxpayers and of freeing trade and business from hampering restrictions and burdensome exactions. The King government has given the country a real Liberal budget. It is of good augury for the future prosperity of the whole country.
The Sydney Record says: [DOT]
Canada is winning through. This country, like all other countries, has had a hard time in recent years, though it is always rightly to be remembered that Canadians have been better off than the people of most countries. The pessimists have talked a great deal of the sore plight of the nation and have shaken their heads dubiously as to the future. Some politicians, for unworthy partisan reasons, have magnified the difficulties and exaggerated the facts. The truth is that Canada has been winning through in fine style. There has been gradual but steady progress. In the last year or two progress has become swifter. The country is now entering upon a period that promises to be a period of general prosperity. Trade is expanding, immigration is increasing, business is improving in the Dominion as a whole, and now federal taxation is coming down. Canada is a place for optimists and no place for pessimists. And Canadians should be standing up for their country each day and all the days.
Now I ipass to the Inland province and give a short- extract from the Patriot of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island:
The note struck by the Finance minister in his budget speech will resound throughout Canada; it will

The Budget-Mr. Marcil
inspire confidence, and enlarge hope. It relieves the people to a considerable extent of the burden of taxation. This in itself is a great achievement; but the greatest emphasis is to be placed upon the fact that the government has been enabled to accomplish this because of the increasing prosperity of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Let me. pass to St. John, New Brunswick. The St. John Telegraiph-Journal says:
The budget speech is a surprise both financially and politically. It has several welcome features, and perhaps the best of these is that it not only lessens materially the general burden of taxation but gives the country at large a measure of encouragement which is particularly timely.
Now I will give a word from a French-Canadian newspaper published in Montreal, and edited by one of the members of this House, a paper that is generally regarded as independent in politics. Le Devoir says:
(Translation): From every angle, the Robb budget shows a marked improvement over those which preceded it. The budgets of Sir Thomas White, during the war, taxed more and more the rate-payers. Those during the period of demobilization, from Sir Henry Drayton's advent up to Mr. Fielding's time, further burdened the rate-payers. Mr. Fielding relieved but little the situation. For the first time since 1915, a Finance minister, instead of seeking from rate-payers more money, more taxes or advising them to be patient and wait, tells them: "The worst is over, the summit of the hill has been reached, we are now on the downward slope, breathe more freely, I have less need of you."
La Presse, of Montreal, says that the rubicon has been passed, that is, the rubicon between the days of heavy taxation, war nightmares and the other evils of the past and the present days of full sunshine and prosperity, the prosperity the Liberal party gave to this country in the old days. La Presse says:
(Translation) The Budget speech delivered yesterday by the hon. Mr. Robb is indeed an event of importance: in fact, it ends an epoch and opens up a new era in the history of Canada. ,
For the first time since too many long years, the Canadian rate-payer, in the habit of seeing new taxes grafted upon him each tune the budget was introduced, witnesses, to his astonishment and great joy that, on the contrary, this year, the benefits by a reduction in taxes: a real and very substantial reduction.
Even the Montreal Star was unable on its first impression on the 16th of April to refrain from opening its editorial headed, "An Election Budget," as follows:
Canada is to be warmly congratulated on the changed conditions which liave made Mr. Robb's optimistic budget possible. If nature had not been kind, if th*e inevitable and yet long-delayed recovery from the wounds of the war had not really begun, Mr. Robb would never have been able to deflight his partisans and gratify the country with what is, perhaps, the best pre-election budget ever delivered in parliament.
That is a pretty good statement from that authority. The Recorder and Times, of
Brockville, concludes its editorial of the 16th of April as follows:
The reduction in taxation has been made possible through the greatly improved state of the federal finances. Receipts have been increased and the national debt decreased. As these finances may be expected to grow even more satisfactory from year ito year, still further reductions are in prospect. Gradually but surely Canada is overcoming the economic difficulties which followed in the wake of the war and returning to the very pleasant state of affairs which existed before 1914. Mr. Robb and the government of which he is a member are entitled to a cordial and unanimous vote of thanks. They have done well, even better than was expected.
The British Whig of Kingston, Ontario, makes the following statement:
The 1926 Robb budget will be hailed by business men and other workers all over the country as the best news from Ottawa since Armistice day.
The Mail and Empire begins an editorial in the following manner:
The very substantial reduction made in the burden of income taxation will not be the less welcome to thousands of Canadians because it is announced within a fortnight of the day when the care-wearing task of preparing the returns and finding the money for the first instalment must be completed.
The Toronto Globe has this to say:
In a budget, which proclaims the business renascence of Canada, emergence from long post-war depression, the Minister of Finance yesterday presented the country with $25,000,000 by way of annual relief from various imposts. Such extensive reductions were unexpected. Canada had become rather reconciled to the burden of war debt, seeing relief only in the future with increased population and greatly enlarged business. That the burden is being lifted in a substantial measure at this date brings the welcome conviction that we are definitely on the upward trend.
The Hamilton Herald says:
Whether or not Finance Minister Robb has done a wise thing in cutting down taxes and thus dispensing with many millions of revenue, it is certain that he has done a very popular thing. He has perhaps made it harder for the government; but he has made things easier for thousands of Canadian taxpayers. In the end, probably, it will be found that he has done a wise as well as a popular thing, for the measure of relief from taxation will act as a stimulus to some branches of industry and serve to allay widespread discontent.
The St. Thomas Times-Journal expresses itself as follows:
Evidently, Mr. Robb fully appreciated the responsibility of preparing his first individual budget, and was no less anxious to frame proposals that would prove widely acceptable and provoke as small a measure of dissent as humanly possible. That he made a careful study of the taxation system as it existed is plain, and in deciding what and where to change or modify, his aim has clearly been to do the greatest good to the greatest number, especially those whose moderate incomes and means make taxation, however limited, a relatively heavy burden.

The. Budget-Mr. Marcil
I quote the following from the Border Cities Star:
Hon. J. A. Robb's budget, brought down in the House yesterday, is the most important since the war. And, in some aspects, it is the most encouraging. Details which were published in the Border Cities Star yesterday within the same hour as their delivery in the House, reveal a genuine effort to make a good showing. Surpluses are produced, revenue is shown higher than expenditures, taxes are reduced, and tariffs are changed with a rather sweeping motion.
The Border Cities Star goes on to comment in a favourable manner on the features of the budget, except as to the automobile duties which of course is a live issue in that particular locality. The Winnipeg Tribune has the following to say:
None of the reductions, apart from the cut in income taxes, will substantially affect the revenues of the government, and even in the case of the income tax the indirect benefits may shortly bring greater returns to the treasury. Next year the people will expect as many and as great slashes at taxation. With increasing prosperity, and .the opportunity o.f reducing the national expenditures substantially, there are still possibilities of immense reductions in taxation.
The Winnipeg Free Press has an editorial under the caption "A People's Budget." In the editorial itself the following comment is made:	.
The budget brought down to parliament yesterday by the Minister of Finance will give widespread satisfaction. It shows the country to be in a soundly prosperous condition, with the certain prospect of further improvement; and at brings to the individual taxpayer not the promise, but the actuality of a substantial reduction in taxation that will be felt immediately in every household in the country.
I quote the following from the IMorning Leader of Regina:
The budget presented yesterday by Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance, is one that reflects prosperity and that will mean still more prosperity. It is a budget of the famous Fielding type; it tells of great strides in Canadian trade, and it spells action, also, in the very important tax reductions that have been announced.
I find the following in the Halifax Herald:
The taxpayers of Canada get long-delayed but none the less welcome relief under the proposals of the budget, opened at Ottawa by the Minister of Finance an Thursday afternoon.
And so on. I might quote opinions from many other newspapers, 'but I shall not further trespass upon the patience of the House. I t'hink I have demonstrated 'beyond perad-venture that, although nothing is perfect in this world-and a budget could not be perfect any more than any other human creation- this particular budget meets with the hearty approval of reasonably-minded men, and I am quite willing to defend it. It is an exhilarating budget as compared with some of the depressing financial statements presented

during the days of trial and stress. Old Liberal members of this House will remember how we cheered the budgets brought down in pre-war days, and how we submitted from a strict sense of duty to the obligations imposed in budgets during the war period. Happily that period has passed, and I think it has passed forever. Canada is now on the highway to prosperity. We have in this country all the things required for the .building up of a great nation, and we intend to remain Canadian first, last and ail the time. Our differences at the present time relate to economic questions, but it is right and proper that we should differ because as the French say, du choc des idees jaillit la lumiere. It is from such discussions that we will be able to solve our problems. Our problems are of an economic character, and as long as they remain within that realm there c.ln be no doubt as to the future of Canada. The old idea that we had a western Canada and an eastern Canada is fast passing away:	There must be but one
.United Canada. There used to be Borne years ago a French Canada and an English Canada. That era is also disappearing. We French Canadians of the province of Quebec are learning the English language, and I must say to their credit that some of the outstanding men who came to this parliament many years ago unable to speak a single word in the English tongue have mastered that language and deliver to-day some of the most eloquent speeches heard in this chamber. That is a good example which I hope our English speaking Canadians will imitate, because they know as wdll as I do the tremendous advantage it is for a man to be master of two and even three 'languages.
In this country we shall reach the solution of many of our difficulties if the people can only understand each other, if they can only meet together in mutual intercourse. Because our common aim is the same, that of building up on the North American continent the civilization of Great Britain and the civilization of France, to further the advance of humanity and of civilization in all its forms. The French Canadian has his merits, 'the Anglo Saxon has his; those who come from other countries 'have theirs also. Let us unite in seeking to realize one common aim, and we shall create on this North American continent a nation of which the British Empire will be proud for all time to come.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: I have
listened with great attention to the address of the last speaker and with many of his remarks, certainly with his concluding words, I thoroughly agree. I also agree with the hon. member that a certain degree of prosperity has come to Canada; but in all the extracts from newspaper editorials read by the hon. gentleman very little credit was given to the present government for that prosperity. That prosperity has come because Providence has been kind to us.
The hon. gentleman eulogized the Minister of Finance. I think we all agree as to the splendid personality and the ability of that gentleman. We are very glad indeed that we can compliment him upon being able to bring down such a favourable budget. With all the features of that budget, of course, we are not in agreement. It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House on this occasion, but I will just deal with one or two of what I conceive to be errors, either of commission or omission, in the budget.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy) gave us an interesting address last night. It was his maiden speech and I compliment him upon it. He made a deliverance which rang true on the subject of the manufacturing of our raw materials in this country. He said nothing that would indicate that he had views along the lines of free trade for Canada.
With respect to the problem of the raw resources of Canada, this has been a tale thrice told by me in this House and I will not reiterate views I have already expressed. I think this problem is one of the most important factors in the economic life of Canada. Still we have no word from the government opposite in regard to any relief being granted or anything being done which will enable this country to retain more of her men. The hon. member who has just addressed the House (Mr. Marcil) spoke of the wonderful progress Canada was making. I fail to see where there is any congestion of passenger traffic due to Canadians coming back to Canada; in fact I know of very few of them coming back. With respect to the stock market, since the first of January stocks have been falling almost as much as they rose during the whole of last year. That i3 no indication of prosperity in Canada.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: What
about the New York stock markets?


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am speaking of that market. You know quite well, Mr. Speaker, that since the first of January Stocks have dropped very greatly. LaH year they rose until the
1st of January, and since then they have been going down, although lately there has been a slight recovery. Placing the Speech from the Throne and the budget side by side and comparing them, they reminded me of a speech of an American politician, at the conclusion of which he said: "Fellow citizens, them is my sentiments; if you do not agree with them, they may be changed." That appears to be pretty well the attitude of the government. In the Speech from the Throne they gave us to understand that the tariff would not be tinkered with until consideration was given to it by the commission qualified to deal with it. In the budget speech they come down . like a thunderbolt with this change in the policy, making a reduction of the customs tariff on automobiles. We all know why it was. The government said, in effect, "Providence has been kind to us and has been kind to Canada, The province of Saskatchewan has been kind to us and therefore we must bow to their will. They stand like a Colossus astride the people of Quebec. They say, as Caesar said, " ' Do this,' and 'tis accomplished." The government has given way to them, and has said in effect: "We will send more money and more of our men across the line to swell the population and prosperity of that country."
We expected that through the newly-created tariff board we would be educated as to the rights and wrongs of the automobile industry. Many of us feel quite strongly that we have been charged too much for automobiles, but we do not know; we are not quite sure in the absence of expert advice on the subject. I might, however, perhaps make an exception of the great Ford companj'; it appears that they have been making excessive profits. However, we were quite willing to await the report and did await the report of the tariff board with respect to that industry. This provision in the budget came, I say, like a thunderbolt, and automobile people were appalled. We do not know where we stand; we do not know next where the blow will fall, and this is all done in deference to our friends from Saskatchewan and the Progressive party. It is pitiful to think of the once great Liberal party getting down on its knees to the Progressive party and to the province of 'Saskatchewan at this time.
We must be an industrial country or we must fail. No country can succeed by agriculture alone. We must industrialize this country. We realize that, and the people of Quebec must realize it, just as do the people of British Columbia and of the other prov-
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

inces. Many of these people are protectionists, Still they are lining up with those interests which are advocating 'free trade-all in order that the government of the right hon. Prime Minister may have a further short lease of power. I have been a Conservative, Mr. Speaker, as long as I can remember, but if at any time my party should descend to any such truckling as we have witnessed, in order to remain in power, I would leave them at once. I believe in the dignity of party. I am dismayed and sorrowful indeed to see the once great Liberal party degenerate, as it has done. I am sorry to see our Canadian friends who believe in protection not sticking up for it. In effect they say, "Let our sons and daughters who were born in Canada, and whom we loved and educated, drift across the line-anything in order that the government of the Prime Minister may remain in power." What kind of Canadian sentiment is that, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand it, and I think few of us do.
This budget will undoubtedly have the effect of forcing more people to drift across the line. That indeed! seems to be the emigration policy of the government. The United States government have spent millions to keep people from coming to their adequately protected country. We have spent millions in the endeavour to bring people from Europe and to use Canada as a training school to qualify for citizenship in the United States. We practically say, "Come, no matter whether you prefer the red flag to the Union Jack; we want you to come to Canada, we want conscientious objectors; we want anybody to come and we must have immigration to Canada, while at the same time the United States are keeping these people out." We have the conscientious objectors in British Columbia; in fact one man I was informed was so conscientious he would not split wood because of the scriptural injunction, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." I am sorry indeed to see the once great party opposite adopt such tactics. They remind me of the sick man turning from side to side in his bed, weary, restless, impotent, unable to help himself, willing to even sacrifice a kingdom, if he had it, in order that he might recover; in other words, to fit the present case, in order that the government may live and remain in power. Such an attitude on the part of any party cannot help having an adverse effect on that party, even though for the time being they may seem to be deriving some slight benefit from it.
We have, as hon. gentlemen know, expected and wished for some relief for our small farmer in British Columbia as well as in

Ontario and Quebec. In British Columbia we have not those vast domains which they have in the Northwest Territories. We have only small farms, and we specialize in dairying and poultry raising. I represent I believe more poultrymen than any other man in the Dominion of Canada. My district is ideal for that sort of thing. We have on the beautiful islands along the coast of Vancouver island, as well as on that island itself, extensive poultry industries upon which millions of dollars have been expended. They have brought the modern hen up to a degree of efficiency that never was dreamed of years ago. We have the modern hen developed so that it approximates a mechanical unit; all we have to do is to feed Alberta and Saskatchewan grain to the hens, and out comes the egg! The price of that grain is fixed by the world's market, and we are glad that is the case. Immediately a hen does not live up to past records the unit is discarded and replaced. In British Columbia we have the best poultry on the American continent. Today we are sending breeds of our poultry to the Argentine, India, China and Australia. We specialize in poultry raising; with us it has become a scientific industry. But we find that we cannot compete with the United States people in this respect. I do not know a Leghorn from a Wyandotte, but I know ninety per cent of British Columbia poultry-men are returned soldiers and seventy per cent of them want nothing from this Dominion of Canada but an equal chance with their brothers across the line in the poultry business. These men came back from the War, doffed their uniforms and put on their working clothes, asking for nothing. They put their money into the poultry business; they have been struggling along and they are suffering under a handicap, no matter what the Minister of Finance may say about the prices of eggs and butter being fixed in the markets of the world. He can talk in that way until ice forms where ice has never formed before, but I know that when eggs and butter come from Seattle and Puget Sound cities into the British Columbia cities of Victoria and Vancouver, down goes the price of our eggs. We let eggs come in under a duty of three cents per dozen; but when conditions are reversed and we have a surplus of eggs which we want to send across the border because the market there is good, we are met with a hostile tariff of eight cents a dozen. Are we mice rather than men that we are going to stand for that sort of thing?
The Minister of Finance says that the price of butter is fixed in the world market. Every boy on the street, every woman in British

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
Columbia knows that when a shipment of New Zealand butter comes on to the market in Vancouver or Victoria, down goes the price of butter. We know the United States policy with respect to these matters. Why not adopt a similar policy? I do not believe in copying anybody; I believe we are strong enough, vigorous enough, virile enough and sensible enough to adopt a policy that will be adequate for the protection of the farmers and manufacturers of Canada without respect to the policy any other nation may adopt.
I care not what tariff the United States people may impose, I would impose a tariff adequate to protect this country, just as they are doing to protect theirs, and not necessarily an imitation of them. When we find their butter and eggs coming in to the detriment of our dairymen and poultrymen, and when we find their manufactured goods appearing on the shelves of our stores in competition with goods manufactured in Canada, I would impose a duty to prevent that. Where do you see on the United States side any of our goods exposed for sale? The moment any article manufactured in Canada goes over there, up goes their tariff. That is a wise, sensible policy, a policy that has been adopted by every country in the world with the exception of Canada.
Owing to the strong appeals from the people in the prairie piovinces, who, I admit, would not benefit by a highly protective tariff, we are forced to acquiesce in their wishes that we should still travel along the line of a moderate tariff and allow goods manufactured in United States to enter Canada. I want this thing to be spread equally over Canada and I say, as our leader has said, that I would be willing to reimburse our brethren in the west to the extent of their losses in having to pay more for goods manufactured in Canada than they would have to pay if they bought in the United States. But we must buy in Canada. I have said this before and I say it again:	We must keep
more of our money in this country or we cannot succeed. We talk of prosperity in Canada. We have made some strides; but this wonderful Canada of ours, with its vast resources in timber, mines and agriculture, instead of simply increasing a little in prosperity from time to time should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. We have the population,-fine up-standing, broad men. I have seen them by the thousand leaving Canada, men who could hold a cow up with one hand and milk her with the other. We want to keep those men in this country rather than allow them to drift away to the United States.
With lespect to the automobile industry- and -I speak for myself; I do not speak for my party-instead of reducing the duties I would give the automobile industry a fifty per cent piotection. Then I would say to those manufacturers:	We have given Canada
for your field; prepare for and go ahead with your mass production; but we want cheaper automobiles. I know that one of the greatest automobile factories in Canada would be prepared to concede a ten per cent cut right now had that been done, and I have no doubt others, would do the same thing. In time they could manufacture automobiles in such a way that the price could be reduced, and I would have the government say to those people:	We will not stand for any
illegitimate profiteering. In that way we would keep millions of our money and thousands of our men in Canada. That is the way in which I would' build up this great country of ours.
With regard to our good friends from the west, for whose ideas I have every respect, although we have not in British Columbia perhaps the vast expanse of acreage that there is in the prairies, I think we have a broader national vision-and I say that in all kindness to my hon. friends. We have our grievances in British Columbia. We can buy the goods we require more cheaply in the United States than we can in Canada, but there is no desire on the part of our people to do that. We are willing to make little sacrifices in order that the whole of the Dominion may succeed. It makes me, I will not say impatient, but a little sorry to hear at times such remarks from my friends from the west. I do not think they mean them as badly as they sound. Two ot three years ago the 'hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) came here with five or six measly, almost rotten apples, in what seemed to some an effort to discredit the fruit growers and packers of British Columbia, at a time when they were spending and had lost millions in trying to build up the fruit industry of Canada. Another member from Saltcoats, an estimable gentleman who is not in the House now, said in this chamber:	We will soon be able
to grow rhubarb in the northwest so that we shall not require any British Columbia apples. We all know the free trade proclivities of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) who used to moan and groan when anything was said about enacting a dumping clause that would keep Washington apples out of British Columbia. Those are things, I say with all respect to all parts of the House, that are not conducive to that unity preached

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

by the very sincere hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I think that the prairie people should cultivate a broader vision which would enable them to help us to make Canada the country which it was designed to be by a beneficent Providence. Surely the winds that sweep across that great prairie country have not dried up all the milk of human kindness. Our poultrymen in British Columbia have to work every day in the year and during the last year they have lost manj' thousands of dollars because they cannot produce eggs at thirty cents a dozen. They buy goods from the merchants; the merchants buy from others, lumber is bought, and all that money is circulated. But when we send any of that money into the United States, it is gone. We want it circulating in Canada. That is the only sane policy to adopt. All other countries have adopted it; why do we hesitate for a purely political reason? Let us have a policy that will make Canada a great country because Canada is greater than all political parties.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: In fairness to the hon. member for Macleod, who is not in the House at present, I might point out that on the occasion referred to by the hon. gentleman, what the hon. member for Macleod was complaining about was the system of grading. He showed some inferior apples which were graded Fancy Sweets, or something of that kind. I would assume that the fruit growers of British Columbia would be just as much interested in having a proper grading system as the consumers on the prairies. There was no attack whatever on the fruit growers of British Columbia.
Mr. DICKIE I did not say there was an attack on the part of the member for Macleod, but it led to very many things being said that we were sorry to hear, especially from the hon. member for Hosetown and others. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken knows how hard they fought against the dumping clause in order that they might get apples in from Wenatchee and other points south of the line. Perhaps their packing methods were not quite up to date but they were doing their best. We know that the orientals sometimes pack apples which are not shipped through the white packing associations of British Columbia and we know also that the people of that province have lost fortunes in the endeavour to build up an industry. I do not attribute badness of heart to our Progressive friends but things of this sort lead some people who perhaps are not given to looking for motives of gener-
osity to think that the people of the prairies were opposed to the interests of British Columbia. Let me assure "hon. gentlemen that our struggle is a hard one.


Milton Neil Campbell: On the occasion in
question the recriminations were mutual as they usually are under such circumstances.


Charles Herbert Dickie: The recriminations may
have been mutual but I took no part in them. We in British Columbia, I say, are having a hard fight. We are, so to speak, shaking dice with the mountains, trying to wrest wealth from their tenacious grip. In the poultry and dairy businesses everybody is working hard to succeed and all we want is to be put on equal terms with other nations who have adopted the protective policy. As my good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) observed yesterday, we do not see people going from Canada to reside in England, and England is as nearly a free trade country as one can find anywhere. Look at Australia. We are allowing their eggs to come into Canada to the detriment of our industry. I do not say that as a matter of fact their eggs will come in, but some doubtless will be imported. But the significant fact is that Australia with a duty of eighteen cents per dogen on eggs is given the opportunity to send her product into this country in competition with ours if she can manage it. Is there any sense in such a policy? Australia came out of the war torn, battered and bleeding, as we were, but years ago she was paying off her debt and reducing taxation so that two years ago she was prospering and is still prospering. Australia has a protective tariff to safeguard her manufacturers and all her producers. And in this regard she serves as an object lesson to us. Take the United States again: it is true they came out of the war in better shape than we did, and it is also true that they were more prosperous than we were before the war came, but we see our people going across the line from year to year, and all because there is a policy over there that makes for employment. We know that the moment we try to send anything into the United States, a tariff wall is erected to stop our progress. I do not say that we should build a tariff of brick for brick, but I do say that we should have an adequate tariff wall to keep out the manufactured products of other countries which have tariff policies hostile to us. Only in that way can we bring about that prosperity that will make for the unity which we all desire to see achieved in Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
I am sure every one of us wants to see Canada succeed, and this success can be attained if we are prepared to compromise a little here and there. I maintain, however, that Canada can never hope to make any real progress without a protective tariff. I am convinced of the soundness of that argument, everything tends to support it. Why should we arrogate to ourselves a knowledge superior to the wisdom of experience in every other part of the globe? Every country has a protective policy except poor Canada. We have some protection but what was adequate in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in the days of Sir John A, Macdonald is inadequate at the present time. As mass production sprang up in other parts of the world, and new methods were put into practice, the tariff which we had in this country proved insufficient to protect us. We see the Americans putting up their tariff from time to time, while France is doing the same thing. France has a tariff of 100 per cent on some articles and generally she takes every possible means to keep her workingmen employed at home. That is a sort of policy we should have in Canada. We want to see this country united and we shall see this hope realized in time, I am sure, although it must be confessed that now and then one loses heart.
When the Roman Empire fell, two great nations came into prominence in Europe- England and France, representing the pinnacle of culture and civilization in the Old World. These two countries in the course of their history have alternately fought and caressed, and notwithstanding all their faults they stood out as the two greatest peoples of Europe. Then came those awful days of 1914 when they fought side by side in defence of a common ideal. It annoys me to hear disparaging remarks of the British Empire, but even if we admit, as I personally do not admit, that England went to the aid of France merely from motives of self-preservation, it seems to me that every intelligent man must concede that had not Great Britain entered the war when she did, and gone to the relief of France, la belle France would not be in existence today as an independent nation; she would have been wiped off the map. So that whatever injury Britain may have done to France at any time, she has paid her account in full.
We in Canada are descended on the one hand from the French and on the other from the English, and there is no reason why we should not stand side by side and make this a united and prosperous land. Let no barriers of race and creed stand in the way, but let 14011-170-i
us all work together to make this a nation of which we may be proud. I well remember in the early days of California that the best recommendation any man going into that country could have was the fact that he was a Canadian. His Canadian citizenship carried with it credentials which were at once accepted. Ho had been brought up in a place where the motto that 'honesty is the best policy had been constantly before him in the little schoolhouse and in his home. Canadians occupied very many of the responsible positions in California.
Just across from Victoria is the big city of Seattle, where a few years ago nine-tenths of the positions of responsibility were held by Canadians because they had been taught to be honest and had therefore qualities which appealed to the Amerioan people. That is one reason why we are allowed to go there to-day while other people are excluded.
Before I conclude I want to read the following resolution passed by the poultrymen in my district:
That whereas, the present duty on eggs entering Canada is only three cents per dozen as compared with the duty of eight cents per dozen on eggs entering the U.S.A.;
And whereas, the Canadian duty of three cents per dozen makes possible the import of U.S.A. eggs into Canada, (particularly storage eggs and at some seasons of the year fresh eggs, thereby making it unprofitable for B.C. poultrymen to send their eggs to the prairie and eastern Canadian markets;
And whereas, the duty of three cents per dozen is in the neighbourhood of approximately 12 per cent at present prices;
And whereas, Canadian eggs are almost totally prevented from entering the U.S.A. by reason of the eight cent tariff;
Be it therefore resolved:
(a)	That the federal government be requested, as an act of justice to Canadian poultrymen, to raise the tariff on U.S.A. eggs coming into Canada to an equality with the tariff imposed on Canadian eggs going into the U.S.A.
(b)	That the federal government be requested to moke the Eggs Marks Act of B.C. applicable to the Dominion of Canada as a whole.
And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to various co-operative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.
What is there unreasonable in that application? Ft comes from the centre of the poultry industry of Canada. I can assure the government that these people are justified in seeking some protection against competition from the United States. Surely it is not too much to ask, and I hope that this government will see its way clear to give that protection.
With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I beg to put on Hansard two other
2676	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
resolutions of the same character as the one I have just read:
Whereas, under the Canadian-Australian treaty, eggs from Australia are allowed to enter Canada free of duty;
And whereas, under the Dominion of Canada grading regulations it is possible that eggs from Australia raised under summer conditions will be able to enter Canada as fresh eggs at a time when winter conditions prevail in Canada:
And whereas, this will increase the already serious competition which Canadian poultrymen have to meet from eggs from the U.S.A.;
Be it therefore resolved: that the federal government be requested to add to the present definition of the word "fresh" the length of time during which eggs intended for sale as "fresh" in Canada may be held when in transit at a temperature of 35 Fahrenheit, or less:
And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to the various co-operative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.
Whereas, there is reason to believe that an effort a-itl shortly be made by certain produce dealers in the prairie provinces to secure the modification of the present egg grading regulations, which modification amounts practically to the abandonment of egg grading;
Be it resolved: that the federal government be requested to make no alteration in the present regula -tions beyond the amendment asked for in resolution No. 2.
And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to the various cooperative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.


Mr. GEORGE SPENCE (Maple Creek):: I wish to add a few words of commendation to what has been said by previous speakers in congratulation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the splendid budget he has presented to parliament. I have briefly summarized the main features of that budget and I find that they consist of a reduction in the national debt of some $22,000,000; a reduction of $25,000,000 in taxation; substanial reductions in income tax, particularly in the lower grades; the abolition of the receipt tax; reductions and exemptions in the sales tax; automobile tariff cut to 20 per cent on cars of $1,200 and under, and to 27A per cent on cars over that value; balance sheet showing $402,695,000 in our favour; British preference applicable to direct shipments through Canadian ports; and last, Mr. Speaker, but by no means least, the return on Dominion Day to penny postage. It is a budget for the common people. I shall refer to it more particularly in detail as I discuss certain questions which I now propose to bring before the House.
[Mr. Dickie.)
I feel like offering some apology, Sir, for engaging the attention of hon. members on matters of more or less local importance, but I would remind them that, not having spoken in the debate on the Address, this is perhaps the only opportunity I shall have this session of discussing these matters. I realize also that a private member has a responsibility to his constituency and that certain local problems affect the Dominion as a whole. Therefore I think it is his duty and privilege to bring his best judgment to bear on the solution of those problems.
I come,- Sir, from a purely rural constituency in one of the oldest settlements of the province of Saskatchewan, the constituency of Maple Creek. At one time the greater part of my riding was open range, and the chief industry of the settlers was ranching. Following the inauguration of the great homestead policy there was a steady influx of settlers, which resulted in a large additional acreage of land being brought under cultivation. Now, like every other policy that is more or less of general application, mistakes were made under the homestead policy-mistakes by the government itself in the first place, and also by the settlers. The mistakes made by the government worked the greatest hardship, due to the attempt to apply the policy indiscriminately without regard to the varying conditions of soil and climate. This criticism applies not only to the particular constituency of Maple Creek, but also to the great bulk of southern Alberta. There are lands in my constituency, not very extensive, it is true, where farming has not been very much of a success. There is a small corner in the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan and a larger area in southern Alberta where the climate is rather inhospitable to the growing of spring grain, which is commonly understood to cover wheat, oats and flax.
For this and perhaps other reasons some of our settlers are in more or less financial difficulties. Quite frequently I get letters from settlers not only in the southwestern corner of my constituency but also from others in southern Alberta complaining that they are in arrears with the Dominion government on their pre-emptions, that their indebtedness is steadily growing, and that they are also behind with their payments on seed grain and other relief. There is
5 p.m. no doubt that these people are a great asset to the Dominion. We are contemplating spending money on an empire settlement scheme and on other schemes to attract immigrants. We are also preparing to make a revaluation of the land

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
held by returned men. All these activities will I hope help to draw attention to the particular condition which I am now bringing to the notice of the House.
I am not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to state specifically what should be done, but undoubtedly this condition of affairs will have to be carefully inquired into and some action taken as early as possible. I have sometimes thought that a plan of amortization might be adopted, with provision to cancel payment of interest for a period of years. Perhaps something on those lines might be worked out. As I have said, we must do something to retain on the land these people who through misfortunes for which they are not responsible find it increasingly difficult to carry on. I am in hopes that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will give this matter his favourable consideration. There is one thing I like about him: he is a practical man, he has been through the mill himself. Carlyle has said: Two men I honour, the horny handed son of toil, and the man who works for the moral uplift of his people.
I feel like saying:	One man I honour, the
man who has been through the hard school of experience, the man who has been through the mill, the practical man. I have a great deal of confidence in the Minister of the Interior. He knows the problems peculiar to the west and the southwest portions of the prairie provinces, and he has worked with praiseworthy patience and diligence to solve not only the problem of soldiers' re-establishment, but also other perplexing questions which have engaged his attention since he entered the ministry.
There is another matter of importance to my section of the country. I am speaking more particularly now for the rancher, although what I am about to say applies to a lesser degree, but still to a very considerable degree, to the mixed farmer as well. As you know, Sir, we have a great asset in our natural grass. You can turn a steer or a cow out in the spring on the natural prairie grass and before the end of July that animal will be fit for the block. It is a wonderful national asset and adds a great deal to the wealth of the Dominion. Unfortunately, however, we are in what I might term a great inland empire, far from the markets of the world, and when we add the freight, the commission charges and the other tolls levied on that steer before it eventually reaches the markets of Europe, there is very little left for the producer. Therefore I say, Sir, the vital question with the live stock industry to-day is the question of markets. I am sure my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) will
bear me out in this. I have listened with a great deal of interest to his observations on this question, for I look on him as a practical man, one whose opinion I value, although I am afraid he is not actively engaged in the business at the present time, but is rather what I might say feeding steers by proxy. Be that as it may, I think something must be done to enlarge our market. I have on my desk an article which is the substance of an address which was delivered before the agricultural societies at their last annual convention, and which is reprinted by the Grain Growers Guide of December 23. I understand that Mr. Tom King has given this matter very careful consideration, and I am going to give the conclusions he has reached, and then make a few observations drawn from my experience in the cattle business. He says:
In 1911 the congress of the United States passed a statute which remained in force for eleven years. That statute proposed reciprocal free trade in cattle, at a nominal tax of one-quarter of one cent a pound on beef. During those eleven years parliament did not see fit to accept the proposal, which had been definitely rejected in 1911 by a vote of the Canadian people.
He goes on:
But there was a second offer of reciprocity. In 1913 congress passed the Underwood tariff bill placing cattle and beef on the free list. That law remained on the statute book for eight years, and during all that time Canadian cattle went freely into the United States. During that eight years Canada maintained against all American cattle a tariff of 25 per cent ad valorem, and against American be**r a tax of 3 cents a pound.
He continues:
I am told that when the Fordney-McCumber tariff bill was before the Senate finance committee a rancher of the northern range argued that it might be a good thing to have no tariff barrier between the two countries, because in times of drought American cattle could be driven across the Canadian border. Someone asked him at once whether Canada would be willing to take off her 25 per cent ad valorem duty if the United States put cattle on the free list. He could not answer, and no one could answer for him. It is certainly my impression that at the time of which I speak it was touch and go whether the tariff should be continued or allowed to drop, and the weight that cast the balance was the fact that Canada was maintaining, and for fourteen years had maintained, a tariff of 25 per cent ad valorem against the importation of American cattle.
Then he explains the difficulty which Mr.. Taft had in getting the reciprocal trade agreement through congress. I shall read only the essential parts of his remarks on that phase.. Mr. Taft was indebted to a great man, Mr. Underwood, for the help which enabled him to pass the measure. Mr. King says:
Mr. Underwood was at the time chairman of the House committee dealing with the matter. He said to his Democratic colleagues that the people of Canada had really never rejected reciprocity. He explained that
2678	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
the reciprocity issue had been tangled up with party politics, and that much weight had been given the fact that a hard and fast bargain was provided for. Now, he said, we will give the Canadians all they would have gotten under reciprocity without demanding any price in advance, without asking for any bond, trusting to their commonsense to show some appreciation. Among other things he put upon the tentative free list for Canada to accept or reject wheat, flour, potatoes He greatly lowered many duties on Canadian grains and dairy products, and when he came to cattle and beef he puts them on the free list absolutely. He was confident that the government of Canada could get for Canada all the benefits of reciprocity without losing their face. He expected that the Canadian duties against American products would be lowered to some extent. He took it for granted that cattle, at any rate, would be put on the free list. Yet in 1921 he told me that up to that time Canada had not shown the slightest appreciation of the very great benefit conferred upon her by the Underwood tariff law.


Mr. MULLINS:: Would the hon. member permit American cattle to come into Canada provided the United States took their duty off and allowed our cattle to go over there?


George Spence: Yes, I would, and I would fortify that statement with another one; I do not think very many of them would come into this country.


Henry Alfred Mullins: For the information of
the hon. gentleman, may I say that foot and mouth disease and all sorts of other diseases are rampant among American cattle, and in my opinion they should not be permitted to come in here and mix with our healthy herds.


George Spence: The hon.
gentleman may know quite a bit about cattle, but he evidently does not know very much about our health laws. We have quarantine stations all along the border. I happen to have the advantage of my hon. friend there, in that I live right on the boundary.
But Mr. Speaker, it is no use crying over spilt milk. The tiling has been done. But it is just as well to look at this question from the United States point of view as well as our own. Though it is no use crying over *spilt milk, something should be done about the matter now. According to Mr. Underwood, and according to Mr. King, and I have no doubt that he is a great authority on this question, it was just a matter of touch and go whether the United States would put on that duty or not, and had we had any representative in that country at that time representing our stockmen, it is altogether likely that the duty would not have gone on. I am not prepared to say-well, yes, I think I will-I will go so far as to say that I think we should be represented at Washington by an ambassador, or a commissioner, or someone who would represent our interests. We have commissioners in almost every important

country of the world, and if there is one place that is more important than another, it is surely the nation lying right to the south of us, where we have our natural market.
There is another feature of our ranching industry that requires a little attention, and that is the horse industry. We have in Saskatchewan approximately one million horses. Altogether in western Canada we have, I believe, over three million horses, and of that number one million represents the surplus for export. Some of these horses are rather small, what is known as the range horse or the broncho. We have no trouble at all as regards our domestic horses weighing from twelve to fourteen or sixteen hundred pounds. But there is very little demand for the small horse in our own country. I understand that an experiment has been carried out by the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the matter of the disposal of surplus horses. A trial shipment has been made to Europe, but up to the present I am not aware except in a general way as to how the experiment has turned out. I for one would be very much interested in knowing exactly what the result of that shipment has been. I should be very glad, therefore, if the Minister of Agriculture will make the report to be prepared on this subject available to every hon. member of the House. I have had one or two conversations with officials who were identified with this experimental shipment, and am credibly informed that it has met with some success and that there is a market in Europe for perhaps from five thousand to ten thousand horses annually. Now that is a very important thing. To be able to make such shipments would afford very material assistance to the horse-breeding industry in western Canada, and I think this experiment should be followed up by further work on constructive lines. I am not much enamoured of the idea that the government should undertake everything which may be needed for the people. I think perhaps there has been a tendency to go too far in that direction in the past, and that we have erred a little in that respect. But there is a bona fide assistance that a government can give the people which is perfectly legitimate; for it is a fact that we can help people to help themselves. The responsibility devolves upon a government to explore every possible avenue of relief. Having made the necessary investigation and arrived at certain conclusions it is then incumbent upon the government to make those conclusions available to the people. I should like to see this particular matter

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
followed up. I think that will be done in this case, having in mind the characteristics of the present Minister of Agriculture. '
And here I must give the minister a word of commendation. I am glad he is in his seat, although if he were absent I Should feel disposed to express my opinion more freely. I do not think that Canada has ever had a better Minister of Agriculture than the gentleman who now administers the department. I can say with perfect truth that the Minister of Agriculture enjoys the confidence of the organized stock-breeders of this country. He has championed and carried to a conclusion, since he assumed the administration of his department, some very important things. It was largely, in fact I may say almost entirely, through his efforts, that oleomargarine was excluded from Canada. It has been through his efforts that the grading system has been developed to its present state of perfection. A number of hon. gentlemen opposite have made some rather disparaging references to the Minister of Agriculture, but these do not reflect the sentiments of the Canadian people. The latter appreciate what the minister has done in their behalf, and I do not exaggerate when I say that in any future history of Canada the minister's name will occupy a prominent place.
Coming now to deal with the farm, particularly the grain farm, I may say that there are in my particular section some of the very largest grain farms in western Canada. I am sorry I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member for Marquette in the statement that he could see no good at all in wheat farming.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I set the hon. gentleman right? I never made any such statement.


George Spence: I am very
glad to have the hon. gentleman's denial. Wheat growing is a stage of development in our great western country, it is the first stage of development. The pioneer goes and locates on the prairie. He builds his little sod shack. He is a man without capital; all he has is his muscle and a desire to win. He goes in there and he does what is quite natural; he follows the course of least resistance. He sows flax, or he sows wheat, and from the proceeds of that crop he establishes himself. But gradually, slowly-perhaps more slowly than some of us would like to see-the process of mixed farming is being adopted. Agriculture is being built up year by year on a more sound and permanent basis as the result of the keeping and feeding of live stock. In Saskatchewan we had 100,000 acres seeded to corn last year,
a fact which may be rather a surprise to hon. gentlemen in this chamber. As I have said, field crops, particularly wheat, are a very important contribution to the prosperity of Canada. Now, we have in Saskatchewan an organization vrhidh, as a single unit, is perhaps one of the greatest organizations to be found anywhere in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Political?


George Spence: I will tell
my hon. friend about that. We have a marketing organization known as the wheat pool. Affiliated with it are two other units, the Alberta pool and the Manitoba pool. The three are amalgamated in selling the wheat of the growers of western Canada through a central office. There are something like 100,000 growers in these organizations who will market this year 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. Just think of it I I am speaking of this because I wish to show that we have been leaving no stone unturned in the direction of putting our business of farming on a sound economical basis. We have organized ourselves in such a way that we have to a great extent eliminated much of the waste and inefficiency in distribution. Thanks to the services of our various activities, governmental and otherwise, we have been able to put our production on a very high plane indeed. It is only quite recently that we were able to follow that work up by putting our system of distribution on the same basis also. Now that work is going on, and to-day I do not know of a single farm commodity that is not marketed in that way. We have the wheat growers; the live stock men are organized; the poultry and egg producers; in fact, as I have already said, commodity organization is applicable to every farm commodity. We have been unremitting in our efforts to benefit our condition and have had marked success. Thanks to a beneficent Providence we have had for the last three or four years good crops which we have been able to market at good prices. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) saw fit recently to make an allusion in that regard and perhaps I may be permitted to read exactly what he said:
I say that Providence has blessed Canada during the past season with a wheat yield in the western provinces unsurpassed both in quality and quantity, a yield which is to-day commanding a good price in the markets of the world and this fact constitutes the most important feature of our commercial success.
I am glad that the hon. member referred to that matter and stated that the crops, particularly wheat, and agriculture as a whole, gave the greatest contribution to our com-
>IJ	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
mercial success. When I come to the point, I wish to relate the great business of agriculture to the industries of manufacturing and mining. I think perhaps agriculture has not been brought forward in this House to such an extent as its importance demands. In my own province of Saskatchewan we have, roughly, $300,000,000 coming in from our wheat crop alone, and about one-half billion, in round figures, for all field crops. We have one billion and a half dollars coming into Canada as a whole from all agricultural products. An enormous amount of money comes pouring into the country in payment for the products of the land. We have three million people engaged in agriculture. We have the enormous amount, approximately, of three billion and a half dollars in actual money invested in the land in the western provinces. I am sometimes inclined to smile a little when I hear my hon. friends talking about industry and its importance. They speak of some shoe factory employing a few hundred men, or some automobile manufacturer employing a few thousand men, and turning out a few hundred thousand dollars worth of automobiles. It may not be common knowledge to hon. members of this House, but our dairy industry alone is worth more than the products of all the mines, gold and silver, and all the oil and gas wells in Canada. The amount of money received from dairy products exceeds the products of the mines and wells by a hundred million. The old brindle cow, chewing her cud on the farm in Saskatchewan, represents more wealth than all these other industries I have referred to.


Mr. MANION:: Does the hon. member not mean the old brindle cow in Ontario?


George Spence: I mean
the brindle cow, no matter where she is. I have referred to the volume of business, and I wish to speak now in regard to its quality. I am proud to be able to tell this House that in fifteen international exhibitions we won eleven sweepstake prizes for our hard spring wheat. At the International show, in Chicago, we have won prizes with our cattle and horses, and I think our quality of production along some lines has been on a par with the quantity. To give the House an idea of the contribution our province has made to the wealth of the country, I may say that the proportion of registered wheat for all Canada was 49,000 bushels, and Saskatchewan's share in that registered hard wheat was 30,000 bushels. We have found a market for registered wheat in the distant Argentine. We sent 2,000 bushels to the United States not-
-rMr. George Spence.]
withstanding a duty of 42 per cent. I would like to see a trade commissioner or an ambassador appointed to Washington, to represent the interests of the grower of high grade registered wheat as well as to look after the interest of the live stock man. There is a demand for high grade spring wheat in the United States, and the fact that we can sell two car loads in spite of that high duty clearly indicates that there is a demand for it.
This leads me to the point where I will briefly touch upon the fiscal policy of the Dominion of Canada. As a result of our great agricultural development coupled with the fine exhibits of Canadian products in other countries, 60 per cent of our exportable wealtl is represented by agriculture. Someone says, "We are going to protect industry." The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said-and I listened very carefully to what he said-"We will build agriculture into the protected structure of industry." That is a nice mouth filling phrase but that is about all it is. It simply cannot be done. Here you have a golden harvest of wheat pouring out during the marketing season, miles and miles of trains running day and night, employing hundreds of thousands of men, you have ships coming into the harbours of our principal -sea ports to load with the wheat which is carried to Europe, and which is selling there in competition with the whole wide world. That source of revenue is equal to three-quarters of a billion of wealth in gold to this Dominion, and that gold, as a result of the production of that wheat, is coming into Canada. To make my point clear I will give the House a little illustration. I lived in the Yukon country, the Elondyke, for three years. Our banner year of production in gold was $24,000,000. Men were very anxious to go to the Klondyke, and if you are able to go over the trail to-day you will see bleaching on the hillside the bones of those who tried to get there and could not. Our banner production was $24,000,000 in one year, and it dwindled down to $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. In the section of Saskatchewan from which I come there is a line of railway 100 miles long, and during the last six years taking the average, we shipped a million and a half dollars worth of grain at every shipping point, these shipping points being only seven or eight miles apart. That meant that that amount of money was coming into that section of the country. That line goes through the constituency of the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and my own constituency. I wonder where the money goes

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
to. It is a veritable Klondyke; yet no one is rushing to get there. No one is leaving his bones bleaching on the prairie in an effort to get there. It is not a spectacular thing, but it goes on year after year, and we are not mining it all out at once; it is a potential source of wealth that appears to be inexhaustible. The fertility of our soil is a great natural resource and, I repeat, agriculture is the greatest central factor in Canada to-day and you cannot protect it. We hear talk about building agriculture into the protected structure of industry. Here we have this great arch, this great keystone, and hon. members are going to fit it into a little footbridge. "Brick for brick," our hon. friends of the opposition say: "brick for brick," the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says, "brick for brick"! Not even as good a bricklayer as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie could build that kind of brick into the protected structure of industry. It is not a brick, it is the corner stone, and the stone that this builder-the right hon. leader of the opposition-has rejected is yet the head of the corner.
Our policy must be one for wider markets, for world markets. The domestic, the home market, means very little to us. The previous speaker referred to what we could do in the way of finishing products at home, but I have listened to that old chestnut before. How are we to finish our steers at home? We can picture ourselves with a row of sausage factories extending all the way from Calgary to Halifax! It would require a population of fifty million people to consume the cattle we are raising in this country at the present time.
I did not speak on the Address, and during all the debate that has taken place in the last two or three months, I have listened carefully, I might almost say with painful interest sometimes. I have come to the conclusion that we are being gradually forced into a false position. It has been stated that the government are doing certain things for certain people, particularly for western Canada; that they are building the Hudson Bay railway for western Canada; that they are lowering the tariff for western Canada and for Saskatchewan particularly. That assertion has been made. I want to offset it with this argument, that the only thing the farmer gets with which to buy the necessities and luxuries of life and to support himself on the land is his margin of profit between the cost of production and the price he ultimately gets in the markets of the world. Anything that will tend to lower that cost of production
confers a benefit on agriculture, and anything that confers a benefit on agriculture confers a great benefit on Canada.
Let us not take things out of their proportion. Let us consider things in their order; let us put first things first. We are not asking for the Hudson Bay railway because we are going to get some particular thing out of it. That railway is going to be built because it will be a means towards cheapening our production. We want rural credits for the same reason. If we can get money a little cheaper, our cost of production will be lowered. If we can get our wheat on the markets of the world cheaper, our cost of production will certainly be lowered. If we can get our-ploughs, harrows, wagons and other implements of production cheaper, our cost of production will be lowered and we shall have more for distribution, more with which to buy automobiles on which the tariff has been lowered, and more with which to buy necessities and some luxuries maybe. As I have said, it is this balance that affects prosperity in Canada, which makes the wheels of the factory go round, which keeps the bankruptcy sign out of the show windows of our places of business, which keeps the balance of trade on the right side of the ledger, which keeps the man on the land and which will attract other people to the land.
I have a great deal of material in connection with the period through which we have passed. Along with others, I was one of the victims of that howl of blue ruin that went to high heaven during the election campaign preceding October 29 last. I do not object to gentlemen propounding their doctrines, because that is what we are here for. I am here to convince hon. members if I can that the farmer must have his raw material at the lowest possible cost, and therefore I want duties lowered on farm implements and all other material that enter into the production of farm commodities. That is my philosophy. I have no particular objection to offer if hon. gentlemen differ with me in that; I am prepared to discuss the question with them without resorting to personal abuse.
Personal abuse is not argument. We have been called the "cubs"; one of us has been called the "crown prince"; we have been called "reds" and "annexationists," and the leader of the opposition called us the "Saskatchewan colony."
As regards our being Reds, it is only necessary to answer that argument by saying that we own property. Did you ever see a Red who owned property? I never have. As regards our being a colony, the leader of the
u	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
opposition who made the remark was pretty much in a colony himself when there were six out of the nine provinces in which he did not have a single representative. If we are a colony, we are growing in size and importance and I am glad our hon. friends recognize that. I do not object to hon. members propounding their philosophy, but I object to the manner in which they do it-crying blue ruin, and then criticizing the government about not being able to bring people into this countiy. I have in my hand the trade returns of every important institution in Canada; I am not going to bother reading them to the House because a great deal of it has already been put on Hansard and the hour is getting late. But I can show that bankers' associations, great financial institutions, presidents of railway companies, all tell the same story that we are around the corner and getting along splendidly.
I have come to Ottawa to resist this policy of high protection and I am going to resist it with all the ability which I possess. I believe this country can grow and prosper only if agriculture is prosperous. As regards the effect on industry in general, when we have a bad crop in western Canada, it is well known how blue and pessimistic people in the east get. The great financial institutions of eastern Canada to-day have their foundations laid right on the western prairies.
There is another fault which I have to find with hon. gentlemen opposite who propound their philosophy of high protection. High protection establishes industry on the artificial basis of legislation, rather than on the basis of natural products which enter into the manufacture of commodities. Iron, coal and proximity to markets are the chief factors in industrial development. And when you introduce the element of protection you add something that is uncertain. Any industry that cannot stand on its feet merely because the tariff has been lowered to the small extent, of seven and a half per cent does not deserve to exist.
Mr. MORAND Is the hon. member in favour of removing all tariffs on goods coming into Canada?


George Spence: Not necessarily.


Mr. MORAND:: How about shoes and
clothing?


George Spence: I am not at the moment discussing shoes and Clothing, but farm machinery.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Only farm machinery?


George Spence: I am discussing the raw materials that enter into the finished product of the farm. The manufacturers want their raw materials free. Now, I will ask the hon. member when he addresses the House to define the term "raw material.'' Just what does he understand raw material to mean? What is one man's finished product is another man's raw material, so that the binders, ploughs, wagons and even motor trucks and motor vehicles which the farmer requires are to him only raw materials.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Do not the farmers weai
shoes and clothing?


George Spence: Yes, some
of them at any rate.
Now, coming back to the budget, I have this observation to make in regard to the reduction in the duty on automobiles. In the daily press I read headlines to the effect that this and that factory has suspended operations and that t'he workmen will be turned out on the street. This virtually amounts to a threat to the parliament and the people of Canada, and if that sort of thing continues I would suggest that we reduce the duty still further. I am not a lawyer and therefore do not know whether we have any power in the matter, but in my opinion we should have an investigation into the books of these gentlemen.


Mr. LADNER:: Will the hon. member explain why the subject was not referred to the tariff commission which the government proposes to have investigate this matter?


George Spence: There are
things which a child can understand. We two million people in western Canada are not all fools. Nor are the people fools in eastern Canada, and we all believe that the automobile manufacturers have been enjoying altogether too much protection. They have abused the privilege.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
suggest that he understands the situation himself?


George Spence: I do. Let me say for the information of my hon. friend that I believe in a tariff board.


An hon. MEMBER:: What for?


George Spence: Let me
finish what I am saying. I look on the tariff a good deal as a medical man would look on a patient. The patient is exceedingly ill and the doctor upon examining him finds that his heart has almost stopped. He administers just a drop of brandy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Spence: This apparently pleases hon. gentlemen. He administers a drop of brandy; the patient revives, and thereafter the proper remedies are applied. In time the patient gets well. This was a skilled physician who knew what to do. In the same way there are times when perhaps a little protection in tariff matters may nurse an industry over a difficult period. And that is perfectly all right. But suppose to take the illustration I have just given, the physician had been unskilled and had given the patient the bottle. What would have happened? Like our manufacturers of automobiles, he would have become totally intoxicated instead of recuperating into a healthy state.
Every article smuggled into Canada is more or less a protest against the protective tariff. We are having considerable difficulty in the matter of smuggling and this could easily be stopped by putting such articles as are smuggled on the free list. The trouble is that protection interferes with trade, and there is no kind of interference that I know of that does not interfere. If you interfere here you are bound to interfere there to equalize things. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to whom I am almost afraid to refer seeing that he has been so often misquoted and misunderstood, has said that he would build a tariff on ^he principle of retaliation. If other countries put up a tariff against us he would do the same.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


George Spence: Someone
says, hear, hear. Well, the principle, in my opinion, is quite false. To build a tariff on the principle of retaliation is to maintain a policy of war. If we are to have a tariff at all we must take into consideration the natural physical conditions of the country.
I have tried this afternoon, not very well, I fear, to emphasize the importance of the great agricultural industry of this country and have endeavoured to show that it is the keystone of the arch of our national success. The first thing that must be taken into account in estimating Canada's progress is the extent of her agricultural exports. It was manifestly stupid of us to maintain a tariff against American cattle while ours were free.


Mr. ROWE:: In view of the fact that Saskatchewan is keenly interested in the dairy business, does the hon. gentleman think that a little retaliation in the fixing of duties on
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
dairy products coming from the south would be beneficial to dairymen in the west?


George Spence: Not a bit. *Now, let me proceed. In Saskatchewan we have been doing things in a big way economically and politically. We have been accused of dominating the government, and it is said that we have a concentrated press. I do not know what is meant by this, but we certainly have a press that fairly well reflects the political philosophy of our people. If, however, my hon. friends opposite have any particular grudge against the existing press of Saskatchewan, that grudge will soon be removed, for their party is to have a paper of its own. I have here an advertisement with this announcement:	"Conservatives, attention!" Then there appears the intimation, "New Conservative Daily Newspaper for Saskatchewan." I will subscribe for this prospective paper, and keep informed on the new "brick for brick" policy. It is always dangerous to be a prophet, and I am a little surprised that the right hon. leader of the opposition has fallen into that error. In one of his speeches he said that this government "dare iiotY' reduce the tariff, that they would not have the courage to do so. Well, we see what has happened. I repeat, this is a budget for the common people, and perhaps never since confederation have so many concessions been made at one time to the man in the street and to the man in the field-in a word, to the -working classes.
I have nothing to do with ancient traditions. I do not browse among the musty volumes of constitutional and political history. Nor do I wish to go to Rome to see what the Romans did. We are living in the palpitating present, we are interested in Canada and her problems, and we cannot solve those problems by theorizing on something that happened in the dark ages. We have on the front benches of this House a group of practical men, men who have been on the land and who understand the problems of the common people. To those men I look for a solution of many of our national problems because they are practical men. I have every confidence that we will be able to carry on in a spirit of co-operation and so help to build up and develop this great country.
From the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we and our friends of the Progressive party have been taunted with "bargain-making," and our Progressive friends have been accused of "selling" themselves to the government. Apparently our good Tory friends can-
26S4	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
not understand the Liberals and Progressives cooperating to carry on the affairs of the country because we fought each other in the last election. Well, I confess I was not on kissing terms with my opponent in Maple Creek, and I was perhaps instrumental in his not being returned to represent this constituency, for I think he would have defeated the Tory candidate in a straight fight. But I do know that the Progressive party are supporting the government to-day because they believe in the same policies that we believe in, and while they may not love us for opposing them in many constituencies last October, yet they think more of their principles than of any petty differences occasioned during an election. In western Canada we had a kind of political civil war, and I do not think our friends of the Conservative party should be so critical, because undoubtedly many of their candidates were elected in the three-corner fights as a result of this war.
I am not particularly interested in making Canada black. I am chiefly interested in keeping it green, in seeing the great open spaces of the west dotted with the homes of happy, contented people living on the land, rather than in large industrial centres where influence and wealth are centralized. It is said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. It is not. We have no race problem, we have not a religious problem, we have no enemy camped on our doorstep. In my opinion Canada is an easy country to govern, but it will not be if you attempt to govern it from Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton. But Canada is a difficult country to develop because of its far-flung dimensions, because of its sparse population and, to a lesser extent, because of its rigorous climate. The problems of government cannot be made any more easy by prejudice or by abuse. We were sent down here to discuss in a statesmanlike way our great national problems, and I for one am willing to sit down to that discussion without prejudice and without malice and in a spirit of tolerance and co-operation, for I am convinced that it is only in such a frame of mind that we can reach a solution of those problems that will enure to the greatness of this Dominion.
Mr. BRISTOL moved the adjournment of the debate.


Robert James Manion: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) before the House adjourns. I see by the papers there is some talk of changes in the tariff.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, I am no more responsible to-day for newspaper talk than I was prior to October 29.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Those are Tory dreams.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 22, 1926.