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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1 Where is the Government steamer Can-nadian Warrior?
2.	Is she under charter? If so, to whom?
3.	What rate of freight is she receiving, what cargo is she carrying, and to and from what ports ?
4.	Is she insured? If so, by what brokers, in what companies, and for how much?
5 Is her freight insured?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Vessel arrived at Barbados June 1.
2.	No. Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, have booked cargo themselves in both directions.
3.	2,000 tons D.W. cargo and 6,000 feet of lumber from Montreal to Barbados and Trinidad, B.W.I. On return trip she will have a full cargo of sugar from Havana, Cuba, to Montreal. Standard rates were charged on miscellaneous cargo carried.
4.	Yes. Insured through Wilcox, Peck and Hughes for $750,000.
5.	Freight on downward trip was prepaid. Cargo would be insured by shipper.


TADOUSSAC-LABRADOR WINTER COMMUNICATION.
Mr. SAVARD:: Are there communication facilities on the North shore of the St. Lawrence river between Tadoussac and Labrador, during the winter months?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	So far as the Department of Marine is concerned, there are none.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the Government to the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, for the use of certain buildings at Amherst, Nova Scotia, as barracks?
2.	What claims, if any, are outstanding?
3.	How long were said buildings used?
4. How much was paid for lumber supplied for said barracks, and how much of this amount was paid to the Brooklyn Lumber Company, Limited ?
5.	How much has been received for lumber from the dismantling of the said barracks, and from whom?


Mr. COPP:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the Government to the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, for the use of the Malleable Iron Works, so called, at Amherst, Nova Scotia, as an Internment Camp for alien prisoners?
2.	Is this property held under lease? If so, when will the lease terminate?
3 Are there any outstanding accounts with the above named company against the Government? If so, what is the nature of these accounts and the respective amounts thereof?


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	In how many cases was the Honourable Albert S6vigny, K.C., of Montreal, employed to represent the Government or any department thereof, at Montreal, or any other place in the province of Quebec, between the 1st of April, 1918, and the 1st of May, 1919?
2.	How much was paid by the Government to the said Honourable Albert SSvigny for his services in each case?


*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	What rentals have been paid by the Government during the years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, to Mr. Huntley Drummond, of Montreal, for the lease of the Drummond Building?
2.	What Departments of the Government were, and are located in the said building?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	How many licenses to operate purse or drag seines on the Bacific Coast and adjacent waters, were issued this year, to whom were they issued, and on what dates?
2.	Are any of the licensees returned soldiers? If so, what are their names?
3.	How many new licenses were issued this year, to whom, and were they returned soldiers?
4.	What were the names of the applicants, and the territory applied for in each case?
5.	What were the names of the returned soldiers who were sole applicants for particular sections?
6.	Were their applications refused in any or every case? If so, for what reason?



IMPERIAL BOARD OF INVESTIGATION.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: On the 9th of June the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) asked the following question which will be found in Hansard of that date:
Mr. J. E. Armstrong (East Lambton) :	I
should like to ask the Government whether it is true that the Imperial Government has appointed an Imperial Board of Investigation for the purpose of inquiring into trade relations between different parts of the British Empire; whether Sir George Perley has been appointed a member of that board, and when the findings of the board, if such has been appointed, may be expected. I should also like to know whether the

board will Inquire into trade or tariff agreements, and into the tolls or arrangements entered into between the different shipping companies within the Empire?
In answer to this question, I would say that:
1.	No such Board has yet been constituted; but the Government have under consideration certain proposals submitted by His Majesty's Government for the constitution of an Imperial Investigation Board to be set up by the Governments of the Empire in pursuance of Resolutions XI and XIV of the Imperial War Conference, 1918. It is proposed that the Board shall have power to inquire into complaints with regard to ocean freights, facilities and conditions in the inter-imperial trade and into similar questions referred to them by the various governments; to survey the facilities for maritime transport within the Empire and to make recommendations for the co-ordination and improvement of such facilities.
2.	Such a board not having been finally constituted, no definite ' appointment has yet been made.
3.	Answered by paragraph 1.
4.	Since the receipt of the proposals mentioned in paragraph 1 a proposal has been put forward to the Imperial Government by the Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada that full power as to the control of ocean rates and the disposition of the shipping of the British Empire be conferred by concurrent legislation upon a temporary commission representative of the United Kingdom and the Dominions; and that a committee representative of the United Kingdom and the Dominions shall be immediately set up for the purpose of framing a permanent scheme for the same purpose and for the general development of ocean transportation within the Empire. The Prime Minister has further suggested that this proposal be considered in connection with that described in paragraph 1 and has declared that the Government of Canada will be glad to join in the discussion as soon as the Government of the United Kingdom is prepared to consider the matter.



THE WINNIPEG STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: In view of the serious news that we get from the press of this morning with regard to the conditions in the city of Winnipeg, would the Prime Minister be able to give the House any information?
ISir Robert Borden,]


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In so far as is
concerned the serious occurrence to which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) alludes, the Government have requested that an investigation be made as quickly as possible into the circumstances so that we may have reliable information as to the injuries which are said to have been sustained by some of the returned soldiers and especially by one very distinguished soldier who won the Victoria Gross. The latest information that we have as to the conditions in Winnipeg to-day is that they are quite disturbed, but the arrangements which have been made for coping with any difficulty that may arise, are believed to be adequate.
'ACCUMULATION OF CANADIAN FISH .	IN GREAT BRITAIN.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government a question and in order to do so intelligently I would ask to be allowed to read a cable that appeared in the Gazette on Wednesday, June 11, and dated London, England. It reads as follows:
One and a half million tons of Canadian fish will be presented by the Canadian Overseas military authorities to the iSalvation Army. Under the arrangements during the war for the supply of fish to Canadian soldiers, a surplus has been collected in England. It is understood it has lately been costing the country about ?400 a day for storage here. Efforts have been made to dispose of the product, but they have been unavailing, and finally it was decided to offer the whole thing to the Salvation Army, who will oversee the distribution.
I would like to ask whether that statement is correct, and if so why such a large amount of fish has been allowed to accumulate in England, and how much the country stands to lose by the transaction.


Sir EDWARD KEMP (Minister of Overseas Military Forces):: I shall make inquiry by cable as to the accuracy of the report to which my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) refers, and as soon as I receive a reply, which will doubtless be within a very few days, I will inform him.



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means (resumed from Tuesday, June 10).
Hon. THOMAS ALEXANDER CRERAR
(late Minister of Agriculture):	Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact of my severing

my connection with the Government, I think it is only proper on this occasion that I should refer briefly to the circumstances wfhich led to my joining the ministry in October, 1917, as well as to those which led to my withdrawal from it. In the summer of 1917 it was quite cleaa- that a very serious and difficult situation faced the Canadian people. There had been in Western Canada, and particularly in the case of the organized body of public opinion in that part of the Dominion with which I had been identified, a strong desire that some sort of national or union government should be formed in order that Canada might more effectively, or as effectively as possible, contribute her share to the winning of the struggle that was being fought out on the fields of Europe. Consequently, when the Prime Minister invited me to join his Government, in a sense representing that body of organized public opinion to which I have referred, I considered it my duty to do so.
I took that step at that time entirely from a sense of duty, and I have to say that under similar circumstances I would take the same step again.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. CRERAR:: When I joined the
Government I made it perfectly clear that I had not surrendered or given up any of the principles that I believed in and as to which I had endeavoured, in my small way, to educate this country prior to that event. However, there was one outstanding issue at that time, and everything else was overshadowed by the importance of that issue. But now, Sir, the war in over, the armistice was signed over seven months ago, and we are shortly, we hope, to witness a peace among the nations of the earth that will be lasting in its character and will forever in the future prevent a repetition of the catastrophe that has overwhelmed the world in the last four and a half years. Such being the case, when it came to a consideration of what the fiscal policy of this country should be in the future, I found myself in sharp issue with the Government, and holding the views that I did, and representing in the Cabinet, in a measure, the opinion of the farmers of Canada- although I quite recognized that I was not a representative there of any special class, I want to make that clear-and knowing the opinion of the farmers of Western Canada on the fiscal question, and believing absolutely in it myself, there was I felt only one course for me to follow when
I found myself at issue with my colleagues and that was to tender my resignation to the Prime Minister, which I did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Having said so much, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to sketch briefly before the House the reasons that induced.me to take the step that I did. The war is over, and we are now facing the settlement of the accounts that have arisen by reason of that war. The one fact to my mind that stands out like a beacon light in the Budget proposals presented to the House the other day by the Finance Minister is, that the national debt of Canada at the end of the present fiscal year will be $1,950,000,000, and that Canada will require to raise annually a revenue of at least $300,000,000. Moreover, if we examine the circumstances of the case, we 6hall find, I think,-that even that sum will scarcely suffice to meet our requirements. The Finance Minister has estimated that this year we will require $102,000,000 for interest on our public debt, and he further estimates that at the end of the fiscal year the obligation in that respect will have grown to $115,000,000. For pensions, we have to provide $30,000,000, and I quite expect that before the aftermath of the war in respect of the allotment of pensions is cleaned up, that our pension bill will probably run to $35,000,000 a year. In addition we have, as the result of shall I say mistaken policies in the past, and I do not wish to attribute blame anywhere in that regard, to provide for several years to come probably $10,000,000 a year to meet the deficits on our national railways. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will be obliged to produce from the revenues of Canada at least $150,000,000 a year more than was required in pre-war days. Canada we must bear in mind is an expensive country to govern. The boundless distances of our country, our scattered population, and the necessity of carrying on needed and necessary public works in the various portions of the Dominion mean this: that for years to come our expenditures in a capital way upon river and harbour improvements, and the various other public necessities, will run into very considerable figures. So I think I am within the mark when I state that the public revenue of Canada will require to be at least $300,000,000 a year for a good many years to come, and even that makes no provision for a sinking fund to retire our debt as it matures. Now, how is this bur-

den to be met? That is the paramount question in my judgment before the Canadian people to-day. The amount of money that a country raises for its public needs is of importance, but the manner in which that money is raised is of vastly greater importance, and here is where I take issue with the present proposals of the Finance Minister.	.
No question has so agitated civilized nations-in fact, I think I am well within the mark when I say that no question has been so influential in bringing about reforms in governmental administration down through the ages than that as to the method by which the taxes of a country are levied. It is the paramount question for the people, because, if your tax burden is inequitably distributed, you have injustice and discontent, and, as has been proved by past history, you sometimes have had produced thereby the seeds of revolution itself.
Now, we propose, under the present Budget, to raise our taxes mainly by the imposition of customs and excise duties. Before I discuss that, however, let me say this: In my opinion the present Budget is a protectionist Budget. I think there is no disguising that fact. In 1915 special customs taxes were imposed for the purpose of raising revenue. There is no need now for my discussing the merits or demerits of that action; but by that Act $45,000,000 of additional taxes were levied on the Canadian people last year by way of customs taxation. The proposals that have been placed before the House contain certain provisions that mean a reduction of that taxation to the extent of $17,000,000 a year, and if the present values of imported goods hold we shall collect this year under that arrangement $28,000,000. Just here I offer my first criticism. By what virtue of justice or equity is the 7} per cent removed from certain articles and left on others? That, to my mind, can find no justification. There have been reductions beyond the 7} per cent, which has been taken off a limited number of articles. The 7} per cent that was imposed in 1915 has been removed from all agricultural implements, and we have further concessions in the matter of agricultural implements to the extent of 5 per cent on farm wagons, hay-loaders and certain other implements; a reduction from 27} per cent to 15 per cent on cultivators, seed-drills, etc., that is, including the elimination of the 7} per cent, and a reduction from 27} per cent to 17} per cent on ploughs, engines and tractors.
[Mr. Crerar.j
But there is another aspect of this matter that is open to criticism. The removal of the duty of 5 per cent, in addition to the removal of the 7} per cent on the items that I have specified, does not mean any lessened protection to the manufacturer in Canada who is making those goods, because an arrangement has been made with the Canadian railways for a reduction in freights from manufacturing points, chiefly in Ontario, to Western Canada, in order to offset what is lost by the withdrawal of the 5 per cent. On the other hand, the railways are to have the benefit of the abolition of the 7} per cent duty on bituminous coal coming into Canada. Here I have another criticism to offer. Why is the discrimination made in favour of the farmer in Western Canada, as against, say, the farmer in the Maritime Provinces? In my judgment, the proposal is unsound in that respect.	It is quite clear,
at any rate to me, why that provision has- been made. Western Canada- at any rate, the agricultural portion of it -has stated in unmistakable terms its opinion on the matter of customs duties on agricultural implements, and this concession in the Budget is merely a concession to attempt to satisfy opinion in Western Canada and to do it in such a way that the manufacturers do not suffer, and the users of implements throughout the rest of Canada are discriminated against. That, Mr. Speaker, is not a sound proposal; it is not a logical proposal; it is introducing into the shaping of our fiscal policy principles which are unsound, which are not in the best interests of Canada, and which are calculated to bring about dissension and difficulty. It is a poor policy to mix up freight rates with tariffs.
I should like to examine for a few moments the effect of the policy of protection upon the national development of the Dominion. If we are to overcome the tremendous burden of debt that is upon us- and I do not think there will be any disposition on the part of the Canadian people to shirk that duty-and if we are to obtain the enormous revenues that we shall annually require to carry on the business of the country, how best can we do it? After all, that is the practical question which faces the House and the country to-day.
Now, Canada is a country of great natural wealth. We have our agriculture, our minerals, our fisheries, and our splendid timber resources; and the problem before this House to-day is, how best can these resources be soundly and wisely developed? I have never been able to see any virtue

in the principle of protection. Theoretically, if the principle of protection is sound, why not build your tariff wall so high that no goods can come in? But if you build your tariff wall so high that no goods can come in, then no goods go out, because goods are bought with goods. If we export goods from Canada, whether agricultural products, manufactured goods, or whatever they may be, those exports must be paid for by imports. If the protectionist theory is sound, it should be carried to the extent,
I believe, suggested by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) when he was discussing this matter in the House on a previous occasion-the building of a tariff wall so high around Canada that all goods would be kept out. Well, that does not appeal to me as a very sensible proposition.
But if we are going to develop our resources, how best can we do it? Shall we do it most effectively and efficiently by imposing burdens of taxation upon the machinery and the equipment necessary to this development and to this production? Canada is one of the finest agricultural countries in the world; she has a wonderful future, agriculturally, if we are but wise in our policies. We are aiming to place returned soldiers on the land; we are providing in our financial proposals of this year $25,000,000 for that purpose. We are hoping to secure from Great Britain immigrants who will go upon the land. There is a consensus of opinion that our immigration in the future should be of a class of people who will go upon the land and develop our agricultural possibilities; we already have enough people in the cities.
But when we place a returned soldier upon	the land,	we have to start	himout with equipment. It is useless to put	him down	on a	homestead	andsay:	Now, here	you	are. He cannotgrow	grain nor	raise	cattle with	his
hands alone. He requires equipment, agricultural machinery, horses and harness to put on those horses. But when we ask him to do that work, we immediately say to him, on the other hand: You must, however, In the purchase of the equipment that goes into the production of the stuff you hope to produce from your farm, pay to the State, twenty per cent of the value of the equipment you get. What does that mean? If a returned soldier or an immigrant has $2,000 and wishes to go on to the land to develop it, he first buys his equipment. If he could buy it tax free, so far as customs duties are concerned, he could buy it for $1,600, and he would have $400 as a working
capital to start upon, to carry on his operations.


Mr. BURNHAM:: How could he be free from taxation? Would he not have to pay taxes somehow?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was speaking about customs taxes, and I think if my hon. friend reflects a moment, he will get my point.
The same thing is true in respect to the development of our mineral, lumbering and fishery resources. It is sound policy to provide as cheaply as possible the equipment required by the people who are going to dig the wealth out of the earth where, after all, it must come from. Therefore, any fiscal policy that imposes handicaps on that, that throws disabilities around it, retards, in my judgment, just to that extent, the development of the country. But what have been the results in agriculture in Ontario-and I would direct attention to that, because Ontario is probably the greatest manufacturing province in the Dominion? It is a fact that nobody can deny that agriculture has gone back in Ontario since the introduction of the National Policy in 1879. Prior to that time the rural population outnumbered in great degree the city population, but there has been a steady decline in the rural population of Ontario. It may be argued, and, I recognize, with some force, that that is not due to the tariff; that a number of Ontario farmers have moved to Western Canada, and that perhaps a number have moved to the United States.


Mr. EDWARDS:: My hon. friend argues that Ontario has gone back agriculturally because its rural population is less now than it was some years ago. Then it must be true that the West has gtme ahead because its rural population is greater now than it was some years ago. Does the hon. member accept that position?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will be patient for a moment, I think I can elaborate my argument so that his question would have been unnecessary. I repeat again that agriculture has been going backward in Ontario instead of forward, and the evidence of that lies in this, that the volume of agricultural products produced in old Ontario under normal conditions-I am not speaking of the higher values that appertain as a result of war conditions-are less to-day than they were thirty years ago. Furthermore-and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) knows it-he can travel
3332 '

through Ontario as I have travelled through it, and he will find not hundreds but thousands of abandoned farms in that province.


Mr. LALOR:: Will the hon. gentleman tell us where those abandoned farms are?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Let the canners keep q.uiet.


Mr. BUREAU:: Can your question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Within the last two years I saw myself in a twelve-mile drive in the county of Huron, one of the best counties of Ontario, six vacant farms, and I have no reason to doubt the statement I have made. With the decrease in the rural population of Ontario, there has been an increase in the city population. If hon. members will study the municipal statistics of Ontario, recently published, they. will find that the decrease in the township population of Ontario for the years 1916 and 1917 was
36,000,	and the increase in the city population of that province during the same period was practically the same. The reason of that is that the farmers of Ontario-I am speaking of the average case-have found it difficult and are to-day finding it difficult to make more than both ends meet. I have here a statement published by the department of farm management connected with the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, giving a survey of a large number of farms in Oxford county which, next to Huron county, is probably the banner county of Ontario from an agricultural point of view. It is a great dairying county. This is the conclusion reached by the department of farm management:
It is plain, therefore, from the above figures that to give the average dairyman of Oxford a fair return for his labour', 7 per cent interest on his investment, and 2 per cent additional on his capital for a reserve fund and a reasonable profit that he should have received at least an average of $2.49 per hundred pounds for his milk during the year ending February 28, 1918.
What is the average price he received? According to the same report, it is $2.20 per hundred pounds. 'J'hat is the reason why agriculture is backward in Ontario. How can it be set up? You must, in my judgment, cheapen the processes of production. If you place a handicap on production, if the equipment-I do not care what it is called-that enters into that production has the price of it enhanced, the result is inevitable that the margin of profit to the farmer shrinks, and as is the case in this instance, gets practically to the vanishing point.

As regards the western farmers, in those localities and districts where farmers secured their land years ago at reasonable prices and where they have been favoured with good crops, they have done very well, but I am certain that if you take the average of the farmers of Western Canada, if you take into consideration the vicissitudes they have suffered from in crop failures of one kind or another, the average return is not very great. We have spoken about an immigration policy, and we need immigration into this country. We must increase our population, but the best immigration agent in Canada is the contented citizen. If you have a country in which the average ordinary man can make a living and provide against want in his old age, you have a good country to live in, and that fact will be made known throughout the world, and will attract people to your shores.
I come to another aspect of the question, namely: Do our implement manufacturers really require the protection which they enjoy? On looking up the statistics I find that in 1914 exports of agricultural implements from Canada amounted to $7,900,000; in 1915, $3,650,000; in 1916, $3,850,000, and in 1917, $4,040,000. You will note that there has been a decline in the last three years, but that I attribute to the fact that the energies of our manufacturing plants were directed into other channels. In other words, there was scarcely a foundry or factory in Canada that was not pressed into the urgent and imperative need of manufacturing war supplies. But the year 1914 is a fair year to take, and I ask this question: If our agricultural implement manufacturers can export $7,900,000 of goods in one year into the markets of the world, where they have to compete with every one else who is making agricultural implements, why cannot they compete at home? That is the question. Why should it be necessary to impose taxes to the extent of 15, 20, 26 or 30 per cent on agricultural implements necessary to the development of this country when our implement manufacturers in this country have been able so to establish their business-and I am proud of it, great credit is due them-that they can compete in the markets of the world to the extent of almost $8,000,000 a year.
There is another item. Over twenty years ago one lone agricultural implement was placed on the free list in Canada. That was cream separators. What has been the result, to the cream separator industry in this country? Did it languish and die because protection was withdrawn from it? It did

not. On the contrary, I am glad to say that it has gone ahead, and to-day we have eleven plants in Canada manufacturing cream separators, and three plants manufacturing cream separators exclusively, and not only are our manufacturers selling their cream separators in Canada in competition with separators manufactured in other parts of the world, but they are selling cream separators in the United States in competition with cream separators manufactured in that country. What enters into the manufacture of a cream separator? Precisely the same elements as enter into the manufacture of any other agricultural implement. In fact, if anything it is more difficult to manufacture a cream separator because, being a more finely adjusted machine, its manufacture requires much more skill and ingenuity than for instance a wagon or a seed drill.
There is another industry in Canada that has been carrying on without the protection of the tariff, and that is the bijider twine industry. I find, according to the Canada Year Book, that in the year 1916 Canadian made binder twine was exported from Canada to the extent of 17,000,000 pounds, to compete with twine manufactured elsewhere in the world. Let me say again, I am proud of the fact, because it shows what our Canadian manufacturers standing on their own resources can do. I am satisfied that our manufacturers with the application of the same methods could obtain the same results in any line of agricultural implements.
There is one other way in which the tariff bears very heavily upon the people at the present time, and that is in the cost of living. It was perhaps inevitable that serious unrest would develop as a result of the cataclysm through which the world has been passing during the last four or five years. There is no patriotic Canadian who loves his country who does not regret the fact that there is such unrest in Canada to-day practically from one end of the country to the other, for I doubt if there is a city of any magnitude in this country where there is not at the present time labour disturbance of some kind or another. Whenever the question is raised, the invariable answer is that the problem to be solved' is the high cost of living- that there, the remedy lies. I submit that one of the most effective means of striking at the high cost of living in Canada to-day is through the customs tariff. What does the ordinary man in Canada require- and, after alii, we must bear in mind that
the great majority of Canadians are humble citizens doing their work in humble walks of life-they require food, clothing, shelter. These are absolute necessities to any person living in Canada. When the workingman in Canada buys much of the food that is necessary for his sustenance, its cost is made greater by the fact that it. is taxed anywhere from 20 to 25 per cent when it enters Canada, and the same is true of his clothing and boots and shoes. Why cannot we do in Canada what they have done in the United States, make boots and shoes free to the people? I have not had an opportunity of reading yesterday's Hansard, but I notice in the press this morning that the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott) stated in the House yesterday that there was very little difference between prices of shoes in the United States and Canada. If that is true, there is absolutely no need of a protective tariff to the extent of 30 per cent to keep American shoes out of Canada, but I am afraid that if the hon. member will search his sources of information a little more closely he will find that the facts do not substantiate entirely what he has stated.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: We knew better.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was recently talking to a man who was pricing shoes and clothing in the United States in comparison with Canadian prices, and in every case he found that prices were higher in Canada, practically to the extent of the duty imposed. That is inevitable. Why is the duty im' posed if it is not to keep other goods out, because they are cheaper? Consequently, if we are going to strike at the high cost of living we can do it effectively in this way, and I know of no other way at present in which it can be done.
We have a commission travelling over Canada-and it was a laudable effort on the part of the Government-endeavouring to ascertain, and if possible harmonize, the conflicting views of employers and employees in Canadian industry. We have today a committee of this House investigating the high cost of living. It is one of the paramount questions before the Canadian people to-day, and it does seem to me that one effective way to solve the problem is the one I have suggested.
For the year 1913, the family budget for five persons amounted to $1,051.74. That budget to-day amounts to $1,668.91, or an increase of almost 60 per cent. I have also another illustration which I desire to place before the House. The information

I am about to give was furnished by a clothing dealer in the city of Winnipeg, and I have every assurance that it is entirely reliable. In 1914 the invoice price of a suit of clothes from the Old Country was, say, $10. The duty added would be $3, and after calculating the profits that would go to the various people handling the clothes, the value of the suit at the time it was purchased by the wearer amounted to $22.36. Now, at that time, without a duty of 30 per cent which was levied, the suit would cost $17.51. But what is the situation in 1919? The suit of clothes has gone up in value to the manufacturer to $25, and the duty added is $8.75-that is, up to the recent change in the new financial proposals-with a result that when you add the various profits the suit of clothes costs the wearer $58.21. If it had come duty free the person purchasing it would get it now for $43.12. These are facts, and I think that it is beyond any question of doubt that so far as clothing is concerned the customs tariff does add to the price and thereby increase the cost of living.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Would the hon.
gentleman tell us how many bushels of wheat it would take to buy that suit of clothes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With wheat at 80
cents a bushel in 1914 the farmer could purchase this suit of clothes with 28 bushels. In 1919, with the increased cost he requires to get $2 a bushel for 29 bushels of wheat to buy the same suit. Furthermore, a wage earner could get
4 p.m. a similar suit of clothes for nine days' work at $2.50 per day in 1914; now, he has to work nine days at $6.50 a day to buy it.
In this connection I should like to quote a newspaper item which I am confident is quite correct from the manner in which it is given. It deals with profits made by the Dominion Textile Company last year and during the past few years. Let me read it:
Manufacturing profits for the year recently ended were $3,434,752, against $1,803,371 in 1.917-18, an increase of $1,561,381, or in excess of 83 per cent, and substantially more than double those of the previous year. After all deductions, including $1,100,000 for war and income taxes, a newly-established .pension fund, and replacement reserve, there remained for common stock distribution the sum of $1,559,8818 or equal to 31.2 per cent, against 21.9 per cent in 1917-1'8, and 15.6 per cent the year before.
Now, Sir, in all reason and conscience is it necessary to have a protective duty of 30 per cent on textiles coming into this 
country in order that concerns like the Dominion Textile Company may make such profits as I have just mentioned? Let me ask again, do our manufacturers really require the protection they enjoy? I am satisfied that they do not in the case I have just cited, but we have further evidence. Take Canada cement, which enjoyed, previous to the changes made in the Budget, a duty of 10 cents per 100 pounds, which was in the Budget proposals reduced to 8 cents per 100 pounds. I read a statement in the daily press from the general manager of that concern to the effect that his company is making arrangements to place its cement in practically every country of the world that imports this article, and I have not the slightest doubt he will do it. If that can be done, if our Canadian cement can compete with that of the United States, in South America and Europe and other cement purchasing countries, why can it not compete at home?
I have also seen a statement of Mr. Lloyd Harris, our Trade Commissioner in London, on his return to Canada. Mr. Harris is one of the shrewdest and ablest business men in Canada, and a man who, in my judgment, is doing excellent service in London foT Canada at the present time. What does he say? He says that the cost of production for an unexampled number of articles is now lower in Canada than in any place in Europe,, and that even cotton yarn is cheaper in Canada than it is in Lancashire. The Canadian manufacturers are being urged to take advantage , of every opportunity to get into foreign markets and I hope they will do so. If they do, and if they can compete successfully, may I ask why we should require to penalize the Canadian consumer?
I was- interested recently in reading in Industrial Canada, the official organ of the Manufacturers' Association, the reports of several companies which had closed their business year. The first one to which I shall refer is the Monarch Knitting Company. The artide is headed: "A seventy-five per cent increase in profits made by this Ontario Company."
The report says:
Net profits, after providing for depreciation and war taxes, were $351,654 as compared with $202,413 in 1917, and $145,534 . in 1916. The company's financial position proves to he so strong that a few weeks ago a dividend of 4 per cent on the common stock was declared.
Then it continues:
The directors look forward with confidence to the business of the coming year, but they do not yet feel justified in placing the common stock

on a regular dividend basis	The
company is selling in the United States markets, having established a factory at Buffalo which,' during the past year, made profits of $43,416' after provision for income, excess and 'war profits taxes.
That, sir, appeals to me as being rather an extraordinary way in which to build up Canadian industry. I would have preferred, rather, to have seen this eo.mpany manufacturing these goods in Canada and exporting them to the United States instead of establishing factories in that country to sell goods over there. However, I have no doubt that there are very good reasons for doing that, and in this respect the Monarch Knitting Company is following the line of least resistance and establishing its business under natural conditions.
The Canadian! Fairbanks-Morse is another company that shows handsome earnings for the year. I have no objection to this, but if the Canadian Fair>banksJMorse can earn splendid profits and pay dividends on common stock-and I would remark, in passing, that common stock in almost all these concerns has nothing tangible behind it, it was practically all bonus stock from the first- why is it necessary to levy import taxes on gasoline engines and scales coming into Canada in order that the Canadian Fair-banks-Morse people may earn the profits they make? Every time a tax of this kind is levied you handicap production and increase the cost of living to those who are endeavouring to make a livelihood in this country.
I shall refer to one other, and I am through-that is, Canadian General Electric, which has also made substantial gains for the year 1918.
I merely cite these cases, not for the purpose of singling out any particular company.
* These reports all happened to be in one issue of Industrial Canada that I picked up. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if these companies are so prosperous, there is no reason why we should not consider a reduction of the tariff on the goods that they manufacture at the present time. There will never be a time in the history of Canada so opportune to do this as now. Industrial concerns in Canada have done well as a result of the war and they are in an excellent position to stand the transitions that are bound to follow any tariff readjustment.
But, there is another bit of evidence, Mr. Speaker, that I desire to submit to the House as proof positive that the heavy duties on these articles might be reduced. Rubber goods of the moulded type are required in almost every district in Canada. I have before me the prospectus issued by the K. & S. Canadian Tire and Rubber Company, Limited, of Toronto. I find on looking over the document that this company has complied with the statutory requirements regarding companies in the province of Ontario. It sets out a very fine statement of its position in its appeal to the limited number of persons to whom the request was sent to invest in its bonds or stock. The whole case is practically summarized in one paragraph which I shall read to the House, and which states:	'
At Weston, Ontario, we have the only plant in Canada for making- moulded Rubber Goods exclusively. Our capaoity amounts to 3,000 pieces per day. This class of goods in the past has been imported principally from the States, it would not be policy to state our margin of profit, but believe that we are able to manufacture at United States costs. There is a protective tariff of at least 35% (and up to 42) in our favour. We are thus able to sell at a lower price than any foreign competitor and still' have a good profit.
The quality of our Rubber Sundries is admitted to be the equal of the best imported goods.
Here we have the frank admission of this concern that it can manufacture in Canada as cheaply as in the United States, and yet we find the goods that it is selling to the Canadian people protected to the extent of 35 per cent.
Naturally, the question comes up, if we diminish the revenue from customs, by the reduction of duties received from the importation of goods free or at reduced rates into Canada, how is the revenue to be made up? I offer this suggestion. The platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture offers three or four suggestions for the raising of revenue. The important ones are by way of income tax, federal inheritance tax, and by way of a tax on the unimproved value of land. Our income taxes in the proposals before us are on a basis about on an equality with that prevailing in the United States. The tax, however, is much lower than that in Great Britain. Let me give you a few comparisons between the taxes collected on the income of a married man
in Canada and in Great Britain.			The Statement is as	follows:		
		Great	Great
		Britain	Britain
Income.	Canada.	Earned.	Unearned.$ 5,000	$ 120	$ 750.00	$ 937.5010,000	590	2,250.00	2,625.0020,000	1,990	6,812.50	30,000	3,890	11,187.50	50,000	9,190	20,937.50	100,000	31,190	47,187.50	
I would suggest that the rate of the income tax should be raised If I had an income of $20,000 I would be very glad indeed under the existing financial condition Of the country to pay $5,000 or $6,000 to the State. When we consider the amount of revenue that we have to raise, we have to take into account the fact that this troney must be secured from the source from which it can best be provided and that again is a sound axiom of taxation. I find that in New Zealand in 1917 according to the information supplied me, and Which was taken from the New Zealand year- book of that year, that this little country with approximately 1,000,000 of a population raised $20,000,000 by income tax in 1917. If we made a similar levy in Canada the amount we would raise would be approximately $150,000,000. In Australia their rate is much lower than it is in New Zealand, but, according to the figures I have been furnished with, it is much higher than it is in Canada.
The next proposal would be a graduated inheritance tax, or death duties in Canada. I quite realize that the provinces are collecting this tax and that fact, I am sure, with the very best of reasons, has weighed with the Finance Minister in any consideration he may have given to this proposal. But we find that the provinces are also levying income taxes, that in some cases municipalities are levying income taxes and that consequently the individual who finds himself with an income is faced with the necessity of paying three income taxes one to the municipal, one to the Provincial and one to the Federal Treasury. In this case there is no reason why, because the provinces impose an inheritance tax, the Dominion should be debarred from doing the same thing. After all, we have over $300,000,000 of revenue a year to get and we have to get it from the source from which it can best and most fairly and equitably be got.
There is one other suggestion and perhaps I may be regarded as stating the most radical thing that I have proposed in my discussion of this subject. That is the suggestion that a direct tax should be imposed on the unimproved value of land including all natural resources. I want to make clear the distinction in this regard. It does not mean a land tax in the ordinary sense of the word. It means a tax on the value of land. This principle has been applied in the Western Provinces. The principle was introduced into the Lloyd George Budget of 1909 and it is in effect in both New Zealand and Australia. The

fundamental idea underlying the proposal is that values that are created by the community should be taken by the community.
Let me illustrate: a man in the United States owns a section of land in Western Canada. He bought it, say many years ago, for $5 an acre-I am stating what is a typical case. It was located near a railroad. People came in and took up adjoining land, community activities developed, roads were constructed, a church was built, schools provided, telephones installed, and the result of all these activities not only made that community a desirable one to live in but added to the value of the l^nds in the vicinity every year. Now the proposal underlying this is, that land shall be taxed-not that land alone, but all land -on its unimproved value. [DOT] It is estimated that a one per cent tax levied on this basis I have suggested would contribute $75,000,000 to $80,000,000 for national revenue.
But I must hurry along, I fear that I am taking up much more time than I had intended.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Jacques Bureau: Take your
time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is one other aspect of this question .to which I wish to refer briefly, and that is the combinations and the mergers that have been formed in Canada within the last twenty years.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have followed a bad practice in that regard. In nearly all cases, Mr. Speaker, these industrial concerns, in the main, have been floated with heavy issues of common stock against which there is no actual investment in the business. The aim of such a concern naturally is to earn returns on common stock, and in that it is assisted by the tariff which keeps foreign goods out of the country. I am informed that an article recently appeared in the Montreal Gazette suggesting that some check should be placed upon flotations of this character, and I certainly think that the time has come when that important consideration might engage the attention of the Government and of the House.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in levying our taxes they should be made to bear as lightly as possible on the necessaries of life. Boots, shoes, and the clothing of the people, should be made as free as possible. I have no objection to taxing luxuries, none what-

333V
ever; but in my judgment the Budget fails in this respect, that it does not provide for reducing the coists of the necessary machinery to develop our natural resources in Canada. It does not do away with, and only very inadequately reduces, the duties on agricultural implements and other farm machinery, and does not make any real effort at solving the high cost of living by reducing the taxes on the necessaries of life that enter into the homes of all our people.
In taking the step which I have taken, I acted only after earnest consideration and from an absolute conviction as to what was best in the interests of the country, and that being the case I entertain no regrets. Our fiscal policy, and in many respects other policies, of Canada as well must be modified in the light of the events -we have passed through and the circumstances we have to face in the future. We have sent overseas approximately 400,000 men, of whom 60,000 fill graves in France and Flanders. The valour of our men in the field, and the sacrifices of our people at home,, have added an imperishable lustre to the name of Canada. I have never been so proud in my life of being a Canadian as I'am to-day. In the light of . the experiences we have passed through-certainly to all of us who appreciate the facts and the . circumstances that have transpired, and I am sure we all do appreciate them-our country has taken on a new character and a new ideal. Our business now is to repair the ravages and the devastation that have been wrought, make good the injuries, so far as there has been injury, care for the future needs of our returned disabled men, and provide for the interest on our national debt. These are the questions that now devolve upon us as the representatives of the people to take up and carry through, and my hope is that out of these events a greater and better Canada will emerge. I hope that just as our men in France and Belgium gave Canada a foremost place in the great struggle that was carried on there, our people at home will realize the obligation that rests upon them, and that we will build up in Canada a united citizenship, loving liberty-liberty ih trade, liberty in conscience, liberty in religion, everything that makes for liberty, until we attain the enviable and proud position of making this Dominion the best country in the world in which to live.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I would ask the hon. gentleman if the placing of cream separators and binder twine on the free list reduced the price the farmers had to pay for those articles?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think there can be any doubt about that.


John Albert Sexsmith: To what extent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the question is elementary in its simplicity as far as the answer to it is concerned.
Hon. JAMES ALEXANDER CALDER
(Minister of Immigration and Colonization) : Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I desire to congratulate the Finance Minister upon the splendid address which he delivered to the House in presenting his Budget proposals. I have listened to some Budget speeches in this House and in the old Commons chamber, and I have read a good many, and I cannot recall a single one in which the financial position of the country was set forth so simply, so plainly, and so clearly, as it was last Thursday afternoon. I consider that the Budget which was then presented was an honest Budget- honest in that there was no attempt at concealment. I am sure that all the members of this House have been anxious to learn the truth, and the whole truth, as regards the financial position of Canada at the present time. I think every hon. gentleman will agree with me that we have got that desideratum and more than that, we are indebted to the Finance Minister, regardless of whether we agree with his proposals or not, for the very great care and the skill with which he marshalled his facts and presented them to the House.
In addressing the House at this time it is not my intention to speak at length; the occasion does not demand it. I wish to state simply that I intend to support the Budget proposals which have been submitted to the House, and I shall explain as clearly and as definitely as I can why I intend to do so. To attain that end, I do not think that a very elaborate arguement is necessary.
We have listened to an able and very interesting address from my former colleague, the member for Marquette (Hon. T. A. Crerar) with regard to the Budget proposals. He has set forth his views clearly, sincerely, *and honestly. I am sure that no member of the House will quarrel with him in the view that he takes; least of all should I quarrel with him. Every member of this House is the keeper of his own conscience. We must all make up our minds as to what is right or vrhat is wrong on an occasion of this kind; each must determine his own



course and be 'held responsible for the course which he takes. The member for Marquette, after deliberate consideration and for the reasons which he has stated, has come to the conclusion that he cannot support the Budget.
Having regard to the conditions existing in Canada, to the problems that are before us, and to all the circumstances, I have, after very full consideration, come to the conclusion that no other course is open to me at the present time than to support the Budget proposals of the Finance Minister. More than that, I am convinced that I can do so without sacrificing any principles that I hold, without sacrificing my views on the tariff. Some hon. gentlemen opposite smile. I say that I can do it without sacrificing my principles or my views on the tariff and without prejudicing the interests of the province from which I come or of the constituents whom I represent.
In September or October, 1917, with the member for Marquette and others, I attended a series of conferences called for the purpose of deciding whether we should have in this country, at least for the time being, a National or Union Government. It is not necessary for me to review the circumstances; all members of the House are well acquainted with them. But at that time decisions had to foe reached that were bound to have far-reaching consequences, personal, political, and otherwise. No one who attended those conferences approached the problem confronting us with greater earnestness and greater seriousness than the member for Marquette, whose decision, I think I can safely say, was very largely instrumental in bringing about the result finally reached. The Government was formed in due course, and for the last eighteen months we have been carrying on as best we could. I intimated to the House early in the session that we had made mistakes.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Mr. CALDER:: Quite right. A Government that would not make mistakes in times like these is not worthy of the name-


Mr. LEMIEUX:: You mean, "blunders."


James Alexander Calder: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Calder: Well, probably some
of my hon. friends on the other side do not know it, but nevertheless the statement I make is true. When the Government was constituted, it was composed of Liberals and Conservatives, and the members compromising the Government held strongly divergent views on the tariff question. There was no misunderstanding as to that when the Government was formed, and there is no misunderstanding now. We recognized at that time that those differences existed, and" we decided to lay aside our difference for the time being. We all realized that when the war was over, when peace was concluded and our soldiers were home, other questions would arise, and difficulties would stare us in the face, and we accepted the position realizing just what it was.
What is true of members of the Government is equally true of members of the House on both sides. The members of this House were not elected because of their tariff leanings. I do not wish to be personal, but let me take one or two illustrations. Let me take the hon. member who represents the constituency of Macdonald (Mr. Henders), who is and has been for a number of years, president of the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, a man highly respected by every person in that province and outside of it as well. Would any person say that when he was elected by the large majority he got it was because of the tariff issue? The hon. member for Macdonald was supported by all sections of the people in his constituency regardless of any opinions he held on the tariff, because, I say again, the tariff was not an issue when he was elected as a member of this House. Coming to my own province, let me take the hon. gentleman who comes from my home city, Regina (Mr. Cowan), a constituency that is normally Liberal. For the last fifteen or twenty years no Conservative has been elected in that constituency either to the provincial legislature or to this House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) secured the nomination, won the election, and in Regina alone he had a majority of over 4,000 votes. Will any person say that the people of that constituency were at that time thinking of the tariff or of a general revision of the tariff? They were not. At that time the people were thinking of and voting on the issue that was before the country.


Jacques Bureau: They had the War-time Elections Act.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, we had the Wartime Elections Act, but let me tell my hon. friend that a dozen War-time Elections Acts in Regina would never have given my hon. friend from that city 4,000 of a majority in a part of a constituency that had been Liberal for the last twenty years. Let me take my own case. Part of the constituency which I represent consists of Moosejaw, a city of some 25,000 people a city that has been Conservative in its leanings for the last fifteen or twenty years. Ever since the province was established, we have had a Conservative member from Moosejaw and when that city gave me a majority of 2,000 votes, it did not do so on the tariff question. The point I desire to make is this: that under the circumstances conneoted with the creation of the Government and under the conditions

under which the last elections were held, it is not strange if in this House we have differences of opinion and do not all see eye to eye on the tariff question.
The same is true to some extent of the Opposition. We have all been witnesses of the fact that in their ranks they are not a unit; they are not all free traders. If I am not mistaken, there are amongst them at least some moderate protectionists, and I think if I could peer into the minds of, shall I say, a good many, I would find among them some high protectionists.


Jacques Bureau: Mighty few.


James Alexander Calder: One need not be
surprised at that because hon. gentlemen opposite when they were elected, were not elected on the tariff question; they were elected, to oppose Union Government; they were elected to oppose the enforcement of the Military Service Act. Their constituents were not thinking of tariff questions when they elected hon. gentlemen opposite to this House. Therefore, it is not surprising if hon. gentlemen opposite are not a unit on this tariff question.
As a consequence of the general situation which I have described as regards both the supporters of the Government and the Opposition, we are all more or less apparently in an embarrassing position. But, to my mind it is more apparent than real, because, after all, the question which this House must decide at this juncture in the history of Canada in connection with the tariff question which has arisen, is whether or not the Government as now constituted in this country should be allowed to carry on.
The question which every member of this House must consider is whether or not the time has arrived when the existing Administration should make way for some other Administration^ That is the real question before the House at this moment. The tariff proposals that have been brought down are merely of a tentative or temporary character, and any hon. member who supports those proposals does not necessarily approve the principle or the details of any permanent tariff policy for this country. As a member of the Government I take the ground that in supporting these proposals I am not committing myself to principles at all.
In his Budget speech the Minister of Finance made this statement, and I would ask every hon. member to follow it closely to see just what it means:
It is my hope that within a year, conditions will have become so stabilized as to permit of

a general revision of the tariff, which is long, but, owing to the war, unavoidably overdue. Preceding such revision there should be a thorough inquiry conducted by the Minister of Finance and two or more of his colleagues representing the different geographical sections of Canada. Such inquiry should afford all interests, agricultural, industrial, fishing, lumbering, mining, commercial, and financial, producers and consumers alike, an opportunity of expressing their views and opinions and urging their particular needs and requirements. The result of such inquiry should he a body of information which will enable the Government to effect a general revision of the tariff fair to all parts of the community, and effectually promoting the national welfare of Canada. This inquiry should proceed with its work just as soon as conditions are sufficiently stabilized to permit. My own view is that it might well be commenced about autumn of this year.
Personally I am in accord with the views expressed in that statement.
The time has arrived, I believe, when t thorough study should be made of Canada's economic situation in order that we may have a general revision of the tariff. The existing tariff, in my judgment, has outlived its usefulness. It was made for a period some ten or twelve years ago, and it is chock-full of all sorts of anomalies which should be straightened out. A thorough investigation and inquiry, as forecasted by the Minister of Finance, should be made with a view to having a general revision of the tariff. When that time arrives it seems to me that it will be the duty of the Prime Minister to consult his colleagues as to the principles that should underlie the revision of the tariff. It is quite conceivable that his colleagues will not all agree and that there may be changes in the personnel of the Cabinet. But that time is not yet. These proposals now before us are merely of a temporary character. The time must come when, if we are to have a general revision of the tariff, there .must !be a clear and definite understanding as to the principles which should underlie that revision. Then it will be the duty and the right of every minister of the Crown who happens to be in the Government at that time to decide upon his course of actiou. When the revision of the tariff is before the House for approval, when we are dealing with the matter in a broad and general way, it will be the duty and the privilege of every member of this House to take such course of action as he deems necessary.
If I desired to do the popular thing at the present time, I would follow the example of my former colleague (Mr. Crerar). I say that if I desired to do the popular thing, if I wished to make a hero of my-

self, the road is quite clear; it would be a very easy road to take. If I wished to have my name acclaimed in every part of Western Canada, and in every corner of my own province, it would not take very long to attain that. But I have not taken that course, and I do not intend to. I do not intend to do so, because I do not believe it is right to do so.
As I have stated before in this House, many of my friends have implored me to leave the Government long ere this, and they have prophesied what is going to happen to me. T have had threats, very many of them, but I have turned a deaf ear to them all, and I have done so because I believe that during the past year and a half I have steered the only course that I could properly and conscientiously steer. When I joined the Government in 1917 I did so for a very definite and specific reason. I did so because I believed the proposals that were put forward at that time set out the only policy that would enable Canada to see this war through, so far as our part in it was concerned. Now I believe it to be my duty to stay with the task I have assumed until demobilization has been completed and our soldiers are returned. I do not purpose to allow any temporary changes in the tariff to divert me from my duty in that respect as I see it.
Let me ask hon. members of this House: what would be the consequences if we all followed the course taken by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Suppose the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) resigned, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), and the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maclean), and myself and others should resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Calder: Do not be too sure, my friends. The task of carrying on Government in this country and the responsibilities that are thrown upon public men are not so alluring as some hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think. I say that if these resignations did take place there would immediately be a political crisis in this country, and one thing, and one thing only could happen-either the Prime Minister would have to appeal to the country or he would have to advise the Governor General to call upon my hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) to form a government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Calder: Well, I will ask in all
seriousness: is that the will of Parliament, and is it the wish of the people of this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Alexander Calder: Is that the wish of the
members of this House who are inclined to .criticise and vote against the Budget proposals? I think I am putting the situation squarely and fairly before the House. As I stated earlier, the real question at issue that underlies the situation that we have at present is as to whether or not this Parliament is desirous that this Government should continue in office and carry on?
As I see the situation in Canada and as I see it right in this House, I am impelled to say that the people of Canada to-day are demanding sacrifices just as much as they did in the days of the war. They are demanding sacrifice on the part of public men in this country-sacrifice, not of principle but of self-and I am afraid that there are some people who are thinking rather of self at this time than of the public interest. There are some who are thinking of nominations that may be in sight a year or two from now, or are imbued with fears of votes that they may possibly lose a year or two hence unless a certain course of action is taken by them. I repeat again-for it is worthy of repetition-that in view of the conditions existing in this country at the present time, what Canada needs is men with a high sense of public responsibility.
Canada's paramount need is men who will forget themselves for the time being and do what they think is right in the interests of the country as a whole.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would have been perfectly satisfied if the tariff had not been touched at all this session. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has, very truthfully said, that this is a war year. True, we may not be fighting, but all conditions existing in this country and in the world over are such that we can rightly consider the present to be a war year. Our financing is just as difficult, and the problems which this Government and the governments of all countries have on their hands at this time are just as difficult, and in some respects more difficult, than during the last year or two of actual war.
I intend to support the Budget because I believe that its proposals are in the right direction. When it was decided to
5 p.m. make changes, I was naturally anxious that these changes should

be, as far as possible, in the interests of both consumers and producers, and that has been accomplished. It is not necessary for me to go into details. The Budget proposals have been placed before the House, and I dare say before the debate is concluded these details will be considered and discussed from every angle. I shall not, therefore, take up the time of the House in dealing with them.
There is, however, one phase of the situation in Canada to which I wish to refer very briefly, and I referred to it in the early part of the session in the debate on the Address

that is, the very serious cleavage that exists at present between Eastern Canada and Western Canada. As I said before, the people of Canada cannot afford to close their eyes to this situation, because it is a serious one, and it is apt to become more serious the longer it continues to exist. There is no doubt at all as to what the great body of public opinion in the West is-an opinion that is shared in by Conservatives and Liberals alike. The people of the West believe, sincerely, I have no doubt-and they are practically unanimous in the opinion-that they are bearing an unjust burden of tariff taxation from which they must obtain relief, and no amount of talk in this Chamber is going to ease the situation in this respect.
I have lived in the West for about thirty-seven years. I have grown up in and I have lived in all three provinces at different times, and I think I know the people as well as any member in this House knows them. I have been in public life something like fifteen years, and just as sure as we are in this Chamber to-day this problem to which I have made reference is going to continue to agitate the people of Canada until some solution is found. What is the possible solution? We have extremes on this question on both sides. People living in Eastern Canada doubtless think that the people of the West are unduly extreme on the subject, and that may be so. On the other hand, is there not a possibility that the people in Eastern Canada, Liberals and Conservatives alike, are extreme in their view? I say Liberals and Conservatives alike, because if there is one thing I have learned since coming to Ottawa, where I have now been a year and-a-half, it is that the high protection view prevails not only in the old Tory party of the East, but that It has its roots right in the Liberalism of the East as well. There is no doubt about that. I have discovered it, and discovered it in no uncertain way.
IMr. Calder.]
Now, I believe that in the interests of the whole of Canada, in the interests of unity, and national development, it is absolutely necessary that whatever Government may happen to be in power in the course of the next year, or itwo or three years, should take hold of this question and endeavour to solve it in some way or other. Again I ask, what is the solution? It seems to me there can be only one. When an impasse of this kind is reached there surely should be some middle course that might be taken. Where you have two great bodies of public opinion, each trying to force its will upon the rest of the public, the situation is very dangerous and in the interests of the State it should be remedied if at all possible. I repeat that this question will continue and must be solved, and whatever Government is in office in Ottawa must take cognizance of it and endeavour to devise some means of solving the difficulty. The agitation has grown in the West until it has permeated every part of the body politic out there; and while I do not wish to be considered an alarmist, I must say that there is a possibility that if this condition continues to develop, the very foundations of Confederation itself may be shaken if a solution is not reached. I have really spoken longer than I intended to, (Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I would say-


Sir SAM HUGHES:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he ever hear any defence of a protectionist policy in the West? Has it not been as much as a man's life was worth to admit in the western provinces that he was a protectionist?
Mr. GAfLDER:	Yes, we have fought
a good many fights out there, and they were all on that issue, and one party was on the one side and the other party on the other side. So that the question has been very fully discussed. But it seems to me that there is just a possibility that the amount of educational work carried on there has not been such as might be commendable to those who favour strong protection ideas.
In conclusion-because I must not keep the House any longer for, as I said at the outset, there is no necessity for long debate at this time-!l would say that I merely desired to explain to the House the reasons why I purpose to support.the proposals which were submitted by the Finance Minister, and I trust that I have succeeded in making my position perfectly clear. I understand exactly where I stand and I know well why I stand there, and I am sure that as regards my own people

at home, there will be no misunderstanding on their part.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, as Canada is passing through a severe crisis, we find discontent, unrest, strikes, high cost of living and dissatisfaction through 'the land. I take it that it is incumbent upon every man in this House at the present time, not to play what has been styled by gentlemen who have spoken before me, the game of politics, but to give all matters as they face this Parliament that earnest consideration which, as members of this House responsible to the people of the country, they owe to them and which the people expect from us.
It is customary, I know, to make some allusion to the speaker who has preceded me. It was not my intention to refer to any particular member, because the question is too grave a one, too big a one, to stop at persons. I would have liked to have added a word of praise to the hon. the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) who spoke a few moments ago, with regard to the enlightened address which he gave to this House. I am sure that both sides of the House, whether all share his opinions, or do not, were very much impressed by the earnest and careful manner in which he delivered his speech and by the earnest and careful study which he had given to the subject. There was a great deal of meat in that speech and I could for one have remained seated and said: "He has expressed practically my views."
But the hon. gentleman who immediately preceded me, 'the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), gave some remarkable thoughts to this House. May I thank the hon. member for his statement that he is to remain in the Cabinet? I think that Canada was greatly concerned just as to the position the hon. minister would take. There was a rumour abroad for some considerable time that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization might resign his seat in the Cabinet. There was unrest in the land. Some attributed the difficulties in the West to the fact that the Minister of Immigration had not yet spoken. But to-day he assured us that he would not do like the ex-Minister of Agriculture-follow his convictions. Whilst not surprising many members of this House, we as Canadians must feel that, according to his own reasoning and his own intelligence, he is doing well to go against his convictions in order, as he stated, that a greater calamity might not befall the Canadian people.
Sir, he said that he was not going to commit himself to the principle of the tariff, that the time was not now when he should be called upon to do so. The onlooker might reasonably ask: " What is the House discussing; is it discussing the tariff or is it not; is the minister in favour of the tariff or is he not?" He said that if he followed the position taken by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, went out and proclaimed that he has lower tariff convictions, he would be following the proper trend of opinion and he could really make a hero of himself. We thank him upon this side of the House for not having made a hero of himself and foi having had the courage to go against the popular trend of opinion. But in that statement there was also a note of warning to the Government. He went further than that. He informed us that the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) was very seriously considering whether he would not give up or whether he would remain in. Mr. Speaker, again I say I do not want to stop at personalities but rather to consider principles. Let me assure the ^President of the Council and other hon. gentlemen of the Cabinet and hon. gentlemen who joined the Union Government, and who left it-I presume upon principle-'that this country is not particularly concerned whether they remain in the Cabinet or go out of it. What the country is concerned about is courageous action at a moment when it is passing through a severe crisis. Their little domestic difficulties, their quarrels may be great unto themselves, but as far as the people are concerned, they one and all ask " what ha.s that to do with Canada; what has that to do with unrest in Canada; what has that to do with the increasing cost of living in Canada?"
I listened with particular interest to what the ex-Minister of Agriculture had to say as to the increasing cost of living. We all have our theories. For the last few days-I do not want to make any reference to the evidence because it has not come down to this House-we have been sitting in a committee and we have had different views expressed by different men, all earnest in their own idea of bringing down the cost of living. Some who favoured high protection said that if they lived in England they would be radical free traders, but one and all were intent upon helping Canada in the effort to reduce the high cost of living.
Many causes contribute to the high cost of living. The question of labour is paramount and the moment you touch labour

you immediately touch foodstuffs, clothing, the boots the men wear and sundry other things until you get to the production of the soil where you come again to the question of the cost of labour, the scarcity of labour, and you may go on until you get into ten vicious circles. But everywhere from near and from far, from east and from west, comes the cry, Sir, that this Government, composed as it is to-day, or composed as it was immediately after the last election, have not been earnest in their endeavours to co-ordinate the resources of this country, have not been earnest in their efforts to so fix taxation that it may bear equally upon the shoulders of all in proportion to the wealth of each individual in this country.
Sir, we have had to-day a statement of the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and therein he follows what I may be permitted to style the idea that that which contributes most to the high cost of living is to be found in a high tariff or in a protective tariff. If you put an artificial price, whether it be for the Government or for the manufacturer, upon the cost of the necessaries of life, it follows that you enhance those necessaries to the extent of the artificial price, 'profit, tax, or tariff so placed. Protection was adopted in this country at a time when, perhaps, there was a certain amount of unrest, but it was not believed in as a principle by the men who advocated its adoption. Those of my hon. friends opposite who have done me the signal honour of remaining in the chamber and listening to my remarks, and who are of the Conservative party, will remember quite well that Sir John Macdonald was not a believer in the principle of protection; he never held that belief at any time. Who were the believers in protection? They were the trusts, combines and corporations of this country. Who are the believers in the principle of protection to-day? Are they the people of Canada? Will the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. Mr. Qalder) say that the people whom he represents are in favour of that principle? No Sir. Will the members from any section of this country say that the people whom they represent are in favour of the principle of protection? No, Sir. The men who represent the trusts, the combines and the corporations in Canada are the men who favour the principle of. protection, and those men are to be found sitting in the Cabinet today and endeavouring to make the people believe that they are bringing down the high cost of living.
	.


Mr. MORPHY:: How does the hon. gentleman characterize his own leader in this connection?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What leader?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie).


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The leader of the Opposition is quite capable of answering and speaking for himself.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am asking the question of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin).


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes, I understand that, but let me say that the parliamentary leader of this party does not require any advocate to speak for him; I will pay him the compliment of saying that. I would advise my hon. friend to ask the leader that question when he has the opportunity of doing so.
In order that I may prove my statement that Sir John Macdonald did not believe in the principle of protection, I want to refer to Mr. G. R. Parkin's book on Sir John A. Macdonald which forms one of the well known series "The Makers of Canada." I will quote what is there to be found on the subject.
Some of his supporters were impatient with his deliberation. "Sir John was timid unto death of protection, had to be bullied into it, led into it, committed to it by others. But when he thought it grown, he used it as a bridge to reach the power he liked to wield."
Well, and I do not say it in any sense derogatory of Sir John Macdonald, there are policies that have been adopted by the Cabinet at the present time. There are members of that Cabinet who do not like those policies, but they use them for the power they wield. Again, the same writer says:
The question of the day is that of the protection of our farmers from the unfair competition of foreign produce, and the protection of our manufacturers. I am in favour of reciprocal free trade if it can he obtained, but so long as the policy of the United States closes the markets to our products we should have a policy of our own, as well, and consult only our own interests.
"As long as we can get reciprocity with the United States," said Sir John Macdonald, "then I am in favour of reciprocity." There was another school of Liberals about that time, and let me say that in regard to this question I do not want to assume the role of a partisan. There was a school of Liberals to which the present Finance Minister belonged. In that school of Liberals

he was brought up, and in that school he adopted the fiscal policies which guided him in after life. He must have been young then, I should say quite a young man, but very impressionable, and I find, Sir, that the doctrine of that school in 1878 was exactly the same as the doctrine which the Minister of Finance proclaims to-day. That doctrine remained impressed upon his mind, and he wants to bring it into operation to-day. iHenow says: Wait, economize, and save. Wait till the pendulum swings back to prosperity. Now, let me read to you just what that school of Liberals believed to which the Finance Minister today belonged:
While Macdonald and his followers were advocating what was at least a specious remedy for the industrial depression, the Liberals had no alternative to offer save the recommendation to the electorate to .practise thrift and to wait for the swing of the economic .pendulum.
That, word for word is the policy of the Finance Minister to-day, and if we in this House agreed with him the people throughout the country would say: We have waited and waited, until it is almost too late, and we now demand of you stern and insistent action. That action should take the form of lowering the cost of foodstuffs and of the clothes that the consumer wears. I understand that the manufacturers of clothes, who have been obtaining an extra thirty per cent through the tariff, do not like, any more than does the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt)-who has been smiling since the wings have been clipped from the duty on agricultural implements-this reduction of duty. Why do they not like it? Because it means less profit to their coffers. While I am not going to be so radical as to say that we do not like to make some profit, may I point out, .Mr. Speaker, that we toil for such income as we obtain? You, Mr. Speaker, have toiled in your law office; a great many of us have spent years in toil. We toil as the labouring man toils, but we toil not for profit, but for what the public are good enough to give us. But the profiteer, the man whose diabolical intention is to get as much money as he can out of the consumer, does not toil, nor. does he know what toil is; he never knew what it was to work. That is the man that this Government must get after, and get after at once, not, forsooth, by increasing the taxes upon profits that were obtained by the profiteer during the war, and which the minister cannot touch norw because the war is over, but by inquiring into the combines which exist in the industrial world, finding
out who form them, and putting a stop to them. Let the Government impose upon those who form these combines a penalty that will help to meet some of the obligations which burden the country and which have been incurred owing to the war. Sir, does the Government know that these combines exist? Of course they do, they know in every department. They have only to ask the Justice Department, which knows that combines exist in this country and which could name the very men making up those combines. Has the Government taken any action in this regard? No; these men belong to a class who are not to be touched by the mighty powers that be-[DOT] powers which are not concerned with you or with me, which are not concerned with what price we pay for a dozen eggs or a pound of butter, for the poor clothes or torn boots that the people wear. They are not concerned with these things; they are not concerned with the question how we are to find money to buy food for our children, but they are concerned in seeing that as long as a dollar remains in the country, the profiteer gets it.
Sir, there, are earnest men in the Government who know that this profiteering has been going on and that the Government has been guilty of wasting money right and left. There are men in the Government who know that since the war started even the clothing bought by the taxpayers for the soldiers has been burned in heaps. You want proof, Sir? Taking up one of the records of the Government, I find that a certain gentleman, being on the witness stand, was questioned by a Mr. McKenzie. I do not know who this Mr. McKenzie was; I assume it was the hon. gentleman who has'been raised to the dignified position of leader of the Opposition. The evidence reads:
Q. Do you know anything about the burning of clothing, or of property, which appeared to be Government property, on the premises?-A. Well, yes, sir: I saw clothes burning there in piles. *
Q. Did you offer to buy some of the clothing? -A. Yes, sir; I offered to Uuy a coat-me and Mr. Goodfellow and my father. The soldier was there; he was supposed to be the guide. I offered $5 for the coat and he would not take it.
Q. Those were the coats they were burning? -A. Yes, sir.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I did not hear the earlier portion of the remarks of the hon. member. Is he referring to proceedings which are pending before a committee of the House?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No, I am referring to the waste that has been carried on by the Gov-

eminent since the commencement of the war. I am only giving an instance of one kind of waste.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member knows the rule I have in mind.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I know the rule perfectly well, Sir. This, to be more explicit, was an investigation which took place before the Public Accounts Committee in 1915 into what was known as the war contract scandals. I say that there are men in the Cabinet who know that a system of waste has been going on in this country since the war started. This is just one little incident; I have volumes of them here. I shall not refer to any inquiry that is proceeding now. I am very careful in that regard; that is why I said that as a member of *the Committee on the Cost of Living I would make no allusion to evidence taken by that Committee.
On the occasion to which I refer, another gentleman, following Mr. McKenzie, proceeded to put questions to the witness. I do not know who this gentleman was, but according to the public records, his name was Carvell. But if it is the man of whose history I have some knowledge, he was always very earnest about waste, extravagance and profiteering.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is his name?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: .His name is Carvell.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Frank Carvell?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It does not say-just "Mr. Carvell." If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, judging by the history of this gentleman, he is no more satisfied to-day with the waste and extravagance of the Government than he was then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But is he dead?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not know where he is. I quote from the evidence, the questions being by Mr. Carvell:
Q. Have you any idea as to the number that was being burned ; you say you saw piles. How large were the piles?-A. I did not pay any attention to the size of the piles. They were fair sized piles.
Mr. Carvell was not satisfied with that; he wanted a closer measurement.
Q. Would they contain three or four, or how many?-A. I should say two or three hundred in large piles.
Q. How many piles were there?-A. Several piles; eight or nine piles, so far as I could judge.
Q. Were there any blankets in those piles?- A. Tes, sir, there were some blankets in the piles that I could see.

Q. Were there any other articles of uniform or necessities for the soldiers?-A. There were caps I think too ; that is all I could see in the pile.
Q. How many caps? A. I could not see rightly. They were all in a pile.
Everything was done by piles in those days, but I bring this up merely as an incident of some of the waste that is going on. From careful study, from observation, from an examination of the records of this House, I find that, if the debt of this country was increased by hundreds of millions of dollars for tihe war, hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money never found their way to the war, were never a benefit to the soldiers at the front, were put down as war expenditure, and hon. gentlemen in the Cabinet will, if necessary, be men enough to bear me out in my statement. Why do I say that? I say it because I believe there are other causes for the high cost of living than those usually attributed to it. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money have gone to the war, and that being the case, the Government have taken from the consumers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars which could have helped them to pay for the cost of living. You have the waste of the Government, the increased taxation upon foodstuffs in this country, the protection of the profiteers, the increased taxation on incomes, all contributing towards the high cost of living. I will not say that any one thing is the direct cause of the increased cost of living, but I will tell you, Sir, in all confidence-and I would not like rny words to be listened to by certain hon. members-that that is my study of the situation. But if you ask the people of Canada what has brought about the high cost of living, they will tell you, even away down in Nova Scotia, that the Government have been the means of enhancing the cost of living in this country. The Government, from the moment they took office in this .country after Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down the reins, proceeded to increase the cost of living by increasing the debt, by increasing the tariff, by wasting the money, by bringing the debt per head from something around $22 or $25 to $220. I offer this suggestion to the Government in the way of constructive criticism, that they can lower the cost of living by adopting as a policy the cry of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) when he said: Save; economize; do not waste. If the Government saves, economizes, and does not waste, then the cost of living in this country Will go down.

Hon. gentlemen opposite to whom I have had occasion to listen have said that they cannot support the amendment or the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), be cause it is, perhaps, too radical or not radical enough. We are here representing all classes of the people of Canada, and is there in this country a man who is not to-day asking for cheaper food and cheaper clothing? Has the Minister of Finance met one man in Canada who has not asked for cheaper food and clothing? Why, the Minister of Finance himself is asking for cheaper food and clothing. He knows as well as the House does and as the country does that everybody wants cheaper food and clothing. Then let the Government begin by eliminating the 30 per cent tariff tax upon clothing, and that much reduction will be given to the people of Canada. I am not one of those very radical men who would like to see the manufacturers of this country upset, because that would be a bad thing. But, in the history of a country there are times when some special class must suffer for the general good of the community, and at the present moment the community as a whole is asking for a reduction in tariff. It was admitted by my hon. friend (Mr. 'Calder) that there was a fight in the Cabinet for a reduction in the tariff, but that there was a faction in that Cabinet that insisted upon maintaining the principles of high protection, and that that section in favour of high protection won out. I say without a moment's hesitation that, just as Sir John A. Macdonald believed in the principle of a low tariff, just as the right hon. gentleman whose seat in this House is not occupied to-day, who was the leader of Liberal thought in this country, believed that we had to face fiscal problems by a downward revision of the tariff, so I believe there is only one remedy that may be enforced to-day, to give satisfaction to the people of Canada even if a small privileged class must suffer, and that is to give free food and free clothing in this country.
I find that I have spoken longer than I intended. I have not entered into figures, because figures are somewhat tiring. Today the people of Canada know the figures; they know they are face to face with a debt which in a few days after the Budget has passed will amount to $2,1X10,000,000. They know also that in order to meet the interest upon that debt, they will have to borrow a few more hundred million dollars, and further, that to run this Government in the way it is being run, it will cost a few hundred million dollars more.
Did I say "to run" this Government? I apologize. In the language of the Minister or Immigration (Mr. Calder) " to keep on playing " is going to cost a few more hundreds of millions of dollars. If this system is carried on, there is no telling where this country will land in six months or a year from now. I want to say as emphatically as I can to the Government: Call a halt on expenditure; adopt sound economic principles, whatever those principles may be in your judgment, but do not give out to the people of this country that you are lessening their burdens by borrowing more money to pay the interest on the national debt, because next year the people will have to pay increased taxation by reason of this borrowing, and more taxation still if new loans are raised by the Government.
I have no authority to speak for the Liberal party of Canada, but I believe that I follow the idea of Liberalism, and I want my concluding words to be to the Liberals of this country. The people to-day are demanding earnest and united action by this Government. To settle the unrest, the dissatisfaction, and starvation in this country, earnest and united action by this Government is absolutely necessary. The people will not be satisfied with a shifty policy. They will not be satisfied with one minister after another getting up and saying:	"I
cannot agree with the Government upon their fiscal policy." In spite of the statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) that whilst the war was over conditions in Europe were still very bad, and possibly at some future time Canada might again be drawn into a war, and the words of the Minister of Immigration to the same effect, what the people of Canada know is that to all intents and purposes the war is over, and now is the time to grapple with the situation that confronts Canada as a nation-a growing nation within the Empire.
The people ask for increased production. They must have it, and they are giving this Government a chance between now and the day of reckoning to say whether they shall or shall not have increased production. It is not the farmer that is to blame for the lack of increased production. From the beginning of the war the cry throughout this country and upon the floor of this House to the farmers of Canada was:	" If you want to
help the Allies in this war you must increase production." While calling upon the farmers to increase production, the Govern-

ment made it practically imposible for them to do so, by keeping up all the artificial barriers that stood in their way. Taxes on harrows, discs, ploughs, and almost every other agricultural implement that is used on the farm were not reduced because, forsooth, the hon. member for iBrantford (Mr. Cockshutt) would not allow the Government to do so. He won out. He stands as a big man in Canada to-day because he was able to force the Government to keep up these duties. It is true he did consent to clip the wing of an agricultural implement, providing he got a little more on the other side. He held up the Government. The Minister of Immigration told us this afternoon-he did not mention the name of the hon. member for Brantford, but we all knew perfectly well who he meant-that my hon. friend was constantly watching at the door of the Cabinet like a watch dog, and when the Minister of Finance would come out he would ask " Any concessions to the farmer?" The Minister of Finance would reply " Not yet." " Good." The next day he would be there again, and after waiting all day he would repeat his question to the Minister of Finance " Any concessions to the farmer?" " Not yet," the Minister of Finance would say, and we can hear the voice of the hon. member for Brantford saying " Keep it up, Tom, the people are with you." We do not think the people are with the Government, but that is a matter for the Government to settle with the people, and the day of reckoning is bound to come. We on this side of the House say that the only means by which you will get increased production from the farmers of Canada is by giving them a free market in which to sell their goods, and a free market in which to buy their goods. I have not the authority to speak for the Liberals on this side of the House, but I believe it is a real principle of Liberalism that capital, the result of the real energy of man, must be protected, and that labour must have a fair chance of obtaining capital. I believe in co-operation between capital and labour, founded upon a solid basis, not upon a shifting policy.
These are the views of the Liberal party and Liberals throughout Canada. I know I speak for the Liberals in this House, because I echo the language of the great, the departed, our much lamented leader, the revered figure throughout Canada, the Bight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This is what he said:-
We are dominated neither by privilege, nor by vested interest, nor by any power or influ-

ence either within or without Canada, other than the voice of the common citizen, whose cause is our cause. We follow the ideal of equal right and equal freedom for all-the ideal of a free democracy, of equality of opportunity for every man and for common justice to all our fellow citizens. We stand for the masses as against the classes and for government of the people for the people and hy the people, which is the essence of Liberalism.
I shall conclude my remarks, Sir, by saying that if the Government, charged by the people of Canada to conduct the country's affairs, have failed to stand for the people and by the people, preferring to stand by combines, trusts, corporations and privileged classes, we on this side, in our lack of power, and in the cool shades of opposition, have experienced a joy in living up to the principle of freedom for all classes in this community-freedom in industry, freedom in labour, freedom in thought, freedom in creed, and freedom in its fullest sense. We believe, Sir, in law and order, and the members on this side of the House have given, as you will testify, Mr. Speaker, upon every occasion on which they have been called upon to do so, their earnest effort to the end that order might be maintained in this House. But, much as we regret the fact, and regret it very sincerely, the time has come when the people of Canada feel that the Government charged with the affairs of the country have not been able to cope with the responsibilities placed upon them, and when they are exacting a new form, a new system, a new set of men, and demanding that undying principles should guide the Government of the country. The star of Liberalism is in the ascendant, and while we are ready to give every aid to the Government whether in the House or in the country, we will noit hesitate to assume responsibilities and to direct the affairs of the country so that all the people of Canada may have a fair show and live freely in this country; so that all the people of Canada may have a free opportunity for advancement within Canada, and that Canada may go on growing as a nation, destined, as it has always been, to be a country meeting other countries on equal grounds. As the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden said in his speech in London, on June 21, 1918:
We come here as we came last year to deal with all these matters upon terms of perfect equality with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his colleagues.
Now, Sir, we the Liberal party of Canada say that we will not go to the United States or to Europe for precedents, and that Canada is big enough and great enough, and

has proved itself competent enough, to manage her own affairs on Canadian lines, guided by the interests of people who are Canadians living upon Canadian soil; and that every effort should be made to attain a happier and more prosperous goal than we have seen in this country since the fateful days when the Liberal party of Canada laid down the reins of office. That, Sir, we will do one and all. That the people of Canada are demanding to-day; and whilst there was a hope and a wish that the Opposition in this country amounted to nothing and were not capable of assuming responsibilities, it has been found that they are man for man the equal of the Government; and their forceful presentation of their convictions and the high principles they hold has so strongly impressed hon. members, including those from the Liberal party, who have been supporting the Government for the past two years, that to-day we find a minister of the Crown, just resigned from the Cabinet, saying to the Opposition: I am with you for the freedom of the people -<the freedom of all classes.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: 'Mr. Speaker, this is the first Budget since the end of the great war and the signing of the armistice, and naturally there are a number of questions and problems arising out of the settlement of the war which require a great deal of consideration during the present session. I have listened to the admirable address of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in the statement regarding the finances of the country and also the addresses of the various speakers who have dealt with the Budget, both previous to to-day and especially this afternoon, with a great deal of pleasure and interest.
Before I proceed to discuss the main features of the Budget, as it concerns the country at the present time, I desire to make just a few remarks on one or two other matters that appear to me to be of pressing and urgent importance. First, I would speak of the state of unrest that obtains in the Dominion, of the strikes that are taking place, or have taken pdaee, and that are prophesied to take place in the near future. These are matters of great concern to many of our citizens as well as to legislators assembled in this House. Perhaps
not at any time within the memory of any inhabitant of Canada have there been as many serious strikes in operation and threatening as within the past few weeks. As a citizen of this country, I deplore such a state of things, and for one I am prepared to do all I reasonably can in every direction to allay unrest, to counsel wisdom and discretion and to endeavour to avoid strikes and all conflicts between capital and labour. I think that must be in the mind of every citizen of Canada at the present time. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that a wise course has not been pursued in this respect by some of our public men and by a great many of our leading newspapers.
I do not often refer to the press, nor am I anxious to enter into any conflict with the press on this or any other question, but I feel that during the past critical weeks they have given undue prominence to those things that represent disintegration and a bad spirit between different classes of the people rather than endeavouring by wise counsel to allay the trouble. There exists a very serious state of things, and I regret that with such conditions not only some of the insignificant journals but many of our leading newspapers have given way to sensationalism rather than following the wise counsels that should prevail. We know that the feelings of the people are not in quite a normal state at the present time. We know that during the war the people have been subjected to a very great strain, that thousands of our citizens had their dear ones overseas fighting the battles of the Empire, many families being called on to shed tears of sorrow at the losses that have overtaken them. These being the facts, it can scarcely be expected that the people should be in a normal state of mind. There is, therefore, all the greater reason that every *man who is known in his community, and every newspaper that undertakes to represent public opinion in Canada, should use wise and judicious words in discussing all those matters that so closely affect the welfare of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before dwelling upon the fiscal changes and tariff generally, I desire to say a few words in regard to what our statesmen have been doing during the last few months overseas. This is a question that I have been studying from very long range, I admit, and as a humble layman I do not profess to know what has taken place in the greatest Peace Conference the world has ever known. But I do feel that we are taking a very long chance

produces the contents of some of the White Papers on 'this subject. These are no myths, these are reports sent by British consuls from the seat of trouble; and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the tale of woe they relate with regard to Russia has never been equalled under the most barbarous tyrant that ever sat upon the throne of the Russians, or any other empixe, since the world began. That is without controversy. There is one letter, and I have about a score of them under my hand, a few points from it might be worth while to read so that the House will see that I am not exaggerating in this matter. This letter was addressed to Sir George Clerk in November last by Mr. R. H. B. Lockhart, who had been British Consul General at Moscow, and these are some of the few points that he makes as a British consul reporting to his superior:
1.	The Bolsheviks have established a rule of force and oppression unequalled in the history of any autocracy.
2 Themselves the fiercest upholders of the right of free speech, they have suppressed, since coming into power, every newspaper which does not approve their policy. In this respect the Socialist Press has suffered most of all. Even the papers of the Internationalist Mensheviks like Martov have been suppressed and closed down, and the unfortunate editors thrown into prison or forced to flee for their lives.
3.	The right of holding public meetings has been abolished. The vote has been taken away from every one except the workmen in the factories and -the poorer servants, and even amongst the workmen those who dare to vote against the Bolsheviks are marked down by the Bolshevik secret police as counter-revolutionaries, and are fortunate if their worst fate is to be thrown into prison, of which in Russia to-day it may truly he said, "many go in, but few come out."
4.	The worst crimes of the Bolsheviks have
been against their Socialist opponents. Of the countless executions which the Bolsheviks have carried out a large percentage has fallen on the heads of Socialists who had waged a lifelong struggle against the old regime, but who are now denounced as counter-revolutionaries merely because they disapprove of the manner in which the Bolsheviks have discredited socialism.	*
5.	The Bolsheviks have abolished even the most primitive forms of justice. Thousands of men and women have been shot without even the mockery of a trial, and thousands more are left to rot in the prisons under conditions to find a parallel to which one must turn to the darkest annals of Indian or Chinese history.
6.	The Bolsheviks have restored the barbarous methods of torture. The examination of prisoners frequently takes place with a revolver at the unfortunate prisoner's head.
7.	The Bolsheviks have establised the odious practice of taking hostages. Still worse, they have struck at their political opponents through their womenfolk. When recently a long list of hostages was published in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks seized the wives of those men whom

they could not find and threw them into prison until their husbands should give themselves up.
8.	The Bolsheviks who destroyed the Russian army, and who have always been the avowed opponents of militarism, have forcibly mobilized officers who do not share their political views, but whose technical knowledge is indispensable, and by the threat of immediate execution have forced them to fight against their fellow-countrymen in a civil war of unparalleled horror.
9.	The avowed ambition of Lenin is to create civil warfare throughout Europe. Every speech of Lenin's is a denunciation of constitutional methods, and a glorification of the doctrine of physical force. With that object in view he is destroying systematically both by executions and by deliberate starvation every form of opposition to Bolshevism. This system of "terror'' is aimed chiefly at the Liberals and non-Bolshevik Socialists, whom Lenin regards as his most dangerous opponents.
10.	In order to maintain their popularity with the working men and with their hired mercenaries, the Bolsheviks are paying their supporters enormous wages by means of an unchecked paper issue, until to-day money in Russia has naturally lost all value. Even according to their own figures the Bolsheviks' expenditure exceeds the revenue by thousands of millions of roubles per annum. These are facts for which the Bolsheviks may seek to find an excuse but Which they cannot deny.
Yours sincerely,
R. H. B. Lockhart.
That is only one of a score of letters contained in this volume as received from the British Consul. I read that in order that the members of the Cabinet who have been attending the Peace Conference may, if they return to the scene of negotiations, bear in mind this, coming from a humble, back-bench follower of the Government- though sometimes a somewhat turbulent one, I admit-that what this world wants is an early peace, a sound peace, a peace that the enemy is not likely to disturb during the course of many years. I should like them to bear in mind that this League of Nations is not a burning question with many of us; that we have our doubts -with regard to it. For myself, I look upon it as a beautiful ideal, but as one entirely incapable of accomplishment. I say in all seriousness that the Peace Conference, by uniting these two great policies, the Treaty of Peace and the League of Nations, are making the most gigantic experiment that the world has ever seen or known. Will it fail or will it succeed? We tremble to know what the result will be. I hope that it will succeed, but I believe that the greatest danger to the League of Nations lies in the attitude of the very nation that originated the idea. I have read some of the speeches delivered in the United States with regard to this matter, and I know how reluctant the American Senate is to give

up any of its prerogatives. I miss my guess if a good many of the members of the American Senate do not hesitate a good while before signing away their right to declare war or to make peace-a right which they have upheld ever since the adoption of the American constitution. That being the case, in my judgment the Peace Conference did a dangerous thing in linking up with the Peace Treaty the project of the League of Nations. True, it is a step in advance, as was pointed out by the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Howell) the other day, that Canadians are to be allowed to sign the Treaty of Peace; and I rejoice in that, so far as it goes. But the contents of the treaty' are worth far more to us than the signatures that adorn it, whether they belong to this side of the Atlantic or the other. Unless a sound peace is obtained when the treaty is signed, all this labour shall have been in vain, and we shall have thrown away by faulty diplomacy the fruits of a victory won at the point of the bayonet and the muzzle of the gun by the bravest troops that ever fought in battle since the world began. More heroic deeds than have ever been related of the Spartans or the Greeks of old have been performed in this war; the triumph has been won by a sacrifice of blood and treasure the like of which the world has never seen. If the Treaty of Peace is a failure, the failure will be due to the politicians and statesmen who have dealt with it, not to the men who won the victory which enables us now to dictate the terms of peace. If the military had been allowed to take a further try at it and to adopt a firmer attitude, they would have had this treaty signed months ago, and at this time, seven months after the armistice, we should not yet be in doubt whether the treaty is to be signed at all or not. I am sorry to have to express any doubt with regard to a matter of such importance as this, but I feel that the issue is altogether too serious to be lightly regarded. If the League of Nations and the Treaty of Peace aTe adopted together, I hope that the results will be as good as expected; but if there is reason why the results should not be satisfactory, the .two should be separated and a peace entered into with the enemy which will last for a time at least. I, for one, cannot believe that wars are at an end. In my opinion, war will take place -"as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be"-as long as the world lasts. I may be a pessimist, but I am an idealist to a certain extent. While I am not a man of war, I realize that there are occasions 213
when even the most peaceable man must fight, with his tongue if not with his sword.
Perhaps I have trespassed too long upon the time of the House in dealing with a matter concerning which I do not profess to have a very competent judgment, having been such a long distance away from the scene of hostilities. But I read pretty carefully. Although I do not read a great many books at the present time, owing to an infirmity of my eyes, I try to keep posted on current events as dealt with in newspapers and magazines. I have read very carefully all that has been said and done by our own statesmen overseas and by all those who have represented the belligerent countries at the Peace Conference, and I tell you that the whole question has caused me many moments of worry. Now I come to what, perhaps, may be considered a more live issue by some members of the House. It is my unfortunate privilege on this occasion to have to play the role of a candid critic. I have been told by some of my friends that perhaps it will clear the air and do good. I propose to make some criticisms of the Budget as brought down by the Minister of Finance, and I have so informed him. I do not want my friends in the West to think that I am doing this as part of the game. I was told by a Westerner only yesterday that the measure of the happiness of the West was enhanced or diminished according to the extent to which my misery was enhanced or diminished by the tariff.
That being the case, I do not want to appear too miserable, for fear I may make my hon. friends feel too good.
My first proposition is that the Government is, in ,my opinion, trying various artificial means to boost trade. I refer to such measures as the housing scheme, for which, in its present state, I have very little use. I have also very little use fo-r some of the public works that are proposed. I have some use for the highways measure, but it is more a provincial than a national enterprise, and in view of the vast expenditures that we are making on railways and other necessary matters at the present time, I think the Government would be well advised bo cut out all that sort of thing and devote what money we have to what 1 consider would confer a more lasting benefit upon the people. Although hon. members may be surprised to hear me say so, I am very sceptical as to the proposal to boost the manufactures of Canada in the countries of Europe by means of loans to those that may be of doubtful credit. I say that advisedly as a business man. I do not



know what securities this Government have, because they have not taken me into their secrets like the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) indicated, who is generally supposed to be right, but who is very often wrong. This afternoon, he stated that I was wearing out the doorstep of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) to find out what is going on. Not one particle of my shoe-leather will be found resting on his door-step from the beginning of the session up to the present time, and the Minister of Finance can bear out my statement that not once during this session has he been bothered by me. I take this opportunity of telling him what I -think, without having to call upon him at hi-s office. I regret he has seen fit to bring down those measures and I am obliged to criticise them; and if opportunity -affords itself, without causing me to vote for free trade or something of that kind, I shall have great pleasure in voting against them.
In order to make any -solid advance in this country, we must make expenditures only on that kind of industry and investment that is going to be of a permanent character, and to upbuild the nation for years to come, -and no temporary expedients for just the immediate hour, where millions will 'be thrown away and no return ever received, are going to be justified either now or in the future. As a business man, which T /pkof-e-ss to be, and as one not learned in the law nor as a great financier, I advance my opinion for what it is worth, that the Minister of Finance would be better advised in making expenditures in attempting to establish business on a solid foundation and to assist agriculture, mines, forests, fisheries, carrier trade, tranportation and everything of that kind rather than to make doubtful expenditures to the advantage it may be of some individual firms for a short time, but expenditures that will not bring any lasting advantage to the Dominion of Canada as a whole. The only advance that can be made is by successful -industry based upon right principles.
I have another word to say to the Minister of Finance. It speaks volumes indeed for the British tongue that a Minister of Finance can deliver a speech lasting an hour and three-quarters and change some hundreds of items in the tariff, without, from start to finish, ever mentioning the word "protection." If the hon. gentleman mentioned the word "protection" in his speech, I failed to catch it, and I have failed to observe it since. I want to say

this in all kindness to the minister who is a sincere friend of mine, "that protec-ton is not a necessary evil to be apologized for, but a material -good for which to be devoutly thankful." When the next fight comes in Canada, we shall not have so much pussy-footing with regard to the word "protection." As I see -the drift of events, we are making rapidly for a division in parties along the old lines again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friends will get some encouragement, but I do not know whether I will join the boys over there or not. It Will depend upon their policy. - As regards, however, the speeches of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and those of the Minister of Finance as far as they dwelt on protection, I like the views of my hon. friend over the way better than those of the minister, and if he keeps on improving as rapidly as my hon. friend here appears to be deteriorating, we shall soon be together. I want to remind the leader of this Government (Sir Robert Borden), his Minister of Finance, and 'his Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) that every one of them .came into power in 1911 as protectionists. I want to know why they have deserted their colours -why they are afraid to mention the word "protection" in this House, and why, when it comes to delivering a Budget speech, apology must be made all along the line for every tariff item and not a word with regard to protection or adequate defence of the industries of this country. I say this with all kindness, but I mean it to be understood, and I trust it is. The right hon. gentleman who leads this House came into power in 1911 on the reciprocity cry, and withoult that protectionist cry I believe he would have been in the cold shades of Opposition up to the present time. The Minister of Finance did the same, and although the Minister of Railways was in the House before that, he was a thoroughgoing protectionist up to that time, but even he never -mentions the word "protection." It may be asked: Why hand out all these bouquets to these three leading Conservatives? But we expected something from them; we expected -they would live up to their principles to some extent. As for some of the other gentlemen who held views entirely opposed -to that, we did not expect anything from them, and therefore were not disappointed.
The principles that have, in my judgment, been violated in this respect in the

tariff, are very -serious. I want to place myself on record as agreeing on one point at least -with the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) in his attack this afternoon as regards one of the matters dealt with in the Budget, that is the loading on to the railways o.f burdens that the tariff should carry. The minister is setting a very dangerous precedent. How can our national railways thrive if they are to carry the burdens imposed by the tariff as well as the carrying trade of the country? I cannot see how that -can -be done, and such a proposition is very unwise and unbusinesslike, and it will be roundly condemned. It will afford very little ' advantage -to the manufacturer; it will do a great wrong to the carrying trade of this country, and the minister would be very wise to say that he will not do it again.
There is another item in the tariff to which I seriously object, although it is supposed to be to the advantage of manufacturers that have been hit by the changes. I refer to the drawback system whereby 30 per cent of the duty -paid on raw material for implements and other items is to be refunded. What does that mean? That means that in order to earn the 30 per cent you have to import your raw materials from the United States or some other country, and the policy of all the businesses in which I have ever been concerned is to buy every dollar's worth of Canadian goods possible and not to go to the United States unless absolutely necessary. I wish there were more people in this country who pursued 'that policy.
I regret, too, that the Minister of Finance in his whole speech the other day did not find time to turn his attention for one single moment to what I deem to be a very serious matter, and that is the discrepancy that now exists between our currency and that of the United States. We have to pay from $1.02J to $1.03 for every dollar that we send to the United States. Why is that? It is because we have over-imported already. We are, therefore, called upon to pay $1,021 or $1.03 for every dollar's worth of goods we get from the United States, and the minister has proposed nothing to rectify that condition. In fact, he has embarked on a policy which in my judgment will lead to making matters worse than they are at present.
Some hon. gentlemen may say to me: " Oh, you are not speaking for your constituents. You are not speaking by the book." I would not have made a speech such as I have were it not for the fact that I have in my hand a resolution that has
been submitted to the Prime Minister, sent to him by the workingmen and the protectionists of the city of Brantford. I think it might be well for me to read it:-
Copy of Resolution, carried by a public meeting, held in Victoria Hall, Brantford, April 22nd, 1919.
Moved by-Alderman Harvey Clement.
Seconded by-Mr. C. H. Waterous.
That at this meeting, called to discuss the Tariff issues of Canada:

It is resolved that in view of the difference in interests existing in Canada to-day whereby the Western Agricultural classes urge the Government to the reducing of present Tariff schedules on many commodities, and these views are largely opposed by manufacturing interests, with which interests the working classes are very closely allied.
And having in view the fact, that it is essential to find employment for a largo number of workers lately released from many in-. dustries, and also to And employment for a large proportion of Canada's returning army.
That in order to supply employment for these workers-it is necessary that every manufacturing plant factory or industry of any nature in Canada should be kept in operation at fullest capacity during the whole period of reconstruction to avoid the danger of unemployment-and in order to carry on, and expand where possible, it is necessary that confidence in the stability of conditions be preserved.
And realizing that the various interests must recognize that the interest of each are inseparably bound up and are dependent upon the prosperity of the whole-and recognizing the injustice of one class seeking to benefit at the expense of another class.
We urge upon our representatives in Parliament the great importance of careful and wise handling by the Government of this Tariff issue-
I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance particularly to what follows:
-and that no changes should be made in the tariff of Canada, until a Commission is appointed to thoroughly investigate and to revise and -administer a tariff which will be equitable-and just to all classes of the country.
And that a copy of this resolution be sent tt>
the Finance Minister at Ottawa, Ontario.
That is a copy of a resolution passed by a mass meeting in the city of Brantford on April 22, and I hold in my hand petitions endorsing it. I have not time to give the contents, but they are all of similar import. They contain the names of 4,000 workingmen, in round numbers, petitioning the Minister of Finance to make no changes in the tariff without investigation; but in spite of these petitions, and in spite of my representations by letter, the Minister of Finance has hit the city of Brantford in his Budget proposals harder than any other city in Canada. I therefore feel justified in entering a very strong protest against the Budget as it now stands. I see my hon. friends are beginning to cheer up because

they see I am getting a little miserable. The vefy first of these petitions I hold in ' my hand-and it is rather significant-is from the firm of William Patterson and Son, a name that will be somewhat familiar I think to our friends on the other side of the House. Then follow petitions from Massey Harris Co., Pratt & Letchworth, Verity Plow Co., Dominion Steel Products Co., Waterous Engine Co., Cockshutt Plow Co., Schultz Bros. Co., Canada Glue Co., Schultz Bros., Matthews, Blackwell, Brantford Carriage Co., Crown Electric Co., Brantford Roofing Co., Brantford Oven & Rack Co., Ker & Goodwin, Brandon Shoe Co., P. H. Secord & Sons, Monarch Tractors, Ham & Nott Co., Hall & Sons, Piano Case Co., Adams Wagon Co., A. J. Reach Co., Brantford Computing Scales Co. Then comes the one I have just read from the Goold, Shapley & Muir Co., Limited, who have been, and still are, very strong Liberals. I commend their views to my hon. friend over the way and hope he will help me put in a spoke in their behalf; they are tractor manufacturers.


Mr. PEDLOW:: May I ask a question?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am endeavouring
to get through as quickly as I can to give my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) a chance to speak before it is too late, and although I am willing to answer any question, because I am a perfect oracle [DOT]on tariff matters


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What dividends were paid last year by the firms my hon. friend has mentioned?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is rather a heavy order. I am not averse to having questions asked, but I am enough of a protectionist when I want to get through in a given time to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be kind enough to see that I have the floor for a few minutes. It is not because I am afraid of opposition, but because I wish to get through in a reasonable time and I have a terrible lot of matter here - yet. I am very much embarrassed by the quantity of it.
Now I want to correct a common fallacy that obtains on both sides of the House to a considerable extent. We frequently hear it stated that the tariff is simply for a small bunch of manufacturers. Have you not heard that statement? My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) nods his head, and others say the same. Now I want to explain what a manufactory consists of. It is true it consists of a proprietor, president or manager, but there are also, as a rule, IMr. Cockshutt.]
from five hundred to a thousand shareholders in the company. The manufacturer has in his employ anywhere from 200 to 1,000 workingmen. Now all of these people go to the making up of one establishment, and if you close that establishment by hitting the proprietor, as you suppose, you hit the 1,000 workingmen who are engaged in that enterprise. My hon. friend from Macdonald shakes his head. That is the truth, and my hon. friend cannot shake it by shaking his head. I say it is a common fallacy that the manufacturers are a very small number. I have here a little pamphlet full of sound. sayings called " Tariff Talk," by G. M. Murray and E. Blake Robertson, and the first statement they make is this:	,
The following benefit by a Protective Tariff Just as much as the manufacturers:-
1.	700,0:00 men and women who work In Canadian factories.
2.	The farmers, who And a market in Canada for 80 per cent of everything they produce.
3.	The railways and steamship companies, and their employees, who carry Canadian goods.
4.	The bankers, brokers, and commission agents, and their employees, who help to finance Canadian industries.
5.	The innumerable investors who -own stock In Canadian manufacturing concerns, but who are in no sense manufacturers.
6.	The professional classes (doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, clergymen), the insurance agents, the publishers, and all others, who make their living directly or indirectly from industrial concerns and the industrial population.
I want to say to any hon. gentleman who may be skeptical that these classes I have mentioned are more numerous than the farmers of Canada and are therefore entitled to equal consideration, I do not ask for more, but I do not think we shofild take less. I believe we are a united people, Mr. Speaker, and we must live and die together; and I trust that our farmer friends, who I know look upon me as a high .priest of a great heretical doctrine, will also realize that I am in the true sense the farmer's friend and the friend of the working man.
I have lived a good deal on a farm myself, and I have worked otherwise too, and as I said the other night, I am not ashamed to admit the fact. I do not make a boast of it, but I have been brought up to a life of work, and I trust that so long as I am spared to do so I shall be able to work. I want to show something else which the tariff has done. It has brought across the border from the United States five hundred branch factories. Five hundred branches of American concerns have been moved to this side by reason of the tariff, and five hundred million dollars' worth of capital .

has been brought with them. They pay in annual yrages eighty million dollars, a pretty respectable sum and one that is worth while. Why should we not have a business proposition like this that will bring in citizens from every direction and plant them in Canadian cities and make them prosperous Canadians? This question must commend itself to all. We cannot all make farming pay. I have tried it myself and have failed. It costs me about ?1.25 to raise a dollar's worth of farm produce, but I made the best of it. I am not cut out for a farmer, and perhaps- the occupation I pursue may not be conducive to the best state of health. Possibly my farming friends pity me that I am unable to make money at farming, but I will tell them that in order to have a great country-and I presume we all hope to see Canada become a great country-we must have a diversity of labour and a diversity of enterprise. All of us are not adapted for one particular line of work. Some men make good preachers. They do not all display the same aptitude in aieir calling. We mus-t'have all kinus of businesses and occupations, and we must be able to afford young people, who want the best that there is to be got in the world, every opportunity for success and advancement. In order to do this, then, we must have varieties of labour. I might tell the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that in my judgment this is no time to change the tariff, especially in the wrong direction. May I draw his at-
9 p.-m. tention to the following, which appeared in the Toronto Globe of April 8th:
The revision of the tariff laws of Australia will be undertaken as soon as practicable with the object of developing the. industries of that country, according to a recent announcement * made by Acting Premier Watt. The considerations that will govern the revision will be as follows:
The necessity of preserving those industries brought into existence through the war.
Encouragement of contemplated new industries.
Extension and diversification of existing enterprises.
One of the lessons taught by the war was that it was necessary for Australia to be more self-reliant, along industrial lines, stated the Acting Premier. The proposed tariff amendments accordingly have in view the promotion of those great key industries, the raw materials for which are within the confines of the commonwealth, and upon which numerous other enterprises are based.
The United States itself is proposing to revise, its tariff Tate now. The protectionist party bas again come in there. Perhaps
our friends have not noticed that, but it is the case. The Republicans are again in power in the United States and they are proposing, to revise the tariff upward; and even old Free Trade England-I am sorry the bon-, member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is not here-is at last waking up to the fact that the free trade policy has seen its best days and will finally go down and out. At any rate, they are proposing a -preference to the overseas dominions, but I will point out that no -preference can- be given overseas dominions without a -tariff at their own doors. How can they give -a preference if they have not something to throw off in favour of the dominions? It cannot be done. Therefore, when- Britain inaugurates a policy of preference it indicates that she is going in for protection, and I have no fault to find with this policy. Free trade has been tried there for a long time. Our friends tell us it proved to be a great bonanza during the war, but I think that free trade has proved to be a great failure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by one or two of my friends to lay down a few of the fundamental principles underlying protection, and I think that as some of even our own friends on this . side who were supposed to be protectionists are getting a little rusty, I, an old salt from away back who came in under the protection policy of 1878 and have been steadfast ever since in the faith, will try to revive in their minds some of the factors that go to make up a protective policy. What is the first proposition I make? It is this: That protection is the first law of nature. I say that protection, which is another word for self-preservation, is the first law of nature. The Almighty, when creating all animals under the sun as well as man, made every one of them capable of defending itself against its likely enemies.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was no question of tariffs then.


William Foster Cockshutt: I will show that there were tariffs, although they came in a little after the creation. They were created, though. Now, Mr. Speaker, protecton is this: It is the levying of duties against the goods of a foreign country by a country that desires to protect itself against the inroads of foreign trade and foreign labour. It is the levying of a duty on goods that cross the border of the country, and without paying such duty no goods can come in. That is the reason I told the Railway Committee-yesterday to be careful of aeroplanes and to see that they did not cross the line carry-
[DOT] 3358

ing goods upon which duty had not been paid. It is the first law of nations to protect their own citizens, and in my judgment the government that neglects to protect its own citizens is offending against the very common laws that have been laid down by humanity ever since civilization began to make any advance. The man who does not take care of his family and look after those of his own household, we are told, " denies the faith and is Worse than an infidel."
* And the government mat fails to build up and strengthen its own citizens and put them in the way of making progress is denying the faith and not fulfilling the principal purpose of its existence. Protection is not so monstrous a thing as some of ,my friends endeavour to picture it. We are told that it creates immense combines, trusts and combinations of the worst and most dangerous character. I am sorry the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) is not Jiere now. This afternoon I followed him as he read from several balance sheets. Of course, some did rather badly from our standpoint, but I would ask the hon. gentleman if he had heard of any other kind of combine from the reports of which he did not read? Had he ever heard of the United Grain Growers of the West? Did he tell us what they had made during the past year- what gigantic profits were made there? I think if he had known he would have thought the balance sheets of some implement companies and others were modest affairs beside the balance sheets-if I am correctly informed-of the United Grain Growers of the West. I do not know whether my friend intended to shake his head as an indication of exaggeration on my part, but if I am not giving the facts as they are he will correct me. However, if I am correctly informed, the balance sheet presenteu to the shareholders, of which there are 36,000, was one of the rosiest ever presented in the Dominion of Canada to any body of shareholders.
I am told that after very high salaries have been paid, after every possible write off that could be made has been made from high to low, underneath, overhead and all around, the profits were so large that the directors were comparatively ashamed of them and decided to bury some of them by selling a quantity of American goods at less than cost to those shareholders who were ready to buy them. So, I think that we bloated aristocrats, the manufacturers in the east, are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the enlightened grain growers of the West. If they will divvy up
DMr. Cockshutt.]
their profits with me I * will divvy up my profits with them and if they do so I think they will get a great deal the worst of the bargain. Under these circumstances I do not know that the farmer, with whom I have every sympathy, is so terribly oppressed. The ex-Minister of Agriculture this afternoon seemed to speak as though the farmer were the only man who paid import duties. We pay some down east. The city of Toronto probably pays more than any one of the three western provinces. We pay some import duties in the east and we pay them cheerfully believing that they are for the good of the country and that it is desirable that free goods should not come in to the extent that they are coming.
I would have liked, had time permitted, to draw attention to a 'few of what I conceive to be the fallacies that are placed before this House quite frequently. We are told that the West is a unit against the tariff. Is not that a statement that is frequently made? Did we not hear it this afternoon? When was that found out; when was that fact discovered? Certainly not at the last election at which a division on the tariff took place. I have here the figures. In the election of 1911 which was fought on the reciprocity issue the figures for Manitoba, from which some of our leading friends come, (were these:
For reciprocity, 34,781.
Against reciprocity, 40,356.
That does not look as though they were united against the tariff. That was in Manitoba and what obtained in Manitoba obtained to a lesser extent in both of the western provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us the figures for Saskatchewan now.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have the figures for only the one province. My hon. friend can give us those. What I am now saying will take a lot of combatting. I am advancing those arguments that I think are consistent with the policy I am advocating. My hon. friends are not entitled to speak of the unity of the west until a vote has been taken and, for one, I am ready for the show down. It is said that a western free trader in 'this House not very long ago, after hearing a very fine protectionist speech from our friend over the way said, "where do we go from here?" I want to tell you there, is a protectionist asking "where do I go from here?" That is what I am asking.
I will tell you where we should go in my judgment. In my judgment we should go to the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am glad to hear
that my hon. friends are ready for the fray. It is coming, you had better be prepared for it and the fight is going to be on the old issue. I for one am not afraid to tackle the issue and I am going to do what I did in 1878 and what I have done ever since. It will be the old fight between free trade and protection. I will miss my guess if the protectionists do not have such a crowd and the other side so few that they dare not assemble themselves together. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this doctrine of free trade, or the open door, is one of the most beautiful theories to make a speech on but it is the poorest kind of a policy to deliver the goods with that the world has ever invented. It never has delivered the goods, and cannot, because it throws open our rich domain in this country to the outsider. That is one reason why I want to draw the Finance Minister's attention to the fact that the Government has no mandate to ask for a commission to investigate the tariff. I know he is not paying any attention to what I am saying hut he can read it in Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I say that this Government have no mandate to do what the Finance Minister proposes and that I for one have no confidence in what they are going to hunt for. That is plain talk. I say I have no confidence in what they are going to hunt for. Why? Because every move they have made has been contrary to the platform on which they were elected. They have not raised one single item of the tariff that I know of since they came into power in 1911 and every move they have made has (been to cut, it down. They are going to appoint a commission. I want to know what they are going to hunt for. lit is a good deal like the assembly of a large number of parsons who are setting out to hunt for heresy; when they set out to hunt for heresy they are going to find it. The Minister of Finance is going to hunt to find out where he can take down a bar and when he does that he is going to find a place. What I want to know is, if he finds out where the fences are low and where the bars are already down, will he put them up? I want to say that if his speech is going to be put into effect to that extent he will be condemned by the business men and manufacturers of Canada and they represent the workmen of this country. Do
not forget that. My hon. friend shakes his head but I know better. The Finance Minister is apparently approaching this question with the view of seeing what more can be taken down and not what more can be built up. The spirit of approach, in my opinion, should be exactly the opposite and I think that my hon. friends from the West will appreciate this simile better than any other that I could use. I would propose to approach this question somewhat in the way that the prosperous farmer does in the spring when he has got his grain crops in, his hay is coming on and he goes around the farm with a view to seeing how the fences are. He does not go to the part of the fence that looks so formidable that it would take a high jumper to get over it, but he goes to the part that is low, where the breechy steers have been getting over and trampling down the hay and the wheat and he sets out to rebuild it. Are my friends going to tell me that we are going to pull down this fence, that is now too low in many places, and over which $250,000,000 worth of goods came last year more than went from this side? That is the reason our dollar has such a low rating at the ^ present time in the United States. Is this the time to increase these imports? I say no. This is the time to shut them out. Yet, the Minister of Finance comes along with a policy that is going to increase that trouble Why? This policy of cutting protection would be the ruin of the poor farmer. He brings us the policy of the open door and I never knew of anything which had ever been invented that brought so many depressing thoughts in i'ts tracks as free trade or the open door.
Mr. Speaker, in a climate that goes anywhere from zero to thirty or forty below, thank God for the closed door. Let me ask these free traders, for whom were doors made in the first place? For the convenience of the outsider, or for the protection and comfort of the family within? I say they were made for the protection and comfort of the family within; and it is just as natural to close that door against the inroads of foreign goods and foreign labour as it is for a Canadian family to close the door of the home when it is thirty below zero and the wind is raging outside. Many a poor woman in the back hush has thanked God for the closed door, when she has heard the howl of the wolf at the door at night threatening her and her children. And still these gentlemen tell us that the great policy of this world should be the open door and the brotherhood of man- fine-sounding phrases which fail to deliver

the goods. These are big subjects, Mr. Speaker, and I might speak upon them till the morning light appeared-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Foster Cockshutt: -but I do not believe I would comfort my friends, and I hope I will not offend my opponents. I am a man of moderate views as you all know.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: That seems to be a good joke.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is really a good joke, and I enjoy it with the rest of you; but I seriously think that I am a man of moderate views. Now I want some of my friends when they get up to answer the conundrum which I gave the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other day, which apparently he has not yet been able to think out. I am sorry that hon. gentleman is not in his place to-night, but the conundrum I gave him was a brain-twister, and I do not blame him for not having worked out the answer. However, I will reproduce that conundrum and I ask any free trader who will follow me on either side to effectively answer the point that it contains. It has been taken from the sayings of good old President Lincoln. I am not an American myself, but I can quickly recognize a good thing when I see it, and this is one of President Lincoln's statements. He says: " If you want a ton of pig iron and send abroad for it y,ou have got your iron but you have parted with your money." That is plain to hon. gentlemen, isn't it? Then he says further:
If you dig that ton of iron from the ground in your own country, you have got the iron and you have got the money.
If anybody can show me any weakness in that kind of reasoning I would like to see where it is; and that, in a nutshell, is the policy of protection. "Oh," these' fellows say, "you are a high-wall man; you would not let anything in or out." Not at all. One-half the goods that Canada now imports are brought in free of duty. Hon. gentlemen do not know that, hut it is the fact. For years about one-half of all the goods that Canada imports have been brought in free of duty and the remaining part only .pays about seventeen and a half to twenty per cent on the average, so we are a very moderate country so far as the
CMr. C&ckshutt ]	i r,
tariff is concerned. I say that there is no great kick coming in that regard, and I cannot see why our friends begrudge a comparatively moderate protection in order that all our industries may live and thrive. To me, this is a very simple proposition.
I want to ask the Finance Minister another question. I know the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is prompting him all he can, but I would like the minister later to give me his attention when I ask him a few questions.


Mr. NESBITT:: I was not saying a word with reference to the hon. gentleman; we were talking philosophy.


William Foster Cockshutt: That was probably
wise on the hon. gentleman's part. I want the Finance Minister, if he will, to explain by what course of reasoning this Government in the year 1918 took all the duty off tractors by Order in Council at one swoop, and after it was strongly protested against, as it was by many of the manufacturers of those goods, that procedure was repeated this year. Not only that, but the Government actually went into the tractor business itself. Now, the figures to which I refer have not been submitted to the House, although I think they should have been, and I hope somebody will get them. I was told that this Government itself bought two thousand tractors and proceeded to distribute them. Further, I have it here, printed in the Toronto Telegram, which copied it from, the Winnipeg Telegram, I suppose if there is a Winnipeg man here he will know whether it is true or not, that customs favours on the purchase of tractors in one entry cost this Government $400,000 by reason of their being allowed in at an undervaluation. These are -serious matters. . I think it was little short of robbery, and it was one of the rawest deals that ever came down the pike, so to speak, when the tractors were put on the free list over night. Now hon. gentlemen smile and probably they think I am drawing the long bow; but I have the figures here for eleven months of the imports of implements of various kinds for the eleven months ended 28th February, 1919. They show that the imports of tractors numbered 14,013 costing $13,630,000. Duties paid, nil. [DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Good.


William Foster Cockshutt: Absolutely nil. My hon. friend says "good." It was a case of "better, best," I suppose. This statement shows that altogether there were imported

into Canada in that time $23,000,000 worth of implements, and that the duties paid amounted to about $2,000,000 in round figures. There was paid $1,444,000 ordinary duty and $575,000-1 am leaving out the odd figures-in war tax. The duties were taken off these tractors without even allowing any drawback on the raw materia] at the time that it was done. I believe that has since been partially corrected, but only partially. In addition to that I am told that the International Harvester people of the United States invoiced to the International Harvester people of Canada, machines that were worth more than the value stated in order to qualify to get in. The price they should have come in at was over $1,400, but I am told, and the newspaper article to which I have referred bears it out, that these goods were allowed in at away below their value; the dumping clause was not applied nor the market value in the country from which they came, and, therefore, they were allowed in at an under valuation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that taking these things altogether I have a serious grievance against this Government, and I for one want to know what the proposed Tariff Commission, or Tariff Committee, means, to which reference has been made. If it means that they are going to hand out further hardship and at places where the tariff is considered too high to make it lower; if it is not intended to strengthen the tariff where it needs strengthening, but rather to weaken it; if it is intended where the tariff should be raised to pTill it down, then I say to your tents, O Israel" every man to his tent is my cry, and in the division of this House and the country upon the old battle lines and upon the old battle cry of protection versus free trade, I for one will take part and will join in the fray if I am spared and am in health and strength, for there is no controversy in which I like better to take a part than a controversy of this kind.
I do not suppose that I shall be invited to deliver many speeches in the West; I am sorry that they do not want to get the benefit out there of my enlightenment and knowledge. But I have the best of feelings for the West, and I am sure that they have similar feelings for me. I visit the West every year, and am always delighted to go there. I should be much pleased if some of the western members would come down into Ontario and see what we are doing here, because if they visited us as much as we visited them, we would have a much better understanding of each other. I have been in the West almost every year for
about ten years; I have a son permanently resident there, and I keep in touch with western matters. I am proud to acknowledge the possibilities of that country.. If I had a thousand steers I would prefer to put them on the plains out there rather than trust some of the inferior fences in Ontario, because out there the distances are so great and the steers have to go so far before they get to a fence that there is no question at all of their jumping the fences. In Ontario we cannot manage so well; we -have to keep up our fences and our sidelines and defend our farms against the inroads of the enemy which is prowling around by night and by day. And that is just what we have to do in connection with the tariff. We have to be constantly on the .watch, constantly on our guard, to see that the enemy does not get in.
. I submit that this is no time for the minister to make the proposals that lie is making in this Budget; that his proposal with regard to the railways is bad business and bad transportation methods. I am sure that [DOT]if he asks the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) who has just entered the Chamber, what he thinks about it, the Minister of Railways will tell him that he is over his depth already. In fact, he is in a river .broad and deep and wide, and his only *chance of getting ashore is the possibility of the river drying up-for he will never *be able to swim it. We have on our hands *from twelve to fifteen hundred million dollars worth of railways of a very doubtful order, and if we are going to shoulder upon *them part of the burden of the tariff, I miss my guess if we are going to come out safely. I assert, therefore, that the proposals of the minister are quite contrary [DOT]to the platform upon which he was elected, *because he was elected on a policy which-[DOT]was opposed to reciprocity or to free trade with United States. He has gone back on *that policy in very many ways. Two years ago he granted free wheat, which was one of the greatest bones of contention in that tariff schedule of 1911. What did the West tell us at that time? Give us free wheat, and all our burdens will be removed. Can you get one of them to tell you anything about free wheat to-day? They claim to be more shut out than they ever were under the highest duty that ever prevailed. With them it is a matter now of prohibition. They tell us that they are overtaxed. Let me suggest that they refer to the debates which took place on the free wheat business and refresh their memories, because if they do so they will find it was contended by the western mem-

bers who fought for free wheat that the exporter, not the consumer, paid the duties. A funny argument, I admit, but an argument which, nevertheless, was put up at that time. The then member for Weyburn, who is now a distinguished senator, shouted the argument for hours across the fjoor oi the House that the Canadian farmer paid the duty on wheat x entering the United States. So that the question of Who pays the duty is a mooted question; no man on either side can figure out who it is that pays the duty in all cases. But when our friends tell us that they paid the duty on the goods both coming in and going out, I am a little skeptical, and I think I have a right to be.
I have been in business a great many years. I have known American exporters to pay the whole duty and lay goods down in this country as cheaply as they were selling them at home. It is not done now, of course, in many cases-it is done with farm tractors-because the fair market value in the country from which the goods are shipped is the price that prevails. But I say that it has been done, and that it can be done. And why is that done? To kill out a home industry. As was remarked this afternoon, several home industries have been singled out and killed one at a time. That is the way the free trader works. He does not take them en masse and rush everything at once; he singles out an industry here, another there, and another there, and strangles them one by one; because if he rushed at them all at once the people would not stand for it. Thus it was that binder twine was killed out and thirteen or fourteen factories put out of business; the twine rose in price, and for a number of years there was a famine in [DOT] that particular commodity. The same thing happened in regard to barbed wire. When the war came on we could not make wire here to help beat back the enemy, because our factories had all been shut up by free trade. The same thing happened in connection with several other items that were taken one at a time and the same thing will happen in regard to implements, if the Finance Minister falls into the trap that has been laid for him. But we ought to have a fight on this question and a show-down before the people before we decide upon a policy of the kind proposed by the Finance Minister. We feel that we have just as much reason as any other class to look to this Government with confidence. We have tried to carry on an honest business, a 'business in which the profits have not been excessive. Mr. 
Speaker, the word " profiteer " is entirely overworked; I know what I am talking about. Fifty per cent of the industrials in which I have invested have not only made no profits, but have made a loss. It has been a question of the loss of the whole or a part of the capital invested, not a division of the profits. This talk about profiteers that we hear everywhere is absurd. Only a man here and there has made money; the bulk of the business throughout the country during the war has been carried on at a loss, or at a very small profit. I know my town pretty well; I know the balance sheets, and I know that many factories there which are well equipped and which employ highly skilled labour have paid no dividends during the last three or four years of the war and are now paying only three, four, or five per cent.
I appeal to the minister, and ask him whether at this time in Canada's history, when an army of five hundred thousand is coming back to our shores, when unrest is prevalent, and when wages are asked to be increased to the extent of 25 to 50 per cent, is it a fair time to take away the home market? I think you will find that question hard to answer; in fact, it is unanswerable. The workingmen are asking for higher wages and shorter hours: I stand for both, so far as I am able to do so. I say to the Finance Minister and to others concerned, that we are between the upper and the nether millstones in this matter. On the one hand we have the Westerners and others shouting that implements are altogether out of sight, and on the other hand we have the workingmen asking that their time be cut down 12i per cent and their wages increased 25 per cent. If that is done and our home market taken away-well, neither the minister nor anybody else can expect to succeed by following such a policy as that. Have a heart, gentlemen.
I had intended to deal with a great many other matters, but I promised the member for Maisonneuve (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) that I would try to finish by half past nine o'clock. I see that he is still smiling, and as I have overstepped the time by about three minutes, I do not want to impose upon his generosity; so I shall have to cut down my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Foster Cockshutt: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hand these statements in to Hansard. They simply contain what has been published in the press. One is with regard to farm produce

sol-d in the home market, which consists of about 85 per cent of the products of Canadian farms, and the other is a statement of the investment of $70,000,000, odd, in the implement industry, the number of hands employed, the amount of wages paid, and so on. I do not think any one would Object to my handing these in, and I would thus shorten my speech.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry, but it is not in conformity iwith the practice of the House that a member should hand in anything for publication in Hansard which has not been read.


William Foster Cockshutt: I will not trespass on the time of the House by reading thd statements, Mr. -Speaker.
I will uphold you in your ruling, but I want to point out that although I have made a long speech, I have done it extemporaneously, and probably it will be found to-morrow that I have made some slips. I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to some of my friends that if I were allowed to write out my speech as some hon. gentlemen do, I might not make quite as many slips as I do. But, speaking rapidly and endeavouring to live up to the rules of the House as I have endeavoured to do, I urge with greater consistency that you should have allowed this to go in rather than to impose upon me the painful necessity of reading what I do not want to read. I must, however, bow to your ruling and I will close up the shop with these words:	" I have yet many things to
say unto you, but' ye cannot bear them now."


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, this has been a red-letter day, as'you say in English. We have listened to a most interesting debate, and I must pay the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) the compliment that, although I do not share his views, he has been as usual, very eloquent and instructive from, his own point of view. I should net like to engage in a discussion with him on the respective merits of free trade and protection. When I hear an hon. gentleman who has the courage to connect the Almighty with the principles of protection, I dismiss at once from my mind the idea of entering into a discussion with him, because, forsooth, he might in the same breath prove that free trade has some sinister relationship with His Satanic Majesty. There is this, however, that I should like to say about the debate which took place this afternoon. It is a family quarrel, and I do not care to intervene. The
Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) who, if I .mistake not, stated' at the famous Winnipeg convention that . Union Government under Borden was impossible, said this afternoon thgt we must not play politics. Such a statement coming from him is rather amusing. Be that as it may, I will remind him that on every stage where there is a play, as far as I can remember since I was a mere boy, there have generally been on that stage a hero and a villain. The minister said this afternoon that some people wish to play the hero. In the play which was so well staged this afternoon, in my judgment, one of the two speakers did not play, but acted the hero; the other did not. This is all I am going to say on this family quarrel.
Furthermore, as I grow in years, I confess I have become rather disinterested in party politics. My hon. friends may smile, but I have been in public life for a quarter of a century in this House, and, speaking frankly, I say that after the treasons and desertions witnessed during the last four or five years, I have decided to be more of a Canadian in public life and less of a party man.
I regret that the Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden) is not in his seat this evening, because I intended to address myself to him very briefly, not to ibe severe, but to say a few plain truths. I am pleased to see him back with us in good health and, I hope, in fighting trim, because we are threatened with a general election. That was the under-current in the speech delivered this afternoon by the Minister of Colonization and Immigration, and the western free traders have had practically a similar threat thrown at them this evening by my good ifriend the hon. member for Brantford. This threat is not aimed at the Liberal party in this House. Let me remind my western Liberal-Unionist friends that this threat is aimed at them; but from my little experience in public life, let me tell them not to be nervous about that threat. I have read the history of both parties in this country and in the Old Country, and I have yet to learn that the Tory party has ever" dissolved Parliament three years in advance. Therefore, my western friends who are inclined in the present instance to withdraw their support from the Government may well vote against the tariff proposals, and they will ndt have to face their electors, because it is an unknown thing that a Tory party would dissolve Parliament three years in advance. Such an event has taken

restore representative institutions. Let us have responsible government in 'Canada. During the war we discarded all British ideals of government; and if there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, which has made of your humble servant a very detached Liberal from the Liberalism of old, it is the spectacle of so-called * Reformers joining hands with the foes of representative government in order to defeat it. Let us, therefore, have no more government by Orders in Council when Parliament is in session. Let us not forget this elemental truth, that the Cabinet is but a committee of the House of Commons; it is but a committee of Parliament directly responsible to Parliament. Let us revert to the ancient usages of Parliament, for they are our birthright as British citizens and as freemen. Let us at the earliest moment repeal the War-time Elections Act; it is a blemish on our statute-book. Let us do away with those commissions that are being created by the dozen every month. Let us issue the writs, Mr. Speaker, to hold the by-elections that are overdue, and let us return to the old electoral franchise. These are the first things that ought to be done in order to solve the many vexed problems which are confronting Canada to-day.
The other big question is our enormous debt. It seems to me that the first essential of good, sound government should be to maintain our national credit on a safe basis. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance gave us the other day his views on that question. He exclaimed, " Produce and save." That is an excellent slogan, but the Government must practice what they preach, and I contend they have done nothing of the kind. Canada's financial position is not very pleasing either in retrospect or in prospect. As we were told the other day by the Finance Minister, the total war expenditure was, in round figures, $1,327,000,000. During the war our national debt was increased by $1,580,000,000. We have run behind to the extent of $257,000,000. Out of this we have spent on capital account $180,000,000. We have borrowed $77,000,000 in excess of current expenditure. This is very bad business. Any manager of a private concern who would, under similar circumstances make such a statement would be considered as running the concern on the straight road to bankruptcy.
So much for the retrospect. Now what about the prospect for next year? It is not very alluring either. The expenditure for the next fiscal year is estimated to be $620,000,000. Out of this we are told that
rMr. Lemieux.J
$300,000,000 is to be spent on demobilization, and that the other running expenses will be $320,000,000. The estimated revenue will reach the sum of only $280,000,000. We are going to be short by $40,000,000 for running expenses. The $40,000,000 for running expenses and the $300,000,000 for demobilization are going to be covered by a new loan. I said a moment ago that the slogan of the Finance Minister was " Produce and save." Well, Sir, in view of this financial statement which is before the House in black and white, the real slogan which the minister seems to have adopted is " Borrow and spend," not " produce and [DOT] save." The word "economy" is not to be found in the dictionary of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He should not forget that we only have a population of this country of 8,000,000.
How are we to face this enormous debt? I would say to the Government: First of all cut out, now that the war is over, the military frills, the military waste; reduce the number of officials in the Militia Department; maintain the militia force on a pre-war basis plus the experience acquired by our men and officers during the war; reduce the number of civil servants in the many departments of Government and above all reduce the expenditure on public works.
I was surprised the other day to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) inform the House that the new Parliament buildings would cost the country $8,060,000, when three years ago we signed a contract with Peter Lyall and (Company for $5,000(000. How can the people have any confidence in public men when they are ready to violate the sanctity of contracts? . Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a premonition that something o;f that kind would ultimately happen and with my hon. friend the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) 1 resigned from that committee because, as I said, we had no authority from Parliament to spend money on new construction. The only authority we had was to spend money for the restoration of the buildings. Now see what has happened. The contract is discarded and $3,000,000 more will be spent. Reduce public expenditure. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) came before the Committee of the House the other day and asked us to vote $3,000,000 for the deepening of a section of the Welland canal and $1,000,000 to be spent on the Trent Valley canal. The reasons adduced by my hon. friend for this expenditure are worth noting. You can see by his words-you can read between the

lines in Hansard-that my hon., friend is far from being convinced that this expenditure is necessary. Speaking of the Welland canal he said: If the men who are employed on this Welland ship canal can get employment in any other way in that district, which has always been their home, from which they left to go overseas and fight for this country and to which they have returned, I am willing to close down the work at any time.
Is this a. justification for the expenditure of $3,000,000 of our money when that money is so badly needed to reduce the enormous national debt of Canada. When I asked my hon. friend how many returned soldiers were employed bn the work, he said about two hundred. For the sake of two hundred men in that district we are committing the country to an enormous expenditure which will possibly extend to forty or fifty millions of dollars. Now my hon. friend was asking the House to vote the sum of $1,000,000 for the Trent Valley canal. On that occasion I put a question to him, and let me quote from Hansard what actually transpired:
Mr. Lemieux:	How many ships passed
through the canal last year?
Mr. J. D. Reid: I have not the record here. I have always heen under the impression that the building of the canal was really throwing money away.


Mr. J. D. REID:: May I say to the hon. member that the position he has taken in so far as I am concerned is scarcely fair. On the occasion to which he refers, the reporter used the word "have" instead of "had." If the hon. member reads the balance of my remarks it will be evident at once that there was an error on the part of the Hansard reporter. As an old parliamentarian it is hardly fair on the part of my hon. friend to misrepresent my statement as he is doing to-night, and as he did the other evening in my absence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not misquoting
or misrepresenting my hon. friend. I followed his remarks very closely in the discussion in question and I repeat what I said a moment ago and will go a little further-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to go any further in that regard. There is a rule of the House which forbids reference to anything said or done in a previous debate, or in a previous discussion in Committee of the Whole, during the same session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not question your decision, Sir, but the course which I am
taking was followed this afternoon by two ministers of the Crown and no objection was made by the Chair. I say that according to the statements made by a minister of the Crown on a certain occasion in the House the money expended on this work was simply given away for the pleasure of spending it and not in the interest of the undertaking itself.


John Dowsley Reid: I take issue with the hon. gentleman and say that no such statement was made in the House by me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, Hansard is there to speak for itself. My hon. friend's words, though embalmed in Hansard, are full of meaning; they live and speak from Hansard.


John Dowsley Reid: I again take issue with the hon. gentleman and say that the words I used upon the occasion to which he refers do not bear the interpretation that he puts upon them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the highest respect for my hon. friend, but his speech is set forth in the record. I listened to it, in company with many others, and we were struck with the accent of truth which characterized my hon. friend's remarks on that occasion. It is very embarrassing for a minister of the Crown to have a load of $4,000,000 on his conscience, but there it is.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I say: Cut out the military waste; reduce the number of officials; reduce the public works; stop this foolish expenditure on the Welland 'and Trent Valley canals, and I appeal to my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council, and to his better judgment to drop the Official Record. Who. reads the Record? The expenditure upon it is a useless expenditure. Really, my hon. friend should live up to his better reputation. Nobody in this House or in the country takes any stock in the Record; I hope my hon. friend will stop spending money uselessly and find other channels in which to more usefully exercise his activities.


Jacques Bureau: Beginning with the nationalization of the press.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the huge national debt, which is staggering, I do not hesitate to say thait the Government's project of railway nationalization is nothing short of a tragedy. In view of the experience of our neighbours in the United States and that of Great Britain, the scheme of railway nationalization in Canada is simply an act of folly. It will involve this country in nothing less

than actual disaster unless the Government revises its policy in that regard. On this question, Mr. Speaker, let me read the candid advice of a writer published in the Monetary Times, of Toronto, in its issue of May 2nd, just to afford an idea of the magnitude of the financial obligations which the Government is assuming in connection with this scheme:
Prom the foregoing reasoning we may group our results in the following way: Bv taking over the Grand Trunk the government would have to assume capital obligations of about $400,000,000 and annual charges of $20,000,000'; and by acquiring the Grand Trunk Pacific its capital obligations will be increased by about $300,000,000 and its annual expenses by at least $8,000,000. This means that by such a proposed course of government ownership the enormous debt of Canada would be augmented by one-third of its present amount. When we take these facts into consideration in connection with the annual deficit of at least $20,0:00,000 in the case of the Canadian Northern which has been acquired by the assumption of $434,312,747 of liabilities, including a funded debt of $327,928,765 and the deficit in operating expenses of the Canadian government railways, amounting in 1916 to $6,l'59/503 without the payment of any interest on capital, it will be seen that the drain upon the Dominion treasury will soon make heavy calls upon the taxpayers of this country.	-
On this question of railway nationalization the Government is playing a double game. The Minister of Finance and the President of the Council raise a clamoui in this Chamber in favour of railway nationalization as a feature of the Government policy. Do you believe, M:r. iSpeaker, that slumbering, ap the Senate is, we do not hear the echoes coming from that Chamber?


An hon. MEMBER:: Snores.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A few days ago, the leader 'of the Government in that Chamber, used the following language, which is at variance with the language used in this House. You remember the professed indignation of my hon. friends when I took exception-as did the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to the assumption by the Government of the obligation involved in the taking over of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. When the matter came before the Senate a few days ago, the leader of the Government in the Senate said:
I am not prepared to say that in committing ourselves to this Bill we necessarily commit ourselves to the continuance of public ownership for all time. I am not prepared to say that personally I am in favour of the Government assuming for all time to come the administration of the railway systems that from time to time may come into its hands.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must call the hon. gentleman to order again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You need not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, because I have just
finished.


Georges Henri Boivin: Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure says:
It is also a part of the unwritten law of Parliament that no allusion should be made in one House to the debates in the other Chamber, a rule always enforced by the Speaker with the utmost strictness.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I said a moment ago, ministers of the Crown quoted this afternoon from Hansard, but were not called to order. I am reminded of what happened to a young man who had just been appointed to the diplomatic service by the French foreign minister, Talleyrand, the master of the cynics. The budding young statesman next morning went to pay his respects and his obeisances to Talleyrand, the greatest diplomat of Europe in his day and generation, and asked advice from the old cynic as to what he should do as secretary to the French legation somewhere in the Balkans. Talleyrand simply said to the young man: " Surtout, pas de zeld "- " above all, no zeal." I would commend to the Deputy Speaker this bit of advice and not be over-zealous, especially when ministers of the Crown break the rules and are mot called to order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact. that I was not in the Ohair when the rule was broken. I am trying to enforce the rules of the House as well as I possibly can, according to my humble knowledge, and the hon. member is too old a Parliamentarian not to know that decisions from the Chair may be appealed from, but not criticised.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 

served as a voluntary nurse at the city hall, because we were short of nurses in this city; and, Sir, when she came home in the evening and told me of what she had seen in this city, not many acres from my own property, I then discovered that we had slum conditions so familiar in some of the poverty 'Stricken populations of Europe. Yes, here in Ottawa families of eight and nine were clubbed together in rooms where they had barely the necessaries of life. All this in the capital city of Ottawa not far from the Parliament Buildings. Unfortunately in this country the cult of Mammon is developing; theGoldenCalf has become the God of too many of our fellow citizens. On the one hand you have the devotees of the Golden Calf and on the other we have abject poverty. This is at the root of the evil; this is -what causes unrest, strikes and revolutions. My statement is not exaggerated. I see before me the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who belongs to the same church as the Rev. Dr. Bland, a man well known in western and also in eastern Canada. Let me read to my hon. friend the parting words of Dr. Bland on the 30th of December last as we were, in the language of Tennyson, " ringing out the old and ringing in the new year." I wish my hon. friend would pay some attention to the statement of this, one of the most distinguished divines of Canada who, writing to the Ottawa Citizen on reconstruction said:
If we do not want the war without, that is now over, to break out anew within our borders, the immediate and imperative duty is that the whole collective intelligence and patriotism of good Canadians be organized for the annihilation of injustice. First we must get a Government that will take exploitation and profiteering by the throat. At one time,-
And this is a very striking image of speech.
-when leeches were more extensively used for medical purposes than at present, artificial ponds were formed near Bordeaux in France, and stocked with leeches. Into these ponds worn-out or disabled horses were driven as food for the leeches. Canada, whose sons have won unsurpassed glory amongst the nations for their valour, Canada, the mother of the heroes of ISt. Julien and Yimy, stands to-day like an old nag in the pond', the helpless unresisting prey of the profiteering leeches that hang about her in festoons sucking her life-blood away, human leeches that never get gorged. It is these piled-up millions, this tolerated piracy that is maddening the common people of Canada.
The strikes were not on at Winnipeg, but he was prophesying their coming. Mark well, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bland was a supporter of Union Government at the last gen-
[.Mr. T.emieux. 1
eral election, and possibly he may have been swayed in favour of Union Government by the eloquence of my good friend the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), but now he says:
The Union Government has utterly failed to protect the people from the profiteers.
Naturally and justly the whole mass of ordinary people who want only a square deal have lost confidence in it. They want a government that will deal as firmly in the common interest with wealth as with life.
Mr. Speaker, I care not what Government is in office. I say in all sincerity to those like my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), who believe, or affect to believe, that we on this side of the House are anxious to cross the floor and occupy the treasury benches, that I would support any honest Government of true Canadians, not men lost in Imperialistic dreamland, but true 'Canadians, who would work for their country, who would do something for the returned soldier, and seek to alleviate the burdens of the consumers and help the farmers, the real producers of this country engaged in the basic industry of agriculture.
A word about the high cost of living. There is no doubt that the high cost of living is partly due to the disturbance which has taken place in the world, but it is also due, and largely due, to tariff impediments. The cost of living was high just prior to the war. We had bread lines in the city of Regina, in the city of Winnipeg, in the city of Toronto., and in the city of Montreal, in 1913 and in 1914. There was no war on then, but there was- a tariff, and there were profiteers and cold storage kings and manipulators of foodstuffs, just as surely as there are to-day, plus the disturbance caused by the war and the decrease 'in the productivity of the world. .
Let us be business-like. Before saddling the country with the enormous burden that public ownership of railways will entail, let us begin at the beginning and give food to the people at a reasonable price. If it is necessary for that purpose to nationalize the cold storage plants in Canada, let us nationalize them. They have done so in New Zealand. If we have reached a point where in the city of Ottawa and the other large centres of Canada the housewife cannot give to her children three meals a day, I say by all means let us nationalize cold storage plants and let us do for the people in the matter of their food what the Government has done to please the press of Canada. The Government has found it easy to give the press of Canada cheap paper. A question was put in the House on the

24th of March last by my hon. friend from Ctoarlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. C'asgrain). I know that I cannot quote, but the question need not be read before the House. The facts are that the Government, in order, so they say, to get a supply of paper for the press of Canada fixed a cheap rate, in order really to get the support of that press during the election. The Government appointed a commission which regulated the price of paper. It has also been proven that the press got from the treasury inside of two years the enormous sum of two million and a few thousand dollars in advertisements. Let us now think of the ordinary consumers of this country. If need be, let us put an export duty on the food of the people. My hon. friends are afraid of the trouble at Winnipeg and in other cities throughout Canada. What is the cause of that unrest? It is that the people do not get the food which they require for their sustenance. There are other things which they are clamouring for, such as shorter hours and collective bargaining, but at the very base of their grievances lies the fact that many of them do not get three meals a day. Once again I would ask the Prime Minister who went to Versailles to remember that the French Kevo-lution was primarily caused by the fact that the wheat was not properly distributed. The masses did not get food enough,'and a day came when the women of Paris started for Versailles and brought back, not the king, but as they said in their song, "the baker and his wife." The people of the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Toronto will some day clamour to get the bakers in their midst. I hope they will not lose their heads as did the unfortunate Louis the Sixteenth; they have lost theirs in a different sense.
We have had hard times in this country before, but we found it possible to face the situation. We are told that the Liberal party is not a low tariff or a Free Trade Party. I care not by what name the Liberal party is labelled, I am a low tariff man, and I take pride in the fact that I belong to a party which for fifteen years was led by men like Laurier and Fielding, who were low tariff men. In 1897, 48 articles were added to the free list and duties were reduced on 147 other articles, including farm implements. In 1904, 14 more articles were added to the free list, and duties were reduced on 14 others. In 1907, the duty on harvesters, mowers, reapers,' self-binfiers and binding attachments, was reduced from 20 to 17J per
214i
cent and Great Britain was given a preference amounting to 33J per cent.
Mr. Speaker, in 1911 the Liberal party, a low-tariff party, went down to defeat before the expiry of its parliamentary term in order to secure for the farmers of Canada, and especially for those of the West, the benefits to 'be derived from the reciprocity pact. Since then the Liberal party has remained true to its policy. First of all, it has acclaimed the victory won whilst its members were sitting on your left. Because, although it was disloyal in 1911 to advocate free wheat, and although the country was threatened with separation from the motherland, dissention and all that sort of thing, the men who said, " No truck nor trade with the United States " have been forced toy common sense and by public opinion to give Western Canada free wheat. We have free potatoes, too. Mr. Speaker, I pity the honest faithful of Toronto. Oh, faithful of Toronto! who listened so attentively in 1911 to the pious utterances of the Flavelles, of the Byron Walkers, and of the Whites and of the Bordens, clamouring, " No truck nor trade with the United States" ! You were then eloquently told that Canadian trade should be directed from East to West, and that the farmers should develop an interprovincial trade- Oh, what a fall from Heaven! Only the other day the Minister of Finance had to confess that, under the loyal Tory regime, the biggest customer of Canada was not John Bull, tout Uncle Sam, in both exports and imports, and that he had to yield free wheat, not by a temporary Order in Council, tout by a permanent statutory enactment. Poor Toronto! How deceived art thou toy those flag-flappers! The Liberal party has lived up to its programme and its policy, and not later than last winter Sir Wilfrid Laurier, presiding at a Liberal convention in Ottawa, stated most distinctly what was its fiscal policy; and the following resolution which was adopted received his blessing:
Now, therefore, he it resolved that in the opinion of this association, not only should the said tariff increases of 7 \ per cent and 5\ per cent he immediately repealed, hut that there should also be an immediate downward revisions of the tariff in accordance with the above* mentioned omnibus resolution moved by the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons on May 23, 1917, in these terms:
" 1. That wheat, wheat flour and all other products of wheat he placed upon the free list.
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating-, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.

3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefore be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming- from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British Preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff."
This -was the policy solemnly adopted by the Liberal party in convention assembled and sanctioned by the trusted and venerable Liberal leader, and that is the policy of His Majesty's loyal Opposition under the leadership of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). We .believe that if
11 p.m. adopted it will relieve the returned soldier, the farmer, and consumer generally. But, we are asked, where will you get the revenue from? Mr. Speaker, I suppose you will allow me to quote just two lines of a debate which took place in 1917.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
gentleman may quote the entire debate if he chooses.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not. I will quote just what I want to quote. II am not so fresh as to accept your advice there. The question was put by one of the' ministers of the Crown-the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) had asked the question as to where the revenue would come from, and the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), then a member of the Opposition, thus answered the question. He said:	\	i ] j j | j| $: j
I do not want to leave the subject before trying to answer in a very hurried way the question which my hon. friend put this afternoon, and I knew it was coming the very moment you talk about reducing the tariff hon. gentlemen opposite ask: Where are you going to get the revenue? I tried to take down the Minister's exact words this afternoon. He said: "We could not raise the money without the tariff; it is and must be the main source of revenue."
And here is the concrete answer made by the hon. gentleman (iMr- 'Carvell), one of the Ministers of the Crown, to that question :
I have not asked him to do without the tariff. I have never asked and never will ask a government to remove the tariff on any article if by so doing they would prevent the article being manufactured in Canada under ordinary conditions. But I say and shall continue to say until common sense methods prevail with the Government of this country that when an article is manufactured so cheaply in Canada as to prevent the importation of the foreign article, that article requires no protection ; it is paying no duty, and it requires no protection.
[Mr. Lemieux.j
Further on, the hon. gentleman said:
The question is in everybody's mouth; the problem is with every man who has to earn a living for himself and family. No matter how my hon. friend may draw his cloak around this question, no matter what sophistries his monopolistic friends may preach to him, I can tell him that the common people are thinking of this question as they never thought of anything before since Canada was Canada, and the people will' And a way if my hon. friend cannot; they will find a way, and they will find the man to get rid of this burden on the necessities of life. They will show my hon. friend how to raise the revenue, and how to make the man who has grown rich out of tariffs and out of the present war pay his fair share into the treasury of this country, not only while the war is on, but after the war, when 1 believe terrible conditions Will exist and additional taxation will have to be raised.
Prophetic language, 'Mr. Speaker! Logical answer! Where will the revenue be derived from? The Government can get the answer from within its own councils. The hon. Minister of Public Works, when he was unshackled, when he was the " Fighting Frank " we all knew of, gave the Government the only answer that could be given by any sensible patriotic Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I fear I have trespassed too long on the time of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. LUOIEN CANNON:: Possibly the
Tower.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir, Bolshevism is another form of autocracy, and we must defeat it. I think every Canadian, be he Liberal or Tory, will help the Government in

defeating Bolshevism, rampant as it is today in Western Canada. We will defeat it, Mr. Speaker, by restoring constitutional government, by re-establishing the sanctity of our courts, and by dealing with the profiteers. A country which permits its government to usurp the authority of Parliament and to set aside the judgment of the courts, even in a Habeas Corpus case, where soldiers were ordered by the Minister of Justice to ignore the decision of the highest, court dn Alberta; a country which permits its government to protect the food speculators and to shower titles on the Flavelles and tutti quanti, that country becomes a seed plot for Bolshevism. By the way, I notice that the gentleman who leads the strikers in Winnipeg is a parson, Rev. Mr. Ivens. I do not know to what church he belongs.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a Methodist.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me put this question to my good friend the President of the Privy Council, and I would like to put it to any Massey Hall meeting ot to any Orange Lodge in Canada; suppose that instead of the Rev. Mr. Ivens, the leader of the Soviet Government in Winnipeg had been let us say Rev. Father Drummond, a Jesuit, what would have happened to him? Mr. Speaker, I claim that if instead of the Rev. Mr. Ivens, a Jesuit had been leader -of the Soviet Government in Winnipeg, he would have been ishot by this time.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose it had been the Pope?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Government was warned long ago because the labour unions of Canada have made known their grievances. They protested against the sending of Canadian troops to Siberia. They demanded the immediate return of those troops and supplemented that demand with a warning against militarizing tendencies in physical training, and a protest against military instruction in schools. They demanded the adoption in principle of the shorter working day. They urged pensions for mothers, orphans, and the aged, and a system of health and unemployment insurance. They urged the abolition of the present system of taxation. They pronounced unsatisfactory the Government's housing scheme. They pronounced "a farce" the present system of vocational training for soldiers. They advocated equal pensions for officers and men; preference in employment for returned soldiers, and equalization of the gratuities of Imperial and French reservists with the Canadian
I'Mr. Lemieux.]	r	'
gratuity. They urged state guarantee of the maintenance and the medical care of all children until they are of self-supporting age. They passed on to the executive, proposals that an embargo be placed upon all exportable foodstuffs until the home market is supplied, and that foods held in cold storage for speculation be confiscated or the cold storage business nationalized. There, you have a list of grievances made known to the Government through the independent labour party. Of course, at the present time the two chief features in the list of labour grievances dn Western Canada are the eight-hour day and collective bargaining. The Prime Minister says: "We have no jurisdiction in these matters." But last year, the 'Government by Order in (Council made light of the Constitution. It declared that the borrowing powers of the various provincial governments were at an end for the duration of the war. I protested against that. I said: "The passage of this Order in Council is against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution." I was answered by my good friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) (who said "Oh, my hon. friend is parochial." Well, I can return the compliment to my hon. friend to-day as well as to the Prime Minister. Salus populi suprema lex. I believe it is true, !Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court will declare that the Federal Parliament may not have the power to pass legislation in favour of the eight-hour day, or in favour of collective bargaining. But the Government can go to the Privy Council as was done in the case of prohibition. The Privy Council declared in the matter of prohibition that, although local option was a question of provincial jurisdiction :
Yet their lordships do not doubt that some matters, in their origin local and provincial, might attain such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the Dominion, and to justify the Canadian Parliament in passing laws for their regulation or abolition in the interest of the Dominion," that such a matter might "become a matter of national concern in such sense as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada."
So that, taking as a precedent the final decision in the above case the Government can go before the Privy Council and get the necessary authority. The Privy Council might declare, as it did in the matter referred to, that questions which in a sense are provincial can become at a certain moment federal, that is to say, of general concern. Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the Prime Minister stating from

Ottawa 'that Ithis Parliament has no jurisdiction in this matter, that it is a provincial matter; and the next day to hear the provincial Premier stating, "I have no jurisdiction; this is a matter which belongs Ito the Federal Parliament." The people will net stand for this very long. I say to the Government: "Do not dilly-dally with this matter." If Sir Wilfrid Laurier were Prime Minister of Canada he would fearlessly and squarely face the issue like a man, like a patriot, and like a greait Canadian that he was.
Let me remind my hon. friend that many things will have to change and, indeed, have changed in this world since the war. The Minister of the Overseas Military Forces (Sir Edward Kemp) stated something the other day which is in the nature of a truism. Speaking of the returned soldiers' lot in Canada, he said that this world will not be the same old world as it was. He was right, Mr. Speaker. I find, in a more classical foTm, the same idea expounded in one of the greatest speeches that Mr. Asquith ever delivered. Speaking a few weeks ago in London, Mr. Asquith used the following language-I ask hon. gentlemen to apply it to the present situation :
We have heen living in this western world, and I speak here of America as well as Europe, very largely on social and industrial conventions. There is nothing in history more impossible, either to dispute or explain, than the vitality of conventions. Stone walls and iron law are nothing to the thraldom of unreflecting habit. And then suddenly a moment comes, when, for some reason or another, the mass of men open their eyes and join their hands, and down goes the Bastille as quickly as did the walls of Jericho.
Is not that the isituation of to-day in Western Canada?
The immediate objective may he, and is very likely to he, ill-chosen. You are confronted *-we are at this moment-by many unreasonable demands that seek unattainable ends by questionable means.
What a wealth of thought in one sentence !
Be it so, but it is the rational, the inevitable consequence of a war which has let loose the fountains of the great deep-that eyes should be opened to things they never saw before, new hopes, new aspirations, new dreams should he engendered in minds which were dulled by habit, whose windows have never been opened to the light and air, and that not a few of the conventions which have held things together should be found to have lost their binding force.
A league of classes may seem to the common judgment as Utopian, as did, less than five years ago, a League of Nations. But let us
keep in touch with facts. The artificial and brittle bonds of convention have served their purpose and had their day. See to it not only in the international, but in the domestic sphere at home, at your own doors and among your own people,-see to it that you replace those temporary and more or less artificial ties by something that is not artificial hut natural, by something which is not brittle but unbreakable,

the enduring bonds of human brotherhood.
Mr. Speaker, I have read most of Mr. Asquith's speeches delivered during the last twenty-five years but I think that the veteran statesman, the great Liberal leader of Great Britain, never uttered truer, more noble and more eloquent words, and at all events none more applicable to the present situation, both in Great Britain and in Canada, than those I have just quoted.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House if I have spoken at length; but I will not speak very much more during the present session. Permit me to say this in conclusion: I 'am a Canadian; I am a Liberal. I am proud to serve in the ranks of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, because I know that here I serve ithe people most efficiently, because I know that the present Liberal Opposition is wedded to the fiscal policy laid down 'by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the convention held in Ottawa in the month of February. I know that some horn, gentlemen will say to their wavering friends: Beware, do you not see looming on the benches opposite the usual Quebec nightmare? I could read that in the speech delivered this afternoon by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder): Those who think that the members from Quebec are anxious to taike office are very much mistaken. They are only anxious to do their duty by the country and for the country in a loyal manner and according to the best traditions of true Liberalism. They do not care for office; they would not accept office at the price of the sacrifice of their dearest principles.
Sir, of late this foxy Manitoba politician, Hon. Robert Rogers, has been paying many visits to French Canadians in Montreal. In a speech delivered not very long ago he very cordially invited the province of Quebec to>
join once more the old Tory party. Mr. Speaker, this appeal reminds me of one of Lafontaine's fables. The philosophy of the fabulist will no doubt impress itself upon the minds of the sponsors of the new " get together " movement, who only yesterday shouted from the house-tops, scribbled in the press and placarded on the walls and the fences of every village, town and city, this slogan: " Is Quebec going to rule Can-

ada?" You will see how apt the fable of Lafontaine is under the present circumstances, so far as concerns Mr. Rogers, "the Manitoba wonder," as the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) once labelled him. The fox in Lafontaine's fable spoke thus in tones of kind regard to the veteran cock, adroit and cunning, who was mounting guard upon a tree:
Our quarrel, brother, is at an end;
Henceforth I hope to live your friend;
For peace now reigns Through the animal domains.
I hear the news; come down, I pray,
And give me the embrace fraternal,
And .please, my brother, don't delay !
But the French Canadian, who has inherited from the Gallic cock some wit and some humour, rising to the occasion, will reply to Mr. Rogers and his kind:
"Yonder come two greyhounds which I flatter Myself are couriers on this very matter,
They come so fast, they'll be here in a minute. I'll down, and all of us will seal the blessing With general kissing and caressing.''
"Adieu", said fox, "my errand is pressing;
I'll hurry on my way,
And we'll rejoice some other day...."
The cock laughed sweetly in his sleeve,
"Tis doubly sweet the deceiver to deceive."
That is the attitude of the French Canadian Liberals, Mr. Speaker.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Thursday, June 12, 1919.