[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. R. C. Henders (Macdonald) the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization was concurred in.


Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works):: At a meeting of the Joint
Parliamentary Cbmmittee for the Parliament Building yesterday it was decided to invite certain members of this House and the Senate to inspect the building for certain purposes. I beg therefore to move:
That a committee of four members of this House be appointed to act with a like committee from the Senate for the purpose of assisting the Joint Parliamentary Committee for the Parliament Building in the allocation of the space in the new Parliament Building between the two Houses and also allocating certain space to various members and officials of the respective Houses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister), for the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 138, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens. He said:	The provisions of the
main Act and of the amendments now' being consolidated are well known to hon. members of the House. The purpose of the present Bill is:
(1)	To consolidate the present Canadian Naturalization Acts of 1914, and 5 Geo. V, chapter 7.
(2)	To incorporate therewith the provisions of the Imperial Act of 1914 as amended by the Imperial Act of 1918.
The main provisions in the new Bill are as follows: Provision is made for the revocation of certificates of naturalization heretofore granted in Canada.
(a)	Where such certificates have been obtained1 by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.
(b)	where the holder of the certificate has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty;
(c)	v'here the holder of the certificate has during the war unlawfully traded with the enemy, etc.;
[Stage Direction]
(d)	where such holder was not a good character at the date of grant of the certificate;
(e)	where such holder has continued to reside abroad for not less than seven years and has not maintained connection with His Majesty's dominions ;
(f)	where such holder remains, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state;
(g)	In any case where the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good.
Provision is made whereby the Governor in Council may cause inquiry to be made into the above facts before making order to revoke a certificate.
I should say that these powers in Great Britain are exercised by the Home Secretary, I think. Wg have departed from that in this Bill by providing that such powers in this country shall be exercised by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
Provision is -also made, in the language of the Imperial Act, for the naturalization of persons who served with the British forces in the Great War. The provision in this respect is as follows:
A period spent in the service of the Crown may, if the Secretary of State of Canada thinks fit, be treated ns equivalent to a period of residence in Canada.
The language employed in that respect is precisely the same as that to be found in the Imperial Act of last year. The period of residence in this Act, as in the Act of 1914, is five years.
Mr. D. D. McKBNZIE (Leader of the Opposition):: I quite understand that this motion is not debatable, but I should like to state to the Prime Minister that this Bill strikes me as being of very far-reaching effect and of the greatest possible importance, and I fear it is being introduced at too late a stage in the session. If it could possibly stand over until another session I think it would be more satisfactory to Parliament and to the country.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The Naturalization Act of 1914 was based upon a resolution reached at the Imperial Conference of 1911. That resolution had for its purpose the fixing of uniform standards of naturalization throughout the various Dominions of the Empire, and the granting of certificates of naturalization Which would be effective, not only in the country in which they were granted, as was the case previously, but throughout the whole Empire.
The Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on that occasion was adopted in Canada after a great deal of 
correspondence and negotiation, and I understand it has also been adopted in Newfoundland. It was to be brought before the parliaments of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa immediately before the war, but I understand that owing to the war the measure has not been proceeded with in those countries. The purpose of this Bill is to render our Act uniform with that of the United Kingdom, and its provisions are framed with that object. I do not think we have departed in any important respect whatever from the principles embodied in the Imperial Act of last year. My hon. friend suggests delay, but I do not think that a fair examination of the Bill will support any reason which could be advanced therefor. It is extremely important that the Act should he made uniform with that of the United Kingdom, and it is also of the utmost importance that the proposals to which I have very briefly alluded, and which will be found in the provisions of the Bill, should be carried into effect in this country at the earliest opportunity.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answ'ered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. BURNHAM:: Is it a fact that the Government is paying 29J cents an hour to labourers on the Trent Canal, in the vicinity of Peterborough, while the current rate for the same district and work is unversally 4*5 cents per hour?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The rates of wages now paid on the Trent canal in the Peterborough district- for casual labour-30 cents per hour; permanent labour, $2.60 per day.
The Department of Railways and Canals has no information showing that the current rate for this district is 45 cents per hour.
The question of increase in wages is now under consideration by the department.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT COMMISSION.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: 1. Who is the Deputy Minister of The Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Commission?
2>. Wlj^t is his salary?
3.	Has he any Military record? If so, what?
4.	What were his qualifications? '
[DOT]5. Is it a fact, that medical, legal and other officials are employed by the said Board, who have had no overseas military record? If so. what are their names, and what salary is paid to each?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	Frederick Gerald Robinson.
2.	$6,000 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	Experience previously gained as an executive officer of the Military Hospitals Commission, in which capacity he was brought into close contact with all phases of the work of the department. Mr. Robinson has been engaged in the executive direction of commercial enterprises for a number of years, giving him an intimate knowledge of conditions in all parts of Canada.
5.	No administrative medical officials are employed at head office of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, who have no overseas military record.
No legal officials are employed by the department.
The only other administrative officials employed at head office who have no overseas military records are: F. G. Robinson, deputy minister, salary $6,000 per annum; E. H. Scammell, assistant deputy minister and secretary, salary $4,000; Major L. L. Anthes, C.E.F., director of the Information and Service Branch, salary $2,500; W. E. Wilford, C.E.F., (ex-Pte.) chief purchasing agent, salary $3,000 per annum; J. H. W. Bower, general superintendent engineering branch, salary $3,900 per annum.
Note; Those whose names are followed by the letters C.E.F., saw service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force but not overseas.


C.P.R. STATION QUEBEC.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Did the Government lend any assistance to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the building of the C.P.R. Station at Quebec?
2.	If so, what form did this assistance take?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


THE WINNIPEG STRIKE-ALLEGED REMOVAL OF PRISONERS TO KINGSTON.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIlE:	I observe in the press
this morning that there is some suggestion of removing the prisoners who were arrested in Winnipeg to the city of Kingston for trial. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether this is true?
Robert Laird Borden: I have not, nor has any member of the Government, so far
as I am aware, heard of any such proposal.
I think it is merely a press rumour. With regard to the matter in question, however, it might be of interest to my hon. friend to know that the charge upon which the persons alluded to have been arrested is seditious conspiracy. The counsel at Winnipeg who had charge of the matter were selected with great care and were instructed that they should not take any proceedings for the arrest or prosecution of any person except under the direction and with the approval of the Minister of Labour. That instruction, I understand, has been carried out.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned 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, and the amendment of Mr. McMaster thereto (resumed from Tuesday, June 17).
Mr. H. O. WRIGHT (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this House for the first time to make a few remarks, I feel 1 should almost .apologize to you. Sir, and the hon. members of the House for the fact that in so doing I am breaking a precedent of long standing. In the short time I have been here I have come to regard precedent with considerable respect and reverence, and I think you will appreciate my position under the present circumstances. The precedent to which I have reference is one that was created by the hon, gentleman (Mr. Champagne), who preceded me in the representation of Battleford constituency. I believe that this is the first time that the people of that constituency have had an opportunity of having their views expressed in this House.
Before proceeding to a consideration of the subjects under discussion, I feel it my duty to make a few observations on the past record of the Government. I believe there are very few western members who have had the opportunity that I have had to observe just what has been going on at Ottawa, particularly during recess. I think it is only fair to state, in view of the prevailing criticism in the country, that it is my firm belief that the hon. gentlemen who occupy the Cabinet benches at the present time have made an honest effort to prosecute the war to a successful issue, facing difficulties which were very considerable indeed, and in the solution of which they had absolutely nothing in the way of precedent to assist them. I think I should go a
.'>588

little further and express to the hon. the Prime Minister my heartfelt thanks for the stand he has taken during the latter years of his parliamentary career.
I am sure that the country owes him a great debt of gratitude because in all the trying times that he has been through, more particularly in the last two or three years, he has never wavered in one particular in his loyalty and devotion to the country, and as a loyal Canadian I appreciate that very much. With all that has been done with reference to the carrying on of the war, and bringing it to a successful conclusion, I am in hearty accord.
Before dealing with the Budget, which is agitating my mind particularly at this moment, and I think also the mind of every member of this House, I would like to refer to another matter which has been, and is at present, a subject of very great concern to the farmers of the West. I am a farmer myself, it is the only occupation I have and my only source of livelihood, and I wish to state here that the interests of the farmers are my interests. In years gone by we have had a great amount of difficulty in marketing our grain. By that I mean, we have had great difficulty in obtaining the prices for our grain that were coming to us. We have always found- those of us rwho were fighting financial adversity, and a great many of us are doing that to-day-that about the time we were forced to sell our grain we were absolutely at the mercy of a bunch of unscrupulous speculators who controlled the grain market- I do not think I am over-stating the case in using such strong language. These people knew perfectly well that at a certain season of the year we had to sell our grain in order to meet our liabilities, and it seemed to us, and it seems to me now, that by some means the price of grain was always forced down, to catch those who were compelled to sell. The only man who had the opportunity of getting a fair return for the grain that he raised was the man who was in good financial circumstances and could hold his crop over until another year. The first relief that we obtained came when the price of grain was set by the Government. Before dilating further upon the selling price of grain, I wish to make myself clear on that point.
I am not advocating the fixing of the price of wheat as a principle-I do not believe that I could conscientiously do so. We have to choose between either protection or a measure, at any rate, of free trade. I have made n>y choice in that 
regard and it has been along the lines of no very great degree of protection. What is in the minds of us farmers of the West at the present time in regard to the wheat crop is the peculiar position we are placed in- Belief, as I 'have already said, came to us when the price was set and we found that we got a fair return for oui crop. That enabled the farmers to go ahead in the fall and prepare their land for the next year without being compelled to rush to the market with their grain to * get it marketed. The setting of the price stabilized the market and stabilized the farming industry.
Now what I would like to impress upon the Government at the present time is the danger of a return to the old conditions which are nothing short of disastrous to the farming industry in Western Canada. I cannot suggest at the present time exactly what course should be pursued, but I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that something should be done, in view of the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, to stabilize this industry, which is, if not. the most important, one of the most important, industries of the country. In this connection I would like to read a resolution that was passed at a joint meeting of five local Grain Growers' Associations held at the town of Luseland, Saskatchewan, a month ago, bearing on this question:
Whereas: the economic condition of Canada is very unsettled and a large portion of the 1918 wheat crop is still in the Dominion:
Whereas, the farmers produced, that crop at unusual expense and at the request of the Government and incurred a large expense in preparing the land for the coming wheat crop ;
And whereas, when the conditions were normal, grain buyers were able to so manipulate the market, that they paid a minimum price to the producer and disposed of their holdings at an excessive price to the consumer;
And whereas, the present impoverished condition of the western farmer and the stern necessities of the consumer, will afford those engaged in manipulating- prices an opportunity to press both the producer and consumer;
And whereas, we are convinced that the Government can stabilize the price without serious financial loss and greatly to the advantage of both consumer and producer;
Therefore, resolved that we respectfully request the Government to fix a minimum price for the 1919 wheat crop to correspond with the price fixed by the United States Government.
I thought I should place this resolution on record which was passed at a very large meeting of the grain growers' associations in my constituency, and which is only one of a great many resolutions on the same subject which I have received.
Now, coming to the subject of the Budget.
I find myself in a very difficult posi-

tion. I represent a rather large constituency in the province of Saskatchewan. It is true that I come from the Conservative party, but that does not seem to make any difference in Saskatchewan when the matter is one affecting the tariff. It may be argued that as an old Conservative I could very easily accept the measure of reduction set forth in the Budget by the Finance Minister. But there is another phase to the question from my standpoint which is entirely personal and which is giving me great concern. For years I have travelled up and down the constituency of Battleford before I ever had any thought of being interested in politics, or before anybody else had any idea that I would be in the position in which I am to-day. I expressed certain views to my fellow citizens of that constituency, and I expressed them in no uncertain way, and I am afraid that my action at this time may be construed by these good people to mean that on the very first occasion when the sentiments I had enunciated at home were put to the test down here, that I have utterly failed. If I could make up my mind that there is any alternate course, if there was any way to enter a more vigorous protest without placing myself in a rather inconsistent position, I would have no hesitation in saying that I would have voted against the Budget proposals.
Looking over the amendment of the hon. member for Brome, I find many things in it which appeal to me very strongly. That is true in regard to the first three paragraphs of the amendment, and it is after great effort that I shall have to vote against that amendment. If I believed, or if I could see anything in the past record of hon. gentlemen opposite at this moment-if there was anything in their past record since I came into this House that would appeal to me and make me believe that the amendment was actuated by any spirit of sincerity, I would have no hesitation whatever in supporting it; but I do not believe there is one ounce of sincerity in the amendment; I do not believe that if we had a change of government to-morrow the tariff would be lowered one per cent more on any item than it has been under the Budget proposals presented by the Minister of Finance. Whatever the course that I am pursuing at the present time may lead to from a personal standpoint, I want hon. members in this House and those who are interested in my action in my own constituency, to understand that my course is actuated by
thoroughly conscientious motives and that I am doing what I believe to be in the best interests of my own constituency and of the country at large. I do not wish to attribute any motives, or any desire to be considered as displaying heroism, or anything of that kind, to any hon. gentlemen from 'Western Canada who do not see eye to eye with me.
I would just like to add that there is only one thing that gives me a sort of flickering light of hope in ithe stand I have taken. The hon. member for Red De-eT (Mr. Clark) during the course of his speech on the Budget made the following statement:
I cannot quite agree with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-and this is the only disagreement I shall have with him-in describing the Budget as a protectionist Budget. I think a fairer thing would be lo define it-and I think history will so define it-as a Budget tending towards free trade. I am particularly grateful for the Budget. There was a time when I was charged with being the only free trade member of this House, but to-day, Sir, I am in the proud position of seeing a Government bring down into this House a Budget which proposes to lo-sver tariffs.
I would not for one moment have the audacity to question my hon. friend's judgment on tariff matters; I say that in all sincerity. If he can see in -this Budget evidences of a definite reduction in the tariff-and we are promised by the Minister of Finance a commission to thoroughly investigate the tariff -and make a report at the next session-I do not see that I can do anything under Ithe circumstances but support the Budget.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (Waterloo North): It is not my purpose to speak at any great Length on the subjects that have been under debate. Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Wright),
I also am placed in a somewhat perplexing situation, although for another reason. It is not, Sir, because I have any doubts with regard to the Budget itself. I am opposed to the Budget for the -things it does, and I am still more opposed to it for the things that it does not do.
So far as the amendment is concerned, I am entirely in sympathy with a good deal of it, but I may say at the outset that its recommendations with regard to our fiscal policy, while very general in their nature, will, I believe, be interpreted-at least, in the constituency which I have the honour -to represent-as going a little further than my people care to go. In its condemnation of ithe extravagance of the Government, of its failure to -deal with the question of free food for the people, in its
359U

criticisms of the Government for doing nothing to bring down the cost of living,
I am in absolute accord with it.
I was in the House the other evening when the hon. President of the Privy Council made his speech, and if there was one thing that came with something of a shock to me, it was his apparent lack of ability to realize that this Government has a responsibility with regard to the cost of living. He stated that it was just as impossible for the Government to bring back to life the 60,000 Canadian 'soldiers who were slain in the war as to bring down the cost of living. That surely is an appalling confession for a minister of the Crown to make -a confession of weakness and unfitness without parallel. If that is the feeling of the Government, why was a committee appointed to investigate the causes for the increased cost of living-a committee that was supposed to make recommendations to the Government upon which action might be taken to reduce that cost of living? And yet, Sir, while the Government apparently has merely, in vulgar parlance, passed the buck to the committee, in order to evade responsibility, that committee elicited some important facts when it found that the 'Dominion Textile Company-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I regret to have to draw the attention of the hon. member to the circumstance that it is not in order to refer to transactions before a committee. The proper time to discuss those matters is when the report of the committee is brought down to the House.


Mr. EULER:: jfc.
impossible. Our national debt is $2,000,000,000. To pay the interest on that debt and to carry on the affairs of this country will require an annual expenditure of $300, 000,000. At least some of this money must be raised by a, tariff. Unfortunately, the tariff usually strikes those who are least able to bear the burden, as may be said of other taxation methods of this Government -with which I shall not deal at this time. In the presence of the Finance Minister, I say that the tariff as now constituted seems to me to be a hodge-podge, hit-and-miss sort of contrivance, built up neither for. revenue, nor, as is evident if you examine it carefully, for the advancement of industry. It is unnecessarily high in many cases, and it actually operates to hamper industry in others.
In this connection, I wish to refer for a moment to the constituency which I represent, North Waterloo. We have three large manufacturing centres. The largest of these is the city of Kitchener; we have the town of Waterloo and the village or town of Elmira. In these centres there are from 150 to 175 manufacturing establishments, employing thousands of working people whose prosperity is absolutely dependent upon their employment in these factories. It is not too much to say that these industries were built up under the tariff. I desire to make it quite clear that I have no intention consciously at any time to do anything that would endanger the prosperity of the industries in the riding which I represent, or imperil the employment of the people w 11c>
work in those establishments.
I would not care to take any drastic action in the way of tariff revision the effect of which I cannot estimate without careful investigation. I believe, in many cases, the tariff is too high; that.it fosters combines, the high cost of living and the oppression of the consumer. I believe in a very moderate tariff for development and revenue, and none at all for monopoly. An extremely high tariff creates monopolies, it makes for unduly large profits in which the workingmen do not share. It increases the cost of living, and because of the latter fact, it strikes right hack at the workingman himself, who too often forgets that he also is a consumer. Then again, if you have too high a tariff, you receive no revenue whatever from it because all importation is stopped. I have discussed the mattei with a good many manufacturers in my constituency, and while they are nearly all tariff men, they say, in every instance, that a duty of thirty-five to forty-two and-a-hali 
per cent is altogether higher than is necessary. I am very sorry that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) did not see his way clear to wipe out entirely the seven and-a-half per cent war tax. I do not favour feeding high protective pap for long periods to industries that never will be adapted to this country. That is like trying to grow lemons in Saskatchewan or Alberta; it cannot be done profitably, but you can grow mighty fine wheat in those provinces. It may he that one-day, when the federation of the world is accomplished and all boundary lines are wiped out, that the nations and the peoples of the world will no longer need to trouble themselves about tariffs. Then trade and commerce will find their natural channels, and industry and manufacturing will locate themselves in proximity to raw materials, with regard to suitable markets and to labour conditions. That would make for efficiency and should ultimately benefit both consumer and producer, but that day is not yet. In the meantime, I believe the tariff can be improved, and improved downward in many respects, but I want to see the question dealt with intelligently after careful investigation. Let a careful survey of the whole situation be made, and then let action be taken with full knowledge of the facts. A commission such as the Minister of Finance has proposed should comprise members of all classes in this country and not merely the moneyed interests.	On that board,
in	addition to the	minister himself, there should be at least one representative of agriculture, one of labour, one of industry, and the ordinary consumer should not toe forgotten. Then, whenever and wherever combines or monopolies or inordinate profits are discovered, the tariff ought to toe adjusted without fear or favour according to the facts.
In the riding which I represent we have a large city population, with many people engaged in our factories, and a smaller farming population. I should like to make the point that, just as the prosperity of the farmers in my constituency is closely bound up with that of the industrial population in the towns in that constituency, so in the final analysis, if I understand the situation properly, is the interest of the western farmer and that of the eastern manufacturer dependent the one upon the other. In a country of diversified interests, it is absolutely necessary that there should be some give and take, and some compromise.
I said some time ago that the tariff is framed in this country so as to hamper in-

dustry. That must be so when customs duties are charged on raw materials entering into manufactured products. In the constituency of North Waterloo, which specializes in many lines, we have something like twenty-five furniture manufacturing establishments. As many hon- members may not know, fine lumber and the veneers used in the making of furniture are largely imported from the United States. That lumber includes oak, walnut, mahogany, gumwood and others. For example, just to show the disability under which the Canadian furniture manufacturer would work against a United States manufacturer if there were no tariff, the United States manufacturer pays $135 for 1,000 feet of oak. The Canadian manufacturer pays the same invoice price, but to that he must add the exchange which would be against him just now on the basis of 3 per cent, an amount of $4.05. He must pay freight amounting to $15, and then on top of that the Minister of Finance makes him pay $10.12 in the form of a war tax.. That makes a total of $29.17 extra, or something like 21 per cent on the invoice price of his goods- I do not see what passible justification there can be, when no special Canadian industry would be prejudiced by the removal of that tax, why it should still be maintained.
According to the new Budget proposals, agricultural implements coming into the country will now pay a duty of from 15 to 17^ per cent, not a very high duty; indeed, not higher than the reciprocity pact of 1911 called for. The actual protection is really less than that, because a duty is also charged on certain parts which go into the manufacture of agricultural implements. That at least is the case in the industries in the riding which I represent.
In my city, that of Kitchener, there is a very humble article of manufacture, that of buttons, upon which article, however, a great responsibility Very often depends1.
All the buttons manufactured
12 noon, in Canada are, I think, produced in the city of Kitchener or the town of Waterloo. The raw material from which buttons are manufactured is the nuts of southern countries; it is not produced in Canada, and yet upon that raw material there is the 7j per cent duty to pay. The point I want to make is this, that the addition of that unnecessary duty, as I call it, adds to the cost of the necessaries of life. The consumer has to pay more because of the tariff without any corresponding benefit to the manufacturer. Button
making machinery is very expensive, and is absolutely necessary for the economical production of buttons. It is not made in Canada. Yet upon button making machinery, there is a heavy duty which is all the more trying in face of the keen competition in buttons that is now provided by the Japanese manufacturer who has the advantage of cheap labour.
I see no reason whatever why the tariff on raw materials and food should not be removed, because if that were done, the consumer would be assisted and industry could not be injured.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, at greater length than I intended. My friends, I regret, may not altogether appreciate the reasons why I cannot support the amendment. But it goes further than I would care to go without very careful investigation. I believe that in taking this stand I am following the wishes of my consitu-ents, and that is my first care. I shall vote, therefore, against the amendment for two main reasons; First, in view of the large amount of revenue that we must raise in this country in the coming years, I think it is absolutely essential for us to have a moderate tariff. Secondly, I should not like to lend myself to the taking of any action that might interfere with the prosperity of any legitimate industry in my constituency or any where else in Canada without proper investigation. After that investigation has been made, and wherever it is found that the tariff may be reduced with fairness to all concerned, I shall be glad to support any movement in. that direction.
I trust that my action in this regard will not for one moment be understood as expressing support of the Government; it is not intended in that way at all. I shall also vote against the Budget, which I trust I shall have an opportunity of doing, for the reasons I have given, and for the chief reason that I have no confidence in the Government which has brought it down.


Mr. JOHN FLAWS REID (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my position on the Budget proposals and the amendment. My position is rather a peculiar one, in that I am opposed both to the Budget and to the amendment. Unfortunately, the rules of the House do not permit the western democrats to introduce as our fiscal policy the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I wish, however, to give credit to the Minister of Finance for the very advanced step which he has taken in introducing direct taxation in the form of income tax. That is a plank from the

.3504

platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and as a member of that body I give him credit for it. I think, however, that he should have made the grades a little more drastic. I notice that the income tax schedules of the United States, if I have read them aright, are very much higher than ours. In Canada on an income of $3,000, the taxation as laid down in the Budget would be $20, whereas on the same income in the United States the tax would be $60. I shall not read all the schedules, but will give four more, to show the House how our taxation compares with theirs. In Canada on an income of $6,000 the tax is $140, in the United States $250; on an income of $20,000 in Canada the tax is $1,382, in the United States $2,630; on an $75,000 income in Canada the tax is $11,007, in the United States $21,350; on a $500,000 income in Canada the tax is $195,407, in the United States $323,000. Therefore, on incomes totalling up this sum the taxation in Canada amounts to $^5,822, whereas in the United States it amounts to $493,770, making a difference in favour of the United States system of $207,948.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: May I ask if my bon. friend is not reading the income tax schedules of the United States for 1918?


John Flaws Reid: 
Mr. STACEY:: Here he is.


John Flaws Reid: I am very glad that he is, and perhaps it is better that he should hear my remarks than read them to-morrow in Hansard. I want to tell him that his action is preventing many a poor child in the three Prairie Provinces from eating apples. The child's acquaintance with this delicious fruit is not a very tangible one, ' for it sees nothing but painted apples. It asks its mother for some apples and the mother says: "We cannot buy you apples, my dear, because they are now dearer by 30 cents on the box." I am of the opinion that when the hon. member for Fraser Valley goes home and closes his door, and in the quiet seclusion of his room contemplates his past actions, he will confess that he is really the cause of poor children of the Prairie Provinces being deprived of apples because of the 30 cents extra that he must have. The hon. member must have his last pound of flesh, no matter who goes without apples.
The hon. member for South Waterloo is, I understand, a very extensive manufacturer of boots and shoes, and I believe is very wealthy. Unlike myself, he had a great deal of fault to find with the Minister of Finance for introducing the income tax system. Now it is quite evident that my surmise as to the hon, gentleman's financial position must be correct, because that system only taxes those who have the wherewithal to pay. Therefore, the hon. gentleman must be wealthy, because he says that it is going to tax him more heavily than the customs taxation must be doing. That is natural, of course, because in the application of the customs tariff to my good friend from South Waterloo before the federal treasury receives one dollar from my good friend from South Waterloo, he, as a manufacturer, has put $3 in his pocket.
I was not in the House when the President of the Privy Council spoke the other
[DOT]'>596

day, but his remarks on a certain subject were brought to my attention. I am not sure of the fact, but it might have been the case, that while the minister was defending the Dominion Textile Company on the floor of this House, the special Committee appointed to inquire into the cost of living was sitting in a room upstairs, and this is what we discovered: The shares: of the Dominion Textile Company, to begin with, are 83J per cent water, but to make the point still more explicit let me put it in the form of dollars and cents. A share in that company represents $20 in cash and $100 in water, and on this watered stock, as T have said, amounting to 8-3i per cent water, they have paid 31.2 per cent dividends. They have done that after providing for reserve, depreciation, the payment oi the war tax, and so on. Further, Mr. Speaker, we discovered something else. I presume it would only seem a trifle to a manufacturer, but to me it assumed the appearance of a mountain, in fact it recalls the gigantic outlines of the Rocky Mountains-we discovered that the Dominion Textile Company had packed away a million dollars somewhere, I do not know where, it did not show on the balance sheet or any of the accounts which the company presented to this Committee of inquiry. Think of it, Mr. Speaker, a million dollars packed away, and I am of the opinion that the Federal Government would not receive any war tax on that money-in fact it required a very great deal of persuasion, and a little more than persuasion, before we extracted that information from the gentleman representing the Dominion Textile Company. The information is now public property, it has been widely advertised in the press, and I am not disclosing any secret when I make the announcement. I ask: Is this Government justified in protecting such companies to the tune of thirty or thirty-five per cent? I agree that the Dominion Textile Company, and some other companies to which I am going to refer, require protection, but not a protective tariff. Now this is what the President of the Privy Council had to say the other day about the Dominion Textile Company, and I will read only a portion of his remarks:
Yesterday, toy a. strange coincidence, Sit Charles Gordon, President of that Company-

meaning the Dominion Textile Company, and I notice that the president of that company is a knight; he has been knighted-[DOT]-
[Mr. J. F. Reid. 1
-happened to toe in my office, toefore my hon. friend had spoken. Some question came up about this announcement in the paper showing their large profits, and Sir Charles told me that more than 50 per cent of the profit was made owing to the increase in value of raw cotton and other raw material they had on hand during the year. In other words, they had toought at a fortunate time; they had exercised good judgment in' buying; the price of raw materials had gone up, and that resulted in more than one-half of the total profits they made.
He goes on to say further:
I am not mentioning that except for this point, namely, that if we are to adjust the tariff, having regard to preserving so far as is feasible, consistently with the public interest, existing manufacturing organizations, we must carefully look into the facts before we reach conclusions1. That is my sole reason for mentioning this matter. If it is suggested that they earned these large profits because there was a tariff on those goods, I point out to my hon. friends that in to-day's Montreal Gazette, toy another coincidence, is a list of the dividends paid by the British cotton companies during this past year, and it shows that the majority of the cotton companies in Free Trade England made on their capital stock a much larger profit than did the Dominion Textile Company in Canada. It is not necessary for me to trouble the House with the details which I have here, but the profits made on the capital stock run up to 90 per cent. That is no argument against free trade. It only shows that owing to war conditions-
Now, Mr. Speaker, as many hon. members of this House know, there is no watered stock in any of the English companies, and in Great Britain the profits referred to are made under free trade conditions. In the case of the Dominion Textile Company, I have already told you of the amount oi water that is in their stock and how they tucked away this nice little nest egg of a million dollars, and then they cry out foi protection under a protective tariff. Let me also refer to the Paton Manufacturing Company, a very wealthy concern. They also made a very snug war profit of seventy-two per cent, and are likewise enjoying a protection of thirty or thirty-five per cent. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that companies such as these should be put absolutely on the free list. I am also informed that the Dominion Canners, Limited, a company putting up foodstuffs, last year made a profit of 81 per cent. I think these facts are sufficient to convince any government that our Canadian manufacturers occupy a strong position. I am glad of that fact but I am firmly of the belief that by virtue of that strong position they are able to compete with any other manufacturing concerns in the world to-day.
The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) made out a very sweeping case against the

Canadian manufacturers-I presume he meant the manufacturers of agricultural implements. He claimed that in the city of Regina there were acres, and acres, and acres,-I think he repeated the word three times-of ground that were covered with implements imported mostly from the United States. These are not my words,
I do not claim to be responsible for them, I am repeating the expressions used by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan). In his address here the hon. gentleman stated quite plainly that agents of the American manufacturing concerns were higher paid and therefore more anxious to secure trade, while on the other hand the agents of the Canadian manufacturers were paid a lower remuneration, and as the prices of the machinery of the Canadian manufacturers went up, the commission which they paid to their agents went down. The hon. gentleman said further that if something were not done the American manufacturers would ultimately completely possess the markets of western Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I see it the only thing that can possibly ibe done to save the situation for the Canadian manufacturers is to put their implements on the free list and give them a fair field in Western Canada against the products of American manufacturers. Speaking for myself, I have lived in Western Canada for thirty-seven years, and Canadian-made machinery is good enough for me; it is as good as any machinery used on the prairies to-day. But our Canadian-made manufactures are discounted in the eyes of the farmers by the very fact that they are afraid of open competition. Our farmers know very well that Canadian manufacturers of implements do compete in the markets of the world. Therefore we say in all fairness: Why are they not ready to compete here at homer Why should we be penalized and have to pay more for our implements than farmers of the British Isles and of the rest of Europe and of Australia and New Zealand?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of immigration. I am very glad that we have a western minister in charge of this department. The hon. minister told us that he had lived for thirty-seven years in the three western provinces, and therefore knows the West. I believe that he knows the West very well, and I just want to give him this word of warning: that before he brings immigrants into Western Canada to put them on the land he will have to alter the conditions for agriculturists or those immigrants will not and
cannot stay there. I have seen many immigrants come into Western Canada from the United States and, after a short interval, sell out and go back to the United States.
It is up to this Government to make an inquiry, and to make it speedily, to find out what are the reasons underlying the troubles that confront immigrants who settle on the land and compel them to go back to where they came from. I was speaking 'to a farmer from the State of Minnesota who had settled up on the Grand Trunk Pacific line near a little town called Bradwell. I asked him: "How are you satisfied with conditions here? How do you like our soil and our climate?" He declared to me that the climate was equally as good as that of Minnesota, and he admitted that our soil was more productive. But he said, "I am selling out. I am going back to the State of Minnesota. I still have my farm there, and I can do better there than I can here in Western Canada." I said, "Will you explain?" He replied, "In the first place, I have a better market over there, and everything I have to buy in Western Canada is dearer by far than what I pay for the same goods at home. These-are the two principal reasons why I am going back there."
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this; Government should make an inquiry and make it quickly. We want our idle land in Western Canada occupied, and if we are to pay off our national debt-and we should pay it off as speedily as possible- it has got to be done by an exportable surplus, and the easiest place to get that surplus to-day is from the prairies of Western Canada. To repeat myself, unless conditions are altered, people are not going to stay on the prairies. Just let me use a phrase coined by the hon. member for Lost Mountain (Mr. Johnston). He said, " People as a rule don't run away from a good thing." I hope the Government will take notice of the suggestions I have made along these lines.
I wish to say a word in passing in regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). He declared that on account of Montreal being a very large customs port of entry Eastern Canada paid proportionately a great deal more of customs tariff than did Western Canada. I want to put him right as to that. Montreal certainly is a very large customs port of entry. Goods coming into Canada from the Old Country are practically all entered at that port. But surely

the hon. member for Frontenac knows that all the goods so entered are not for Eastern Canada; goods which come from the Old Country for Western Canada are also entered at the port of Montreal. The duty, of course, in the first place is paid at Montreal, but it is transferred and the consumer of the goods ultimately pays it. I do not think it was fair for the hon. gentleman to put his statement in that form. Perhaps he did not intend to do so. Even if the merchants in Montreal purchase these goods outright with the expectation of selling them, because they have paid the customs duty in the first place, does the hon. member mean to say that the western consumer does not pay it ultimately?
Then the hon. member tried to make out a case against the United Grain Growers Limited-which he called the Grain Growers Grain Company. He asserted that this farmer's company was making extra profits by having hundreds of thousands of bushels of overage. The word " overage " is used in the grain business, and simply means that when you ship out the grain from the terminal elevator, you may find that you have a hundred thousand bushels more than you shipped in. We will let it .go at that. Does not the hon. member for Frontenac know-and I am informed he is an old parliamentarian, and no one will deny the fact that he is an intelligent man -does he not know that we have the Canadian Grain Act? That Act controls the grain trade, and it does not matter who own the terminal elevators, they are not allowed to weigh into their elevators any grain whatsoever, whether it is their own grain or grain on consignment; it is weighed by [DOT] the Dominion Government officials under the direct supervision of the Department of Trade and Commerce; and if there is any overage, that is not the fault of any grain company. Furthermore, when the grain is shipped out of the terminal elevator, the weighing is also done under the direct supervision of the Government weigh master. The grain is also inspected by Government inspectors, and the rate of dockage is fixed by them; the grain companies have no say whatsoever in regard to grade or dockage or weight. I am surprised that an hon. member of the intelligence of my good friend from Frontenac should exhibit to this House such utter ignorance of a very important Act which was enacted while he was a member, but evidently he knew nothing about it.
Now, Mr- Speaker, I wish to make one more reference to a statement of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt). I

am sorry I have to go back, but this is too good to miss. The hon. member for Brantford, speaking in his constituency, made this statement:
" That $758 represented the investment in implements on the average farm in the Prairie Provinces." After making this assertion, he added that " this meant a little less than $ 2'5 a year for ten years in duties collected," and the further remark that "the tariff, therefore, was far from ibeing a life and death matter with the farmers."
Now hero is a list of the smallest equipment with which it is possible to make anything like a real attempt to operate a halfsection farm in any one of the Prairie Provinces, with the present price of each implement, and the price in 1914:
1914 Present Prices Prices
Binder	$165.00	$260.00Mcwer	
60.00	82.65Rake	
36.00	54.45Gang plough	
9<3.25	130.00Sulky	
50.00	80.00Walking plough	
18.50	27.50Set lever harrows	34.40>	50.60Set wooden drag harrows.. 24.75	30. OOCart	
28.50	40.00Seed drill	
137.00	206.85Float (home-made)	
6.00	10.00Wagon	
9*5.00	150*. 00Set sleighs	
4:1.00	47.00Juniper	
29.50	30.00
That is the rig which the farmer uses when* he takes his dear wife out for a ride on the prairie-the best he can afford under the protective tariff.
Buggy	1:10.0*0	138.00Tools	
5.00	1*0.00Fanning mill (32-inch)..	..	35.50	45.00Cultivator	
7*2.00	100.00Hay rack	
9.00	16.50
Any farmer from Western Canada who is a member of this House will know very well that many more articles are required on a half-section farm. The cost, then, in 1914 of the implements which I have mentioned was $1,050.40, and their cost to-day is $1,508.55- I would like to know where the hon. member for Brantford got his information and on what kind of halfsection farm the implements he would use would cost him $578-
The hon. gentleman further told us that he was a farmer, and that he had often been out West.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: The figure I gave was taken from Provincial Government returns, and is the average given for Saskatchewan. Certainly a jumper and a carriage are not considered agricultural implements, in the ordinary sense of the term.


John Flaws Reid: If the hon. gentleman was actually a farmer he would consider that a jumper and a buggy were agrieul-

tural implements and necessary on the farm. Moreover, before the hon. gentleman states definitely that the agricultural implements necessary on a half-section farm on the Western prairies would cost only $758, he should make absolutely sure he is telling the truth. I hope that he will tell his constituents on a future occasion that in order to operate a half-section farm successfully the farmer must have implements costing $1,508.55. If he wishes me to supply him with the figures, I shall be glad to do so.
The other evening the member for Brantford invited some of his friends to visit his favourite woodpile, which, I have no doubt is out on his farm. He told us that in hi,s farming operations it cost him $1.25 to make a dollar. I am of the opinion that one of the leakages in connection with the farming operations of my good friend is due to the fact that he is still using a bucksaw. If he will buy a little gasoline, of course my good friend would not like to do that he would have to pay duty on the engine-of course, he will have to pay duty on it-and get a circular saw, he can make money by going about the towns and sawing wood; but he cannot do it by using a bucksaw.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention something to which I referred during the course of my remarks in the debate on the Address from the Throne. It is desirable that provision should be made for the insurance at the public expense of unpensioned men who have become undesirable insurance risks while on active military service. Iknpw a number of men, not particularly in my own constituency, who have returned from the front and who are not considered by the Medical Board or by the Board of Pension Commissioners to be eligible for a pension, and who cannot secure life insurance with the old-line life insurance companies. It is the duty of the Government to see that the lives of these men are insured. If the Government would open a life insurance bureau for returned soldiers and not only accept risks considered undesirable by the ordinary life insurance companies, but also issue policies on other soldiers who have returned from the front, the scheme could be made a paying one and a good business proposition, and a duty the state owes the returned men I speak of. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Union Government did not bring down a Budget-which the western members could accept in full. In my remarks during the debate on the Address, I gave the Government fair warning of what my attitude would be, and, having stated
my opinion, I am compelled, on principle- not playing politics, for that is a game I do not know-to vote against the Budget. I shall, therefore, vote for 'the amendment, which I do not like; but I must do so because the rules of the House will not permit of our introducing as a sub-amendment the platform of the organized farmers.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West); Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, in starting my twenty minute speech, if I may call it such, that one cannot very well be too complimentary to the Budget or of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). Either as Minister of Finance or as framer of the Budget, or as Acting Prime Minister during the absence of the Prime Minister, he has shown not only that he was capable of carrying on the country's affairs with consummate ease during that period, but that he is alert, sagacious, responsive, kindly, sympathetic and prescient. All those things we need in Canada to-day and they represent, as he represents, Canada at her very best.
I am going to touch upon a few things out of the ordinary routine. I think we might well pay that great Dominion, Australia, the compliment of asking her to send us our next Governor General, and I think we could not pay her a greater compliment than by responding to her invitation to send her our present Prime Minister as her next Governor General. By this interchange of our public men, the outlying districts of the Dominions of the Empire would show their appreciation of each other and they would have accomplished a vast deal for the unity of the British Empire.
The next question on the programme is this question: Where are we? Well, just for the moment, we are nowhere. We have the extraordinary fact that the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) says that, so far as he is concerned, he is not going to discuss protection and free trade, and that, of course is the whole burden of the Budget, the commercial expression of Canada's idea of business at the present time. It is absolutely the most important thing before Canada to-day. It concerns her vitally, and must be either agreed with or differed from. This business of quietly waving it to one side, I really do not think a patriotic Canadian, such as I aspire to be, can possibly condone in even so great and admirable a man as the President of the

Council; nor can we grant to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) that ill-_ defined and nebulous position of sitting on the fence which he has taken to himself when he says that he has nothing to say about the Budget, but that he will reserve to himself the right to criticise. In common English parlance, that is hostility to the Budget. We have then the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) coming out flat-footed against the Budget. He says: No, to it, and that he has'found the Liberals of Ontario are really conspiring with the Conservatives to be protectionists. That is true; so they are. They have experienced protection in Ontario, and after many years of it they have been enabled to lend the West money with which to buy seed wheat. But my point is this: That this is a post-war Budget which does away with many of the war taxes, because the war is over and our men are coming back as rapidly as possible. Our excellent Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) is bringing them back with all speed, because the necessity of continuing them overseas is not apparent; he wants to get them back into peace conditions upon the land or elsewhere as soon as possible. The Budget is in no sense a war Budget; it is a post-war Budget; it is a peace Budget, and therefore, for these ministers to refuse to endorse the principle of the Budget while they are voting for it, or for them to sit on the fence is, I say with all reverence and respect, an absurdity. The country is entitled to something better. The country does not want either her Government or her representatives to camouflage their principles by saying: These are our principles, but not now. They are like the Irishman who asked his lieutenant to write home to his wife, and who said: "Dear Bridget, I am sending you ten francs, but not this week." We do not want that expression of Canada's principles or business or politics or governmental methods. We want men who know what they think and who are prepared to act up to their opinions with all speed, because this country is in no condition to temporise in this matter.
I think myself, that these excellent gentlemen who at the call of duty in time of war, on the one issue, namely, that of defending the Empire, came to the rescue of the situation, should have been liberated before this from their obligations. They are placed, by the continuance of the Government in office in the extraordinary position of having to assert their principles and yet to deny them. They are between the two principles of loyalty and disloyalty to the Gov-[iMr. Burnliam.]
eminent. They are, I think, put in a most uncomfortable state of mind. If they were free, they might go home, if they dared, or they might express themselves more freely, or they might have a policy of their own in the House and thus free themselves from whatever odium is attached to them otherwise. But, being still bound by an obligation to the Government, they are in a position which is at once sad and laughable. I would send all these men to the Senate or other high positions, of which there are plenty. God knows, we have commissions enough. The Government seems unable to find out anything or to know anything except when it is borne in upon it by agitation, and then a commission in five minutes finds out what the high cost of living is due to, something that has agitated the whole country for weeks, if not years. It will be understood that so far as the continuance of the Union Government goes, it is absolutely impossible, and it has established that fact itself. What about the Union Parliament? Before going on to speak about a Unionist party let me say that if the present members of the Cabinet who go out are succeeded by other Liberals, those other Liberals must do the same to remain Liberals, namely, they must have Liberal principles and then not act upon them. That is an impossibility; you cannot continue a Union Government which is not at one. In England, the Unionists were Unionists, because in both their foreign and domestic policies they were at one. ' Had they been at one in either and not in the other. Union Government would have been impossible. Here, we were at one in our foreign policy and are at sixes and sevens in our domestic policy. I am a moderate protectionist. I believe in the national policy, which has been found not wanting, but which has proved its value. I believe at the present time that the country needs our most earnest consideration. I believe I know what the country expects of us; in fact, I know she is impatient at this moment to know why it is we do not adopt forthwith the policy which she herself has endorsed upon many occasions. To debate the question of free trade and protection now, to temporise; some to stand on the fence; some to say no, and some yes, and others, we do not know where they stand-that is no way to establish confidence in the country, or in the Government, or in this House.
A Unionist party is an impossibility,. because the Unionist party was founded upon something that in the case of the Union

Government was an issue on which all were united, but the Unionist party finds itself now, since the war is over, in the position of differing in its opinions. Well, God knows, the Liberals and the Conservatives of this country have furnished the solidity and respectability of Canada long enough to have opinions which are respected. But if people desire to be indefinite or to sit upon the fence, to be what is called independent, why they are welcome to be so. Every man is entitled in a free country to his opinions or to have none, and under these considerations the cross benches are the place for those people who cannot agree with the Opposition or with the Conservatives. But a Unionist party is impossible, and for my part I can see no earthly way of going on with the policy of protection to which we are pledged and which we must have, and yet have a Unionist party composed of many men who are free traders.
The thing is impossible. Let me say that the holding of 140,000,000 acres of tillable land in the three provinces of the West for speculative purposes is an absurdity. Surely it is not necessary to emphasize that fact. People must be crazy who will tie up these vast tracts of land and enhance the value of it by every effort known to them, by hard work upon railways, by expenditure of money on immigration, all for the benefit of whom? For those who sit idly by and profit by the result. This state of affairs will continue only so long as the people refuse to exercise their common sense. It will cease the minute they do exercise it. Of course, we realize that the people "who are tilling the surrounding land know that if these lands held for speculative purposes were thrown open, their own lands would go down in value. So the man who does not work and the man who does are both in the same boat. Anxiety makes strange bedfellows. The principle is wrong, it is rotten. The principle of free trade is like the principle of gravitation. Free trade in the minds of some people or in their methods is an insistence that people shall be free, no matter what the consequences may be. If we were bound by the like analogy in respect to the force of gravity I would not raise my hand or foot, nor would there be one possible exertion oi energy in the whole world in violation of that law.
The whole question of free trade versus protection is summed up in a very few words. One is a restriction of the freedom of the people, and the other is not. England is the most highly protected country in
the whole world. It is not long since she made a law that people holding patents in Britain must manufacture in Britain or lose their patent rights there. That was a prohibitory tariff if you like. It is not a thousand years since she had navigation laws, nor a thousand years since she had a scheme by which you could import wheat at a very low freight rate into Great Britain, and flour at a very much higher rate. Why? Because they wanted to grind their own wheat and give employment to their own people. They have subsidized every line of steamers sailing from Great Britain. They take pretty good care of their money too, because exchange is the key that unlocks the secrets of the commercial world. I do not suppose there is any more intelligent or courteous advocate of free trade in this House or the country than the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). He knows that free trade must have for its motto "laissez faire" or "laissez aller," that is, let things take care of themselves, _ let people do what they can or will, let them be unrestricted. Now that lack of restriction must refer to labour as well as to production. It must refer to every form of manufacture and every other consideration that enters into commercial life. You must have perfect freedom to import. I see the hon. member for Red Deer moving his distinguished head in the affirmative. I want to ask him if he considers that the West has the right now or at any other time to import all the Chinese labour it wishes free of restriction?
Mr. M- CLARK: My hon. friend has asked me a question that has nothing whatever to do with the Budget. I shall reserve my thoughts on immigration until we are discussing immigration. I am listening with interest to my hon. friend, but I do not propose to be catechised or put into a box by the hon. gentleman.


John Hampden Burnham: I quite agree that my hon. friend would be put into a box. As my twenty minutes are up, I shall keep the agreement with the whip, and I fancy the House will be quite satisfied-
Mr. ARCHIBALD B. McOOIG (Kent, Ontario) : The answer of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to the question of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) * was apparently so shocking that the hon. member for Peterborough sat down in his seat without any further remarks. I cannot agree with all that my hon. friend from Peterborough has said, and I feel

satisfied that if he had visited more of the consumers in his riding he would agree with me that the uppermost question in the minds of the people of Peterborough and of every other centre is the high cost of living, and he might then have been disposed to give every assistance possible to an endeavour to bring down the high cost of living. There is no better authority on this subject, I believe, than the Minister of Labour. In the Senate the other day he is reported as having made this statement:
That there is a shortage of food in the world, that Canadian prices are regulated by demand abroad, that there is no great surplus of food supply in Canada, that the duty of Canada is food production for the benefit of itself and the world, that the Government may present a programme to regulate the cost of living, and that industrial unrest oan be traced to the cost of living, were stated to the Senate to-day by the Hon Mr. Robertson, Minister of Labour.
I also notice in the Canadian Food Bulletin, issued by the Canada Food Board, the following statement by the Prime Minister of this country:
The food crisis is grave and urgent beyond possibility of exaggeration.
We have also the remarkable statement of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) the other evening, that it was as impossible to reduce the high cost of living as it was to raise the dead lying on the battlefields of Flanders.
These statements by the Prime Minister and two other ministers of the Crown show that the Government were aware ox this problem facing the country, and they had known for some time that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) intended to retire from the Government. The activities of the Department of Agriculture, so "far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, have been practically nil during the past year. He has not taken the interest he should have taken in encouraging greater production in this country. When this great problem of the cost of living is facing the consumers of Canada we find that a deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture, has only been permanently appointed after the position had been vacant eleven months and the same is true of other permanent officials of that department. This only goes to prove my statement that 'the Department of Agriculture, which should have been of great service in encouraging greater production, has been very inactive during the past year. I maintain without fear of contradiction that the Department of Agriculture should have been more active during 1918, in

view of the shortage of food in Canada, than was the Militia Department in 1914 when the war broke out. If it had rendered the assistance which it should have done, and the members of the Government had done their part, we would not be in the position we are in to-day so far as the shortage in production is concerned.
I have in my hand a comparative statement of the swine statistics for the Toronto market for the years 1917-18-19. There were marketed in the ci'ty of Toronto, in 1917, 216,730 hogs; in 1918, 167,574; and during the first five months of 1919, 152,331. This will prove that there was a shortage in hog production during those months of over 5,000. We are told that it is impossible for us to do anything to decrease the high cost of living, but it is obvious that there is one important thing that the Government could do in the matter. I think the Government is in duty bound to bring to the attention of the people such facts as that which I have just mentioned and strongly urge upon them the great necessity of increased production, for there is no prospect of materially reducing the cost of living unless there is greater production, and a vigorous campaign should be instituted to this end. The department has failed miserably in this respect; they should have had responsible officials conducting a campaign of this kind. What do we hear from the producers of hogs? Why, they say that they have no confidence in the Government 'because they will not compel the pork packers to give them a fair price for their hogs when they are ready for the market. That is the trouble. These people say that the pork packers are simply gambling in meat products and will not give them a square deal, and the effect of such a condition as this is palpable. Then we might consider the cattle situation. I believe that if the Department of Agriculture had kept themselves in touch with conditions as they really exist, and if the Government had held out some inducements to the farmers throughout the country to raise t.heir heifers to maturity for breeding purposes instead of killing them when they were young, there would have been a material increase in the quantity of cattle produced and the situation would be far different. The same thing holds true all along the line. Absolutely nothing has been done to encourage the producers to greater efforts. In connection with the general unrest that prevails at the present time, and particularly in view of the dissatisfaction that exists on the part of the pork producers

at the treatment they receive at the hands of the packers, we put a question in the committee the other day and elicited the information that in the matter of prices there is no stated agreement between packers, but the opinion was expressed that things were so arranged that prices always went down about the time the majority of hog raisers had Itheir hogs to sell, particularly in the fall of the year when they had their necessary obligations to meet. Now, that is one of the difficulties which the Government will have to face, and if the high cost of living is to be reduced it must be seen that the hog producers are justly dealt with. Compare the treatment accorded the hog producers with the manner in which the Dominion Sugar Company deals with the producers of sugar beets for their factories in Chatham and Wallaceburg. They enter into a contract with the producers of sugar beets to raise a specified quantity of beets and they say: If sugar is worth $8 a hundred we will give you $9 a ton for your beets; if sugar advanced another dollar on the markets in Montreal we shall increase that grant to you by one dollar extra for every ton of beets you deliver to the factories. What is the result of this arrangement? It has produced satisfaction and engendered a feeling of confidence on the part of the subsugar beet producers, and this year they are in the proud position of having hundreds of acres more subscribed for than the factory registered. .If the pork producers had the same confidence in the packers, the Government would not to-day be charged with responsibility for the great shortage there is in meat products. I stand to-day exactly where I stood two years ago on the question of the nationalization of our cold storage systems. I believe that all these systems should be nationalized, and should be under Government control. This is my attitude in regard to this question and for that reason I am opposed to the appointment of any commission to regulate the cost of living in this country. It would mean a further expenditure of thousands of dollars to do nothing but hear complaints. We have too many commissions in Canada and at too great an expense to i the country, and I repeat that our cold storage systems shofild be under Government control. The people could be given such food stuffs as might be placed in these cold storages, plus a fair revenue for keeping them until such time as they were necessary for consumption. I would go further and advocate, in connection with such concerns as pork
packers, creameries and manufacturers of such other lines of goods as are staple necessities the appointment of Government prosecutors instead of more judges and commissions. We should have Government prosecutors and in every case in which unfair profits were extracted from the consumers the offenders should be brought before the superior courts in the various provinces and prosecuted and the unfair profits taken from them. Not very long ago we heard a great deal about the conscription of man power in the country. Well, has there been anything before this House more glaring than the statement from previous speakers that the Textile Company of Montreal made 31 per cent, and the announcement in yesterday's paper that the Paton Manufacturing Company had made 72 per cent? What was said before the committee in reply to a question that was asked one man? I will read from the paper.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member cannot evade the rule by reading from a newspaper. Evidence taken before a Committee of the House cannot be read.


Mr. McCOIG:: I am willing to wait for the statement from the committee, so far as that is concerned. But when these things are recurring not in one particular line of business but in others, and enormous profits are being rolled up by corporations, may I not call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that we conscripted our man power and sent them overseas and are failing to conscript the enormous wealth that is being amassed by these concerns. There was a solemn promise by different hon. gentlemen who took a stand in favour of the Military Service Act that they would see that wealth would be conscripted. That was their pledge to the people, and what has been done in that regard? Can you imagine, Sir, the unrest, dissatisfaction, and discouragement that will be felt by the men on their return from overseas when, with the few paltry dollars that they will have in their pockets they go into stores and find that a suit of clothes costs three times as much as when they went overseas to defend the very institutions that have waxed rich while they suffered in Europe? In view of the unrest that prevails I say it is the duty of Parliament to see that a square deal is given these men to whom we pledged our hearty support in this House of Commons when they went overseas. The Minister of Finance made the statement that he was going to save seventeen million odd dollars by reductions in the tariff on agri-
[DOT] >604

cultural implements [DOT] and other things. Well, I do not believe that he was serious when he made that statement. The hon. minister knows that the duty levied against agricultural implements during the past few years has been so prohibitive as to preclude the introduction of a sufficient number of them to assist to any great extent in increased production and thereby tend to the reduction of the high cost of living. He knows, as well as he is aware of the fact that he is Minister of Finance, that we have had very few implements coming into this country to assist in greater-production on account of the high tariff, and consequently there was less production than there would be if the tariff were sufficiently reasonable to allow these implements to come in.
Now what has happened? We have a prohibitive tariff against the machinery necessary to produce more foodstuffs in this country and what has it meant? It has meant, Sir, that every article that is required on the farm, such as harrows, have doubled in price. Land rollers have doubled in price; manure spreaders have doubled in price; grain drills have doubled in price; all kinds of cultivators have doubled in price; disc harrows have doubled in price. The only machinery that has not doubled in price are grain binders and mowing machines upon which the tariff is lower. But there has been an advance on binders of $100 and possibly $40 on mowing machines. The only machine coming in free of duty when the tariff was raised to the high protective point was cream separators referred to by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) the other day. But when the hon. gentleman made that reference, with all his eloquence he forgot the most important part of -the argument, that cream separators are made to-day by Canadian manufacturers who are competing with the American manufacturers in all parts of the world. Let me add this further: When cream separators were on the free list and when the tariff went up on all other articles to which I have referred and was doubled in price, the cream separator remained at practically the same price from 1914 until 1919.
I want to call the attention of the Government and the Minister of Finance to the fact that if we are to reduce the high cost of living and to produce more foodstuffs to the advantage of both the farmer and the consumer, these matters must be given more consideration than they have received in the past.
[Mr. McColg.l
Now let me take up the article of tractors. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) stated the other night that the Government did a wrong thing when it brought tractors into this country free of duty. In my opinion the action of the Government in importing tractors and selling them at wholesale rates was justified, and I believe it had the effect of increasing production in this country at that time. The hon. member for Brantford has stated that such action was inadvisable, but as the mover of the first resolution introduced into Parliament for the free admission of tractors, I want to say that I stated then and I repeat now that the object of bringing in those tractors free of duty was to assist in increased production. At	that	time I	wasquite satisfied,	as	Hansard	will
show, to amend my resolution so as to include 8-16 and 12-20 horse-power tractors which were not made in Canada but were absolutely the kind, weight, and size ol tractors the most essential to the producers of food stuffs, especially in Ontario. Now, Sir, what has happened ? We had the hon. member for Brantford stating the other night 'that he was not satisfied with that size of tractor, that they were not made in this country, and that they were tractors of larger size that were-the 15-30 horsepower tractor. The 15-30 horse-powei tractor is the one that was referred to by the hon. gentleman. But that is a tractor of too large a size to be used for production in the province of Ontario, but it would do for other work than farm work. The hon. gentleman made the statement on the occasion referred to that there was an undervaluation of these tractors, and that they were being admitted to this country at a valuation of $1,400 and were being sold to the consumers of Canada at a greatly enhanced price. That is apparently true. We find that in the city of Ottawa the Advance Rumely Company have employed a gentleman of the name of Mr. John Bain to act as their agent. That gentleman went to the Minister of Customs, whom I am sorry is not in his seat, and obtained from the Commissioner of Customs permission to bring in 14-28 horse-power tractors to the number of 400. I am of the opinion-the Minister of Custopis can correct me if 1 am wrong-'that no person expects a 14-28 horse-power tractor to be brought in free of duty, because it is the size that is produced by our Canadian manufacturers. However, Mr. Bain obtained consent to bring in 400 of these tractors, and when he found out how easy it was to do that he got the same permision extended to 16-32

horse-power tractors, which is a much larger and much more expensive machine selling in the neighbourhood of from $2,400 to $2,500. He brought those tractors in at a valuation of $1,400 and sold them to the farmers of the West at from $2,200 to $2,500, making a spread of $1,000. That was what the producers of foodstuffs had to pay foi machines that were brought in for the purpose of helping to reduce the high cost oi living for the people of Canada. Mr. Bain was so successful in getting these tractors into the country at a reduced rate, that he also obtained the Ottawa agency for another concern, the International Harvester Company, and it is reported brought in several hundred machines which were sold to the farmers of the West at a price of $2,200. He brought in tractors that were valued at $1,400 and sold them to the users of such machinery at $2,200.


William Thomas White: Do I understand my hon. friend to be complaining that the $2,200 tractors came in free?


Archibald Blake McCoig: What I am referring to is that tractors were brought in at a valuation of $1,400 and sold to the farmers at $2,200 and $2,400, a spread of $800 in the one case, and $1,000 in the other. My contention is that the farmers should have got the advantage of the low priced tractor as they did in the case of the 8-16 and the 10-20 tractors. In the case of the 10-20 tractors the duty was refunded to the farmers, because the Government saw the wisdom of having that duty removed. But in this case the Canadian manufacturer was deprived of the sale of the 15-30 tractor, the treasury of Canada was beaten out of their duty, and the producers of foodstuffs were obliged to pay a much higher price than they should1 have paid. That- is what I am objecting to. I am not in favour of high protection to manufacturers of agricultural implements. I stand here to-day to advocate the cause of the consumers of this country as well as the producer. The policy under which the producers get the needed facilities to produce foodstuffs that are so badly required by the plain people of this country is the policy w'hich meets with my approval and will result in more support to the Government if they will only adopt it.
Now so far as this question of tractors is concerned, let. me make myself perfectly clear. If there was nothing wrong going on in connection with the importation of these machines, why did the Advance Rumely Company have to employ Mr. John
Bain to intercede with the Commissioner of Customs, and why did the International Harvester Company have to do the same thing? When the Customs Department found out that, to use a slang expression, "the fat was in the fire," when they found out that they were discovered, an order went out from the Commissioner of Customs stating that if the size of tractor in question was being used for anything else than the production of foodstuffs duty would have to be collected amounting to between $400 and $500. I bring the minister's attention to these facts because in all probability he does not know what is going on in some departments of the Government. The President of the Privy Council has found fault with the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) in connection with food production, but if he had looked around among their colleagues he -would have found stronger reasons for complaint in that quarter than he did in the case of the hon. member for Marquette who voluntarily withdrew from the Government and threw up a large salary in order to act as his conscience dictated and in what he considered the best interests of Canada.
I wish to draw the attention of the Government to this fact, because, Sir, if ever there was a time when I believe that the Government should exert every effort to pacify the dissatisfaction that exists throughout the land, if ever there was a time when we needed a campaign to produce more foodstuffs so that the people will not be held up as they are being held up at present, it is now. And I want to say with all seriousness that it is for that purpose I am making these statements, and I am glad that the Minister of Finance is in his seat, because I hope he will endeavour to take what action he can to give to the consumers of this country as cheap foodstuffs as possible, and extract from the corporations, trusts, and combines of this land the unfair profits which they made when our boys were overseas fighting for the defence of the country and of the industries from which they have rolled up such great riches. I would ask him to do now what we were told the Government intended to do before the last election-extract from the profiteers those unfair profits, conscript them and bring them into the treasury, and so have a contented people instead of the dissatisfaction which is existing from one end of Canada to the other.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved

by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) gives me the opportunity of saying a few words further on the matters dealt with in the Budget and the debate which has ensued thereon. I have listened with some interest and attention to the hon. member who has preceded me (Mr. Mc-Coig). He has a remarkable faculty of working himself up into a fairly well simulated state of excitement when dealing with matters which he desires to place prominently before the country. There is one aspect of his speech which rather pleased me; he appears now to be in favour of conscription.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Mr. Speaker, may I inform the hon. gentleman that I supported conscription?


William Thomas White: Yes, there were two or three ways of supporting conscription. My hon. friend supported it in one sense, and in another he did not. The support of conscription was the principle which divided the parties of this country at the last general election. The support of conscription was the basis upon which this Union party was founded, and upon which it will endure. My hon. friend has spoken as if the Government had taken no action whatever in obtaining a share of the profits made during the war. I have under my hand a statement, Mr. Speaker, which shows that the Government under the Business Profits War Tax has levied assessments totalling no less than $79,000,000 during the three and a half years that the tax has been in operation. During the first three years some $66,000,000 was collected in cash on assessments aggregating $72,000,000, and since that time some $7,000,000 more of business profits assessments have been made. And I desire to say this, too, because the matter is frequently overlooked in this country, that there is not in operation in any other country to-day a more severe business profits tax than our own.
Mr. MoCOIG: Maybe there is no other country where the corporations got so much money out of the people as they did in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Thomas White: I do not agree at all with my hon. friend. All over the world, during the war-in free trade England, in Canada, and. in United States, and in all the other producing countries-large profits have been made by productive enterprises. That was inevitable. The British Government imposed a business profits war tax;

so did this country; so did United States. And, so far as I know, this is the only country that is continuing its business profits war tax in its fullness this year, because I regard this ,as a war year. I want this House and the people of this country to know that we have imposed as severe a business profits war tax as any other country in the world, and that we are continuing it this year. Evidence is being continually given before the committee which is sitting on this question of profits. A large share of these profits come into the Dominion treasury. When my hon. friend accuses the Government of being derelict in collecting the business profits assessments, all I have to say is that he does not understand the situation, because I would not like to accuse him of misrepresentation.
My hon. friend, I have no doubt, will support the amendment. I think he can conscientiously support it, because I understood him when he was on his feet in one breath to blame the Government on the one hand for not reducing the duties on agricultural implements, and in the next breath to blame the Government, on the other hand, for admitting agricultural implements free of duty. That is the type of argument the hon. member put forward.
.Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Thomas White: I think there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. Ask him.


William Thomas White: The hon. member stated that the Government had admitted free of duty tractors valued at $2,200 when the Order in Council provided that only tractors valued at $1,400 should be so admitted. If my hon. friend had called the attention of the Government to that as a mistake in administration, that would have been one thing. But he is supporting an amendment to-day which calls for the abolition practically of the duty on agricultural implements, and at the same time he is blaming the Government for admitting free of duty agricultural implements of greater value than $1,400.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I must correct my hon. friend.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has spoken.
Mr- McCOIG: But I am misrepresented, Mr. Speaker. I think I have a perfect right to correct the hon. gentleman.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Of course, the hon. Minister-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order- The hon. member is not in order in making a second speech. If he is being misrepresented on a matter of fact that is one thing; but on a matter of argument it is quite another thing.


William Thomas White: I understand my hon. friend to say that he is drawing attention only to a mistake in departmental administration, and I accept his statement.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Mr. Speaker, I do not say ilt is a mistake; I say it is a wrongs


William Thomas White: I may say to my hon. friend that personally I have no knowledge of any laxity of administration with regard to the admission of tractors-But I cannot understand his working himself up into such a frenzy on the one hand, contending that agricultural implements should be admitted into this country free of duty, and on the other hand taking exception to agricultural implements of a certain price being so admitted.


Archibald Blake McCoig: May I aSk the hon. gentleman a question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The Finance Minister has the floor. If the hon. member desires to ask a question, he may do so with the permission of the Minister of Finance.


William Thomas White: I would be very glad for my hon. friend to do so-


Archibald Blake McCoig: May I ask the hon. minister if the Advance Rumely Company and International Harvester Company were allowed to bring in $2,200 and $2,400 tractors invoiced at $1,400, why were not other companies allowed the same privilege?


William Thomas White: I say to my hon. friend that I have no knowledge that that was done. If any companies were allowed to bring in agricultural implements free of duty, contrary to the law, I would be the first to condemn the departmental administration which permitted it. But that is a very different matter from making an allegation against the Government, because I understood my hon. friend to say that upon attention being called to it a correction was made. In other words, what my hon. friend is dealing with is not a matter of policy but a matter of alleged laxity in departmental administration- Let us get that very plainly. I might ask my hon. friend also whether he is the agent of any agricultural implement company?


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am ready to reply to that question. I am the representative of the International Harvester Company in Chatham. When in Parliament I am a representative of the people of Canada.


William Thomas White: It is sometimes difficult to reconcile the two relations.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Well, you should know.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I had proposed to intervene in this debate for the purpose of dealing with a number of matters which have been discussed, relating principally to the financial administration of the country. On the whole, the debate has been conducted in a very moderate tone, and, with some exceptions, has been entirely free from political animus. I think it has been generally realized by the members of the House that the responsibilities of a Finance Minister during a war of the magnitude of that through which we have just passed are great indeed. War is insatiable in its demands upon the man power, the money, and the other material resources of the country. During a war the Government and the Minister of Finance, as its adviser, have really comparatively small control over the finances, because of the enormous demands made upon them-demands which cannot be gainsaid and which must be met promptly. In the Department of Finance it is not possible to equivocate or to evade responsibility; no excuse can be taken; the money must be found, whether it is $10,000,000, $50,000,000,	$100,000,000 or $500,000,000.
There is no place in which the war expresses itself so markedly from time to time as it does in the treasury of a country at war.
Among the aspects of our finance which have been subject to criticism in this House is that of the national debt of Canada. I endeavoured to make a fair, frank, and absolutely honest statement to this House and to the people as to the present financial position of the country, and as I estimated the position would be at the end of the present fiscal year when demobilization would be complete. The national debt of Canada, will be, in round figures, $2,000,000,000 at the end of the present fiscal year. It has been suggested by one or piore in the House that
4 p.m. the Government is to a certain extent responsible for the size of this national debt and for the extensive borrowing that we have done. I am sure that is not the opinion of the majority of those present in this Chamber. It was
:;008



regard to finance during the war, and I must say that on the whole they have been fairly reasonable, but when listening to some of the charges made against the Administration in respect to our finance, I could not help reflecting that the parties making those charges had but a very dim perception indeed of the immense responsibilities devolving upon us and the task which was ours in this country of finding hundreds, yes billions, as we did, of dollars for the conduct of this war. I am sorry I was not in the House last year when certain criticisms were levelled against me with regard to our Victory Loan financing, but as the matter has been brought up again this year I desire the ear of the House for a moment while I speak of the financing of this country during the war, of the responsibilities which devolved upon us and the way in which they were met, and, 1 submit, most creditably met, by this Administration.
Before the w'ar, Canada had never had a loan of $5,000,000 floated within its borders. The great money centres of the world were London, Paris and New York. If money was wanted in this country foi railway or other development, loans were floated in London or United States, and similarly with regard to the borrowings of the Federal Government and of the provincial and municipal governments. This country was not an investing country at all. The people of Canada deposited their money in the banks, and that money was let out for the purposes of trade and commerce. On the one side of the balance sheet were the deposits of the people, and on the other side the discounts and investments into which they had gone. Anything more unfair than to contrast the financing of this country with the financing, say, of United States or Great Britain during the war, can hardly be imagined. Our task was to raise not $5,000,000, but every year hundreds of millions of dollars. We had to raise more, Mr. Speaker, than the amount required for our own war expenditure, because we had to finance Great Britain in the purchase of foodstuffs raised by the people of this country. We had to finance the salmon of the Pacific coast; we had to finance the shipbuilding on the Pacific coast; we had to assist in financing the grain raised in the Canadian Northwest; we had to finance the munitions, the shipbuilding, the bacon and other food products of Central Canada, and similarly right on down to the Atlantic coast. We had to provide millions-tens

and hundreds of millions of dollars

for that purpose. These were the burdens devolving upon the Minister of Finance and the Government during the war, and I put them forward strongly because I believe that this House and the country has not appreciated the magnitude, relatively speaking, of the task that devolved upon us in raising the money, we did. 'Some hon. gentlemen not long ago said: You should not borrow. Well, if you can carry on a war without borrowing I know I should be glad to do it. Not borrow? Why, Great Britain to-day has put on a loan of five billion dollars and as much more as she can get. United States has floated a Victory Loan since the war, and she will need more money still because this is a war year.
Now we come to the question of the issues of securities, and the prices obtained for them. Canada is situated right alongside United States. Our people, invest in their markets, and they invest in ours. There is a very close connection, indeed, between the relative values of securities. What had we to contend with during the war? Great Britain at the outset of the war, in addition to sending hundreds of millions of dollars of gold to United States and selling three or four thousand million dollars' worth of securities upon the New York exchange, pledged her credit to the hilt in that country in order to obtain the money necessary to enable her to purchase on this continent the munitions, explosives, and other supplies required by herself and the Allies. To do that, she had to make continuous, issues in New York, and she put them out one after the other right to the limit before United States caane into the war. The Anglo-French loan, a five per cent loan, was put out, I think, in 1916, at 98. It went steadily down on the market until it reached as low as 89. In other words, British-French securities, that is, securities backed by the joint credit of Great Britain and France, were selling in the darkest days of the war, at the time when we had to sell our first Victory Loan here, at a price to make them yield 7 or 8 per cent, and several hon. members who have criticised our loans in this House know it, and know it very well, as 1 know. The people of this country were buying Anglo-French and other securities in New York to yield 6 and 7 and 8 per cent, and when we put our loans on, I do not say that that was a decisive factor, but it was undoubtedly a factor in the situation.
The criticisms that have been made of the cost of our loans as compared with those of United States have often been

answered. Let us consider for a moment. Here is a country as large as United States -larger geographically than United States. United States has a dense population, with great centres like New York and Chicago, where you can get subscriptions of $50,000,000 and even $100,000,000 as compared with the maximum of $5,000,000 or possibly $10,000,000 that we would get in this country. We had to cover this whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific with our organization, and I say-not boastingly, but as a matter of fact, that cannot be contradicted-that of all the loans that weie floated during the war by any of the belligerents the last Victory Loan of Canada was by far the greatest success. How do I prove that? I think I will prove it to the satisfaction of every hon. member in this House. We raised $690,000,000 which we needed for obligations incurred, which we needed to support the men at the front and to finance Great Britain in respect of her purchases here. The population of United States is fourteen times as great as that of Canada, and her wealth at least twenty-live times as great, and I think more. A Victory Loan of $690,000,000 in Canada w7ould have as its equivalent in United States a loan of at least 15 billion dollars. Was there ever such a loan as 15 billion dollars floated in United States?


Mr. JACOBS:: The rate of interest was different.


William Thomas White: I will come to that; I will deal with all these matters. I said that the equivalent, in United States would be a loan of at least 15 billion dollars. The same can be said with regard to Great Britain, where the wealth is so much greater in proportion to the population as compared with this country. My hon. friend has contrasted the expense of the American loan with ours, [DOT]But I want to ask my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) whether he is sure he got all the cost of the American loan. I do not think he did. I want to say to the hon. member who mentioned Detroit and some other American cities in comparison with our result, that if I had put on a purely voluntary loan in this country and organized it in the way they did in United States I would have got just the same amount relatively as they got and no more. I want to point out to him the difference between the two loans, and I have the figures here in such form that every one will see the situation at a glance and will understand that this countrv,
229J
under the system we adopted in order tbs secure the money which we were obliged to have, put forth a very much greater proportionate effort, and that our system was. very much more effectual, than that of [DOT] United States. Last year when I was in ' Los Angeles, a city about the size cf Toronto-' or possibly larger and with greater wealth', they were talking there, and I could quite understand it, of the great success they had had in subscribing $30,000,000 to the Liberty Loan, and I rejoiced that they had subscribed it. But the city of Toronto, about the same size, in connection with our Victory Loan just about the same time turned' in $80,000,000, and in the last Victory Loan the city of Toronto alone turned in $140,000,000. There never was a more effectual organization got together in the. history of the world than that which we had in this country in connection with the Victory Loan, and I desire to thank every hon. member of the House and every man in the country, Liberal and Conservative alike, who helped me and helped the Government in connection with this loan, and I asked all their help. I asked the press, no matter what their political affiliations were, and the press responded.
With regard to the press-there has been some talk in the House about our expenditures for advertising in the Canadian newspapers. I wish to say that there never was a body of men anywhere who gave themselves more devotedly to effect the success of any undertaking than did the journalists of Canada in connection with our Victory Loans.
Some hon. MEMBERS.- Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: The advertisingin the newspapers was placed absolutely fairly through the Canadian Press Association. I did not place it, and there was no percentage in connection with it. The cost of advertising represented only a tithe-indeed, not a tithe-of the advertising value given by the press throughout this country in promoting the success of the Victory Loan. It was not only the advertising that we paid for that was of value, but the editorial goodwill and effort of the press, which was beyond price, and I want to pay my tribute to the press for their splendid support in connection with the Victory Loan.
I called together the French-Canadian press in the city of Montreal and talked with them about the Victory Loan, and I found them a fine lot of fellows.


Samuel William Jacobs: Were you surprised?


William Thomas White: Not at all. We had a beautiful evening and they rallied to the support of the Government and promoted [DOT]the success of the Victory Loan in Quebec, and we got a very much greater result than the year before. The point I want to make is that we had all elements of the community working for us.
Now we come to the question of brokers and canvassers. I called together, before the Victory Loan campaign of last fall, all the people who had acted in an executive capacity in connection with the preceding loan. They represented some of the best men in the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There were some brokers, but the majority of those men present were business and professional men who had taken an interest in the loan the year before. We considered every aspect of the -question whether in a country like Canada we could put on a purely voluntary loan, and they said, "Yes, you can''-and I quite agreed with them-"but you will get only about half the amount of money you will obtain if you put it on in that way." We had to have the money. The war was making its enormous demands upon the country; we had a vast army overseas, and the credits that we required had to be provided from day to day. We simply had to have the money-seven hundred million dollars, if we could get it. We could have got half the amount if we had a voluntary organization such as they had in United States. Let us make some comparisons. Toronto raised $321 per capita as compared with the following amounts raised in larger American cities: St. Louis ( with a larger population), $115 per head; Boston, $202 a head; Detroit, $129 a head; Cleveland, $225 a head; Buffalo, $144 a head. Now, if I had to get the money-as I did get it-am I to be diverted from my purpose in a time of war because, in a country as vast as Canada, I have to engage canvassers to go and work night and day for three or four weeks for the two or three hundred dollars apiece which they received? Are we to be diverted from our course for such a reason? I think not. The main purpose was to get the money. The country raised the money, and the machinery that we devised was the best that could have been devised for the purpose. I could show the House telegram after telegram, letter after letter, from the Canadian Northwest and other parts of Canada pointing out that they could not get people, owing among other things to the shortage of help, IMr. Jacobs ]
to undertake the work for the commission that was offered. After all is said and done, what is five million dollars, the cost of the loan, in comparison with six hundred and ninety million dollars? What percentage is that? It is less than three-quarters of one per cent, and there never was a loan floated by the Canadian Government before the war that did not cost two per cent. I do not say that that is a fair comparison. I am only pointing out the fact that loans cost money to float and you must have regard to the extent of your country. You must have regard to the financial resources and the extent to which help is available. Between voluntary help and other help we got of a professional character, in addition to that of the canvassers, we put through one of the greatest loans that were ever floated in the world. Indeed, I believe it was the greatest, and it was put through at a time when the money had to be provided- Winnipeg raised $159 per capita and Montreal $195 per capita. Compare Winnipeg's per capita of $159 with the results in seven American cities, all larger: S't. Louis, $115, Detroit $129, Buffalo $144, Los Angeles $152, St. Paul (right across the border) $64, Seattle $124, Portland $94. Further, in the midst of our campaign we had to contend with influenza all over this country. I went wes't and when I got to Vancouver I had to cancel all eastern engagements because of the epidemic which was prevailing throughout the country, and yet we did it.
Now we come to the question of financial houses. Great Britain and Australia allow commission to financial houses in connection with their loans. Great Britain allows i, and that i is much larger than I or | here, by reason of the size of Britain's subscriptions. Why do they allow commissions to financial houses? Because it is the business of these houses to advise people . as to their investments. Figures have been put forward in this House to show that some firms received $50,000. The hon. member who gave the figures knows that there are financial houses in the country whose running expenses amount to $250,000 and $300,000 a year. Does the hon. gentleman know that last year we started in with the financial houses in August to get ready for the loan in October, and that they worked week after week and month after month and did not finish their work for months after the loan was concluded? As I say, I cannot pay too high a tribute to every one who had to do with the success of that loan. How did we determine their

remuneration? One of the best financial men in Canada is Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, and I desire to thank him for the services he has rendered me gratuitously during the war from a high sense of patriotic duty. Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, Finance Commissioner of Toronto, is one of the ablest officials in Canada and is well known to many members of this House, and an absolutely disinterested man. There is no man who speaks with greater authority upon matters of municipal and governmental finance than Mr. Bradshaw. In order that the Dominion treasury might be absolutely protected, I chose him to review the remuneration paid to financial houses in this country for the first Victory Loan of 1917, and last year I constituted a committee consisting of Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, Mr. R J. Dilworth, one of the leading accountants of the city of Toronto, and Mr. John W. Ross, of Montreal, and no better committee could have been formed than of these men. I asked them to pronounce upon the amount of remuneration that should be paid to these houses. The arrangement that I had with the latter was:	" You get your
operating expenses to the extent that you are engaged in this work." These three men went over the accounts of the last Victory Loan and they determined, from an examination of books and documents, the amount which should be paid to the firms for giving their time, and their professional services to the loan.
Mr. Bradshaw wrote me a letter on April 13, 1918, in which he stated:
The basis of remuneration to the various firms and individuals, whose services had been engaged, received careful consideration. No commission whatever was paid to them. An endeavour was made to determine emolument according to services rendered, results produced, and responsibility undertaken.
That was in connection with the loan of 1917, but in connection with last year's loan we got it down to the basis of their operating expenses, and I do not know any fairer way of dealing with it. The result is we got the organized ability and the great placing power of all the financial firms, of all the securities firms, in Canada as well as the voluntary organization which was built up throughout the country. Mr. Bradshaw points out in connection with the first Victory Loan campaign:
The time occupied in preparing for the campaign was more than twice that of any previous one. The duration of the offering wae also greater than preceding flotations, and even after the time of receiving subscriptions, the members of practically all the committees were engaged for several months in making adjustments.
Investment houses were practically prohibited from engaging in any other business during the last three months of the year. Prior to the offering, those engaged were fully occupied in organizing districts in selecting, training, and supervising the thousands of canvassers who took part.
Why, we had an army of 12,000 men working for us throughout the whole oi Canada in connection with the last Victory Loan. A country which is larger in area than United States had to be covered, and the results obtained justified absolutely the machinery we employed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to what the hon. member said about rates of interest. He asked what about United States, what about Great Britain? Does the hon. gentleman not know that American securities sold, before the war, on a one and-a-half and two per cent basis? Does he not know that in Great Britain securities were sold on a three and-a-quarter or a three and-a-half per cent basis? Have they.been able to maintain that? What rate did we pay in Canada? We had to pay over a four per cent rate when the London market was open and we were on the trustee list there. What has Great Britain had to pay for interest? The British Chancellor of the Exchequer has been subjected to a fierce attack by some newspapers because he is putting out a fifty-year loan at five per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is floating a $5,000,000,000 loan and he has got to get the money. It is right to face your interest rates and to get your money. That is what he is doing. A loan for fifty years at five per cent for Great Britain, and bfefore the war the interest rate was three and-a-quarter or three and-a-half per cent! In United States, interest rates have gone up from a basis of less than two* per cent to four and-a-quarter per cent. Suppose United States had started in at the beginning of the war and had put out loan after loan as we put them out during four years? What rate of interest would she have been paying in 1918? Is it fair to compare this little country, that neveT borrowed, or was not able to borrow $5,000,000 within its own borders, with the-great opulent United States which experienced two and-a-half years of the most unexampled prosperity before it entered the war, and then to compare our rate of interest at the end of the war with the rate of interest that that great nation is paying? Do we grasp in this House the magnitude of the effort we have made in this war? We raised 50*0,000 men, and if United States had been in the war from the beginning and put up man for man with us

in proportion to population-and I have the greatest admiration for the efforts which she made for the time she was in the war -it would have meant an army of seven millions of Americans. And if United States had been in the war for four years and had raised proportionately the money that this country has raised in proportion to her wealth, which is at least twenty-five and I think more times as great as that of Canada, the United States' debt to-day instead of $25,000,000,000 would have been fifty, sixty, or seventy billion dollars at least. Now, I find no fault with United States; it made a splendid effort in the war -a wonderful effort. Bearing in mind the way that country enforced conscription, called its men to the colours and placed them overseas, and the splendid work performed over there I yield to no man in admiration for what United States has done. The only reason I put forward this comparison, is to show how unfair it is to contrast the rates of interest which this country had to pay, or the loans which it had to put out, with the rates of interest at which United States, and Great Britain were able to float their loans. We had to do the best we could, and if there is any criticism coming to this Government on the financial side, it is the criticism based on what an hon. gentleman advanced the other day-a principle to which neither I nor any man on this side of the House subscribe-that Canada had an unreasonable participation in this war. Whatever we did financially, and we did not count the money cost, we did because we were at war, because this country being in the war the people of Canada required the Government to put- forth the utmost effort as to man power and as to money power. We did that, and if there is any criticism coming to the Government for its financing during the war, that criticism is due to the fact that we participated to the extent that we did in the war, and for no other sound reason.
Now as to tax exempt bonds. One would think there had never been any tax exempt bonds in the world before. The United States securities prior to the war were tax exempt. A very considerable part of issues which have been put out since, amounting to billions of dollais, are partially tax exempt. The state and the municipal securities of the United States were tax exempt. I had an estimate made up some time last fall which shows that some $13,000,000,000 of American securities, to some degree at least, were exempt. Now I

say this: A sharply graded income tax is to a certain extent inconsistent with tax exemption. When you put out tax exempt issues you justify it on two grounds in war time; no one would ever think of putting it out in ordinary times. In the first place, your rates of interest are going up and you have to offer special inducements to the people of the country in order to get the greatest possible return. Now it is easy to say "you should not have made your bonds tax exempt." I want to say to the House, and I think I know because I discussed this question with financial institutions and with other people who know the investment situation very well, that if the last Victory Loan issue had not been tax exempt we should not have obtained anything like the amount of money we did obtain, or we should have had to pay a much higher rate of interest, and I will show you how that works out.
In United States a tax exempt bond will sell on a 1 per cent interest basis lower than a taxable bond. Supposing we had paid 6 per cent, instead of 51 -per cent last year, supposing we .had paid only one-half of one per cent more during the war, how much would we have had to pay in annual interest on $1,500,000,000? About $7,000,000 or $8,000,000. Now, it may be that it would have- been worth while to pay that in order not to have any discontent by reason of the fact that parties can buy tax exempt bonds and get certain exemption from income taxation in respect of them. But from the purely financial standpoint I have not any hesitation in saying that if you regard what you would have had to pay in additional interest, and take that excess amount of interest and apply it on the whole volume of your securities outstanding, so far as our national Budgets are concerned they will be in a better position than they would be if the bonds had been floated at a higher rate of interest and subject to taxation.
One of the ablest public men and one of the most practical minded men in this country said to me after the last Victory loan, "You will incur some criticism by reason of your bonds being non-taxable, but I wish to say to you that although income taxation anomalies will arise, you would have got just one-half the amount of money you did if your bonds had been taxable, because there would be no certainty about the rate of interest." I do not say that the people of this country would not have subscribed, but we wanted all the available money in the country for


IS, 1919
[Stage Direction]
*1615
the war. Financial institutions and wealthy individuals would say, ''We will subscribe, and subscribe well, for bonds, no matter what the interest rate is." But at the same time they would take a large part of their money and invest it in other securities which would yield a higher interest. And there was no difficulty during the war in getting a higher interest-my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Kennedy) well knows that you could get 7 and 8 per cent upon the highest class of securities, and our people bought them freely in New York. So it got down to this question: In order to get money for carrying on the war, which was everything to the people of this country, are you going to make your bonds attractive and devise machinery which will make your loans a success-because you could not afford to have anything else but a success?
The answer is that the Government was in the war to the hilt, and we did whatever things had to be done in order to meet the situation and provide the money that would back our men up at the front and bring them back victorious and keep the credits going that would enable this country to continue the war. That is what we did, and that is what we stand on before this House and the country and what we will stand on before posterity.
Why, Mr. (Speaker, I was in continual competition in New York with the high rate of interest paid by Great Britain and the other allied countries. We put out issues in New York in 1915, and in the spring of 1917, and these securities of ours were selling down there at one time to yield 7 or 8 per cent. I want this House to know that there were pretty heavy duties and responsibilities upon this Government in connection with its finance during the war, and I am sure that most members do appreciate that fact.
Now I want to take up a few other matters. It has been stated that we should have issued our securities so that we could call them in. Well, that is not a bad principle in ordinary times. But does anybody in this House think that the Dominion Government is likely, within a few years, to be able to call in any considerable portion of the hundreds of millions of our securities outstanding? Why, we have got to raise a big Victory Loan this fall. The best feature of our finance, and the feature which has commended itself to the greatest financiers in New York and in London, is that our debt is so well funded, and the country will have time to recover,
to find the interest and to take care of the bonds as they mature. As I said during my Budget speech, if any Minister of Finance had to face the condition of our debt falling due within five years, I do not know what he would do; but it is spread over the next fifteen _ or twenty years, and well-spread. I pointed out a little while ago that Great Britain is putting out a 5 per cent loan that she cannot call in for fifty years. The British Government are facing the situation, for the same reason that we faced it; we faced it in order to get the money.
Hon. gentlemen have said, " Why, your bonds are at a premium." Well, I do not know how hon. members feel about it, but I am glad that our bonds are at a premium. I want to say that there are two million holders in this country of our war loans. If some people are buying on the exchanges to-day, they are paying a premium to the people who put up the money in the first instance. But does any hon. gentleman imagine because the bonds are at a slight premium on the market that it is any criticism of the rate at which we issued them? Give me $25,000,000 worth of bonds, and I will sell them below par in Toronto and Montreal. Anybody who knows anything about finance knows that when you come to consider putting out a Dominion loan in London you cannot put it out at the nominal market quotation, you have got . to put it out two or three points below. When our securities were at par in England, and we wanted £5,000,000, we did not put the loan out at par, we had to put it out at 97 or 98, two or three points below. Our problem was to sell $700,000,000 of securities in this country, and afterwards we devised machinery that commanded the admiration of Washington and London for stabilizing our securities during the war, and holding them up so that people, and especially the small subscribers, could sell their securities at par, at the price they paid the Government. It was a great achievement. It is a lot better that the people of this country-and all the people practically were participants in the loans- should be able to realize their bonds, ii they want to, at par, than have to sell them at four or five points discount and blame the Government for not having treated them fairly. Treat the people fairly in regard to interest rates, give them a fair deal, and they will stand by you. You may ask the people once to take your bonds below the market price, you may ask them twice, and even three times, but there comes
[Stage Direction]
a time when they will say, "We have lost a good deal of money on those bonds and we do not think we will invest in them again." Whereas, if your bonds stand at par or at a premium, why, they say, "Oh, well, here comes the Dominion Government again. Those bonds are good, and here is my money, Mr. Finance Minister, for your bonds." That is pretty good business. Treat the people fairly in regard to interest rates as well as everything else, and they will stand by you. Sometimes they will stand by you if you do not treat them fairly, but I do not believe that is a good position for a Government to take.
There is some talk about income taxation. Hon. gentlemen this morning stated that our income tax was less than that in United States. I desire to say that income tax of United States for 1918 was on a higher basis than for 1919. In other words, when the war came to an end they decreased the income tax, and I believe that our income tax to-day is on juDt about the same basis as that of United States. We aimed to make it precisely the same, and I believe it is; at least, I am so advised. Now, there is a reason for that. This country, Mr. Speaker, is inviting people to come in as immigrants and as business men. We can only meet our national debt by developing this country. We want immigration of the right kind to fill the great spaces in the West and to touch agriculture into activity which will result in great national wealth,
We desire that capital shall come in here for the development of our mineral, timber and other resources*. If you have too heavy an income tax or business profits tax you will, of a certainty, debar many people from coming into Canada.
On account of our political system being that of a federation, we have three sets of income tax. You have a municipal income tax in many provinces-for example, in Ontario; you have provincial income tax as well as municipal income tax in some provinces-for example, in British Columbia; and you have super-added to that a federal income tax. Now, the Provincial Governments are considering ways and means, just as we are. At the conference of provincial representatives that was held here last fall, if there was anything that impressed me it was the representations of Provincial Governments as to the difficulty of arranging their Budgets. They would like to have the Dominion Government increase the subsidies paid to the provinces; and the representations made to me by representatives of the provinces who attended that conference

were, without exception: "Do not invade our field of taxation more than you can help. If you increase your income tax to a very high figure, then we cannot raise the revenues which we need for all the purposes of our provinces, including education." Many of them besought me not to touch the inheritance tax, because they wanted it for their own purposes. It has been pointed out to me by many people that if the Dominion Government greatly increases the income tax or adds to the taxation already imposed upon estates by the provinces-and it may have to be done-the flow of money to charitable and educational institutions will be stopped. If, therefore, we are wise, we must have regard to provincial and municipal requirements. If any one thinks mat income taxation in this country is not high, let him take the municipal tax of British Columbia, add to that the sharply graduated income tax of that province, and add to that again the federal income tax; he will surely be satisfied, though he be the most extreme advocate of income taxation in this House, that in Canada there is a good deal of income taxation at the present time.
One word with regard to income tax collection. How long did it take United States to get a perfect system of income tax collection. It took Great Britain many years, as the member for Red Deer (Dr. Michael Clark) well knows. Great Britain has an almost perfect system, but it took seventy-five years to develop it. United States has had income tax for ten or eleven years. For the first four or five years they were not able to perfect their organization; even now their organization is not as adequate as that of England. Here we have a country stretching from Halifax to Prince Rupert, comprising cities, towns, villages, and country-side, which our income tax administration must cover. We have organizations in all the provinces. I do not want to magnify the difficulties, but I want to tell the House briefly of some of' the problems with which are confronted. As of June 16, 1919 we made 46,000 approved assessments, aggregating $11,000,000. Of these assessments, 38,000 are paid and about 5,000, or 12 per cent, of the assessments are overdue. That touches one of the features of income tax that, I think, might be dwelt upon a little. A member of this House, who was an extreme anti-tariff man, came into my office one day-he is not a member now.
I said to him, rather jokingly, " I can make you a tariff man in a week." He said "how?" and I replied, "By making you Minister of Finance." I took him over to

the register where every day is recorded the amounts that come in from the customs houses of Canada. Now, I am not putting up a plea for a high tariff; I am simply mentioning the difference between the modes of collecting these two taxes. The collection of income tax is, in the first place, inquisitorial; it goes into the affairs of every one so far as that can be done-although it is pretty difficult to go into them. Hon. gentlemen may think that it is easy to arrive at the amount of income assessment, let us say, of a farmer. Well, in some cases it is, hut very many difficulties have to be taken into consideration. For instance, what was the amount of his grain and other products last year? What is the keep of himself and his family worth? What is his farm worth and what interest should be allowed upon it as capital? What about depreciation, and all these other things? Is it, then, an easy task? I do not say that because it is not easy the Government is to be excused for not efficiently administering the Income Tax Act, but I do say that it will take two or three years, as it has in every other country, to get anything like a perfect organization of the income tax administration. That is not unreasonable; it is bound to be so. We have an organization extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific; that organization is continually being added to, and will, I believe, continue to get more efficient. I realize the soundness of the principle underlying income tax-that those who have shall pay in proportion to their means. What I am dwelling upon now is the difficulty experienced by every country in getting an efficient system of income tax administration. I assure the House that we have done the best we could in that connection and that I look forward to continued improvement.
Mr. LEMilEUX: What about large families?
William Thomas White: There is an allowance now in the income tax legislation of, I think, $200 each for children under sixteen years of age.
I have made some inquiries about land tax, the alleged merits of which have been put forward in the House. I remember reading years ago with the greatest pleasure Mr. Henry George's exposition of the theory of land taxation. He pointed out- what I knew, because I had charge of assessments in Toronto-the absolute impossibility of getting at income tax assessment and personal property assessment as
it should be got at. He pointed out that the assessment should be upon the land,, because the land could be seen. I am not endorsing the theory; I am merely informing the House what his views were with regard to income and personal property taxation and pointing out that Mr. George contended that land taxation was the only taxation that should be resorted to. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration and have discussed it with provincial treasurers and representatives of Provincial Governments. It was impressed upon me that to impose a federal land tax on top of the municipal and provincial land taxes would create a rather serious situation, especially in the West. I do not know how serious it would be, but I do not find any widespread public opinion in favour of a land tax. I am speaking now of a tax upon all land, in cities, towns, and villages, and throughout the country. I am told that some provinces of the West have a wild lands tax.
Land taxation lies immediately at hand so far as the municipality in the province is concerned. I do not mean to commit myself here to the principle that the Dominion Government will not at any time resort to an estate tax or to a land tax. I am simply dealing with the present situation and pointing out that we have carefully canvassed these matters, and I am giving some of the reasons why it does not appear advisable for the present at least to introduce such taxation as has been mentioned.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the minister any idea what a land tax would yield?


William Thomas White: I estimated it once and I was disappointed- I think at as high a rate as four mills-I am speaking only from memory-it would not exceed $20,000,000, which, of course, is a substantial amount, but nevertheless I was surprised at the comparatively small amount, as it seemed to me, that would be raised by a four-mill rate.
We have been attacked with regard to our expenditures since the war and with regard to credits that we have extended. The Government have felt a very heavy sense of responsibility with regard to expenditures which we are making this year, and if we felt we could have refrained from making the expenditures we have made, we should have been glad. I pointed out to the House on one or two occasions during the session the situation with which we were confronted immediately after the

signing of the armistice-hundreds of thousands of people about to be thrown out of work in our cities, soldiers returning to the extent of over 300,000 in a period of a few months-and they are coming back by tens of thousands now. That is the situation with which the Government was confronted, and we have not hesitated to spend money, nor have the British authorities. If you look at the expenditure of Great Britain, you will find this is a war year in that country. The British authorities are paying out tens of millions of dollars to men in unemployment; their expenses are colossal; they are facing the situation that resulted by reason of the profound dislocation caused by the war. Society has been torn' almost to pieces; men were 'taken from their ordinary pursuits which were filled by others; they were taken for the war, for transportation, and all the other services connected with the war; many were placed in other industries, and society must painfully restore those men to their callings. That cannot be done in a week or a month or six months or a year. The nations of the world are to-day on a war basis as regards expenditure, and in order to keep society together in this trying period after the war we are pouring out tens of millions of dollars on shipbuilding. Why are we providing a $50,000,000 credit for the purchase of timber in British Columbia. British Columbia could not have sold her timber, and thousands of men would have been out of employment but for the $50,000,000 credit which we established for Great Britain last fall. The same is true with regard to our programme of railway extensions and all the credits we have extended abroad. I cannot forecast what the future holds, nor can any body else, but the great problem that this continent must face this next year is how to enable Europe to buy the goods which we have of agricultural and other production. That is the question that is perplexing the statesmen at Washington and the financiers in New York and us in Canada. We are going to have a great crop in the West, and we are going to have other products to the extent of probably hundreds of millions of dollars to sell, and so have the United States, only on a much vaster scale. How is Europe going to buy those? We will furnish all the credits we can and the United States Government is extending tens of millions of dollars' oi credit for purchases in that country. The financiers of New York are joining up with the Government to devise ways and means to help out the situation by private enter-
prise, and that is what we must do in this country. The sooner that private enterprise can do this, the better, and nobody will be more pleased that I shall; but if private enterprise cannot do it without governmental assistance, without joint action, then I think the Government must co-operate. This war has torn Europe to pieces. How are we going to feed Germany and Austria, our enemies as well as our Allies? If the war is going to end, how are they going to buy the millions of dollars of produce they require from this continent? How are they going to get the money in Canada and United States to buy it? Credits will have to be established. How they will be established, whether solely by Government, or jointly by Government and private interests, I do not know, but the question is one which we cannot lightly put aside. Whether we like it or not, the question will be put up to us. I have been too long in this House listening to debates to appear to instruct the House, but I have often thought that none of us, members of the Government as well as the members generally, realizes what would happen if certain action that we have taken had not been taken. Supposing, last fall, when financial arrangements for the purchase of our wheat broke down, we had. said; Well, the Government cannot find $170,000,000-and I never expected in the world to have to find it-required to buy our wheat and flour; supposing the Government had taken the advice of some hon. members and said: We will not provide it; we will leave the matter to private enterprise. Well, we would soon hear about it. The wheat would all back up; the mills would stop; commerce would at once be affected throughout the country. So long as the money is provided everything goes forward beautifully. Nobody cares particularly how the money is provided; but if that money were not provided, we would have a very serious situation in this country. As to what credits we should give, I am not prepared to say, because nobody can forecast what lies ahead this next year. I know that the world will meet the situation; I know this continent will devise ways and means necessary. If you have a town in which there are two or three solvent people who have goods other people want in order to live, and if you have a number of other people around who have no money or very little and who need those goods or they will starve, or be in want, or be cold, what happens? Credit must be given, and in the same manner this continent will have to give credit to

Europe, although I do not know what form that credit will take. I ask hon. members, in connection with any criticism they have of anything the Government is doing within reason, to bear in mind that this is an exceptional time, in this, that we must provide work in this country to the full extent of our capacity, and that we must, as a Government, or through financial agencies, find the money necessary to market our exportable products. The Government would be delighted if it did not have to do that. We are not putting on loans for the sake of putting them on, but we have to look forward to this fall and this coming winter with the men back from overseas and the high cost of living that has so often been referred to in this House, and the fact that we must get a market for our products. Those are the duties and responsibilities devolving upon the Government, and I need not assure hon. members that, at times, they are pretty heavy. I welcome criticism; nobody values it more than I do, because occasionally, indeed, frequently, you get an idea that is of service to you, and I am only too happy to acknowledge it. I have derived many suggestions in this House that have been of the greatest possible value, and I do not mean to say, looking over the past iour years, that we have not made mistakes, because we have, but we have made very few. I say that, and I do not believe anybody holds himself to a higher standard than I do.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister admits that.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that we admit it. How many perfect people are there in the world, outside, let us say, of my hon. friend?


Samuel William Jacobs: Two of us, perhaps.


William Thomas White: We never claimed perfection. All that we do claim is an honest intention, fair courage and resources, and a desire to promote so far as we can the interests of the people of this country whom we represent.
Now let me say a word or two about another matter that has engaged, and properly engaged, a good deal of attention in this House, and that is the high cost o) living. There have been various angles of approach to it-a pick here, a dab there, and a dent yonder-but what are the great underlying causes? I believe that most members of this House know what they are. If all of us would just drop the politician and ask ourselves what is the cause of the high cost of everything, I think
we would have no difficulty in ascertaining what it is. Fifty million people of the greatest nations of the world have been withdrawn from their pursuits and poured into the war; tens of millions from agriculture in Europe, and millions from agriculture Overseas' What does that mean, as far as agricultural production is concerned? It means diminished production, greatly diminished production. Then what about the destruction of the war throughout Europe-the vast areas of agricultural territory destroyed, the cattle carried off oi killed, the horses taken away, the implements of agriculture broken, whole producing districts devastated ? How long is it going to take to have that agriculture flourishing again, how long is it going to take to have those herds restored ? How long is it going to take to replace that labour of tens of millions of men, replaced as it was, imperfectly and partially, by old women and children during the war? Large areas of Europe are starving. What are the two concomitants of war? Plague and famine. We had the plague, and it killed almost as many as the war, and in the world to-day we have many of the aspects of famine. We have food scarcity. Consider the amount of food destroyed in ships sunk by submarines, and the food destroyed at the Front. Consider the increased consumption of food by millions of men in the army, many of whom were fed as they had never been fed before. The standard oi living throughout the world has been raised. All those engaged in war and other industries have been consuming more than they did before the war. The demands upon food have been much greater. What do I draw from all that? In the first place we have diminished production, and in the second place increased consumption. When you have diminished production and increased consumption, what world phenomenon do you get? Scarcity of food and of all other kinds of commodities. That is the main cause of the present high prices- diminished production and greatly increased consumption. Our cities have been filled up by people who have come from the country to engage in war industries. The farmer is clamouring for help and cannot get it. The problem of this country and of all countries, and the prob lem of the trend towards the city. That problem is not confined to Canada. It is present in France, in England, in Germany, and in the United States. If anybody will look up the statistics he will be startled at what they show. That is the situation which we have.

If there are combines by all means take whatever action is necessary in order that there may be free competition, but no matter what Government is in power there will be men in Free Trade England and men in this country and in United States who for one reason or another will make large sums of money from time to time, in spite of any action that may be taken by the Government, and if that money is honestly made, it is a national advantage instead of a disadvantage. As for combines if there are any, dissolve them. I do not mean to say that in	time of
war, or if occasion should require it, there should not be food control, but the experiments that have been made in food control during the war have not been very happy. Interfere with the price of milk, for example, and cattle are killed for beef. It is the same all down the line. J made an experiment which my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. MeCrea) has always commended me for in this House, that of fixing the price of news print, and it was a very difficult task indeed.
Hon. gentlemen say that if these are the main causes of the scarcity of food and other supplies, what is the use of the committee that has been appointed by this House? I think it is a great deal of use, if for no other reason than the publicity that is given; I am a great believer in publicity. There is another thing. I think we have all got into too extravagant personal habits in this country. I went into a store not very long ago, if I may be personal for a moment, to buy a hat. A hat that cost me $4.50 before the war was offered me for $11. I said " I won't buy it, that is too much."


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it a minister's
hat?


William Thomas White: It was an English hat.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it a lady's hat'


William Thomas White: You might think so from the price, but it was not a lady's hat. It was a hat my hon. friend could have worn with that dignity with which he wears all his clothes. I said I could not afford it. My own view is that we do not inquire sufficiently as to what we ought to pay; we have got into the habit of paying almost anything we are asked without inquiring whether we could buy to better advantage elsewhere. We do not bargain.
I remember years ago our wives would know where they could get a thing the cheapest. They had a wide range and did

not pay any price that was asked. If the people of this country, when the price is too high, would say "I am sorry, I cannot afford it," it would tend to bring the prices down. The committee that has been appointed can do good if they get all the facts, and they should be careful to get all the facts so that no wrong impression goes out one way or the other. If high prices are due to some speculative change in prices, let us have the facts. If it is a question of return on capital, let us have the facts. The great thing under democratic government is to get the facts and give them to the people, and that is one great thing the committee can do. In addition to that, they may discover that there are certain combinations, and if they do, I shall be most happy to help enforce sound recommendations in that respect.
I want to speak about the prospects for the future. This country, as I said when introducing the Budget, has a very heavy load of debt. All the other nations that have been engaged in the war are in the same position, only more aggravated. Europe is freighted down with debt. Now the interest on that debt is going to have its effect on prices of everything for years to come, and so far as I can see the only salvation of the world is that which has always saved it-Work, work. I do not mean to say that any man should work longer hours than will give the best results from his productive powers. I am in sympathy with the aspirations of labour for a reasonable day, but I am not speaking about labour alone. I say that all classes in the world will have to work, and work hard. After Waterloo, how was the enormous debt of England met? Any one who will take the trouble to read about it will find that it was met by the people of England making up their minds that they would produce more in order that they might live up to the standard they enjoyed before and also pay that debt. United States faced a greater debt after the 'Civil War and extinguished it practically within twenty-five years. This great producing country, if we can get the people to produce and save, can look forward with confidence to the future, and I say that without in the least degree minimizing the extent of the debt and the gravity of the problems before us. We can do it. If we cannot, what other nation in the world, in the present situation, is going to be able to do it? I reiterate, we can do it. There is just one other thing I want to say, and say with all sincerity: I think there is too much of a tendency-I will not say in

this House-to take it for granted that all persons who stayed at home were profiteers. Now, the noblest kind of service was rendered in this country by thousands of men and women from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Take our Red Cross contribution, the Patriotic Fund, and the other multitudinous enterprises in which the people at home were engaged in connection with the war. The spirit of the Canadian people was magnificent during the war. The farmers did well, the manufacturers did well, and the traders did well. My own view is that we should not have been able to carry on the war if the country as a whole had not done very well. I do not believe that men should make undue profits. I am opposed to that, but I must say that I like to see business enterprises in the country, at the beginning of a period such as that which now confronts us, in fairly good shape to keep their hands engaged and meet whatever difficulties may lie ahead. I am opposed to undue profits on the part of any one, but I like to see successful trade and its results, because we have to shoulder a heavy burden and solve the serious problems which lie before us. I believe that in the next year, two years, three years, or five years, we are going to have as keen competition as this world can produce in all lines. Why do I say that? Europe must produce and sell abroad or it cannot sustain the burdens which the war has placed upon it. So the people of Canada-and I am sure they will be able to do it-must be prepared to meet the keenest kind of competition within the next five years. I think we are in a good position 'to do it. Unrest? Yes! Unrest all over the world. It is partly psychological, due to the strain through which we have passed; and, in part, it is due, I think, to a sense of rather profound injustice on the part of many as to the way in which the war has distributed its burdens and sacrifices, and the feeling that there should be far-reaching social readjustment. All that is reasonable, and it will take time before the world can steady down after this war. I believe I said that work was necessary; another thing, I think, is also necessary, as an indispensable concomitant. I Delieve that work and the Golden Rule are going to solve many of the problems that lie before us if the people will only do the one and apply the other. Legislation? Yes! Legislation to the extent that it will accomplish justice. But it is slow and uncertain in its processes. At the basis of the dispute between capital and labour lies, in my judgment, the field of ethics. The Golden Rule,
if we would all apply it, would do a world of good. The world will never be saved by legislation alone. It will be saved by the due observance of moral principles and a proper regard for ethics; in other words, religion, although I am the last man to preach. The sooner that all the people of this country and the world over realize the righto ot others, and not only desire to respect thrrn, but carry that desire into practice in all the relations of life, the sooner will things become settled and men solve successfully the troublous problems with which they are faced to-day. The war is not yet over, and until Monday next its conclusion will be a matter of uncertainty. I do not know, and I do not believe that any one in the world knows, whether it is over, and the war may continue after 'Monday next.
So far as fiscal policy goes, it is for governments to consider situations as they arise from time to time and deal with them as wisely as they can. It was put forward this morning that we had made some reductions in the Budget as a sop to the West. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. My desire in budgets has always been to take into account the country as a whole. It is idle to disguise from ourselves the fact that a large section of Western 'Canada has been disturbed on tariff matters. I do not believe that there are twenty members in this House who would seriously put forward the proposal that we should undertake in this troubled period, in view of the conditions which I have mentioned, not only domestic, but international, to tear the tariff to pieces and put it together again. I do not believe that there are twenty members who would say that we coul'd intelligently revise the Canadian customs tariff to-day. But the view is expressed that taking the duties off foodstuffs may give some relief. I think that is probably true with regard to articles that are not grown in this country- I am frank to say that I agree with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that in a great food producing country like this where you produce more than you need, duties upon food products have an almost imperceptible effect on prices. As regards tea, sugar and coffee, and things produced only outside of the country, there is no question that if you take the duty off you get an almost immediate result. But as regards food whidh we produce to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars more than we require, the diminution of duties would have no important effect on prices. So far'as policy is concerned I would, li&ve duties rest more


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not.


William Thomas White: They did not, and they would not if they were in power.

,Mr. McKENZIE: The Finance Minister says that the amendment of the hon. member for Brome is chaff. Will he say that the platform of the Grain Growers' Association is also chaff?


William Thomas White: I am not for the moment dealing with the platform of the Grain Growers' Association, but I have no hesitation in saying:-I am on record on too many occasions to have any hesitancy in the matter-I believe in a fiscal policy which tends to develop and stabilize the industries of this country, and that policy will govern me in my administration. I would so direct the policy of Government that the industries of a country would be promoted and stabilized and that taxation should bear as lightly as possible upon the people as to necessities and as much as possible upon luxuries. The platform on which I stand has been too often declared by me in this House to admit of arty misunderstanding. Above all, I would say to my hon. friend that no matter what platforms he shapes or adopts-because I do not think he has thought out yet the platform he is going to adopt-he has had two or three in the last few weeks-if he was occupying the treasury benches to-day notwithstanding the amendment for which hon. gentlemen opposite are going to vote, they would not tear the Canadian tariff to pieces at this time; they did not do that when they were in office. Look through the utterances of my predecessor, Hon. Mr. Fielding-and I have always had the greatest respect for that gentleman; no man will find that I have ever said much in criticism in this House of the former Minister of Finance-and it will be found that the Liberal Government continually had the interest of this industry and of that and the other, at heart. They established the steel industry in 'Cape Breton by bounties to which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) subscribes. Did they refrain from imposing any particular duties on iron and steel? There were duties on iron and steel before this Government came into power. Who put them there? Let us face the facts, and it is a fact, that the Liberal Government under Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier did have regard for particular industries in this country. Therefore, I say that this amendment, designed to look like grain for the benefit of the farmer, is chaff, and will be so regarded, I believe, by the farming community of this country. There is an agitation in the West, in regard to agricultural implements, principally, and there has been for many years. The former
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the reciprocity agreement provided for certain reduced duties upon agricultural implements and other products of Canada. The chief objection that I had to the reciprocity agreement was the fact that there was an agreement. What have we got to-day without any agreement? Flour is on the free listj wheat is on the free list; this Government put them there. Cement is lower than it was under the reciprocity agreement. Binders are lower than they were undeT the reciprocity agreement, and the other articles dealt with in the Budget are as low, if not lower than they were under that agreement. Reference has been made to the necessities of the three Prairie Provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, feut in the tariff policy regard must be had to the country as a whole from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the national interests as a whole. If you can meet the wishes to a certain degree, at least, of an important section of the community, without doing material damage to the national interest, you ought to do it; and this Budget- represents a sincere attempt to keep stable at this unstable time the industries of Canada, and at the same time go as far as we can to meet the legitimate requests of those interested in tariff reduction. The first thing that any Finance Minister must do is to provide money to meet the national indebtedness. Members may say: Take the tariff down. But what will be the consequence of that? How are you going to meet your debts from day to day? As I say, the amendment would cut off 150,000,000, as between revenue and current expenditure, and provides nothing to take its place.
Another thing I pointed out in my Budget speech, that the expenditures of this country on ordinary account had been doubled by the war. $100,000,000 more interest on the public debt; of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 more in two or three years for pensions; $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 on account of soldiers' re-establishment; $150,000,000 or $160,000,000 of current expenditure added to the expenditure of the Dominion before the war. How are you going to meet it? Nobody will say that you can raise it by income taxation only, or by land taxation only, or by inheritance taxation only. No, nor a fraction of it. If you put on all the taxes under those three heads that the country can stand, you would not begin to meet the expenditure. We have got, like a manly nation, to meet our obligations arising out of the war. We have got to meet the pension fund-that is the first thing we

.should meet; and we have got to meet these other charges to take care of our soldiers- and there will be more to come-to provide war gratuities to help the returned soldier bridge over the time until he gets back to the productive occupations of civil life. We have got to do all that, and we are going to do it. But if you tear the tariff to pieces at this time, or at any time for that matter, how are you going to get the money? .
I said in my Budget speech that the time was overdue for a rearrangement of the tariff. I say so still. And we have taken the necessary steps to provide for that at the proper time after an investigation has been held. But to put in effect this amendment at this time would be a fatal policy, fatal to the credit of the country by reason of the gap that it would leave between revenue and expenditure. And, further than that, if you diminish our revenue without providing other revenue to take its place to the same extent and on the same scale, you are going to make this country scrutinize too carefully the expenditures which we should incur on account of the returned soldier. Your Minister of Finance should have abounding revenues so that he can do his duty by the country in the way of maintaining its credit and meeting its obligations and the just claims of the soldiers upon the citizens of this country. In that spirit this Budget has been framed.
There is another thing most essential in this country to-day to my judgment, and that is that we should have national unity. This Dominion is broken up into four great sections. You have the Maritime Provinces; then you have a gap of a few hundred miles until you come to the city of Montreal and the more populous parts of Quebec and Ontario; then you have a great gap of a thousand miles of wilderness and you come to the three great Prairie Provinces -any one of them almost unlimited in its resources, and as large geographically as Germany or France; and then you have the Rocky mountains and beyond them the province of British Columbia. You have all these different sections with diverse sectional interests. What is going to be the policy of any Government-of this Government and of its successors? They have a large family and they cannot play favourites. You can hardly have a Benjamin-although I said once that Prince Edward Island should be the Benjamin, because it is so small geographically and is such a beautiful little province-you have to survey the whole situation and adopt a policy that will be best for Canada as a
r$ir rrVuorvvag White.]
whole, nationally speaking, and I am sure that I am voicing the sentiments of every man in this House, because they are all patriotic, when I say that they will support a policy which best accords with the national interest of Canada and all its parts. That does not mean that we cannot redress injustice if it should exist; it means the opposite of that. It does not mean that from time to time tariffs should not change to meet changing conditions. But it does mean that in considering a fiscal policy the whole of Canada must be taken into account and such a policy adopted as will promote that end, and I believe that every section of Canada-Maritime, Central and Prairie Provinces, and British Columbia-will support that policy if they understand and believe it to be a national policy, for I have the greatest confidence in the people of Canada.
I have taken up a good deal of time, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that I should the more apologize because we asked members to cut down their speeches. But I have felt very seriously the responsibilities which have devolved upon me as financial adviser of the Government during the war; I have taken them quite conscientiously, and I did desire to place upon Hansard for the information of this House and of the country, and of those coming after who might desire to inquire, the views of the Minister of Finance upon his financial administration during the war and the conditions which confront the country immediately after the war. I have felt it advisable that I should do that; and if I have taken up too much time and wearied your patience over much, I hope that for the reason given you will be inclined to extend to me reasonable indulgence.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, there is
very little which at this stage I can add to the debate which has proceeded for nearly two weeks. During the last ten or twelve days we have had in this House addresses from various members dealing with the matters mentioned in the Budget. Most of them have been illuminating, many of them have been interesting; and I do not feel that I can add anything to what has already been said. In the early part of the debate we had the heavy artillery; subsequently we had the cavalry galloping

across the ground; after that we had the machine guns in action; and now the duty devolving upon me is to do a little sniping on my own account, if I find that there is occasion therefor.
This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) was delivered of his second Budget speech. We had expected the delivery of one child, but thanks to the amendment which was introduced by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the House has been presented with twins; and the Minister of Finance tells us that he expects these children to be "protected" and cared for by the people of this country. I have no quarrel with the Minister of Finance with regard to the excellent address he delivered this afternoon, with a good deal of which I agree. Were it not for the intense heat, I am sure we would all have enjoyed the two , hours or more which he took up in his interesting, didactic lecture to us upon the finances of this country.
The Finance Minister felt himself, if 1 may use the expression on a hot day like this, to be " skating on thin ice " in certain parts of his address. The member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) made the assertion that the Government had been robbed of large stims of money through the importation into Canada of tractors upon which the duty had not been paid, and yet that the farmer or the consumer did not receive the benefit. The minister ignored that serious charge, and went on with talk of generalities, of which he is a master.
The Finance Minister spoke about the wonderful achievement of the Government in 1914 in reducing the national debt by $5,000,000. The minister did not, however, take the trouble to enlighteen the House by stating how much money had been drawn from the people during that year. The public accounts show that in 1914 $127,384,000 were taken from the people and credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and spent. While I am on that subject, I wish to point out the wide divergence between the expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund under the Liberal Government during the years 1909, 1910, and
1911,	and that of the subsequent years,
1912,	1913, and 1914. During the last years of the Liberal administration the expenditure was $84,000,000 in 1909, $79,000,000 in 1910, and $87,000,000 in 1911, and we find that in 1912, 1913, and 1914, the figures run up to $98,000,000, $112,000,000, and $127,000,000. No wonder the Minister of Finance was able to pay off in 1914 a paltry $5,000,000 of the national debt, when he was able
to pay out on current account in that year a sum of $127,000,000.
Another criticism I have to make is that notwithstanding the present high cost ot foodstuffs, the Government has granted credits to foreign countries for the purpose of furnishing them with foodstuffs from this country, thus increasing the cost ol living. It has been trumpeted throughout the country that vast sums of money are being credited to countries on the other side of the Atlantic to enable them to purchase foodstuffs in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that we have not enough food to satisfy our own needs. It is a question whether the Government is justified in advancing money in order that foodstuffs may be shipped out of the country, because of the inability of our people to obtain in many cases the actual necessities of life, bringing about so much distress and consequent unrest.
I do not purpose to deal at length with the merits and demerits of protection and free trade, which have been so fully and thoroughly discussed in this House, on the one side by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and on the other side by the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I would like to say, howe.ver, that the member for Red Deer is to be congratulated upon his address; I do not know that 1 ever heard a discourse so illuminating and so clear as that which the eloquent member from the West gave us on this subject. With some of the views that he advanced I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement. For instance, he seemed to advocate an insurgency on the part of members of a political party, looking towards complete independence of view. It seemed to me that he laboured the point, I consider that independence on the part of members of a political party, at any rate in this country, should be sparingly exercised. The member for Red Deer spoke of Cobden having been an insurgent of that class; surely he does not expect that a Cobden is to rise up every year. If we are to teach the rank and file of our party that they may at any given moment express independent views on public matters, where is this to lead? I commend to my hon. friend the remarks of that great parliamentarian and constitutionalist Sir Thomas Erskine May on the merits and demerits of party Government.
I quote the following from the remarks of that learned author:
We find that Government without party is absolutism-that rulers, without opposition, may be despots. We acknowledge, with gratitude, that we owe to party most of our rights and



liberties. We recognize in the fierce contentions of our ancestors, the conflict of great principles and the final triumph of freedom. We glory in the eloquence and noble sentiments which the rivalry of contending statesmen has inspired. We admire the courage with which power has been resisted; and the manly resolution and persistence by which popular rights have been established. We observe that, while the undue influence of the Crown has been restrained, democracy has been also held in check. We exult in the final success of men who have suffered in a good cause. We admire the generous friendships, fidelity, and self-sacrifice -akin to loyalty and patriotism,-which the honourable sentiments of party have called forth. We perceive that an opposition may often serve the country far better than a ministry ; and that where its principles ai-e right, they will prevail.
By argument and discussion truth is discovered, public opinion is expressed, and a free people are trained to self-government. We feel that party is essential to representative institutions. Every interest, principle, opinion, theory and sentiment, finds expression. The majority governs: hut the minority is never without sympathy, representation, and hope. Such being the two opposite aspects of party, who can doubt that good predominates over evil? Who can fail to recognize in party, the very life-blood of freedom?
I can understand, of course, why the hon. member for Red Deer made the plea that he did. He found himself constrained only a short time ago to stray from the flock, and this, I fancy, is his justification and apology for returning. We are, however, very glad to have the hon. member with us once more; we welcome the prodigal, and we hope the experience he has learned on the other side will serve him in good stead, and that we shall have the benefit of his advice as to what happened to him during the time he was away and since he left our . party in 1917.
The 'Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has our sympathy in his efforts to reconcile two such widely divergent groups in his party, and in his desire to satisfy both he has pleased neither. That is always the fate of people who attempt to do a work of that kind. The Minister of Finance, I suppose, is not oblivious of the story in Aesop's Fables of the man and his son who were riding an ass. The man was advised by his friends that it might be well if they both got down and that the ass should ride upon them, and (t ended that neither of the parties were satisfied and that the ass was subsequently drowned. It is necessary for public men in this country to take a firm position upon political questions and to stand or fall by their principles, but the Government are so anxious for power, they are so anxious to retain their seats on the treasury benches that they were willing to swallow themselves and to sacrifice prin-

ciple in order that they might remain where they are.
I was very much impressed by a remark which fell from the lips of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He said, if I remember well, that this was-no time to deal with tariff revision, and I agree with him fully and entirely in that statement. This is not the time for the Government to deal with tariff revision; this is the time for the Government to dissolve Parliament and go to the country. The Government was elected for one specific purpose, namely, to impose conscription upon the country, and as they said, to win the war. Conscription was imposed, the war is won, and it is now the duty of the Government to appeal to the country for a further lease of power. That seems to me to be the constitutional aspect of the situation, and that was the course followed by Mr. Lloyd George in 1918. Hardly was the ink dry on the armistice on November 11, 1918, when the Lloyd George Government was dissolved and went to the country. Why did not this Government do the same? Why does it persist in hanging on to power?' Why does this Government, with the divergent elements on the other side, the protectionist element, represented by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), the-free trade element which has been represented heretofore by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), and every possible element of that kind which was banded together for the purpose of imposing conscription on this country and winning the war, persist in trying to force down the throats of its followers this tariff revision which they will not have? Many hon. gentlemen opposite are actually committing [DOT]political suicide when they venture to vote for the Government as it is at present constituted. They know very well they can never come hack; indeed, it is a question in many cases if they can even go home to see their people. Yet the Government endeavours to force on them this measure upon which they have not been elected to pass. If there ever were a case when the Government ought to appeal to the people, this is the occasion, and the Government is simply holding the treasury benches for the purpose of remaining in power, because if I am any judge of events in the country at the present day, this Government when it submits itself to the people will find itself on this side of the House as soon as the people declare by their votes what their views are.
I am sure we on this side of the House sympathize with hon. members on the other

side who are being stampeded by the Government in the way in which they are. We see the surgings on their side. We know what is going on. Some of them have broken away-the strong ones. Some are debating in their minds whether they should follow the Government or whether they should vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). The weak ones have already gone over, horse, foot and artillery, expecting to have a little joy-ride as long as it lasts, because they know they can never hope to enter these halls again, inasmuch as, according to our view, they will have acted treacherously with their electors if they vote for this Budget which, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says is nothing more nor less than a protectionist Budget. Let us take the case of the repeal of the 5 per cent, and on certain goods of the 7i per cent war tax. These war duties brought into the treasury something like $45,000,000 last year. The Minister of Finance has proclaimed in this House and throughout the country the fact that $17,000,000 of that has been taken off, leaving $28,000,000 which the people of this country will be obliged to pay in addition to the regular customs duty. Calculating that the customs duties in 1914, the first year of the war, were $100,000,000, roughly speaking-I have not the figures at hand at the moment-what does this $28,000,000 mean? It means that the people of this country are paying 28 per cent more into the treasury in the matter of import duties than they did in 1914. Yet we are told that this is a tariff revision. War duties are imposed on the people when there is no war. We have two Ministers of Militia, one an overseas minister, when there is no necessity at all for an overseas minister, seeing that our men are practically all back. We have also the Department of Agriculture not filled, and I make bold! to predict that the position will not be filled for many moons, the reason being that the Government is afraid to open any constituency where a Minister of Agriculture could submit himself for election in order to test the feeling of the people. Where is the Minister of Agriculture to come from? Naturally and logically from the West. Is there any one member on the other side coming from an agricultural district in the West who is willing to submit to the test of being elected by the people before he takes his seat as Minister of Agriculture? I predict that the Department of Agriculture will be an appendage to the Department of Immigra-2301
tion and Colonization for some time to come. The Department of Agriculture is one of the most important departments of the Government.
Would it not be well if the Minister of Militia Overseas were to take over that department? That is a suggestion which I throw out to the Government. I am sure he would make just as good a Minister of Agriculture as he has made an Overseas Minister of Militia. Constitutionally, there never was any reason in the wide world why we should have had two ministers of Militia in one Government. The thing is unheard of. What was the use of an Overseas Minister of Militia three thousand miles away from the Council Chamber? The duty of the ministers of the Government is to meet from time to time as required, in order to discuss matters affecting the country. How could any one, who by the very nature of his office, was three thousand miles away from Ottawa, exercise his functions as a minister of the Government? There should have been sent overseas a commissioner, or perhaps the Deputy Minister of Militia. That gentleman has had considerable experience in military affairs; he is a South African veteran, and has been connected with the Militia Department for the last twenty years. In my opinion no more fitting man could have been sent across than the Deputy Minister of Militia (Sir Eugene Fiset), but, for some reason unknown to the country, a gentleman who probably never had anything to do with militia matters, and who probably did not know the difference between the artillery and the cavalry, was sent across merely to suit his own purposes or the purposes of the Government. We are not at all surprised at what happened as a result of that appointment. One of the results is that Argyll House has become a by-word throughout the whole of this country and England for inefficiency, incompetency and inaptitude. The riots that have taken place in Wales and in different parts of England and France are due entirely to the inefficiency and incompetency of the head of the department overseas. This is only what we might have expected When this gentleman was sent across.
I think it will be generally admitted that a crisis has been precipitated in this country by the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. In his letter to the Prime Minister and in his address to the House he gave the reasons for his resignation. But the President of the Privy Council (Mr. COMMONS
Rowell) has added another reason, and it is that the Minister of Agriculture resigned from his position because the tariff had been tampered with. That is the information which the President of the Privy Council divulges.


Mr. ROWELL:: If my hon. friend wishes to state what I said, I would ask him to quote my remarks.


Samuel William Jacobs: I will do that. In his
address on the Budget the President of the Privy Council said-Unrevised Hansard, p. 3524:
1 want to say to the House that I entirely share the view of the hon. 'Minister of Immigration and Colonization, that when this House met. the Finance Minister might have said: This is a war year, and the finance this year must be war finance. The question of a revision of the tariff must stand over until this war year is over. The Union Government was not formed for the purpose of dealing with that issue. He might have stated that to the House and the country, and I would have stood side by side with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in support of that position. And I am dealing perfectly fairly with all my friends and colleagues when I say that there would have been no dissent from that proposition by any member of the Government. The Finance Minister could have come down to this House with that policy and a united Government, would have faced the House and the country in support of it.
If that means anything, it means that if
the question of the revision of the tariff had been allowed to stand over until after the war the Finance Minister would have come down to the House with a policy and a united Government, and that inasmuch as that course was not adopted the Government was not united, and the Minister of Agriculture is no longer a member of the Government. I think that is a fair inference. At any rate, that is what the country understands by the statement made by the President of the Privy Council. The country believes that he meant that if the tariff had not been touched at all, the hon. member for Marquette ((Mr. 'Crerar) would not have resigned from the Government. Now that was the statement made by a member of the Cabinet to the House, and I respectfully submit that it is divulging a Gabinet secret and is contrary to all constitutional practice. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is prevented by his oath of office from making any statement in the matter, and the statement of the President of the Privy Council must therefore go out to the country unchallenged, and he must accept the responsibility for making that statement to the House.

The President of the Privy Council further went on to state that if the question of the high cost of living was not properly dealt with, we must look to the ex-Minister of Agriculture for any inefficiency in that regard. Surely my hon. friend knows very well that there is a joint and several responsibility on the part of every member of the Government with the ex-Minister of Agriculture, who is no more responsible than is my hon. friend (Mr. Rowell). It seems to me it was rather unfair, to put it mildly, for the President of the Privy Council to try and shift the responsibility and place it on the shoulders of the gentleman who was his colleague only a few days ago.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There again my hon. friend is not stating fairly what I said to the House. I said that the Minister of Agriculture, I believed, had done everything which he thought prudent and wise in dealing with the whole matter, that he had acted most efficiently in* the discharge of his duty. Of course, as a member of the Government, I take full responsibility with the Minister of Agriculture for all that was done in the premises.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not see that the President of the Privy Council could do anything else. Nothing was done, anyway. What I said was that the President of the Privy Council had made the statement that if there was any inefficiency, the blame must be laid at the door of the Minister of Agriculture. That reminds me of the old Levitical law, which my hon. friend knows very much better than I do. When sins of ignorance were committed by the people, how did they escape responsibility? They got a yearling goat and sacrificed it, and the sins of the people were placed upon its head. That is what the Government have attempted to do with the ex-Minister of Agriculture. The sins of the Government in connection with the high cost of living and the general administration of the Department of Agriculture are placed on the head of this poor goat the hon. member for Marquette, who is just a little more than a year old as a minister-a year and-a-half to be exact. I am glad to know that after all, the Levitical law can be made to apply in the year of grace 1919 as well as three thousand years ago.


Mr. M. CLARK:: Were not two goats taken, one goat being killed and the other sent into the wilderness? Perhaps my hon. friend can give us some light on which goat has been killed. We know where the wilderness is.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think probably the other goat would be my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark).
I have a further suggestion to make to the Government with regard to the appointment of the Minister of Agriculture, which position has just been vacated by the hon. member for Marquette. In the New York Sun of Tuesday, May 20, I read the following i
As the son of a farmer on his father's farm near St. Mary's, Ontario, the Hon. Arthur Meighen "farmed" from his youth to his early manhood. As the owner of a farm in Manitoba, though not the worker of it, he has added to his knowledge of what farming means m Canada. The main, point is that he has the jx>int of view of the farmer and that he is not dealing with any new thing when he deals with settling returned soldiers on the land. He has a sympathetic understanding of Canada's agricultural conditions and needs.
Why not transfer the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to the Department of Agriculture? He has, I am glad to learn, a sympathetic understanding of Canada's agricultural conditions. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that nothing is said of his having any sympathetic understanding or the conditions of the labourers in Canada. His comprehension of conditions is strictly limited to agricultural matters. I think the hon. the Minister of the Interior would make an excellent farmer, and at the head ot the Department of Agriculture he would surely do well.
We were told to-day by the Minister of Finance ((Sir Thomas White) about large sums of money collected for the war Well they were collected, and no one regrets any money which was honestly spent for the purpose of winning the war. But what we do object to very strenuously on this side is mat very large sums of money were mistTe^iar11	"'1th the P^ecution of
he war. Money has been wasted on eanin
ands, and I need only instance the case o^ Camp Borden ventilated in this House last year, in which tens of thousands of dollars belonging to the country went into the hands of private speculators. Then again private cars were built and altered to suit the convenience of individuals. The formei Minister of Militia and Defence, the hon member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) required to have his car lengthened eight feet, and what do you suppose that cost the overtaxed people of this country? It cost the tidy sum of $28,000, to give eight feet of additional car space to the Minister of Militia and Defence at that time.


Mr. MORPHY:: Will the hon. member
permit me a question? I know he would not
like to be unfair, and I think he will admit that the whole car was rebuilt and to-day is probably as first-class a car as there is in Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: I admit the whole car was rebuilt. The original intention was to lengthen the car eight feet for the convenience of the Minister of Militia and Defence, and when they began to lengthen it they simply dismantled it, and the work of putting it together again cost $28,000. I think the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) will admit that.
Let us consider the question of customs brokers' commission for passing entries from one department of government to another. Tens of thousands of dollars went into the pockets of friends of the Government who were acting as brokers. The work they did could be done by a clerk in any of the departments receiving $700 or $800 a year, and yet for a pure matter of bookkeeping, in order to keep proper tab on the merchandise and commodities brought in for the Government from one department to another, we paid in one instance, if I remember rightly, something like $16,000 to a firm o'f brokers in Quebec. I am speaking without the figures before me, but I think it was $16,000. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Customs last year he expressed utter amazement that such a thing should have occurred. He promised that he would look into it and would have a report made to the House later. Since that time, however, we have heard nothing about the matter. We see frauds practised on the Government in regard to soldiers' pay, large sums of money being involved, and the Government must accept responsibility in the matter. I say, therefore, that while we have given this money freely and gladly in order to win the war, the Government must recognize the fact that this country will hold them to strict accountability when they go before the people, for then they will be asked to explain how these vast sums of money were allowed to filter through their hands, and in many cases into the pockets of friends of the Government.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Income Tax, in connection with which the Minister of Finance waxed so eloquent this afternoon. No one takes the income tax seriously in this country. It is treated as a joke. Nine-tenths of the people do not pay the tax for the excellent reason that statements are never sent to them. I know of instances where accounts were prepared and forms were
*3630

filled up, and for the last two years not one word has been heard from the department with regard to these statements of account. They run into millions of dollars, and the interest upon these sums is also [DOT]considerable. But for 3ome reason or other known to the Government, no serious effort is made to collect this money. I understand that in Australia, which has five-eighths of the population of this country, they collect in income tax something like $37,000,000. Proportionately to that, Canada ought to contribute $50,000,000 on income tax account. But how much have we collected? I understand that last year we collected the paltry sum of $6,000,000. How long is this condition going to continuer The Minister of Finance threw an interesting sidelight on this question this afternoon. He said: I told a friend of mine that I would convert him very easily to protection if he were to come into my office, because I could show him that every day large sums of money are being paid into various customs houses in the Dominion of Canada on account of imports. He further said: It is easier to collect this money and consequently we do not have to bother about the other. Now, I submit that it is unworthy of the Minister of Finance to speak in that way. It is not a question whether or not the money can be easily collected. It is a question of proportioning the taxes of the country equitably upon all the people.
The Government deserves credit for some of its legislation, and I might instance the Bankruptcy Act which went through the House and passed the Senate a few days ago. I was very glad that the Government put through that Bill. )I had the honour of introducing it myself into this House last year. This year I thought it would be more in keeping with things were the Government to take hold of an important piece of legislation of that kind and put it through, and they have done so, although they have tacked on to the Bill several anomalies for which I do not wish to hold myself responsible, and of which I disclaim the paternity. However, I have to admit that the Act was very much needed in the interests of commerce, and to that extent the Government has followed the views of the commercial community generally in putting through that Bill.
I have another Bill in my hands which I am prepared to tender to the Government. It is a Bill which has been standing in my name for the last two or three months. It had not reached the Committee stage

when private members' day was taken by the Government and consequently I was unable to proceed with it further. May I suggest to my hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that this Bill is almost identical in form with one which he introduced into this House on January 16, 1908. On reference to Hansard, page 1346, I see:
Mr. R. L. Borden (Oarleton, Ont.) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 66) to amend the House of Commons Act. He said:	This Bill
has the same purpose as a Bill introduced last session or the session before. It is to provide that, in case the seat of any member of this House is vacated for any cause and the writ for the election of a new member is- not issued within a prescribed time, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to issue the writ for a new election.
All that the Prime Minister has to do today is to make that a Government Bill. As the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) said the other day, it ivould go through, certainly without any opposition on .this side of the House, and I do not think there would be any opposition on the other side.
It is a Bill which is very much needed just now. We have six vacancies throughout the country and those vacancies ought to be filled; there is no reason why the people of those divisions should be disfranchised. I don't know whether any change has come over the views of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) since 1908. Probably he has overlooked the fact that he entertained such views at that time, but I have now recalled them to his attention and I trust action will be taken in the matter before the House prorogues.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House much longer. It would be practically impossible to traverse in any way the remarks of the Minister of Finance this afternoon. He had already dwelt upon the subjects that he discussed to-day in what I might call his first Budget speech a few days ago, and we also had his views expressed in the various committee stages when he introduced legislation providing for credits to Roumania and other countries. The House is therefore thoroughly familiar with the hon. gentleman's views, and the matters he touched upon have been fairly well discussed previous to this time.
I do not know whether it is well that I should refer to the Winnipeg riots. A condition of things has arisen in Winnipeg which we on this side predicted a few weeks ago. We charged the Government with inefficiency and ineptitude in the handling of this situation. The Government decided that it was time to do something and they

did something which we now see was the wrong thing; they have precipitated action, and we do not know where this is going to lead us. In any event, the whole of the labour organizations throughout the country are up in arms, and it is for the Government to attend to these matters inasmuch as they themselves are responsible from the very inception for the present condition of affairs.
May I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by quoting the words of a recent Canadian writer whose advice may be accepted with profit by the Government and by every member of the House. This writer says:
The nations that refuse to learn and inwardly digest, whose statesmen, labour leaders and captains of industry and commerce proceed on their way serenely and imperturbably-the nations undisturbed by the gathering clouds of anarchy, whose leaders have souls so small and vision so narrow that they cannot And the way -out of the well worn rut, whose sole conception of reconstruction is " business as usual." Will they be able to stem the onrushing tide of social unrest that has already swept into the maelstrom the mightiest European Eimpire and is rushing westward with gathering fury, to submerge and envelope other nations? Where in its ruthless path will it encounter the strong, arresting wall of enlightened public opinion reared on the Solid foundation of social justice, against which it will impotently spend its force.
These remarks might well be taken to heart by the .Government and particularly by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who makes a special study of social questions; and if there he any social unrest just now in the country, I think that hon. gentleman will have to accept his full share of the responsibility owing to the fact that he failed to see and to grasp the import of the situation which is now staring us in the face.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Before my hon. friend resumes his seat, I should like to ask him one question: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that in the statement I made to the House I disclosed Cabinet secrets?


Samuel William Jacobs: What I did was to read, on the invitation of the President of the Privy Council, the statement which he made to the House, and it is for the House and for the country to say whether the minister divulged Cabinet secrets or not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Apparently my hon. friend withdraws what he said. I understood him to say that I had disclosed Cabinet secrets. If the hon. gentleman said so, he said what was not true, for I did not do so. I said nothing in my address
which was not based on knowledge acquired outside the Cabinet.


Mr. FRED LANGDON DAVIS (Neepawa):: loans, we are obliged to raise somewhere about 55 per cent of our necessities by loans, thereby, exaggerating the condition of expansion that now persists. When I say that, I think I should correct what may be a misapprehension on the part of some: I never expect that we will get back to the value of 1914.
I think that ultimately values are going to be greater than they were, and perhaps it is a God-send to the nations that that should be so after the experiences we have gone through; because if we had to pay the accounts of to-day in the services and goods of five years ago our debts would be double what they are. Hence I do not expect that. But, on the other hand, who will now say that the disturbance which has taken place in the values has reached its limit? The fall in the value of money now represents somewhere between 50 and 60 per cent. Is that all that it is going to fall? That is one question that is now disturbing the business community; that is one reason why wages and prices are not on a fixed basis, and why business is uncertain and in need of Government support, as we grant it is.
Now, in extenuation of, or excuse for the course that the Finance Minister has taken this year in not raising greater taxes and in going so heavily upon loans, it may as well be said at once that good national finance depends upon good trade and good industry-if you have not sound trade and sound industry you cannot have sound national finance. National finance is a superstructure built upon the conditions of business generally, and we all know that these conditions to-day are uncertain, and as I have said, pertufbed. But I take it that what the radicals sometimes say is very largely true, that " politics are the soul of economics." By that they mean that our knowledge of how to do business, of how to make money, of how to produce goods for the benefit of the community, is not allowed to operate without disturbance. There is unavoidable political interference-the levying of taxes, the imposition of tariffs, trade restrictions in the way of patent rights and so on, interfere with just and equitable distribution. In this view politics may justly be said to be the soul of economics. Now we are reaping in large measure the penalties of not having raised more by taxation in the past, and especially are'we now reaping the penalties in this, that our Finance Minister does not know, I believe, where to turn at present for more revenue. He is jealous about letting go imposts in the

shape of tariffs because he does not see just how to replace them; and that is the position, I believe, of most members of this House when they come to considei that question. There are practically five large areas of taxation; youy imposts, or tariffs, your excise, your income tax, your estates duties tax, and possibly, as a last resort, a land tax.
In Canada we have undoubtedly fully developed the tariff taxation; the imposts we have not neglected, whatever else we may have overlooked. Before the war we were probably the only country in our stage of industrial development which was relying wholly upon imposts and excise for all its federal taxation. Indeed, to-day, among the great industrial nations of the world-Great Britain, the United States, France, Australia and New Zealand-we stand with the highest tariff taxation and the lowest income taxation. Now, that being so, I take it that we have not been developing along the proper lines. The war caught us unprepared to embark upon any other method of taxation, and one of my criticisms of the Budget to-day is that the Finance Minister is not now developing the other sources of revenue which he is going to require if he is to do the full duty of a Finance' Minister. What is that full duty? I will read a quotation which sets it out in better word? perhaps than I could use myself?
That great ministers were not those who balanced the national accounts by sparing the national forces while renouncing the politically indispensable outlay, but those who stimulated all the live forces of the nation to cheerful activity, and so employed them to national ends that the state revenue sufficed to meet the admitted political demand.
Now, Sir, we are not doing that to-day,- we are not able to do it. The one field of taxation which I see now open to us and immediately available is one which has always been condemned by English feeling and English practice-and that is a vei.v great extension of our excise 9 p.m. taxation. Some one may ask about the devolution of estates duties. Well, England to-day is raising from that source but three per cent of her total revenue, and England is an older and a much wealthier country than we are. Hence, what can we expect to raise from it? Probably the same proportion,-and then cut that in two or more, because the provinces have already entered upon that field, and we would have to make the duties exceedingly high if we were to get anything out of such taxation.
Turn again to the question of land taxes. My own feeling is that of the Finance Min-

istur, that it is not advisable for the federal power to enter upon that field as long as there is any other recourse for us. It is better, more easily, and more economically administered by the municipalities and the provinces, and it is more germane to their finances. It seems to me that we should endeavour to come to some understanding with the provinces and get them, in lieu of our touching that field, to give us the income field of taxation. However, if that cannot be done, we are going to have to consider entering upon the taxation of land values in some fashion, and if we do that it is going to take us about three years at least to put it into any kind of shape so as to get any considerable amount of revenue out of it. I know that in our own province of Manitoba we put upon the statute book a Patriotic Duty Tax. It took us about a year and a half to equalize the assessments so that the weight of that tax would fall fairly upon all parties in the province. If it took a year and a half to equalize the taxation of one province alone, how long would it take us to get returns to equalize the taxation of the nine provinces of the Dominion?
I wish now to make an application of what I have been saying. For my own part, I have with regret to depart from the Government on this occasion. The promise, implied at least, is being held out to us that the tariff will be revised downwards. I get no explicit promise of it, I do not expect an explicit promise. Then I turn to the reductions contained in the Budget and weigh them out, and what am I bound to conclude? In the first place, that the situation is one in which they cannot carry out that downward revision. It is going to be impossible next year to give us that, because this year and in past years they have not developed those areas of taxation which would enable us now to shift the incidence of our tariff taxation. I think that is absolutely clear upon the face of it.
Again, let us look at what has been done in the way of the reduction of duties, especially with regard to agricultural implements. Here the vested interests of the manufacturers of Canada has been the basis of action; the reduction of tariff has been bought from them, and the price is a reduction of freight rates. It is absolutely indefensible, as a matter of finance, to mix up tariffs with freights. The manner in which this duty on agricultural implements has been dealt with shows that the Government is not headed toward a reform of the tariff in accordance with the demands of
nineteen-twentieths of the people who sent me here and in line with my own political record in the past and what my own common sense suggests. Two of the men whom I last saw before I came back from my home last May were the president of the Conservative Association and the gentleman who would have been the Conservative candidate at the last election had we not had Union Government. They both told me that this question must be pressed to a finish; that we must not be slow to demand a reform which, in the West as well as in the East, is fundamental to reconstruction.
Why was there not an absolute elimination of the duty on cement, especially in view of the fact that the capitalization of the cement merger is largely water?-I I won't say what proportion. We are told by everybody that the cement people are well able to go into the markets of the world and take care of themselves; yet the people are still charged a duty of eight cents a barrel on cement. The manner in which the Government has dealt with this cement business is an indication of its intentions. The cement business is absolutely able to stand upon its own feet, but it is not being asked to do so; it, too, must be protected. How must I judge, then, of the future intentions of the Government with regard to the tariff if that is the line which they take now? As to the question of oils, perhaps the Western members asked what was not perfectly in line with principle. I think that the farmer ought to pay taxation upon operating costs just as well as any one else, but it is a severe tax. They asked for a reduction of the duty largely because consumers of oil in Canada are in the hands of the oil trusts of the United States, and they did not see any reason why the imposition of duties should be used as a pretext for the raising of the price to Canadian consumers.
I now come to the question of the duties on wool, cotton and leather goods. You will understand that we asked that the duties be taken off only the commoner varieties of these goods, and that a limited reduction be made a matter involving, perhaps, a $3,000,000 reduction of revenue, which would undoubtedly have been made up twice over by reason of the increased revenue derived from the importation of larger quantities of that class of goods. This would have done something to reduce the cost of living. Here are some significant figures which I got together recently for purposes of comparison. In the United States, out of an importation of $225,000,000 worth of wool.

$ 199,000,000 was free of duty, $26,000,000 [DOT]dutiable, and $9,000,000 was collected by way of duties thereon. In Canada, out *of an importation valued at $30,000,000, $6,000,000 was free, and we collected about $6,500,000 by way of customs duties upon the remainder. Do you wonder, therefore, that in Canada we are paying $18 or $19 per capita in tariff taxation, while last year the people of United States paid only $1.69 per capita? The Finance Minister said this afternoon that we cannot raise our income taxes beyond what they are in United States. But you cannot induce people to come here and live here if you ask them to pay from ten to fifteen times as much "by way of duty upon these goods as they would pay if they lived in the United States, because no natural obstacle prevents their returning to the country whence they came.
Let us look for a moment at the duties upon cotton goods Of course, the United States produce a great deal of their cotton, but their total importation was about $81,000,000, and ours was about $56,000,000, because we have to buy a great deal of our raw material. Of that raw material about $21,000,000 came in free, but we pay a duty * of $9,000,000 on about $35,000,000. The United States, as I say, have their own raw material, but they import some special kinds of material for their own purposes, and of the $81,000,000 worth of cotton and cotton goods which they imported, $38,000,000 were free and $43,000,000 dutiable, the customs revenue from this source amounting to about $14,000,000. It must be remembered that United States duties are not on a flat rate basis, as ours are, they are not, for instance, 25 per cent upon all classes of a given commodity, the duties are scaled from 5 per cent upwards-74 per cent, 10 per cent, 101 per cent, and so on, so that the dearer the goods, the higher the duty, and vice versa. I cannot see why that principle is r.ot a good one to introduce into our own tariff.
With regard to leather goods, the comparison is yet more striking. In the United States, of an importation valued at about $22,000,000, $14,000,000 was free and $8,000,000 dutiable. In Canada none of the importation is free; the $9,000,000 worth is dutiable. If the principle enunciated by the Finance Minister is right, that we cannot raise our income tax above what it is in United States, how can we expect to retain population when we impose duties which are ten, twelve, or fifteen times as high >as the duties upon similar articles in United States? Our Government, are

conscious of the fact that capital is mobile and that it is free to move out, but they forget that labour is just as mobile and just as free to move out. This is one of the things that has been retarding the growth of Canada.
I was caused to look into the question of unemployment last year on account ol certain inquiries which weTe made by the Committee on Agriculture. Some have wondered why the farmers of Ontario, after voting so strongly for Union Government, were so critical of Union Government six months after its formation. I do not know whether all hon. gentlemen know that the farmers of Ontario found themselves last spring 27,500 hands short of their requirements in connection with the spring work upon the farms. Only three or four years ago the Finance Minister said that our whole fiscal system had been revised with a view to building up our industries. That is true; that is the purpose of a high tariff, and it has effected its purpose in Canada. We have much more wild land than United States, being a younger community; our population, urban and rural, is distributed almost exactly as is the population of United States. But our fiscal policies have not been so designed as to cause the people to take advantage of the undeveloped natural resources which lie at our doors and offer to our people a means of profitable employment.
My great quarrel with the tariff is this, that you tax profitable businesses for the support of unprofitable businesses. That argument cannot be denied; it is admitted that that was the purpose at the beginning. It is only in the last stage that this may not be so, then the business is presumed to have become a national asset able to give us goods at world prices without protection. And the last stage in Canada-with protection continued-has now lasted how many years, and how many more years will it last if there be not resistance to the principle of protection?
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek): Mr. Speaker, before entering upon a discussion of the Budget, I desire to say one or two words with regard to some criticisms that have been made against the present Government and some of its ministers. I might also state that while it is nay intention to give the Government full credit where I think it is due, it is also my intention to criticise as fully. Therefore, to make my position clear, I want to state first that I think the criticisms that have been coming from honourable members on your

left, Mr. Speaker, as regards the Prime Minister's absence and his work overseas have been absolutely uncalled for. The criticism has been unfair at times, and it would have been much better, not only for the work and the unanimity of opinion in this House, but for the country, had that criticism not been offered. No good purpose has been served, and, in fact, the criticism may have worked the other way. We have also had criticism of some of his colleagues and of the work they have been doing overseas, which criticism, I think, was entirely uncalled for. This is probably more or less of a repetition of some things I said during my speech on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, but as the criticism was still continued and in a probably .more carping form, I thought it well, because I was in a position to know a good deal of what the ministers had been doing overseas as I spent some little time there, to make these remarks.
One feature that has been dwelt upon a little too much by both sides is the attempt that has been made from both sides of this House to make it apparent that honourable members were all so desirous of doing everything possible for the returned soldier. That desire coming from certain quarters oi this House does not sound very good, and I imagine I hear some of the returned boys using language something like this, probably with the addition of very strong superlatives: What cant! What hypocrisy! 1 can imagine hearing the returned soldier saying:	Why do they not
really do something for the returned soldier if they are all so anxious about him? Immediately, however, you suggest some things that could be done, they all hold up their hands and say:	It
is entirely out of the question; it cannot be done; it is too complicated. Such excuses as these have been offered repeatedly. One thing this Government could have done- and I think this entire House would have supported them had they seen fit to do it-was to make it possible for the returned soldier to get the complete outfit of clothing which each of them has to procure when he comes back, without paying into the treasury a duty of from 20 to 47| per cent on the same. That may not seem much, but if you look into it for a moment or two, you will see that -it amounts to large proportions. Some 400,000 soldiers have returned or will be returning to Canada, and each one of them has to buy a complete outfit of clothing immediately he comes into civilian life. I know from personal
experience that the average cost of each outfit is considerably over $100, so that these returned men will have paid in the neighbourhood of $50,000,000 to purchase clothes to get back into civilian occupation again. That does not include working clothes at all; that is just for the clothes they require before they can go into their own homes and step out amongst the public as civilians. There is a duty of from 20 to 471 per cent on the articles they have to buy. Some hon. members will say that that duty is not imposed-that prices are not raised as a result of the duty. Well, we have had several representatives of manufacturing industries in this . building during the last few days, and some of them have had to admit that if you take the water out of their stock, they have been making in the neighbourhood of 300 per cent profit. Whether that is taking advantage of the duty or not, I do not know; if it is not taking advantage of the duty, it is taking advantage, by the kind permission of this Government, of the returned soldier, so that there is something wrong somewhere. The amount may not be very great, but if you figure it out you will find that these returned men will have paid about $15,000,000 duty in the rehabilitation of themsslvss as rsg&rds ci vilian clothes.
Another reason why I am just a little inclined to criticise this Budget is the tendency of the former colleagues of the exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) to endeavour to land the blame for everything that is mentioned in this House on to the shoulders of the ex-minister. Practically all of his former colleagues, so far as I have heard them-possibly some have spoken whom I did not hear

have endeavoured, when any criticism was made, to place the blame on him. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) was the first to attempt to do this, and he criticised his former colleague severely. Of course, he started out by eulogizing him, claiming that he had been a strong arm to the Government, that he had been a faithful worker all the way through and had rendered very valuable services to the Government;-but almost in the next breath he practically questioned his honesty of purpose by saying that he was afraid that some members of this House were playing politics, were thinking of nominations and votes that might be got two or three years hence. I think that, to say the least, that is not a creditable thing for a minister of the Crown to say in the House, especially when he had

just finished complimenting the person referred to. As 1 said, he undertook to question the sincerity of purpose of 'the exMinister of Agriculture in taking the course he has taken. The minister (Mr. Calder) is probably not aware that the people of Western Canada may have an opportunity of deciding just whose purpose was sincere, and I would ask nothing better than to have even the people in the constituency of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization pass judgment on the honesty of purpose of the two hon. gentlemen. It would be of very considerable interest at least if we had such a contest in that particular constituency.
A short time after that, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) took part in the debate, and discussing the question of the high cost of living he said that if the Government had not done anything to reduce the high cost of living, or words to that effect, the ex-Minister of Agriculture was responsible for it. He said that the Government had done everything that the ex-Minister of Agriculture had asked them to do. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) asked the President of the Privy Council if the ex-Minister of Agriculture had ever suggested removing the tariff in order to reduce the high cost of living, but he (Mr. Rowell) immediately side-stepped that question by saying that that matter would be attended to later when the proper time came. Perhaps the proper time has not come yet. At all events the question, which I think was very pertinent and should have been answered, has not been answered yet.	.
With regard to the Budget I am in accord with some parts of it, particularly the advanced step that has been taken in the matter of direct taxation by way of income tax, and the maintenance of the excess war profits tax. The increase in the income tax is no doubt very satisfactory, and my only criticism of it is that it should have gone further. Possibly it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to make income taxation higher at another session, and I can assure him that if he does he will have the hearty support of the western representatives, or at least such of them as represent agricultural constituencies. With regard to the excess war profits tax there is one feature that is very, very unsatisfactory, and one which I do not think has been mentioned so far in this debate. I refer to permitting companies that have paid the war tax in any one year to charge the amount they have so paid against their pro-
fits the next year before the war tax of that year is applied. Take an example. A company pays $160,000 in war tax, we will say, for the year 1917. Now that company is permitted to charge that $100,000 as a working expense against the year 1918. It is quite possible that that company may have over $100,000 clear .profit for 1918, and yet not be called upon to pay a single cent of war tax. I do not know what the object of this provision was. If it was an oversight, it has not been rectified yet. I know concerns which have paid $300,000 to $400,000 in excess war profits taxation and were permitted to charge that amount next year against their operating expenses, the result being that although they had immense profits their war tax for the next year amounted to practically nothing. I think this should be remedied. The taxation paid in any one year cannot fairly be regarded a3 a legitimate charge against the operating expenses of the next year.
There are other features of the Budgei that are commendable so far as they go, but taking the Budget as a whole, we find that instead of the tariff being decreased there has been an increase all round The Minister of Finance tells us that there will be $17,000,000 less in amount collected this year on account of reductions made, providing our imports are on the same basis as last year. But he did not tell us that there would be an additional $28,000,000 to counteract this by increases made; so that instead of there being a reduction in the tariff all round there is a considerable increase. I think the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) put it quite fairly when he said that this Budget can be considered a protectionist Budget without any exaggeration.
Another feature of the Budget which has been referred is the reduction of railway rates to put the Canadian and the American manufacturer on the same footing so far as freight rates are concerned. That is all very well, but it does not help one particle those who are purchasing implements. It means that there has been practically no reduction whatever by way of the tariff on the total profits of the manufacturers, for what they lose on the tariff they will practically make up in reduced freight rates and rebates on raw material. As the Government is so anxious to put the Canadian manufacturer of implements on the same basis as the American manufacturer, I -wonder why they could not see their way clear to put the Canadian user of these implements on the same footing as the American user. I think that would have been

only fair, and had it been done there would have been much less criticism of the Budget, although there would still be room for criticism of it along other lines.
When the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) was criticising the ex-Minister of Agriculture I could not help wondering what was in his mind when he addressed himself so particularly to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders).
I wondered if just then he could not be considered as playing politics to a slight extent, and playing it in an entirely different way from that in which an hon. member who was opposed to this Budget would be playing politics. Of course, I do not suppose for a moment that he would do anything like that. I might just say, however, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization has held a very unique position indeed in Canadian politics. He has been in public life for a long time, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, and while he has been known in Government circles as a minister of several different departments-he has been Minister of Education, Minister of Highways, and so on- he is popularly known throughout Saskatchewan as the "Minister of Elections." I think it was the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) who remarked the other day that it was just possible that that mantle was slipping from the shoulders of a certain gentleman, a former member of this House, who had been distinguished in that particular line for some considerable time, and I thought he was not very wide of the mark. Events are occurring daily which point that way. All I will say on that is this-if this Government needs a Minister of Elections they will find a very capable one in the Minister of Immigration and Colonization who was so free in his criticism of the ex-Minister of Agriculture.
He also made another statement to the effect that the people of certain constituencies were not thinking of the tariff during the 1917 campaign. Well, he must have had a different experience from mine, and I think probably I took almost as active a part in the election in Saskatchewan as did the hon. minister. At any rate, I gave my entire time to that work for several weeks, and I am in a position to say that it was a very live issue. While, of course, the one outstanding issue was undoubtedly the securing of necessary men and means to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion, yet there was another current running all through, and the minister knows
very well that that issue was prominent in the minds of the people at that time. But even if it was not, I might say for his information that it was not long after that until it was very present in their minds. One statement of the hon. member was that the city of Moosejaw has been continuously represented by a Conservative. I wonder if he is so unfamiliar with happenings in his constituency as not to know that the city of Moosejaw for the last year or more has been represented by a staunch Liberal, who was a strong supporter of the Laurier Government for years in the House of Commons and who was elected by a substantial majority. Furthermore, this same gentleman was a strong opponent, in the campaign of 1917, of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization. When the hon. gentleman expresses the opinion that the people of Saskatchewan are not thinking of tariff questions, I will tell him, to use a vernacular of the street, that he has another " think " coming, and I would advise him-that is, if he contemplates dealing with the same constituency-to be just a little better informed as to what is in the minds of the people in that particular part of the country.
Another feature of the Budget to which I might refer is the fact that it does not in any way deal adequately with the necessities of life. Now, I know that some will say that the 7J per cent super-war tax was removed on foodstuffs. We grant that, but that cannot in any way be considered as dealing with the tariff. It never has been spoken of as a tariff at all. But now all that remains of this tax in so far as the tariff is concerned becomes a part of the regular tariff, and we are informed that it will remain as a tariff until the revision takes place, whenever that may be.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to confine ourselves as closely as we can within a certain limit of time, and as the hon. member who preceded me dealt very fully with the different aspects of the tariff and the methods of raising revenue I shall pass that consideration over for the present. But there is another feature that I am compelled to touch upon, and that is the seemingly intense desire of certain supporters of the Government to discredit the agriculturists of Western Canada. I am sorry that a matter of this kind is brought up so frequently, but just so long as it comes up in this House, I, as a representative of agriculture, am going to refute to the best of my ability any erroneous statements that may be made.
36.38

This matter has been dealt with by several hon. members, and I think the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), who, I believe, is in his place to-night, was about the first to introduce it. Personally, I do not think the subject should be discussed here to the extent that it is, but it is not my fault, and I am bound to defend our position. The hon. member begins by attacking the ex-Minister of Agriculture and myself as being at the head of large corporations in Western Canada. He did not properly name them, but his intentions were quite plain. He associated me with one institution in Saskatchewan, and for his benefit and the benefit of other hon. members I may say that the name of that institution is the Saskatchewan Co-Operative Elevator Company, Limited. The hon. member is in his seat and he will in future at least be properly informed as to the name, if he wishes to refer to that company again.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is my hon. friend the president of it?


Mr. MAHARG:: Yes, sir. I have been ever since its inception seven or eight years ago.


William Cameron Edwards: May I observe that in stating that there was such a company and that my hon. friend was president of it, I mentioned two facts, and that can hardly be construed as an attack on my hon. friend.


John Archibald Maharg: Your facts were perfectly clear in your own mind, but they were absolutely at variance with the real facts according to figures. I will say that for your benefit and the benefit of other hon. members of this House. One of the things the hon. member stated, and I do not know whether or not it is that to which he now refers, is that the ex-Minister of Agriculture and myself were receiving, as he understood, salaries anywhere from 815,000 to 820,000. Did you state that as a fact?


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I said
that my information was-I could not say whether it was correct or not-that the President of the grain company, that is, the exMinister of Agriculture, was receiving anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000. I did not credit any such amount to my hon. friend (Mr. Maharg). My impression was that he was getting only about $5,000 or $6,000.


John Archibald Maharg: Are you giving that as
a fact? You say you stated two facts. I would like to know if that is one of the facts you gave.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.
 *	,


John Archibald Maharg: Did you state that as a fact?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: I have already told
you.


John Archibald Maharg: Well, all right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is altogether
irregular for an hon member who has the floor to interrogate any member in his seat, particularly a member who has spoken.


John Archibald Maharg: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but it was the hon. gentleman in his seat who started the interrogation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Archibald Maharg: Very well. Now we will proceed to examine a little more closely these statements of the hon. member and try to ascertain whether or not they are facts. In the first place, Sir, your humble servant is not receiving any such salary as $5,000 or $6,000, not that he could not have got it, not by any means, I could have received a nice fat salary if I had left the present company and taken up a similar position in another company that was sta'rting up in active opposition to the farmers' own company. But we were not out to make money. We were out to regulate conditions, and we have succeeded fairly well in doing so; and for the benefit of the hon. member for Frontenac I might go further and say that we have employees receiving double the salary I am receiving, and more. So that, so far as I am concerned, it is not a question of money but of giving service to the people. We have succeeded very well in serving the people, and I may take this opportunity to inform the hon. gentleman just why these companies were brought into existence. In the West at that time we were under the thumb of as big a combine probably as ever existed in this or any other country. It had its roots from one end of the continent to the other and was known as the great grain combine. The people of Western Canada organized to throw off its influence in the same way as we propose organizing to escape from the grip of some other great corporations which possibly may not have their entire interests in Saskatchewan.
The hon. gentleman also undertook to compare Victory Loan purchases in Ontario with those in the western provinces. That is all very well. We all know that Ontario subscribed very largely to Victory Loans, but the hon. member took very good care not to mention the donations to the different patriotic funds in those provinces.

3G3&
All I need say in this connection is that it is impossible for a person to give and purchase with the same money.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) as usual had to indulge in his little tirade against the Western farmers, or the Western grain growers, or whatever he chooses to call them. He also had to talk about the profits they made. He made this proposition: He offered to swap-I think that was the word he used, or a similar expression-profits, with these companies. Not knowing what the hon. gentleman's profits were, I am not in a position to say whether it would be advisable to do that or not. But I have a counter proposition to make to the member for Brantford, and it is this: If he will give our concern the one-thousandth part of the profits that he made out of our shareholders, we will give him the entire profits that we made out of his shareholders. The profits of our concern were not made out of the shareholders of the manufacturing establishments, or the owners, or any of those connected with the industries. The profits that our concern derived were made from the shareholders of their own company-that is, if you like to call them profits. We do not call them profits, we call them savings that were made by handling our own goods instead of having to handle through other channels. If manufacturers followed the same procedure and made their entire profits out of their own shareholders, there could be no criticism of that whatever. But they seem to take the opportunity, whenever they fancy they have it, of criticising the farmers' company because they are making money within their own business which in other years they have been allowing others to do for them. I might go further and say that the charges which our concern makes are largely fixed charges. -fixed by this Government in the one case and by the Grain Exchange in the other. So that if they are making profits they are doing so because their charges are fixed and they have to take those charges according to the provisions of the Grain Act and the rules of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. Therefore, I do not think there can he very much complaint on that score. The hon. member for Brantford also stated another instance; he said the city of Toronto paid more duty than any of the Western Provinces. I quite agree with him that it does, but he knows just as well as I do that when the city of Toronto pays that duty it passes it on to the other fellow, just as it does in the case of a great many other things, and Western Canada pays its share
of	it every	time. It is	not the
people of the city of Toronto that pay that duty by	any means. It
is	paid on	raw	material,	and	such
like goods, as Toronto is a port of entry. Duty is paid there on millions of dollars worth of goods but these goods pass on to other destinations and the final result is that the people, probably two or three thousand miles away from the port of entry, pay this duty. I think it would be only fair if hon. gentlemen would at least consider both sides of the case and not be eternally harping on the great patriotism of the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario as a result of considering only one side of the question.
Another peculiar trait, if I might use [DOT]the term, was displayed* by the member for Brantford in connection with the proposed tariff committee. The hon. gentleman was very anxious to know what this committee on the tariff were going to do; if they were going to put the duties up, he was going to hold up both hands for it; if there was any possibility of their revising the tariff downwards, he did not want a Tariff Revision Committee appointed at all. Now that denotes the fair-mindedness of the people we have got to contend with here, and against whose accusations we have to spend a great deal of our time defending ourselves. There was another hon. gentleman, the member for St. Antoine division in Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames), I believe. I would not be sure of his constituency but he is a large boot and shoe manufacturer.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: I plead an alibi. I have not spoken in this debate so far.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.


John Archibald Maharg: It doesn't necessarily
follow that you spoke here. It was possible for you to speak in another way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentlemanshould address the Chair and not another hon. member.


John Archibald Maharg: Very good, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to act upon your suggestion. The hon. gentleman (Sir Herbert Ames) took another course than speaking in this Chamber. His method was to place questions on the Order Paper. He had [DOT]the idea that he could ishow the position of the western farmers in so far as the income tax is concerned. He was not worrying himself about the eastern- farmer. Oh no, he didn't want to

touch him, he wanted to leave him in the same position. He was very desirous of being friendly with the eastern farmer and therefore did not mention him at all. But he was very anxious to know just what income tax the western- farmer would pay. When- the answer was given, he found out that for the hundreds of farmers that paid income tax in the province of Ontario- the great province that we have heard so much about in connection with the Victory Loan-there were thousands of farmers that paid that tax in the province of Saskatchewan. So my hon. friend's questions camr back to him, I am afraid, in the form of a boomerang- As the question has been raised, I want to give an illustration of why income tax returns have not come in promptly from the farmers in the West, and for the purposes of that illustration I will cite my own experience. We all know there was difficulty the first year in getting the tax forms out, but we were prepared to make allowance for that. The forms eventually came along and probably about the early part of last June, when I was able to make a return, I sent in my forms filled out to the best of my ability. I heard nothing more in regard to those forms until the House was again in session. Then, during the month of April last, I received another form from the Income Tax Department for me to fill out, giving the different amounts received from the various sources on the farm, almost one year after I sent in the original forms that I was requested to fill in. How can you expect people to fill out their forms and send them in if the officials connected with the department in -charge of the income tax do not attend promptly to their duties? My explanation shows that instead of the 'blame being attached to the farmers the blame rests upon the department that is carrying -out the Income tax law.
Then we have another protectionist gentleman who comes from British Columbia, -the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey). He indulged in some remarks condemnatory of the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture- Among other things he states that in this resolution they say-I forget for the moment the wording but the meaning is	this-no	tariff
assistance should be given to any one class of people without first considering the interests of all the others, and of the nation as well. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has any knowledge of the consideration the fruit growers of British
[Mr. Maharff.l
Columbia gave to the agriculturists oi Western 'Canada, whom they expect to purchase their apples, when they came down here and got the Government to increase the tariff on apples by thirty cents a barrel?

from sixty cents to ninety cents. Did they discuss that increase of duty with the western farmers, whose platform they are criticising? They did- not. However, they came down to interview the members of the farmers' organizations shortly afterwards. A cry went up from Western Canada that if this was the way the British Columbia fruit growers were going to use us we would purchase American apples. Then the fruit growers of British Columbia came down post haste to see the officers of the different farmers' organizations, and they pleaded with us not to purchase American apples. They said: "Oh, we are not going to raise the price of our apples, we are not going to take advantage of the higher duty; give us your orders and you will see that we will not take advantage of that duty." But when their price list came out we soon saw very clearly whether they had taken advantage of the duty or not: it was apparent that they had taken advantage of it to the very fullest extent. Then another issue came up a little later, when an agitation was raised in connection with the admission of oleomargarine into Canada. There are large dairy organizations throughout the West, and a cry went up all over the country against the introduction of oleomargarine into Canada at a time when butter could not be purchased in the Old Country, and a movement was inaugurated here to release some of the Canadian butter in order to supply the demand in the United Kingdom. They came along and solicited our support to prevent the admission of oleomargarine into this country. They were not considering the interests of anybody else at that time. This is what we object to, this camouflage, if you like to put it in that way.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Who do you mean by "they"?


John Archibald Maharg: The people referred to,
the Dairymen's Associations of the Western country. They came to the organizations in the prairi-e provinces asking for assistance against the admission of oleomargarine into -Canada. Then the same hon. gentleman goes on to defend this Government in their inactivity so far as labour troubles are concerned. He starts out by saying that the difficulty in Western Canada is not due to labour conditions,- that the labour people are not causing the

trouble. But later on he forgets himself and says that we are to blame for the labour trouble in Western Canada, and a little further on he says that the only solution for the great unrest is close cooperation between employers and employees. Yet he claims that it is not a labour trouble. So far as the trouble in Western Canada is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not of recent origin at all. There has been -trouble brewing there for years. It was quite evident before the war broke out, and had there been no war you would have had just as serious labour troubles as you have there at the present time. So there is no use getting behind the red flagandsaying that this is a revolutionary movement. There may be some persons who would like to turn the trouble into a revolution, but in so far as the actual labourers are concerned, they are not out for revolution by any means, all they are out for is a fair and just deal so far as their employment is concerned.


Frank Bainard Stacey: That is what the hon.
member said.


John Archibald Maharg: I have Hansard here;
if my statement is not correct, why, all right. As I said at the start, Mr. Speaker, the ground has been fairly well covered, and it is not my intention to take up much further time. But I would just like to mention, in connection with the high cost of living, what has been done in the old country. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) used words to this effect, I think, that Canada had done more work to deal effectively with the high cost of living than any of the other countries at war, that even free trade England-


Hon. Mr. ROW ERL:: If my hon. friend
will permit me-what I said was that in regulating packers and cold storage warehouses we had passed more drastic regulations and had more strictly limited their profits than any other country in the world.


John Archibald Maharg: 
William Cameron Edwards: May I ask one question? Does my hon. friend favour this Government fixing the price of wheat?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes, for the benefit of the producer and the consumer I have no hesitation in saying that I think the Government should fix the price of wheat; whether they fix it at a high or a low price is 10 p.m. not the question. We have had that matter under discussion right in this building to-day. I think the consensus of opinion of practically all men handling wheat is that it is the only way it can be successfully handled this year. We are not asking for a good price or any price, but we are .asking that the Government take control, because that is the only way to handle our wheat. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold) made one or two remarks in regard to some of the proposals of the Western farmers. He expressed doubt as to the working of the single tax, or the tax on unimproved land values, and said he would like an explanation as to how such a tax was to be applied. I remember in discussing it last session that some 'hon. members were of the opinion that this tax would1 apply only to unimproved land, and that just as soon as it was all improved you would get no tax whatever from that source, and they said they could readily see why the farmers of Western Canada wanted to have a land tax as they were eventually going to escape paying it altogether. That is entirely wrong. The principle of the taxation of unimproved land values is that you will tax all land at its unimproved land value. It matters not how many improvements the land may have on it, it matters not if it



has thousands of dollars worth of buildings on it and is all under cultivation,-if there is a section or a farm alongside it not improved, the improved land will pay no more taxation than the unimproved land value, and it will continue for all time paying taxation on that value. So there is no possibility of western farmers eventually escaping payment of a tax of that kind. We think that is a fair and equitable basis on which to raise a certain proportion of the taxes of this country. We do not believe all our revenue could be raised that way, it would not be desirable that it should, but we think that the major portion of it should be so raised.
The hon. gentleman also used as an argument against any reductions in the tariff at this particular time that the United States had not seen fit to deal with their tariff during the war. There is a ve.ry good reason for that: The United States Government saw fit years ago to do exactly what we have been asking this Government to do. Their food, clothing, farm machinery, boots and shoes, and all leather goods have been coming in free-exactly what we have asked this Government to give us. Then another reason the hon. gentleman gave against the free entry of goods was the question of cream separators. Cream separators had been mentioned as an illustration of a line of manufacture that had worked successfully without protection, but he said they were covered by patents. Now, I imagine that by next session possibly the hon. gentleman will try to apply that to binder twine also, but I think he will have quite a difficult task in explaining why the Canadian twine manufacturers are able to compete with foreign rivals, and certainly the question of patents can not apply there.
However, possibly they will find some excuse. The hon. gentleman says that there is a discrimination between the freight rate on wheat and the freight rate on agricultural implements. He might just as well suggest that the freight rate on wheat should be the same as the freight rate on sand, gravel or stone; his argument would be just as much to the point. All these rates are classified according to the value of the goods, the space they occupy in the car, and so on.
As I have listened during the last few days to the excuses offered for the failure to make further reductions in the tariff, I have been wondering what excuse will be furnished next. Eight along we have been furnished with' all kinds of excuses. Last
[(Mr. Ma.li.arg-. ]
year it was the war; this year it has been the war and demobilization. But demobilization is very nearly completed now, and the excuse is being switched to the unrest in the country. If the unrest is successfully coped with and things become normal, I do not know what excuse will be offered next for inaction in regard to the tariff, but a suggestion in that regard came from an hon. gentleman who addressed the House the other day and who said that we -would have to look after the Asiatic manufacturer next. Well, I do not think we shall have much worry in that connection, but no doubt some argument of that kind may be advanced as a reason why no tariff reduction should be made. It is amusing to see the way these excuses shift from one thing to another. I have no doubt that when we come here next year and ask for revision of the tariff, some other excuse will be offered and we shall be asked to believe that it is just as important as any that we have had so far.
So far as the amendment of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is concerned, some parts of it are entirely satisfactory to the members from the West, but other parts of it are so indefinite as to be entirely unsatisfactory. The Opposition, having brought in a previous amendment, had to frame a resolution which the Speaker would allow to come before the House, and this may account for the vagueness of some of the clauses of the amendment. It is not because of faith in the Opposition that I support the amendment. We have had very plain indications from that side of the House that there are protectionists over there just as there are on the other side; so that there is very little to choose from.
But the amendment goes far enough to advocate the removal of the duties on foodstuffs and on raw material entering into the manufacture of implements necessary to the production of these foodstuffs, so that it goes a long way to meet the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. We are anxious and always have been that taxes on food should be entirely removed; we.could not ask that other taxes be removed and not ask that the taxes on food be removed. As the amendment goes a long way in that direction, it is preferable to the Budget. However, other matters have to be taken into consideration. Some of the methods suggested by hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side for the reduction of the high cost of living are things that we have been asking for for a long time. The leader of the Opposition mentioned one-Governmental control of cold

storage plants. For the benefit of the leader of the Opposition, I may say that years ago we asked the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of which he was then a follower, to take over the cold storage in this country from one end to the other. We knew that sooner or later the entire cold storage activities would get into the hands of private corporations in a way that would be detrimental not only to the consumer, but also to the producer of the live stock which goes through the abattoirs of the country. The advocacy, therefore, of Government ownership and control of cold storage plants is in line with what we have been contending for in Western Canada. I mention this simply to show that certain views expressed by the Opposition coincide with the views of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. For these reasons I find it my duty to support the amendment.
Mr. ROBERT H. BUTTS (Cape Breton South and Richmond):	Mr. Speaker, I
have on quite a number of occasions been pronounced out of order in this House. While I sometimes complain of the decision of the Chair, I shall not complain to-night if both the Chair and the House consider me out of order if I take up very much time, having regard to the temperature. Let me congratulate the Government, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) on the many excellent features of the Budget. I feel that I am justified in saying-and I am more at liberty to do so because the minister is not in his chair-that such a Budget speech, or such a speech on financial matters as was delivered by the Finance Minister this afternoon, has never been heard in the Canadian Commons. The reading section of the country-even those people who cannot read but may hear read either of these addresses-will have, I think, added confidence in the Finance Minister; will have a greater confidence in him than has been reposed in a Finance Minister of this country since the day's of Canada's inception. They cannot but feel gratified at the comparison which the Finance Minister made between the position in which Canada finds itself after the struggle through which she has gone and the position of the other countries to which he referred this afternoon. I say, therefore, that I will support the Budget in all its fulness. But there is one point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Government and the Minister of Finance, more by way of recommendation than anything else.
231 i
The address delivered this afternoon by the Minister of Finance was so much in contrast with some of the speeches delivered by gentlemen on the other side of the House that I could not help remarking the difference.
Let me begin by remarking that- one or two hon. gentlemen opposite, since this debate commenced, called attention to the fact that the ex-minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) has resigned his seat in the Cabinet and that no explanation whatever came from the Government. One hon. member also referred to the fact that the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) had resigned his office and that no explanation ever came from either that hon. gentleman or the Government. This thought came to me while that hon. member was speaking: Would it not occur to him that the Opposition have gone through this session without a leader and no explanation is forthcoming from them? Would it not occur to that hon. gentleman that before they appointed a leader at all, they appointed a committee to look after the affairs of the Opposition during the session, and then they appointed a leader pro tern, and, they brought him to a banquet in Montreal in order that he might proclaim the fact that he was not the leader but only the leader pro tern. There is no explanation coming to the House about that. One sees how it is that certain persons rush in where angels fear to tread.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member, if
he were in the House at the time, would know that the first time I addressed the House in the capacity of leader, I explained from my seat what my position was, and he will find my remarks on Hansard.


Mr. BUTTS:: That simply strengthens my remark. There has been a good deal of debate in regard to free trade and protection. Let me ask some of those extreme free traders to look over the history of Canada. I am not going to labour the question, because it has already been well argued and almost every argument pro and con has been laid before the House, but let me ask them: Where do they, the free traders, fit in? Was there ever a free trade Government since 1878? Has it not been protection, whichever party was in power? Have both parties not carried out exactly the same policy in every particular? Why, even if you go over the reciprocity pact, you will find that the late Mr. Paterson, who was one of the gentlemen who went from here to negotiate it, kept up the protection on

his own biscuit and confectionery to 26 per cent. Under protection this country of Canada has built over 30,000 miles of railway ; under protection she has built a system of canals that have cost, perhaps, $300,000,000; under protection she has built up all the harbours and public works of every description. My hon. friends opposite had a very fine opportunity of, as the late Sir Richard Cartwright said, destroying the tree, root and branch. They had fifteen years to do it, but did they have the courage at any time to attempt it? I ask my free trade friends: What have they to expect from the gentlemen of the Opposition? I have followed, since I was a very young boy, the politics of this country, and I never knew a free trader in this country except a Grit that was in the Opposition. I was not altogether surprised at the remarks of the leader of the Opposition i(Mr. McKenzie) the other evening, because they only confirmed the opinion I had of his opinions. The honourable gentleman said:
While we may have iron and steel in the raw state in this country, there may be others who can pour their products into this country and keep us forever from having any industry of that kind for our own. If I were to say that and to allow the natural resources of this country to remain forever in a dormant state, I do not consider that I would be doing what would be in the best interest of my country or in the general advancement of the people.
And he continued:
If to take some specific object of that kind and provide for it in the way in which I think it should be provided for is Toryism, or protectionism, or unreasonable, as regards the general trade of the country, I must plead guilty.
That is pretty nearly as clear a pronouncement of protection as ever came from a professed free trader, even in the Opposition. I have no doubt in the world that my honourable friend (was sincere when he made that statement. I ask honourable members, particularly the free trade gentlemen of the West: Where is your hope? If you had any at the beginning of this Budget address, it must have been shattered by the speech of the leader of the Opposition, for you can see from those very remarks of his that we are now all of one Lord, one faith, one baptism; we are all protectionists. But to some of the remarks of my honourable friends, the free traders from the West, I ask them if they think of the other side, or is it not true that they confined their remarks entirely to their own interests, forgetting the interests of the other different parts of this (Dominion? What do they expect of us in eastern Canada

when four or five or six years ago we were buying their flour at $4.50 to $5.25 a barrel, and are now paying $14 a barrel for it? Have they any complaint to make of us, or is it not we that should be complaining? When my friends who come from different districts of Ontario and Quebec where they manufacture leather goods and other articles of that description find out that the shoes I was wearing five or six years ago cost $4 or $5 a pair and that I have now to pay $11 or $12 for similar shoes, have theystill any complaint? No, but they will complain if they have to pay an extra dollar on the price of coal or steel, notwitstanding the fact that we sent from Sydney harbour as far as Prince Rupert steel rails at a cheaper price than they could be bought in the Soo, after our rails had been transported by way of the Horn. And still western members complain that they are not getting fair play, although we are giving them rails, taking them all the way around the Horn, a ninety-day trip, and laying them down cheaper than they can buy rails in Ontario or the United States. It makes a great deal of difference whose ox is gored.
About the only matter I really wish to bring before the Government is that of shipping. At the outbreak of the war in 1914 we had a splendid fleet of ships plying from Sydney harbour and a few from other ports in Nova Scotia to different ports on the St. Lawrence, principally to Montreal, Three Rivers and Sorel, which would be the three largest ports.
We had ships of the Storstadt type, which you will remember collided with the Empress of.Ireland in the river St. Lawrence. The Storstadt had 11,000 tons of coal on board when she collided. We had also a number of ships of a similar type. In Nova Scotia in those days we were producing over six million tons of coal, and with the exception of the domestic consumption of Nova Scotia and what we burned in our coke ovens and blast furnaces, our output of coal went largely to river St. Lawrence ports. We were able to hold our market there on account of the cheap transportation. It may surprise 'hon. gentlemen to know that we could ship coal from Sydney Harbour to the city of Montreal for less than 60 cents a ton. However, when the war broke out, I have no doubt that the necessities of the war made it necessary for our ships to be commandeered. We did not complain, for we knew that the necessities of Canada and of the Empire were paramount. These ships have since been under

the control of the British Shipping Board. At the time they were taken over they were carrying something like four million tons up the St. Lawrence. I think the figures for 1913 or 1914 were in the neighbourhood of 4,300,000 tons. Now, when those ships were commandeered we could not ship coal to the St. Lawrence because we had no ships to transport it, and but for two things there would have been a considerable amount of unemployment in our province. The first thing that prevented it was the way in which the young men of Cape Breton enlisted. No sooner did the call come than they sprang to the sword in larger numbers, I believe, than was the case with the great majority of the counties of the Dominion'- That relieved us of a great deal of unemployment. Secondly, a short time afterwards, on account of the location of our harbour, large fleets of ships came there, of from 9,000 to 20,000 tons, and were formed into convoys of thirty to forty ships and were convoyed across the ocean. These convoys left Sydney Harbour almost every week, and of course they consumed a large amount of coal for bunkering. These were the two chief factors which prevented a large amount of unemployment. We thought that as soon as the war was over the British Shipping Board would return to us all the shipping they had commandeered, but now we find-and I have made some examination of the matter

 such cases as these. Seven of our coal boats which were commandeered are now on the ocean between the Old Country and Australia, either going for wheat or bringing back 'wheat. Now, that does not seem to me to be good shipping business while there is wheat in Canada and the United States, because you can make three trips between New York or Montreal and the Old Land to one between Australia and the Old Land.


Michael Clark: What do these ships take to Australia?


Robert Hamilton Butts: I really do not know, unless it is a general cargo of manufactured goods. They go from England, not from here. You will see at once, Mr. Speaker, the reason for it. Those ships were chartered in prewar days by the Dominion Coal Company, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. In those pre-war days those boats, particularly the larger ones, could haul coal from Sydney to Montreal at sixty cents a ton. It is the opinion of shipping men in our province, and I think in Montreal, and
I know it is the accepted opinion of people who had these boats chartered, that when they were commandeered and taken overseas, influence was at once brought to bear by the shipping interests over there to have the British Shipping Board retain these ships, because after the boats were commandeered they were chartered at war rates. To such an extent was this attempted that the owners of two of those ships went into the courts in the Old Country to have their charters set aside altogether, contending that the war had voided their charter, and that they were now at liberty to charter at any price. The courts decided against them, and one of the boats against which a decision was given is now actually in a dry-dock in England for repairs that look very suspicious, in order to finish out the remainder of her charter term, and in the meantime enter into a war-price charter.
These are a few of the matters which 1 think should receive the serious consideration of the Government and especially of the Minister of Finance. Before the war we had the market in the St. Lawrence that I have already spoken of. We were selling over four million tons of coal. Then our shipping was commandeered, and to-day our market is lost to us, or practically so. Every port on the St. Lawrence has been filled with American coal, and just at this very time the Minister of Finance strikes off the seven and-a-half per cent duty on coal. We are not afraid of the seven and-a-half per cent duty by any means, because we think we can sell coal in the St. Lawrence at the figures at which we have sold it in the past.
If our shipping is not restored to us something must be done to enable us to burn our own coal at home. It has always been my dream that the day would come when Nova Scotia would not ship abroad a ton of coal but that we would I rrn it within our own borders. That time will come, I think. It may not be in the near fuiure but it must come. Since 1902 we have had an increase in the number of coal mines in Cape Breton county until to-day there are about thirty-one. We have erected eight large blast furnaces. We have twenty-one open hearth furnaces and several hundred coke ovens of different types. At the steel works in Sydney alone they are burning 3,200 tons of coal a day and the consumption is gradually on the increase, and with the steel business in such a prosperous shape as it has been I hope to see the day when its expansion will have reached such

a stage that we can burn our own coal. In the meantime, however,- we are out of a market, and there is a very considerable amount of unemployment. We sent overseas from that county over 5,000 men. At least, I am sure we sent over 4,000, and as these men pour back into one county, with the coal trade considerably impaired by the conditions I have explained, the amount of unemployment is going to be somewhat serious.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total number of men employed altogether in these industries-coal, iron and steel-in normal times?


Robert Hamilton Butts: I think in Nova Scotia the Steel Company had about 2,300; the Dominion Steel. Company had somewhere between 3,300 and 4,000; and there would be between 8,000 and 10,000 men engaged in the different coal mines. I am speaking roughly of course, but I think these are about the figures. We have in that county, that is North and South Cape Breton, a population of about 73,000, and compared with the mining and steel industry, most of the other industries are small.
I do not think I have very much more to say, Mr. Speaker, except this: If we are to be treated in this way, if we are to be compelled to pay such prices for western flour and such prices for Quebec and Ontario manufactured goods, and for lumber and the rest of it, it must be remembered that there was a day when there were very few persons in the Maritime Provinces who did not realize the fact and proclaim it that a maritime federation was preferable in the interests of those provinces. We have in Nova Scotia the industries that I have mentioned; we have in New Brunswick a good agricultural and lumber country; we have Prince Edward Island that has always been known as the "Garden of the Gulf," with Newfoundland at our' door that could supply for years to come iron ore to the world if necessary; and besides this she has coal and copper, and a sealing industry that is one of the richest in the world. Her codfish in shiploads goes to the Brazils and the Mediterranean in competition with fish from all parts of the world. Remember, the time may come when our maritime federation, as I may call it, will feel that it is pinched rather too hard by the grain growers and manufacturers. I do not make this statement by way of threat but in order that you may appreciate the fact that there is something to be said on the other side of the question. In conclusion, I will say that if I have only 
succeeded in getting some at least of the hon. members in this House to concede that there are two sides to every argument I shall not consider the short time I have spent to-night wasted.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much time in this discussion, as I think the pros and cons have been combed over very closely, but representing as I do the large and important constituency of Prince Albert, I do not think I would be doing my duty if I did not point out some phases of the present situation in regard to the fiscal policy, as I see it. The previous speaker has proven to me what I have always believed that is, that when a tax or a tariff is put on it is a very difficult thing to get it off without protests from some interested party. This was- evidenced by his objection to having the 7| per cent tax taken off the coal. It has been stated by several members that this is not the time for a revision of the tariff. Without debating that, I would point out to these hon. gentlemen that the Minister of Finance apparently did not agree with those views, as he has to some extent scratched the surface. I have noted in some newspapers the comment that the general consumer has asked for a loaf, but has been given a stone. The honourable member for Brome was probably nearer the truth, when he said that the consumer had asked for a loaf and had been given a soda cracker. But personally 1 would have preferred to see it left untouched, as I do not believe that the reduction will be noticeable by the consuming public, whether that public be the working man purchasing his food and clothes, or the farmer, who, in addition to that, has also to purchase the machinery with which to produce foodstuffs. I submit, Sir, that the present occasion would have been an opportune time to deal with this matter, as the prime essential in this reconstruction period should be to encourage the greatest industry Canada possesses, an industry which is capable of absorbing more of our returned men 'than any other. Just here I would like to point out that there is a veritable rush of returned men from all points in the Dominion to the constituency which I represent, to secure land, so much so that the local Soldiers' Settlement Board at Prince Albert, although most efficient, has great difficulty in keeping up with the work. I stated last year, when speaking on the Budget, and I repeat again, that given proper railway facilities, including the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and also

given just consideration and encouragement in the framing of the fiscal policy, there is no portion of the Dominion of Canada which would produce more wealth, so very necessary at the present time, for the same outlay that the northern portion of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I wish to point out to the Government that in the West both urban and rural communities are most emphatic in their demands for a lower tariff. They have been promised tariff commissions and tariff reductions repeatedly by both tile old parties until they have become, if I may use the language of the street, " fed up." We also have to contend against a most vigorous campaign conducted by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a campaign which at times is not conducted in a fair manner. I would point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that although the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan drew the attention of the Manufacturers' Association to some misstatements of fact in their literature, no effort was made to correct them, and the following resolution was passed at a meeting of the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association recently held in Regina:-
Whereas the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Reconstruction Association have for some time been carrying on an extensive advertising campaign, principally calculated to discredit the Grain Growers' Association by misquoting the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture and by grossly misrepresenting its policy and its purpose; and
Whereas this advertising is evidently intended to create suspicion and class antagonism between the organized farmers and organized labour fov misrepresenting the demands of the former-for economic reforms as being highly selfish class demands intended to destroy manufacturing industry in Canada and to relieve the farmers of their fair share of the burden of taxation and by branding the association's policy as leading to Bolshevism ; and
Whereas these malicious and widely advertised misrepresentations are doubly unfortunate at this time of imperative need for a sympathetic understanding amongst all classes of citizens who are seeking the preservation of all that is best in our national institutions;
Therefore, be it resolved that this board soundly condemns these unwarranted attacks upon the grain growers and this gross misrepresentation of our platform and policy and especially does it resent the neglect of the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to correct these mis-statements of fact in the public press after his attention was courteously drawn to them by an open letter from our secretary, and further,
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, to the offices of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Reconstruction Association and to the press.
It has been argued that Canadian manufacturers of machinery cannot successfully meet outside competition without a protective tariff, but it has recently come to my notice that one Canadian company manufacturing cream separators, which has no protection, shipped during 1918, twenty carloads of separators to California. I might also state that at the convention held in the City of Prince Albert at which I was nominated to contest the constituency, I told the assembled delegates that I had been working for a lower tariff for years, and held pronounced views in this regard, but that while the war lasted I was quite willing to lay them aside, and use my utmost endeavour to help bring about a victorious conclusion, I reserving the right to use my own judgment in matters of policy afterwards.
I have given the Union Government my best support in all matters in connection with the war, and I would do so again should occasion demand it. I wish to commend the Honourable the Prime Minister for the way in which he has handled many difficult situations; but when it comes to matters of fiscal policy, evidently his ways are not my ways. The time Mr. Speaker, has now come, for me to take a stand, and while I do not intend to cross the floor of the .House, I feel it to be my bounden duty to protest as strongly as I can against what is to all intents and purposes a high protectionist Budget. It is, a Budget so far as the tariff is concerned calculated to give to him who hath, and to take away from the poor fellow who is honestly doing his best for his family and his country. I am convinced that the policy laid down in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture would not only make the burden more equitable between the East and the West, but would also furnish a field for the providing of revenue more than sufficient t-o make up for anything that would be lost. Further I do not think the collecting of the income tax is being pushed forward as much as it might be. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by quoting Goldsmith's famous and prophetic lines:
111 fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.


Mr. RICHARD COE HENDERS (Macdonald) :: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to address the House for a few minutes, I shall confine my remarks very largely to a statement of my position generally with regard to the tariff. Two years previous to the election by which this Government came into power, I received the nomination in the constituency of Macdonald as an independent Liberal. The time came when the

the Government in that regard meets, in large measure, the view that I hold on that particular point.
In the matter of raising revenue, the Government has proceeded in large measure along the line marked out by the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. They have gone after taxes m accordance with that policy ; they have taken a step in advance this year, and I commend them for their action.
Comparing the income tax in the United States with the income tax proposed in the Budget, I find that in respect of incomes from $5,000 up to $200,000 we can put on quite a margin of taxation before we measure up to the American rate of income tax. The Government would, perhaps, have been well advised if they had gone a little further in this direction. Indeed, I would have the income tax commence on a lower salary basis than the one set out in the present proposals of the Government. It is proposed that single men shall pay income tax on all income over $1,000. I contend that it would have done the single man no harm and would have caused him to take a real interest in the affairs of the country if the amount of his income exempted from taxation was no more than $700. Make the tax very light, but let the young man feel that he is a citizen of the country and that he has an interest in its affairs. As for the married men, I would have the exempted income made smaller, but I would make the tax comparatively light, because these men are not in a position to bear much of the burden. But I believe in placing the responsibility of citizenship on people as soon as it is possible to do so.
Now, what is proposed tc be substituted for the Budget? While there are some features of the amendment which I could endorse very fully, I find myself in this position, that when I come to look for a source of revenue to carry on the Government, to pay the debts of the country, no provision whatever is made. No progressive policy is put before the House; we are asked to take a great big indefinite nothing and say we will vote for that and we will go out to run the country on a policy of that kind. I am forced to the conclusion that while all that I desire is not found in the present platform, there is a great deal in it that I desire, and that I am glad to find there. It is what I consider a move in the right direction, and therefore I have no hesitation in saying that I am determined and intend t-o support the Government in

its present trade policy and I shall vote for the Budget proposals. *
I have just another thought before I sit down. I have been exercised a great deal with regard to the agitation that is in the country at the present time. It seems that just now we are more interested in trying to see what little class advantage we can get and how we can shift responsibility to somebody else's shoulders. Our boys did not -act like that. When the time came and there was a call to defend the country, our boys came forth from the East, the West, the North and the South, and they did not ask how much or how little the sacrifice, but they said: I am going to be there; Canada has demanded her sons, and I must be in the fray. We ought to catch the spirit of our boys and face the situation as it exists and not endeavour to see how little of the burden we can bear, but rather how much we can do to serve Canada under present circumstances. There is a splendid opportunity for us along that line. I had the privilege of addressing a meeting in Toronto not very long ago, and I made an appeal somewhat along this line and it was met with a very hearty response. I said: I believe there is a possibility of going a long way towards a settlement of the labour question if we only take hold of it in the right way. At the present time the duty of the Government is to form an organization representing the different interests of this country, the manufacturing interests, the financial interests, the labour interests, the farmers interest, and the great consuming interest, generally. There are five elements, and I 'believe there could be brought out of those five elements an organization or an aggregation of men who would say: We will t'hrash this thing out, get to a common basis, shoulder this burden and go through this difficulty harmoniously and successfully. I would just give that thought to the Government at this time. I believe it is worthy of consideration and that it could be worked out, and we could get results from it.
I do not think it ought to be a question with us how much money we can make in the next five years for our personal gain and profit. The best good and greatest happiness at present would be this, to catch the spirit of our hoys who have said: I will- put my life on the altar for Canada; if I come out, well and good; if not, I will give my life as a sacrifice for Canada. I believe the men and women of this country ought to take the position to-day that, even if we do not _ get a dollar for ourselves beyond a


1ST 1919
[Stage Direction]
comfortable living, with food to eat and raiment to wear and houses to shelter us and keep us warm, we ought to give Canada everything else, if needs be, and then feel we have been doing only our duty in view of what has been done for us. I would like to see that spirit of sacrifice and service more manifest than the spirit of selfishness in our thought and action.
Mr. WILLIAM STEWAET LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):: the future with confidence. Canada's part in the conflict will go down in history to our credit. Canada's manhood will overcome the present unrest, and not shrink in the discharge of any proper duty.


Mr. ROBERT LORNE RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, after listening
to this debate which has gone on for a considerable number of days, and to the many heart-searching addresses that have been made by many members of the House, who are greatly disturbed about the vote they shall give, I am sure that many of us would envy the complacency of the British politician who made the following declaration:
I was never present at any debate I could avoid, or absent from any division I could get at. X have heard, many arguments which convinced my judgment, but never one that influenced my vote. I never voted but once according to my opinion, and that was the worst vote I ever gave. I found that the only way to be quiet in Parliament was always to vote with the ministers and never to take a place.
I am quite sure that many members will appreciate the placid condition of mind of that British statesman.
In addressing myself to the subject under consideration, I find that I am under some little difficulty because we are supposed to limit ourselves to a very brief time. There is a great deal of matter that I should like to have placed before the " House, but I shall be obliged to curtail it.
1 very much regret, therefore, that the House will not be able to listen to some remarks that I wished to make regarding [DOT] the Winnipeg strike and other matters, as I feel bound to be as brief as possible.
I take the position first that this is a war Government and that the members who were elected to support the Union Government were returned on one special issue. So far as regards the constituency for which I was elected, I heard no other question discussed in the election than that of winning the war, and I have no doubt whatever that the very large majority which I secured was, due to that supreme issue.
I have listened very patiently and carefully to most of the addresses which have been delivered here on the Budget, and I may say that as a western man-one who has lived in Western Canada for over thirty-seven years, and has participated in the political and public life of that country during most of that time-that I have always been a low-tariff man. My aspirations have always been to have agricultural implements freed from duties, also to have foodstuffs and other necessaries of life supplied to the people at the lowest possible cost. I sat

at the feet of the Liberal Gamaliels some thirty-five years ago as a boy, and learned the ideals of free trade. While I recognize that free trade is not perhaps advisable, or possible, at the present stage of our. development, I have never changed my views with regard to the fiscal question in this country. Therefore, I very largely share the opinions expressed in this debate by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), and I particularly endorse those with which he closed his fine deliverance in this House in favour of closer trade relations with the United Kingdom.
I recall with great pleasure when, twenty years ago, the British preference was proposed by the Laurier Government, and I remember the enthusiasm with which it was received. The great poet of England, Rudyard Kipling, immortalized it in those verses beginning:
A nation spoke to a nation,
A queen sent word to a throne,
" Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own."
With the member for Red Deer, I should like to see in the very near future closer trade relations with the British people.
With most of the views expressed by the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) I am heartily in accord, as also with most of the views expressed by members from the West who were elected to support this Government but who find themselves unable to support this Budget. I want to say, on behalf of many of those members, that they occupy a very delicate and difficult position. The feeling in the West is almost unanimous, so far as the farmers are Concerned, in favour of free agricultural implements and very great reductions on the tariff. In some of the constituencies represented by members who have spoken and who took issue with the tariff, nominations are being held, and it looks to me as if a new party is being organized in the [DOT]-West. Perhaps that may not be inexpedient; indeed, it may bring the relief which a great portion of the West has been looking forward to for many years. I think I express the views of the majority of my friends from the West when I say that an experience of thirty years with the so-called Liberal party has convinced them, as it has me, that there is nothing to hope for from that quarter, and if out of the sentiment that undoubtedly exists in the West in favour of a low tariff and free agricultural implements there should arise a virile party which will implement that feeling, I am satisfied that it will be ol

advantage-if not to all Canada, at least to the people of the West.
So far as my own opinion on this question is concerned, I feel that every member must do his own thinking and must make up his own mind as to what his duty is. As I said at the outset, I accepted nomination as a candidate supporting Union Government. There was only one issue during that election, arid that was to support our boys at the front and win the war. I, therefore, felt, and I still feel, that so long as the war and its aftermath are before this Government, it is the duty-at least, that is my view-of those elected to support the Government to continue that support.
I was struck by the statement made from two or three quarters that the ex-Minister of Agriculture would have retained his portfolio had the tariff not been touched at all in the present session. If that be so,
1 cannot help thinking that he would have have rendered better service to 12 m. the West and to his country had he remained in the Government until the promised scientific tariff revision is accomplished the coming autumn. The Minister of Finance has promised a thorough inquiry to commence not later than September. It will be admitted generally that the Government have had a tremendous task to perform since they took office, and I think they are entitled to every reasonable consideration in so far as that task has not yet been completed. Although the amiisUce has been signed, the treaty of peace is not yet signed, and there are momentous problems facing the Government and the country, and the Minister cf Finance has very properly said that he and the Government have not had time to make a complete and scientific revision of the tariff. Therefore I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture, whom I have always held in high esteem, would have better served his country, and particularly the West, had he continued his position in the Government and become a member of the tariff commission in order to be able to accomplish everything in his power to secure the relief which the West so very much desires. Perhaps he feels that he can better accomplish that purpose by withdrawing from the Government. That is a matter for his own conscience to settle, and, as he is a man of honour, I take it that his decision is the result of mature consideration and that he is satisfied that he has taken the right course. So far as I am concerned, I repeat that I have always held the hon. gentleman in high esteem. As I have already said,
there are very strong reasons why many members from the West should take a stand in opposition to the proposed Budget. I am satisfied from conversation with them that it is not their desire to support the amendment, because many of them have advised me that they have no sympathy with it, and I take it that their opposition is purely against the Budget.
With regard to the policy of the Oppos' tion, I was struck by the remark of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Butts) that there i^ no difference really in the two old historic1 parties with regard to protection. We have had the so-called Liberal party for the last thirty or thirty-five years steadily talking free trade as they have it in Great Britain, the abolition of every vestige of protection from the tariff; but just as steadily practising protection whenever the opportunity presented itself. In support of that statement, Mr. Speaker, let me quote the words of the master of the Laurier administration. After the revision in what is known as the Fielding tariff in 1897, the then Minister of the Interior, the Hon. (now Sir) Clifford Sifton, addressed a large meeting at the town of Perth in my old home county, and declared that the Liberal party had solved the tariff issue, that, owing to the revision, it would no longer constitute an issue as between the two parties, and, he said, ' if the Conservatives ever get in power again they will not change the tariff very much " That declaration wa# never repudiated by his leader or by anybody else in party authority so far as I know. Moreover, you have the actual practice of the party when it was in office. In some remarks which I made in the debate on the address, I dealt very fully with the position of the Laurier party on the tariff. In a speech which he recently made, the member from Brome invited the free traders or the tariff reformers on this side of the House to go up with him to Mount Delectable-he likes to quote either the Scripture or John Bunyan. He said:	'If you will come up with me to
Mount Delectable and gaze on the promised land of free trade, you will get renewed life." Now, as a youth, about thirty years ago, I went up to Mount Delectable with the old so-called Liberal leaders and gazed fondly at the promised land of free trade; and I put myself, under the leadership of those so-called Liberal oracles. And where do you suppose they led me? Into the promised land? Not at all; they took me back into the desert, where I wandered with them for fifteen years; and they laughed

?>f>56
at me every time I suggested that the policy of the Liberal Party should be carried out. In fact-would you believe it, Mr. Speaker?-I was actually hounded out of the Liberal party. Because I renounced their policy? Not at all; 'but because 1 occasionally suggested, in a mild and inoffensive manner, that their policy be adhered to. After they had wandered in the wilderness for a time I think they commenced to suffer from ossification of the joints and sleeping sickness, because they never got back, so far as I could discover. True, they presented amendment after amendment on the tariff; as the member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Butts) said tonight the only free trader ever found among the Grits was some member sitting in opposition. I hope before I get through that I shall be able to prove my case to the House.
As a boy, I recall attending public meetings in Manitoba. I am sure the member for South Winnipeg (Mr .Allan) will also recall how our old friend Bob Watson used to make the rafters ring in the school houses along the road allowances about the iniquities of the tariff. Bid you ever hear Bob Watson's celebrated story, Mr. Speaker? If you did not, I am going to tell it to you now. It is a little late, but honourable gentlemen will bear with me, because 'I have sat here six solid hours to get a chance to speak on this 'question and incidentally tell Bob Watson's story.
AfteT denouncing the tariff on agricultural implements, which, he said, was bleeding the farmers until they were white in the face, Bob used to tell a story about a Manitoba farmer who died and passed I do not know whether he went up or down; it is immaterial to the story. Anyway, he passed hence and was taken in charge by one of the guardsmen in the place that he had reached in the nether regions. He was being conducted over, this vast establishment-I do not know whether it was by St. Peter or by some special person assigned to that duty-and in the course of his peregrinations they came to a lofty corridor from the ceiling of which were suspended by the hair three pr four thousand male bodies dressed in homespun. "By the way," the farmer asked his guide, "who are all these people suspended by the hair from the roof of this vast super-heated corridor?" "Oh," the guide replied-(using Bob's vernacular)-"them's Manitoba farmers who voted for protection and for high duties on agricultural implements; when they came down here they were too green IMr. Richardson.]
to burn, so we hung them up to dry." As the duties were continued practically. without alteration during the fifteen years that the Hon. Bob and his friends were in office and the people of the West, farmers included, supported them. I often wonder what an immense difference there must De in the size of that corridor by now, and how many hundreds of thousands more dupes must be suspended by the hair in that super-heated spot in order that they may be dry enough to be burned when the appointed time arrives.
As a young member of this House many years ago I remember that the Tories of those days on the Opposition side were constantly introducing resolutions on the tariff-my old friend Nicholas Flood Davin used to do it-in order to put the western boys in the hole, because we were .always in favour of low tariff. Amendments were offered to the Budget, and naturally, as a young man,- I was exceedingly disturbed about my position and about the course I should follow. I suppose many of the young politicians who are going to vote against this Budget feel a good deal like I did then. But I have gotten over all that.
I used often to have recourse to Sir Richard partwright for advice; ,but SiT Richard would say; never mind, old boy; God bless you; you are a fiee trader-do as you like. Then Doctor Landerkin, and Jim Sutherland and Billy Gibson, the whips, would pass around among us young Liberals and say: "Don't you mind these little motions; they -are just put forward to embarrass and put you in the hole. Stand by your party; that is the only way you will ever get anywhere." Well, I stood by the party fairly well-when I look back, I think that I stood by it a hanged sight too well. But I began to see that it was not going to work, and I began to express my views on these issues. I did my level best to stand by the old '93 platform of the Liberal party under which every vestige of protection was supposed to disappear from the tariff, although the platform did not state it exactly as Sir Wilfrid Laurier did in a speech at Winnipeg, at the time when he said that the goal of the Liberal party; was free trade as they have it in England. We were to get the abolition of the appointment of members of Parliament, to office which was a great-scandal among the Liberals in those days; we were to have the abolition of railway subsidies which were denounced in the company literature of the party as. a bountiful source of jobbery, peculation and corruption-.and what- all we were not to get I have not time to tell you in the time at

my disposal. But I discovered that we were not getting anything. I have a newspaper in Winnipeg, and my newspaper, had been standing by the old Liberal platform- and I thought I was on fine ground. I remember some of the leaders saying to me; "What is this you are doing, Richardson? You are not standing by the party." I used to produce the old campaign literature-you remember the pink books, Mr. Speaker- and I used to say:	"Why, there it is in
your own literature; surely I am on right ground." "Oh", they would say; "that is not playing politics at all; what counts is not what we said in our platform, but what we are doing now." The result was that I got. into such a position that there was *nothing else for it; I was hounded clean out of the party and for twenty years I remained in private life. Perhaps the country profited by that, I am not here to say although it cost the public treasury tens of thousands to defeat and keep me out of public life. Now I find myself in the position of standing by this Budget, and as a result of the predicted avalanche in favour of- free agricultural implements, in the West I may probably be landed in the wilderness for another twenty years.
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, but anyway, I am going to take chances on it.


Mr. BUREAU:: Safe chance.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Last Sunday I was visiting my old homestead out in Lanark county, the spot where I was born- I was reclining in the heat of the day under the shade of an old apple tree, and I had a vision. Afterwards, when I came to myself, I set it down, and I had it typewritten. I am going to read it to the House, and although it will take a little while, still we are having a good time anyway and the House might just as well hear it:
Scene in the office of the General Manager of the Massey Harris Oo. on a sultry afternoon in the summer of 1922.
Manager seated in mahogany chair smoking and looking a bit worried as a general election is on and the Opposition for the sixth consecutive time is talking free agricultural implements-.
Knock.
Enter a bulky figure with broad, beaming
face and glad hand. " I am Andrew R. Mc-Master, member for Brome."
" Have a chair."
McMaster. " As you know I was the financial critic of the Government in the late Parliament and (with a knowing and self-complacent wink) the prospective Finance Minister in the new Government."	-
Manager. " Better have a couple of chairs."
McMaster. " I came to see you at the request of our party. Some of our friends tell me that you are misled about our tariff position, especially on agricultural implements, and I decided that it was well to have a talk with you."
Manager. " Frankly I was not very seriously alarmed because I have followed political events pretty closely for 25 years, but with those western radical Liberals pawing the turf, and ready to vote against any combination in support of their principles, one can never tell what might happen.
McMaster. " Yes, I admit that the western bronchos are a bit dangerous, but ou-r party is well .seasoned, it has a record and is duly impressed with a sense of responsibility and stability."
Manager. " How about that old resolution ol yours in favour of free machinery, etc. ? "
McMaster. " Did you read the same carefully and study its construction? If you did you would commend its beautiful indefiniteness. Firstly, it was perfectly safe to describe the Budget as unsatisfactory, as it is designed for 8,000,000 people, most of whom think differently. Secondly, it i.s always safe to charge extravagance. Everybody is guilty of that. Then I think that was a perfectly heroic touch in the third place to ring in and denounce the High Cost of Living. Such a master stroke could not help but appeal to the masses. Of course you and I know it was bunk, but in .politics one must not be overly scrupulous. Fourthly, while it was a platitude, there is always a mass of brainless creatures, who might be caught with an innocuous declaration about the absence from the Budget of a definite promise of downward revision. To be sure I purposely overlooked the promise of investigation and complete revision a little later in .addition to1 the very considerable reduction accorded. Fifthly, I trust you read clauses two and three together-
I do not believe the members of the House -have read clauses two and three together. It is well worth their while to get them and compare them because they are unique when you read them together. I have tried to give a little analysis here, and in. addition to this analysis, I would prefer that members read the clauses for themselves.
I trust you read clauses two and three together and noted carefully that prime touch about free food, and free machinery used in the development of all the natural resources of Canada (which resources include, of course, mining, timber, oil, fishing, etc., as well as agriculture), and the succeeding clause calling for the removal as speedily as may he expedient and just to all interested, of the duties on "all other necessaries of life,"-
I think the .members had better let that soak in-all other necessaries of life .being of course, auxiliary to such necessaries of life as diamond drills, augers, gimlets etc. Can't you detect the joker? It was to laugh. Not a single member of the House exposed the artful dodge at the time. It is true the clause about removing the duties when found expedient and just to all was subjected to a hostile barrage but we escaped in the country pretty well.



I think that is the most unique thing I have ever seen in any amendment ever put before this House-that when it is found ' expedient ' and ' just to all ', those duties will be removed. That really deserves applause. The eloquent hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), I think, called attention to it, or some other hon. member did. We might pause and think over it for a moment, 'because an amendment that says that the duties will be removed when it is ' expedient ' and ' just to all ' is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen presented to any Parliament or to any one.
You see my dear Mr. Manager, if duties are not removed until a Canadian political party finds it expedient and just to all interested, the tariff wall could easily be continued for as long a period as the historic Chinese wall has braved the elements- without crumbling. Kindly join me in an explosion of laughter.
Manager. " But so far as resolutions are concerned at least your party has a disturbing record on the agricultural implement duty, whilst the other historic party seems to me more safe and reliable from our point of view."
McMaster. "Jehosaphat! Apart from resolutions have you examined the parliamentary record since the celebrated Liberal platform of 1893 calling for the obliteration of every vestige of protection from the tariff together with free agricultural implements, was promulgated? I have, and the examination almost produced a fit of apoplexy. In 1894, the Conservative Government reduced the agricultural implement duty from 35 to 20 per cent. Notwithstanding this, our leaders continued to denounce the tariff and promise free implements if returned to power. Clifford Sifton, the western Laurier leader in the campaign of 1&96, which brought our party into power, ranted over the West telling the farmer that your company sold in Glasgow, Scotland, for $70 the self-binding harvesters for which they charged the Manitoba farmer $165.
Mark the figures-
He told them they were being bled until they were wiiite in the face, and that if they only understood it they would not stand it. Then when the Laurier Government was formed, Sifton, who was an undistinguished! country lawyer, became a member. There immediately sprang up between him and your predecessor, Sir Melvin Jones, a close personal friendship and 'Sir Melvin who, strange as it may appear, was also one of the leaders of the then comic opera Liberal aggregation, showed Sir Clifford that he was all wrong about agricultural implements and, although you may not know it, the proposal was seriously put forward among members of the party to increase instead of wipe out the tariff as promised. It was set forth that the tariff was already too low and that to increase it would mean ruin to the industry in Canada.
Now mark.
The matter was finally compromised toy reducing the duty to 17 J per cent when the revision was made, tout an arbitrary valuation was placed on the implements which made them cost

the farmer more than under the conservative duty of 20 per cent, It is said of Sir Clifford that he was after money and office and he got both. I wonder if to-day he is satisfied.
I want to emphasize this point about the reduction of the tariff. They reduced it to 17J per cent, but the valuation of the binders at 'that time for dutiable purposes was placed at $80, and the so-called Liberal party then increased the valuation, putting an arbitrary valuation of $100, and when the farmer paid the duty, he paid one dollar more than he had paid under the duty which was in force under the Conservative regime.


William Cameron Edwards: 


Robert Lorne Richardson: $1.50. The hon-member for Fromtenac corrects me and he has the figures. Wasn't that wiping out the duty on agricultural implements with a vengeance? Let us continue:
Manager. "You surprise me but go on, I am deeply interested,"
* _ McMaster. "The next move that put our beloved party in the hole was in 1907 when the Conservatives moved in parliament to reduce the duty on agricultural implements to 10%. I hate to confess this but our party opposed it to a man, and what is worse Mr. Fielding, the Finance Minister (a fine man too) told parliament that 17J per cent was a low revenue duty and that to lower it might drive the agricultural manufacturers out of the country, thereby involving ruin to the industry. Since then, as you know, the Union Government cut the implement duty to a point which makes the average a trifle over 112J per cent. I regret that others of our leaders, including the Beloved Chieftain, talked along similar lines to Mr. Fielding. I tell you (with a sigh) our party is pretty badly compromised on the issue. -So you see that on this question 'Grit Codlin's your friend and not Tory Short'."
Manager. "But your party at least poses as the historic abolish,-every-vestige-of-protection-from-the-tariff party."
McMaster. (Smiling even more broadly than normally) "I trust there is no covert sarcasm intented in that word 'poses'."
Manager. " No offence, my dear sir, no offence -A cigar? No, well that I had in mind was that your leaders usually talk free trade."
McMaster. (Aside) "That's a sore touch. Would to God they always did. I say would to God they did, but such is not so. I have already quoted Sir Clifford who once publicly declared at Perth that the tariff had been permanently solved by the Liberals and removed from the list of Canadian political issues. You see for yourself that Mr. Fielding is no out and out free trader. Every now and again some old liberal spills the beans. Even the Grand Old Chieftain looped the loop on us occasionally, and you surely remember the words of our beloved D. D. who, as our leader, declared in Parliamert 'that while not a very high protectionist he could not help hut know that protection had done much for the country'. Selah ! And there you are. No, no, I am afraid that inasmuch as the Liberals when in office from 1896 till 1911 only cut the tariff 71/100 of one

per cent that we must confess that no matter what our professions may be, our practices demonstrate that you have less to fear from us than you would have from the other party. I always squirm when I hear the word hypocrisy used, but being logical I never challenge anyone who uses it to mortal combat. Don't you think therefore, in view of the record, that you can safely trust us and turn in with our organization to beat the other fellow?'"
Manager. "Ins and Outs again? The same old game?"
McMaster. "Forbear, forbears Frankly our boys are hungry and it is their turn now."
Manager. "Well, you have made out a fine case and if nothing can be done to appease the western Rads we'll see what we can do. Adieu and good luck to you."


Mr. MOLLOY:: May I ask a question?


Robert Lorne Richardson: You have already had your little say. I do not propose to be interrupted.


John Patrick Molloy: You are afraid.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I shall sit down. Ask all the questions you like.


John Patrick Molloy: Why did you support the Laurier party and myself in 1911?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Because the Laurier party was in favour of reciprocity, and there is nothing I am more proud of than having supported the Laurier administration on that occasion. I did not believe at the time that it deserved to be returned to power on its record, but as a believer in free trade I was delighted to accept reciprocity or anything which in my judgment would make for the benefit of the country.


John Patrick Molloy: Why did you run as Liberal candidate in 1912, supporting the Laurier Government?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is all right, Mr. Speaker. I am perfectly willing to answer his question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was going to ask the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) to submit his questions to the Chair.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The plain unvarnished answer is that I did not run as a Laurier candidate in the year he speaks of, nor ever after his betrayal of the country on the tariff. I ran as an Independent candidate. If you are fooled once it may be the other person's fault, but if you are fooled a second time, it is your own fault. You can bet your last farthing I am not going to be fooled again.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman will please address the Chair.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, you might tell him from me, Mr. Speaker, for me, that he
2321	.
can bet all he has got that they will never fool me on any of these camouflaged resolutions. Let me say that I do not think the Liberal party, or the men who support the Liberal party, are a bad lot at all. What I am trying to establish is that there is no Free Trade party in this country at all. The hon. member for Cape Breton wa3 perfectly right, the protectionists are among hon. members on both sides of the House, no matter what their political professions may be, and that I rings me to a point I made a note of. My good friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) said this afternoon that just as oil and water will not mix, you cannot mix free traders and protectionists and so he concluded the Union Government and party could not succeed. My hon. friend means well, but he has utterly failed to grasp the political situation in this country. There is really no difference between the people who support both parties in this country. It is just like the Methodists and the Presbyterians; nothing really divides them; they believe in the same essentials. We have a Union Government here, and I feel just as much at home on this side as I have ever felt anywhere else. The difference between the Liberal and the Tory parties is that hon. gentleman over there talk free trade and low tariff, but practise protection, while the old Tory talks,protection and practises protection, and if I had to award the palm I would almost give it to the Tory party, because the other people adds hypocrisy to their other sins. In saying this let me not be misunderstood. I am not seeking to reflect upon the supporters of one party more than another. The leader of the Opposition knows I am speaking the gospel truth. How this gold brick business can be continued up to the present time is one of the marvels of the age; I thought it was worked to a finish thirty years ago. Just think of going around with gold bricks in the year 1919, on the 18th of June, with the thermometer registering almost a hundred degrees in the shade. Why the thing is a joke, and I want to say to the leader of the Opposition and hon. gentlemen opposite that the sooner they abandon their dishonest position on the tariff the better for their party and for all concerned. Most of them perhaps think that they believe in free trade, but they do nothing of the kind, because they always practise protection. It is perfectly easy to move resolutions; that is a handy thing to do, but the question is, what do you vote for and where do you stand. So far as the Opposition is concerned on

this trade question it has become a joke, and I fancy the people throughout the country are laughing hilariously over it all. I want to say that to some extent if we were not up against the situation we are at the present time, I would throw in my lot with the free trade party in the West. In fact I may find it desirable to do so later on.


John Patrick Molloy: If you get a chance.


Robert Lorne Richardson: How delighted my
hon. friend seems. I did not say with the Grits, but with the free trade party. He misunderstands the whole thing.


John Patrick Molloy: Any old party for you.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I respect most of
these western men who announce their inability to support the Budget. I have talked with many of them quite freely, and I know that they recognize that this Government has carried immense burdens during the last two or thre years and has wrestled with many difficult problems. I have no doubt they intend to continue as supporters of this Government, but they realize that on this tariff question, which is such a live issue in the West, if they did not take the position which they are taking, this Parliament and this country might have to deal with men who will be much less reasonable later on. I am not sure but that the Canadian people may yet have great cause to rejoice in the fact that an organization may come out of the West which will help solve many of these trade questions, bring relief to that western country and, in a measure, to Eastern Canada as well, and constitute a genuine low tariff party as distinguished from the old Laurier party.
One of the griefs which I have over this issue is the fear of a permanent division between the East and the West. The West has a great future. It is a great and productive territory but it has laboured under many handicaps. However, it is indissolubly united with the rest of Canada and a solution ought to be found to appease the West and bring harmony between it and the east. In my judgment the tariff should not be in politics. It should not be a political question at all but should be settled by a board of experts, a board of economy men, the best masters of economics tha't we could find. Let us invite men even from other lands if necessary to study the question and help us solve the tariff issue in this country. It seems a pity that the West should be divided from the East. It has always appeared to me most unfortunate that the people of
fMr. Richardson.]
this country should be . divided into hostile political camps over the tariff. The division is not real for the reason that the question is not thoroughly understood, and we should have competent experts to consider the tariff question with a view, if possible, of removing it from politics.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I would like to know if the hon. member is in favour of free trade in fruit.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Absolutely. If there is one thing in the West that we need it is free fruit. In the old days, let me tell my hon. friend, the farmers used to trade a whole bushel of wheat for a dozen bananas. I have a brief here on the question that I had intended to bring before the House to-night but I cannot afford the time, before the division? I had to make up my mind to sacrifice this point, but I am delighted that the hon. member has asked me the question because it gives me an opportunity-
I have still another point to deal with on the tariff. I would not say anything to offend the sensibilities of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, because I have learned to like his personality. But in addressing some remarks to the House on this question I desire to buttress my arguments as far as possible, and I may be allowed to read a letter which I recently clipped from the Ottawa Citizen. It reads:
Things seem to be going from bad1 to worse in Canadian Parliamentary conditions when the leader of the Liberal Opposition declares-


Mr. BREAKER:: Order. It is not in order for the ,hon. gentleman to read anything from a newspaper or a letter commenting on or dealing with anything said by a member of the House.


Robert Lorne Richardson: May I give
the purport of it? I would put it this way-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member reading the letter in question if it will foe any consola-^ tion to him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It matters not whether
the hon. member objects or not. I wish to see the rule obyed.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The rules of
this House are far greater than either the leader of the Opposition or myself and I am perfectly willing to abide by your ruling, Sir. But I had the idea that that was one of the things that one could do. T recall Senator Edwards many years ago when he used to sit next to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the House, and I remember how he used

to talk and gesticulate until I was afraid he would drop dead from apoplexy. He was always denouncing the tariff. I do not think you were there at the time, Mr. Speaker. He was always denouncing the tariff in the bitterest manner, but he always voted with his party. You can always do all the denouncing you like as long as you vote right, and Senator Edwards, in the letter addressed to the Citizen, complained that the Liberal party was going to the eternal "bow-wows" because the leader had pronounced himself a protectionist. The senator concludes the letter by saying that if he were a young man and not suffering from an infirmity he would be delighted to come back into the House of Commons to fight the tariff issue. The Right Hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) will remember all about it, because he was present in the House. We had Senator Edwards as a member of the House in 1896, and I am sure he did not denounce or oppose the protection Government of the day. It is all very well to talk and move resolutions, but as the Scotchman says: It is not what ye shall be saying or what ye shall be thinking but what ye shall be .doing. The question is: How did you vote? I do not recall that Senator Edwards ever voted against the Government or against protection. If he wished to distinguish himself he could probably assist in having the duty removed from cement because I understand he is very deeply interested in this cement combine.
With regard to the tariff investigation, the Government promises thorough investigation and analysis of the fiscal question. I take it that the members of the Cabinet are quite sincere in this promise. I would however remind the Government that we have had many experiences in fiscal investigations which have been fizzles or mockeries. Every man in this House and every thinking man in the country realizes the powerful influences which would be brought to bear, and which are perhaps even now at work, to prevent anything like a really scientific and reformed fiscal system being established. Whilst free trade is the ideal and scientific fiscal or economic system, it would seem to me futile for any class of thoughtful Canadians, in view of the world conditions as they exist at this moment, and in view of our limited population, to insist upon- the immediate introduction of that (policy. Indeed, many thoughtful Canadians who are strong free traders in
principle even feel that any ultra-radical changes in the present fiscal system, under the remarkable conditions which exist, might be fraught with grave danger. The fact that a protection system has been in operation in Canada for forty years, that under it a large industrial population has been created, makes it, in the eyes of such old free traders as I have in mind, extremely dangerous to propose any sudden or ill-considered radical change, even if our fiscal policy is not fundamentally sound, as most people will generally admit. But whilst a tariff may for fiscal and general economic reasons be necessary in Canada at present, it ia_still more necessary that the tariff should not be used, as it has been in the past, for the purpose of making fortunes for the owners of manufacturing plants, or, still worse, for cheap financial grafters who know just enough to be able to capitalize tariff advantages and realize on them through the issue of watered stock. The use or abuse of the tariff in this way is the main reason for such hostility to the policy of protection as it exists on this continent. But there is no intrinsic reason, if a government or parliament is honest, why a tariff policy cannot be operated without its opportunities being diverted to the benefit of the selfish or the crooked. Canada has surely progressed - enough in economic intelligence to make a continuation of the	"hogs	and thechestnuts" era	no	longer	possible.
After living nearly 40 years in the Northwest I know what Protection, especially Protection on agricultural implements, has done to the western farmer. I vividly recall the hardship that was for many years involved in the notes which the farmers, by the thousands, gave on agricultural implements; these notes generally bore 12 per cent interest per annum after maturity. Usually these notes included a lien not only on the implement purchaised but actually on the farmer's homestead. I recall the fact that farmers paid $165 for implements which cost the manufacturer, loaded on the car outside his factory, not more than $42. I believe that to a very considerable extent much similar conditions still exist. I regret to confess that so far as the agricultural implement industry is concerned I fear the tariff makes very little difference as the business is largely in the hands of an international interlocking combine or monopoly which exploits the farmers of both the United States and Canada. Olher measures must be adopted to enable the western farmers to get their machines

at a reasonable advance on their cost. Canada, however, is not exclusively composed of farmers. It has now enormous debt obligations like every other country, and the larger the population the less each individual will have to pay. Besides, a civic population, if it does not cost too much, is of great advantage to the farmer. Now, in Canada at the present time, a .large civic population engaged in what are termed manufacturing industries might under present conditions find it difficult to exist without a certain amount of tariff protection. Recent experiences in Winnipeg, where I am very especially interested, prove that the people who live on other than farming industries find the condidtions of life not so easy.
I am admittedly opposed to Bolshevism or anarchy, not because I believe the Bolshevists or Anarchists are necessarily all crooks or vicious malignants, but because I believe that the improvement of the defective and deplorable conditions of many of the working classes cannot be improved by convulsive or hysterical paroxysms, but only by the intelligent and deliberate efforts of these classes themselves.
I hear a great deal in Eastern Canada of the great prosperity of the western farmer. Do these people know anything of the record or history in the West? Do they know that hundreds of farmers in the West have had their whole property sold out for balances that they owed on self-binding harvesters after they -had actually paid on these machines double their cost of manufacture. Is this incredible? Let the Massey-Harris Company say so and I shall produce the evidence in several cases in support of my assertion.
I was born and reared on an Ontario farm. I thought I knew something of hardship, but when I went through the West and travelled and lived amongst the pioneer farmers there, as I did between thirty and forty years ago, I thank the kindly Providence that destined me to be even a newspaper man, which I fancy is the next hardest career to that of a western pioneer of thirty or forty years ago.
The journalistic sycophants of the profiteering interests are telling us how rich and how arrogant the western farmer is getting with his wheat at $2.25 per bushel. They do not tell us, however, that many of these farmers, because of drought and other natural conditions, often do not raise a bushel of wheat. Nor do they dwell upon the fact that although the debts and obligations of the western farmer are never ex-

tinguished except by payment, the climatic conditions of which he is the helpless creature are so variable and uncertain that he cannot in any year be assured that he is going to raise enough to live on. Is it not the turn of the western farmer? I have seen Manitoba No. 1 Hard wheat (a grade superior to any that can be produced today) sold by farmers of Deloraine, Man., for 42 cents per bushel and some of these farmers had teamed that wheat from the Antler country, twenty-five miles west. The member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) the other day spoke of wheat being sold at Emerson for 39 cents a bushel in those days. You say that is ancient history. It is not ancient history. Many of the farmers to-day are the sons of those whom the struggle has killed, and are paying interest on the mortgage loans which their fathers were obliged to raise to meet the deficits which pioneer farming in the West made inevitable.
You eastern people have the idea that you made the West. This idea is a paradox. The West has made you or will make you if there is any making to you. The country with the resources is north and west of lake Superior. The people of the West know that, and they regard not only with resentment but with ridicule the idea that the people of Western Canada are a sort of tenants of the East because Canada undertook to pay the Hudson's Bay Company $1,500,000 for something the Hudson's Bay Company did not o-wn. The West itself is, I believe, as a whole a British country to the heart. In fact I think the West is more a British than a Canadian country. The people of the West were utterly at a loss to understand the apparent reluctance of the people of old Quebec province to rush to the succor of their great and gallant Motherland. The defence of Verdun by the French I regard as one of the epochal affairs in heroic history. Why did French Canada only to a limited extent respond to the call for help from the Motherland? It is not necessary, to formulate the answer. Our French Canadian citizens are a most valuable factor in our -community. They have an impression that we English-speaking people are a coarse, uncouth, arrogant and bullying people. This impression is due largely to their politicians, but undoubtedly to some extent to their experience of contact with the more uninstructed elements of the English-speaking people whom they meet.
It is impossible to discuss the tariff question without reference to the business of

stock watering finance, for there is a very widespread belief in the West that the interests at the back of stock watering finance are those who influence the maintainance of the tariff. I must admit that this western idea is largely shared by myself. If I support the Budget on this occasion I wish it to be distinctly-understood that if I am here when another Budget is presented it shall have to be one in which the minister shall show that he has taxed all profits to their reasonable limit and that he has taken the means and has provided the machinery by which the profits of every concern in Canada shall be accurately and definitely ascertained. While under present conditions I could not demand an elimination of all tariff taxation I must assert the right of the people to know exactly where the proceeds of that taxation go.
I want., before 1 sit down, to say one word in reply to a statement made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) in a speech which he recently delivered. I did not happen to be present on that occasion, but I am told he denounced public ownership in unmeasured terms, and he instanced the experience in the United States., and I understand also in Great Britain, as indicating the failure of public ownership in these two countries. Let me say that I saw an extract the other day from a White Paper recently issued by the British Government in which the statement was made that the United Kingdom had netted $85,000,000 profit out of the operation of the railways there during the war. That is all I propose to say on that point.
One word with regard to the Civil Service. I spoke briefly on the/Civil Service when I addressed the House during the debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I believe that one thing the Government should do is to deal radically with the Civil Service. I believe the Civil Service costs this country almost double what it should cost, and that if it were properly handled reduced and co-ordinated all the deadwood cut out, we would have a much more efficient staff of public servants and the cost to the country would not be much more tham half of what it is at the present time.
Just a word further with regard to the high cost of living. A week ago I visited Winnipeg and spent ten days there studying strike conditions and looking after my own business {which was seriously threatened by that strike. I found almost universal discord and unanimous, if not indignation, at least condemnation of the high cost of living and criticism of the Government in
connection therewith and I have tried since I came East to impress- the Ministers with the view that great unrest exists among the people with regard to the high cost of living. Rightly or wrongly they blame the Government for it-to be accurate I found that feeling almost unanimous. Of course there is this point to be remembered-that the people are so uneasy and so filled with unrest that they blame all governments; they seem to be down on municipal, provincial, and federal governments-, in fact they seem to be chafing under authority.
I do not think that I succeeded in convincing the Government that the dissatisfaction was as general as it really is. I am not sure that the Government can control prices, although I notice that in New Zealand the Government have established meat shops and do control to some extent. The price of meat and the price of butter in New Zealand have been kept lower than the price for export, and the producers for export were made to contribute to an equalization fund to remunerate the purchasers of these commodities for home consumption. I pointed out to the Government that if it were not practicable to control prices they might make an effort to limit the profits. I think by cooperation with boards of trade, and with other bodies in the various cities and towns, that a reasonable profit might be set on the necessaries of life, say on twenty or thirty articles of necessity.
That a reasonable profit might be set on the necessaries of life, say on twenty or thirty articles, and that the Criminal Code might be amended so as to punish all who charged profits beyond the scale set by the board. In that way I believe profits might be controlled. Any way, I have this proposition to make:	that the
Government is under the necessity of attempting to control prices or of demonstrating to the people that such control cannot be effected. The unrest is so strong and so universal that I believe it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the country that it should be allayed as soon as possible. i\o wonder the wage earner is uneasy when he sees the prices of bacon at 75 cents a pound and profits in certain lines of manufacture ranging from 10 to 72 per cent. Unrest is bound to continue while this state of affairs continue.
I should very much like to have said a word with regard to the Winnipeg strike. I would not think of discussing the strike issue, because it has been overshadowed in the minds of the people by the idea that an effort has been made to subvert con-

stituted authority. The people of Winnipeg, I find, have held that view almost unanimously, with the exception of the strikers themselves and their sympathizers. The people of Winnipeg deserve great credit for the manner in which they have taken hold of certain utilities; they have staffed the telephone and postal services and have been doing the scavenging, and three or four thousand have joined the militia in barracks and done all sorts of menial work, and I say all honour to them. I do not propose to pronounce any judgment as to the merits of the strike. The matter has reached such a grave position at the present time that it is my judgment that they who discuss it without considering its gravity are liable to rock the boat, and I do not wish to do that. The people of Winnipeg of course are greatly exercised over the strike, and it is to be hoped that the question will be finally and satisfactorily solved.
Before I sit down I want to say that I look very seriously on this question of voting against the Union-War-Government on this issue. The Budget is really the vital issue on which a Government exists.	If	I vote against
the Government it means that ' I want to turn the Government out. That is the meaning of my vote. There is no escape from that position. Even though a small number vote against the Government, their declaration is that the Government should be defeated. In all solemnity I am not prepared to face that issue. In view of the policy on which we were elected and in view of the vast majorities, hundreds of thousands, which were rolled up in the West for the Unionist candidates, manifestly the idea of the people was to win the war, and the Government is still engaged in that great task. So, after considering this question carefully, I cannot bring myself by my vote to say that the Government ought to be turned out of office. It would seem to me rather to be my duty to tender to this House the resignation of my seat than vote against the Government on this issue.
* In view of all considerations, I am utterly at a loss to see what other course I can conscientiously follow than support the Budget, even though, like many of my friends from the West, I should like to see certain changes made. The question is not my personal political fortunes which, possibly, are nil; but my duty as a citizen and as a member of the Parliament of Canada at this very critical time. I shall

therefore, Mr. Speaker, vote in favour of the Budget.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's); Mr. Speaker, I sympathize very heartily and very warmly with the desire of the members of the House who wish this debate to be brought to a very early conclusion, and with that object in view I shall try to respond to that very proper desire. Many things that one might wish to say under other circumstances may well be omitted. At an early stage of the session I had an opportunity of participating in a debate in the course of which tariff questions were much discussed. At that time I gave expression in general terms to my views on this tariff question, and inasmuch as the resolution in amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is largely, though not exactly, in harmony with the views which I then expressed, I shall vote for the amendment of the hon. gentleman.
There are one or two general questions to which I should like to make reference before coming to what seems to be the main question of the tariff. From one aspect I am sure that the House
1 a.m. generally will sympathize with the Minister of Finance in the duty he had to discharge in bringing forward the Budget at the present session. He had indeed a large responsibility and great difficulty, and the best that any Minister of Finance could do under the circumstances would surely fail to satisfy all interests. That I fully realize.
The fiscal situation generally, as disclosed by the address of the hon. gentleman, is a very grave and serious one. Possibly from some viewpoints it might be considered an alarming one, though if we have regard to the events of recent months and years, perhaps we could expect no better situation than that which he discloses. Our Budget is running into such enormous figures that I am afraid many of our people absolutely fail to appreciate their meaning. The ordinary man in the street does not quite comprehend, unless the matter is pressed upon his attention, what it means when we say that we have at this moment a net debt-not a gross debt, but the gross debt less assets which are claimed to be good- a net debt of something over $1,500,000,000, and that when this fiscal year upon which we have entered closes, it is the expectation of the Minister of Finance that our net debt will be close upon $2,000,000,000. These are vast figures-figures, which as I said a moment ago, the ordinary man has some difficulty in comprehending.

If time permitted I would like to make some comparisons to help each of us to understand just exactly what that means. It is only by comparison sometimes that we can understand things. In my boyhood days I remember the Great Eastern, that famous steamship, coming into Halifax harbour. We all knew from our information concerning her that she was a great ship, but we did not realize how big she was until some of the small harbour vessels passed alongside of her. Comparisons and contrasts are thus very helpful, and, as I say, if time permitted, and we could make some comparisons between the figures of our past finance and the figures we shall have to face now and in the early future, they would be very helpful.
For example, on March 31, 1914, our net debt was $335,000,000. That had been the accumulation of forty-seven years of the history of the Dominion. During these years great public works had been entered upon, vast railway systems had been constructed, the canal system had been extended, and public works of all sorts had been constructed, and the net result of it all was that in the year 1914 our net debt stood at $335,000,000. That was thought then to be an enormous sum.
When the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway was undertaken, many thoughtful people doubted the wisdom of the assumption by the country of the burdens that were proposed, deeming them rather heavier than the country could bear. In more recent years, when the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific was undertaken, many thoughtful men were of the opinion that the burden which was to be assumed at that time was more than the country could bear. Well then, if there was doubt of the ability of Canada to bear the burden necessary for the construction of the Canadian Pacific; if there was doubt as to our ability to stand the burden of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if in 47 years of our history we rolled up what was thought to be the great debt of $335,000,000, what must be our thought now when we reflect, as we shall at the end of this current year, that in the last four, or as it will then be, five years, which may be called five war years, that net debt of $335,000,000 has been multiplied by six? That is to say, in five years we have added five times as much to the net debt of Canada as was created during the whole of the 47 years of our previous history.
It is by comparisons of this sort that we come to realize the magnitude of the burden which we are called upon to bear. We must all bear it cheerfully; it was assumed for what the whole country deems was a great cause. Although we contend that in this particular item or that particular item, there was extravagance and wastefulness, still, the net result is that this burden has to be borne.
The interest charge on our national debt will in itself amount to more than $100,000,000; that thought is enough to make us reflect on the whole subject. In the year 1914 our total expenditure chargeable to Consolidated Revenue Fund was $127,000,000; now we shall have to bear an interest charge of almost that amount, or over $100,000,000. Pensions will add largely to the burden. All these things go to show that there is great need of economy. And how is economy to be practised? Not with the matter of interest; that must be paid. Not with the matter of pensions; no man will want to economize in lhat, because it is a debt of honour which we are all proud to pay. So that if there is to be economy, it must be in connection with the administration of the ordinary affairs of Government, such as we had to deal with before the war.
Now, the Estimates for the current year do not indicate such economy as many would desire, and there has been much criticism, even from warm friends of the Government, of the proposed expenditure. I think however, that some allowance should be made for the Government in this respect. The minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell) stated very frankly that he was making some appropriations for what he thought -would be useful services, but keeping in mind the danger and the risk of unemployment. I think there is something in that, as applied to the current year. I look upon the coming winter as a time of considerable anxiety. When we are passing through the summer season, conditions are not so bad as they are apt to be when the severity of winter comes on. Our returned soldiers have all been given a very liberal, though not too liberal, grant on demobilization. They have some money in pocket, and they can all face the situation now, but by the time winter comes many will have disposed of that money and if there is unemployment at that time the situation will be a very grave one indeed. I make some allowance, therefore, for the Government this year, in that they are trying to guard against such a condition by making appropriations which under other

to pay a higher rate of interest and not to continue the system of tax exemption.
I discussed the tariff generally at an earlier stage of the session, and there is less reason why I should dwell upon it now, but I cannot help giving expression to this thought. Nearly all the arguments that have been advanced in support of the tariff changes are really arguments why there should be no change at all. Many hon. members have said that this is not the time to make tariff changes. The Minister of Finance himself spoke of the great desirability of tariff stability, and then he proceeded to upset the tariff.
And whispering " I will ne'er consent,",-[DOT] consented.
All through the discussion we have found the argument used that the time has not arrived for tariff changes. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Cal-der) dwelt upon that very strongly. He said that he did not see why there was any need of change at all. I do not say that I subscribe to that view; from my point of view, that would not be the wisest course, but from the point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite, they could have logically taken the ground that this was not the time for tariff changes; that the Government has no mandate. But while many of them argued that this is not the time for tariff changes, they proceeded to make tariff changes and not inconsiderable ones either. A reduction of 5 per cent on British goods is not a very inconsiderable change. Older men will recollect, and those who have read the political history of Canada when they were younger, will remember, that a great political party went out of power in 1878 on the question of a duty of 2i per cent. The duties of . that day were 17i per cent, and the manufacturers interested asked Mr. Alexander Mackenzie to make them 20 per cent. He said he would not do it and they put him out of power. A change of 2| per cent in the tariff is, therefore, not inconsiderable. Accordingly, the reduction in the duty of 5 per cent, and in some instances of 7^ per cent, is not an inconsiderable item. It is a very important change, and all I care to say now is that while I am not objecting to the changes that are being made, I regret that the arguments which most of the hon. gentlemen have used have been of the same character; they have given us good reasons for no change being made, but they are all going to vote for the changes all the same. I regret I did not have the pleasure this afternoon of hearing the Min-

ister of Finance speak. Had I been aware that he was going to address the House, I would have endeavoured to be present, although I had an important engagement elsewhere. I have, however, had the pleasure of reading what my hon. friend said and it is very interesting.
A very interesting feature of this Budget is the various reasons given in support of it. I have already mentioned the reasons given in favour of doing nothing in support of a Budget which professes to do a good deal. But one of the most interesting reasons that I have heard given for the support of this Budget is that it is a reciprocity Budget. That is something which interests me very much, and if I might say so, without being offensive, it amuses me a little bit. To understand fully the humour of the situation we must go back to the year 1911. Prior to that time my good friend the Finance Minister of to-day (Sir Thomas White) was a Liberal in full communion, I believe, with what he and I would then call the grand old Liberal party. Prior to 1911, when things were said against that party, he gave them no sympathetic hearing. When a foolish man said that the Liberal party had not lived up to their promises the Finance Minister of to-day never allowed any nonsense of that sort to affect him in the least. When accusations of mismanagement and corruption were made against the Liberal party the Finance Minister ot to-day paid no attention to them. When the Prime Minister of to-day in an election campaign said that the mere fact that the Liberal Government was spending $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 was conclusive evidence of corruption- I wonder what he would say about the $600,000,000 that is being spent to-day, the Minister of Finance of to-day did not share that view. He knew better. When the various public works of that time were constructed and all sorts of accusations of wTong-doing were made in that connection, the Finance Minister of to-day paid no attention to such cries. He stood true blue. And when that awful crime was committed of undertaking to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we sometimes hear of that awful crime today, in spite of all that was said and done against that project the Minister of Finance of to-day was perfectly content; he had no fault to find. So you see he stood faithful down to a certain point, but the worm will turn, the line must be drawn somewhere and my hon. friend found the moment when he could no longer stand for the wickedness which was then present. What

was that wickedness? There was a proposal made absolutely to have an exchange of trade with the United States. My hon. friend could not stand that; he could not stand it for a moment. He, followed by seventeen other gentlemen, formed the Noble Eighteen of Toronto, shook the dust of Liberalism from their feet, and from that time forward identified themselves with the enemies of Liberalism. On that great issue we lost the valuable services of my good friend the Minister of Finance of to-day. And now what do we find? I find the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden) in the very interesting speech he gave us the other day using this argument:
I would like to remind hon. gentlemen apposite that some of the best features in the Budget the Finance Minister has brought down are features to which they gave devoted allegiance in a pact which was introduced only a few y;ars ago
So we are asked by the hon. member for Brandon to recognize the fact that the Minister of Finance, who could not stand for any "truck or trade with the Yankees" in 1911, is now bringing down a Budget which contains many of the best features of the reciprocity agreement. "No truck or trade with the Yankees" was the slogan in 1911. It is true that the Minister of Finance has modestly disclaimed the authorship of that expression, but it was used in the campaign very generally, and no matter who was its author it was a correct and brief account of the campaign waged against the Liberal party of that time.
We have some further testimony. I find the very friendly Ottawa Journal, in its clever column of Parliamentary Correspondence, has the following on the subject:
As for reductions (net) on agricultural implements, western low tariff men should have no complaint in regard to them. They are the precise reductions provided for in Mr. Fielding's Reciprocity Act, Sir Thomas White having apparently taken the former's 1.911 proposals as his 1919 model. The same thing may be said of wheat, wheat flour and potatoes. They are made free just as was provided for by reciprocity with the added step towards Cobdenism, that they are made free not alone to the United States, but to any country which makes them free to us.
Then I come to the address of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). He gave us some testimony which is not quite as agreeable as I should like, but I must give it as it reads. He said:
I want to remind the leader of this Government, (Sir Robert Borden) and his Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) 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 deserted their colours-why they were afraid to mention the word "protection" in this House, and why, when it comes to delivering the 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 honourable gentleman who leads this House came into power in 1911 on the reciprocity cry, and without that protectionist cry I believe he would have been in the cold shades of Opposition up to the present time.
So do I.
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, hut even he
never mentions the word " protection."	
I say that this Government ihave 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. 1 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.
	1 assert, therefore, that the
proposals of the minister are quite different to the platform on which he was elected, because he was elected on a policy which was opposed to reciprocity or to free trade with the 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 hones of contention in that tariff schedule of 1911.
So you have testimony, not from me, though I try to give impartial testimony, but from parties more directly friendly to the Government, including its loyal supporter the hon, member for Brantford, that the policy which these gentlemen have brought down now is in' gross and flagrant violation of the policy on which they drove the Liberal Party out of power in 1911. I understood that the Minister of Finance this afternoon-and I again apologize for not having the pleasure of listening to his address-made the remarkable statement that the only objection he had to the reciprocity arrangement was that there was an agreement. I have read that passage in his speech once or twice, and I am hound to say I do not know what it means. I do not know whether he cares to explain what he meant when he said that his only objection was that there was an agreement.


William Thomas White: If I recollect
aright, I said that the chief objection I had was the same objection that Hon. George Brown had when the question of renewing the reciprocity agreement arose after 1866. The objection that he had was that no agreement should be entered into so as to bring the Canadian tariff into

American politics. That is one of the chief objections I had to the reciprocity agreement.


Mr. FIELDING:: I must say that I fail to understand the objection of my hon. friend about an "agreement." Every transaction that you have with another party involves some sort of an agreement, and T am amazed to find my hon. friend say that he objects to an agreement. Does he say that he objected because the agreement was a binding agreement?


William Thomas White: The agreement
had a denouncing clause, it is true, but in substance and in effect it would have been a binding agreement, and that was the objection I had. That objection which the Hon. George Brown had was precisely that which I have mentioned. If my hon. friend will look up the negotiations at the time I am speaking of he will find that that was a strong objection taken by as good a Liberal as there ever was in the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it is necessary to look up what Mr. George Brown or anybody else said about some other agreement. We have the simple facts of this agreement. We went to Washington and came to an understanding which was embodied in correspondence. The letters exchanged amounted in a sense to an agreement. The best kind of agreement with some people is what is known as a "gentleman's agreement." There are people who will regard a debt of honour as a much greater obligation than an ordinary transaction, and there are nations *which will live up to a gentleman's agreement although they will not make a written agreement. We have a gentleman's agreement with Japan. There is not a scrap of paper confirming it, but Japan has lived up to the agreement. Now, what were the words of this agreement which we had with the United States? I do not intend to occupy very much of the time of the House, but I do not think there will be any serious objection to my reading the passage in question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Thomas White: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask him a question?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


William Thomas White: Was not this to be a written agreement validated by legislation?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes sir, but a written agreement which could be terminated at

any moment at the will of either party. Again and again, by the opponents of that agreement, it was represented as' something that was going k>
tie the hands of Canada. Well, nobody objected to the reciprocity of 1854 because it would tie the hands of Canada. Every bargain you make with any man ties your hands so long as it exists. In the case of this agreement at Washington it was not our desire that it should take the form of a treaty, and I frankly state that it was my view that Canada should not be bound to a treaty but should make an agreement which could be put into operation and, if it proved beneficial to both countries, it could then be confirmed by a treaty. What are the words in that portion of the letters exchanged in relation to the agreement? ' This letter is signed by myself and my lamented friend, Mr. William Paterson, and is addressed to the Secretary of State at Washington. The passage to which I refer reads:
The Governments of the two countries having made thi" agreement from the conviction that, if confirmed by the necessary legislative au-thirities. it will toerefit the people on tooth sides of the border line, we may reasonably hope and expect that the arrangement, if so cm tinned will remain in operation for a con-sidei able period. Only this expectation on the part of tooth Go, ernments would justify the time a* d labour that have been employed in the maturing of the proposed measures. Nevertheless. it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to hind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, hut that each of these authorities shall he absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may he deemed1 expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound' to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to toe established will he viewed hy the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations how happily prevailing and promote the commercial interests of both countries.
That was the kind of agreement which my hon. friend said he could not stand for. He said to-day: What have we to-day without the agreement? We have free wheat and free flour. Free wheat? Oh, yes; but who heard the story of free wheat in 1911? Were we not told that if wheat were carried from North to South instead of West to East, the lines of the Canadian Pacific railway would become rusty through nonuse? Were we not told that? My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) said that free wheat was one of the great bones of contention, and we were told that if there was one thing in the agreement more than another which would be fatal to the commercial interests of the country, it was that

we should have free wheat. And before long what happened ? My hon. friend, elected to office purely and simply because of his opposition to reciprocity and because of his opposition to free wheat-because he would have no truck nor trade with the Yankees-soon went to Washington and Wall street, hat in hand, and begged those despised Yankees to lend him money to carry on the Government. What have we to-day without the agreement?-my hon. friend asks. We have free wheat, and he rejoices over the fact. But let him hesitate a bit in his rejoicing. The Canadian Reconstruction Association, which I think is a branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, sent the President, Sir John Willison, to study the question and he came back and reported that the reciprocity agreement which has hitherto remained on the statute book will not hereafter be honoured by the Americans. I will not blame them. For years the Americans were wrong in their negotiations, but there came a time when they were right and willing to forget the past and hold out the hand of fellowship. But unfortunately, owing to the action of hon. gentlemen in condemning all relations with the United States, Canada rejected the hand of fellowship, and if the American people were indignant in consequence, they cannot very well be blamed. But what is the state to-day? The reciprocity agreement is still on the statute book, but the Conservative press says: It is too late to talk of reciprocity now because the Americans will not stand for it. Well then, we have lost the benefit of seven or eight years which we would have had if we had accepted the hand of fellowship when the Americans were willing to stand for reciprocity. We are also told in the press that largely represents my hon. friend, that the whole trend of the United States now is towards high protection. The Republicans have come into power, they say, and there will be a revision of the tariff, and we are told that when that revision takes place it will be upwards in the direction of protection. That is the current story now, the report brought back by Sir John Willison. What does it mean? My hon. friend says we have certain things without the agreement, but we will not have many -according to their own story-so soon as the Americans undertake that revision. With the agreement we could have had these things not only for the last seven years but in the future, because out of that agreement, and through the operation of
it, there would have been an improvement in the relations between the two countries, and I have no doubt that the agreement could have been continued and converted into a treaty. We have lost these benefits for seven years, and according to the testimony of my Conservative friends, we are going to lose them all in the future, for they tell us that although the Americans to-day have given some concessions, they are going to abandon them at an early date.
Now, it is not with any great satisfaction that I am quoting these things regarding my hon. friend's departure from the faith of anti-reciprocity. Of course, I cannot fail to derive some amusement from them, and my hon. friend will admit that I have a good opportunity for that. But he would be a very sad, miserable, selfish, narrow man who, in the midst of his own rejoicing, could fail to take account of the sadness and sorrow felt elsewhere. I am rejoicing in the conversion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) the other day took credit to himself for having educated the minister in the advantages of income tax. Well, if my hon. friend is to be credited with being the preceptor of the minister in that respect,
I think I should claim credit for his education in the virtues of reciprocity, which virtues he has suddenly discovered and is commending in so many ways. I am ex- _ periencing some of that joy which we are told prevails in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, but I cannot fail to have some sympathy with those in distress. I cannot help thinking of the people of Toronto- good old Tory Toronto- who shouted for the hon. gentleman and made a hero of him simply because he was opposed to reciprocity, and for no other reason. Nor can I help having sympathy for those seventeen hon. gentlemen who broke away from the Liberal party because they would have nothing to do with the United States.
I cannot help feeling sympathy with the noble army of British-born and the Sons of England who rallied by the hundreds and thousands to defend the Old Flag against this dreadful crime. I cannot help but reflect upon the sadness and sorrow that enters their soul to-day as they find the hon. gentleman has broken away from the faith. And last, but not least, I cannot help but think of the anguish of that good Tory constituency of Leeds-Leeds that elected George Taylor. That is the kind oi constituency Leeds was. Our dear old friend who has passed away was the embodiment of all that was Tory. Leeds elected

Mr. Taylor for years, and then he made way for my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) to take his place. Why, without the antireciprocity cry the Minister of Finance could not have had a look-in in the county of Leeds. What must be the anguish oi the people in that constituency to-day as they find that the hon. gentleman has flung aside the very ladder by which he climbed into power. So I say that while I have great joy in the conversion of my hon. friend, while I welcome him and express my gladness for the returning sanity and health that has come to him, at the same time I must pay some regard to these suffering people whom he has, shall I say, deceived and betrayed-no, these are harsh words- who have been misled by the belief that he was really my opponent on reciprocity.
I am very sorry I have not kept my promise to speak very briefly. There are other features of the tariff question that I should like to speak about, but it is too late and too warm.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Stevens Fielding: I will be content with the observations I have already made, and thank the House very much for its attention.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: The hour is late, and I have no desire to delay hon. gentlemen, but I can assure the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the Sons of England and the British-born of Toronto will still vote in the regular old way; they will not be misled by any argument as to whether or not they were right in the matter of reciprocity in 1911. The hon. gentleman has said that we have recently received reciprocity. I might correct him by saying that while our duties in Canada have been lowered to the level of those, proposed by the United States, the American duties were lowered within six months or one year from the time reciprocity was defeated by these very same Sons of England and the British-born.
One of the other points made by the hon. gentleman was that we have to pay a debt approximately six times that which existed in 1911, when he was Minister of Finance, and he endeavours to throw the responsibility of that upon the members of the present Government and particularly upon the Minister of Finance. I believe that every mail in Canada, irrespective of politics, is proud of the fact that we have that debt. It is entirely due to the fact that Canada took her proper and legitimate place in the war that has so lately ended,

and furthermore the Government is not responsible for one dollar or one cent of the difference between the debt of 1911 and the debt of 1914. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. If normal conditions had prevailed the debt would have been reduced by the surplus of each year.
The hon. gentleman sees evidences of trouble in Canada during the coming winter. I would like to ask him whether he thinks that by supporting the amendment he will better conditions in this country? It is absolutely essential to the interests of Canada, -whether it be Ottawa or any other city in the Dominion, that our workmen should be employed. If these workmen are to be employed, and we must necessarily keep at work, we must establish stable conditions and the amendment of the hon. member for Brome will bring about the exact opposite of that.
We have two debates in Parliament, year by year, in which members can express their general ideas on the affairs of the country-to wit, the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, and the Budget debate. I might say, in order to allay all suspicion, and to follow the example of the hon. gentleman who has preceded me, that I intend to vote against the amendment and for the proposals brought in by the Finance Minister. I say this because I believe the amendment is not brought in in good faith, it is one of the old camouflage motions with which we, are so familiar, and while I do not agree altogether with the financial propositions of the Minister of Finance, I think he is, in these propositions, making an honest effort to unite the different interests in Canada.
During this debate we have had all schools of thought represented. We have had the opinions of the hon. member for Red Deer, the only outstanding apostle of free trade. I say "only" and the hon. gentleman shakes his head at the statement. Probably he may have obtained a convert, but I do not know of one. We have had the views of gentlemen who were in favour of protection only on luxuries, or in other words that all the necessaries of life should be freed. We have had hon. gentlemen like the leader of the Opposition who believe that all the unrest in Canada is due to the fact that unfortunately two years ago we passed what is Known as the Wartime Elections Act and debarred certain aliens from voting in Canada. Then we have heard an hon. gentleman on the opposite side, to wit the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) express the belief

that we should take the duty off button machinery, and that if the Union Government is defeated there will be no unrest in Canada. That hon. gentlemanl's proposition was to reduce or eliminate the duty on button machinery, and he lurthei believes the existing unrest in Canada is entirely due to the fact that the Union Government has been too long in power. We have had all these lines of thought expatiated upon. I believe that even the tariff question, with all its changes, and notwithstanding the fact that it appeals to every man and every woman in Canada, is not the principal thing in the mind of the average thinking man in this country. 1 believe that the two principal ideas in every man's mind are first, how to allay the labour unrest in Canada and second, to completely satisfy the returned soldier and to re-establish him in civil life.
We have various ideas as to what constitutes labour unrest or as to what the cause of it is. Personally, I' believe that the leading reason for labour unrest in Canada is the false standard of living which has 'been induced by the war, and this is true of all countries. Labouring men made money more easily than they had at any time previously in the course of their lives- They spent that money more freely and they have contracted habits which are hard to abandon. Secondly, I believe the cause of unrest amongst labour is fear as to the future. We have men, even in Parliament, so foolish as to believe that this country will at some time in the near future revert to the old order of things which prevailed before the war. I believe that every man in this House and every man in the country, for that matter, should " forget " that, to use a common expression and a short and simple one. We are not going back to the old conditions of pre-war days. We will never again see labour working for one dollar or less per day. We will never again see pre-war conditions, and consequently we will never see again the prices that prevailed before the war, whether those prices apply to the product of the farmer, the fisherman, the lumberman, or the manufacturer; and we may as well make up our minds now that we should do all we can to equalize matters, without attempting for one moment to drive either the labouring man or the farmer back to the conditions of pre-war times.
The third proposition in regard to the labour unrest is the propaganda instituted by the Bolsheviks, or the I.W.W., and I do not need to enter into this. It is not confined to the city of Winnipeg. It is present in every city of Canada, even in the city of Ottawa at the present time. Literature of a very obnoxious character is being circulated all through the country, and these men have no desire to do anything except create unrest, which will eventually lead to the dissolution of all our ordinary forms of government. The fourth cause is the supposed high cost of living.
Now, no matter what one of these four reasons a man may give for the labour unrest, he invariably damns the Government. It is not necessarily this Government, but if this is the handiest one it is the one he damns first. He damns all forms of government, and he blames every one of them. He blames the government for each of these conditions I have enumerated; and my friends who are opposed to the Budget today are adding fuel to the flames by saying the Government is responsible for those conditions.
Personally, I am in favour of all legitimate labour unions, and I believe that that is the attitude of the Government at the present time, as it is also the attitude of most of the members of this House. We are all in favour of lawful unions, but not of unlawful unions, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of every member of this House, whether on the Government or on the Opposition side, when this session is at an end-which we hope will be in a few days or weeks-to go back to his constituency and do everything that lies in his power as a citizen of Canada to allay the unrest that exists in his own riding, and to do nothing to increase that unrest, because in that event he is playing into the hands of these very men we are so desirous of suppressing.
Now, as regards the grievances of returned soldiers, it is true that some of their demands are excessive, but in most cases they are moderate and just. It is no answer to say that in many instances the trouble has been caused by neglect on the part of the soldier himself, or that his papers have been improperly made out through the fault of some one overseas. Delay in many eases is unavoidable, but every effort should be made to have all these mistakes remedied and the allowance rusutj on to tiie disabled soldier or to his widow and orphans. It is- the delay in securing justice in individual cases that gives rise to an excuse for a general cry against the policy of the Government. We have many eases, Mr. Speaker, where through neglect of the authorities on this side of the ocean



or on the other side some poor man or widow has heen deprived of the pension for weeks or months; and it can be readily understood how these cases, when ventilated before an audience of soldiers, give rise to a spirit of unrest. I. would plead with the Minister of Militia and with all those in authority that every effort should be made to rectify these mistakes at the earliest possible moment. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the soldier who left his family and business to fight for freedom should he, and will be, the best citizen, and that he will not allow the democratic institutions he fought for to be destroyed by the slacker or by the profiteer who stayed at home.
We have been told by many speakers during this debate that the tariff is responsible for the present high cost of living. But I would like to call attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have had practically the same tariff for many years. The largest reductions have been made by this
2 a.m. Government and previous Governments supported from this side of the House. We had the same tariff when prices were low. The Government was not then condemned for the high cost of living, and it cannot be legitimately condemned for the same thing to-day. It is quite true that in certain cases ad valorem duties have created a hardship. I happened to listen to my friend the member for Regina the other day when he brought up the question of dried fruits, and stated that the cost on the primary market, the country of origin, had increased 300 per cent, and consequently, of course, the ad valorem duty would increase to the same extent. In such a case I think the Government might be well advised, where the market fluctuates so violently, to put on a special duty. But I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that, after all, this matter-and it is one of the specific cases brought before the House-is a very minor one. The total duty on dried fruits last year was $166,000, and that included every variety of dried fruit imported into Canada.
I have listened with much interest, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). His panacea would be general free trade. I would like to call his attention for a moment to about one-tenth of the items I have on my list. We collected last year on automobiles and parts thereof $6,008,000. At the ordinary school rate of 6 to 10 mills per dollar, which is the average rate in the province of Ontario, this would mean an assessment upon

$600,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 of land value. This is an answer partly to the hon. member for Red Deer and to the ExMinister of Agriculture. In other words, four times that amount would represent I per cent upon all land at the valuation given by another member, which was $4,000,000,000. We received in duties last-year upon musical instruments-which, after all, would, I think, be legitimate game for tariff-$1,039,000; upon fruits and nuts, $2,264,000; upon hats and bonnets, $1,090,000; upon meats of all kinds, $3,265,000. I would like my hon. friends to come down to some of the counties of Ontario and repeat to the farmers there the speeches they are making, first, as regards deserted farms in Ontario and, secondly, as regards protection. This duty of $3,265,000 at most cannot be more than 14 cents a pound, and cannot be responsible for that very alarming price of 60 to 65 cents a pound for bacon. We also received upon ribbons $451,000; upon perfumery, $161,000; upon paper and manufactures thereof,-largely fine writing paper; and if not fine writing paper, it should not come into Canada, because we have all the raw material that we need for many years to come-$2,139,000; upon jewellery, $300,000; upon fancy goods, $987,000; upon -curtains, $105,000; upon corsets, $135,000; upon buttons-in spite of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), depreciating the fact that all the button machines had t-o pay duty, they apparently kept their prices high enough in North Waterloo to force us to import from other countries and to pay $296,000 duty on buttons alone; on books, $991,000; on oilcloth and matting, $735,000; on photo instruments, 1 $254,000; on silks, $3,486,000. Will the hon. gentleman say that we should have free trade in that article also, and proceed to collect that amount of revenue from the farmers?
The revenue collected from duty on spirits amounted to $3,709,000. That is a past luxury; we may not get that next year. The figure for soap is $282,000, for tobacco, $813,000, and for vegetables, $1,070,000.
I now come to an item which has been very much discussed, at least throughout Ontario-that of boots and shoes. We received by the way of duties on leather boots and shoes,, imported from all countries last year, $934,000, or practically 12 cents per head of population. I venture to say that ninety per cent of these shoes were high grade shoes for the city trade only. Travellers for American concerns do -not go to the small towns and villages;

they supply their goods entirely to the city trade. In proof of that I have only to point out that there are two items in the customs tariff for boots and shoes, one for leather boots and shoes, not otherwise provided, and the other for boots, riveted, nailed or wire-fastened. The latter are the shoes worn by the farmers around the farm or workingmen in the factories. How much do you suppose we received last year by way of duties on these shoes? The magnificent sum of $3,000.	$3,000 for the
workingman's shoe as against $934,000 for the shoe that is used in the city; yet the farmers are told that they are being robbed by the shoe manufacturers. When it comes down to the ordinary every-day shoe, we must remember that it is not imported into Canada, for the simple reason that the Canadian manufacturer turns it out at a price which does not justify importation from the American manufacturer.
iThe items that I have enumerated, which comprise a very small number of the items in the tariff and a comparatively small number of those items which may be properly be classed as luxuries, represent a duty 'Sf $30,641,000 or a tax of 10 mills, or 1 cent, upon the dollar on every $3,000,000,000 of land assessment. If you destroy the tariff on these items alone and place a tax upon the land to raise the necessary revenue, you will tax the land [DOT]on a basis of one cent on the dollar without regard to any of the other items in the tariff. The items which I have mentioned amount to $30,000,000, but our total collections through the customs last year amounted to $161,000,000.
A return was brought down a few days ago showing that the total duty paid upon agricultural implements during the fiscal year 1918 was $4,617,000, of which the country lying west of the Great Lakes paid $2,713,000; and that upon these implements the war tax was $1,500,000, of which the West paid $949,000. If you divide that among the farms in the West, which, according to the latest statistics, number 218,000, you will get back almost exactly to the figure quoted by the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) last night. You will find that the average duty , paid by the farmers of the West upon implements, regardless of the size of their farms, which, according to the statistics available last year, averaged a little over 355 acres, was less than $25 per year. Comparing that with the amount they -would have to pay under a land tax, I am sure that the farmer of the West would be satisfied with the taxes as they are.
The proposals of the Finance Minister provide for considerable reductions in the'-tariff. We have been told by the various-members from Western Canada that they would rather have seen the Government: make no changes at all than make the^ changes they did. I cannot believe tltaf they are in earnest when they say that, or, if they are in earnest, that they represent public opinion in their own ridings. I am sure that a great deal of this is camouflage, and that the reason for much of it is found in the fact that nominations are proceeding in the Western Provinces at this time. Surely they cannot expect the Government, facing as it does a very large deficit, to make material changes in the tariff without full investigation.
I have already spoken on the matter ol reciprocity, and I shall not deal with it on this occasion. Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the establishment of a regular financial board or committee which will have absolute control of the tariff and which should make recommendations to the Government from time to time. I have no doubt in the world that certain manufacturers in Canada do take advantage of the tariff on certain lines; I am quite willing to admit, from my knowledge as a business man, that such is the case. But I am equally honest in saying that the great majority of the manufacturers in Canada do, I believe, make up their price lists entirely irrespective of any duty which may or may not be imposed upon the articles which they manufacture and sell. The prices of articles manufactured in Canada are, in the main, fair to the Canadian producer; that is proved by the fact that we do not import similar articles from the United States or from any other country.
I regret that while the Minister of Finance has spoken very strongly in favour of increasing our output from the land, the mine, the forest and the field, he has not seen fit to give some assistance to the iron ore industry in Canada. Some arrangement should have been made along this line, because the production of this mineral is carried out on a basis entirely different from that on which other minerals are produced.
Thfe facts are these. We are facing a debt of practically 12,000,000,000. The annual interest charges on this debt will be $115,000,000; our pensions will amount to $35,000,000 or $40,000,000, and in addition we have the regular expenses of the country. We are asked to produce and save, but the Government must assist by aiding new fields of production wherever necessary-in connection with the products of the field, the

'forest, the fisheries*, the mine, or the manufacturing industries-for the general advantage of the people. I appeal to all members of the House to drop politics and to unite to make Canada a great country, worthy in peace of the place our boys made for her in war.
Lt.-Col. CYRUS W. PECK, V.C. (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, in rising at this late hour and in this depressing heat to address the House I feel that I have some apology to offer, but I wish to explain my position and will do so in the briefest possible way.	At the outset, I wish
to welcome back to the House the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) from his labours at the Peace Conference. I congratulate him upon the position that he attained at that conference and upon the ability and the dignity with which he represented us in the council of the nations
I cannot agree with .some hon. gentlemen in this House that he should have remained at home. The important part that Canada played in the war, the vigour and chivalry with which she entered the conflict, her unselfish determination to prosecute the war to the uttermost, the glory of her arms on those historic battlefields, all demanded1 that her leading statesman should be consulted upon the conditions of peace-Therefore, it was most fitting that the man who was foremost in Canada, not only because of his position as Prime Minister and as a first citizen of Canada from the beginning of and throughout the whole war, but foremost because of the fact that it was his unflagging zeal, his unswerving fidelity, his inexhaustible patience and his lofty patriotism that had managed to keep a Government together at all times, a Government whose chief business it was to support our armies in the field and to -employ its whole energies in winning the war-I say it was fitting that this man- should be the one who should sit amongst the leading statesmen of all countries, and deliberate upon the vast problems that were to be considered and the future status of the world. It will always, I am sure, foe a matter of pride, and satisfaction to him to remember that he was at the head of our Government when Canada emerged from her swaddling clothes and took her place in the world as a nation of first-class importance.
I now wish to pass on with all possible rapidity to a discussion of the Budget. I would not detain the House except for the fact that I have professed certain ideals

throughout my life, and now in our system of politics there has to come a time in the House when we must vote one way or the* other, and I want to explain why I am going to vote as I intend to do.
I notice some people have been thinking that too much money is being spent on the returned soldiers. I simply want to say, in passing, that I do not think enough ha-s been spent upon them. We should spend more money in gratuities and pensions and things of -that sort, and while we have the Soldier Settlement Board, a very good thing, and one which I wish to give all the praise I can, we should endeavour to settle the soldier in other walks of life. I want to tell the House from my experience of these men during all the grim years of war, that now in our time of trial the one we shall have to rely on is the returned soldier, and I prophesy that he will be the great balance wheel regulating our Governmental machine now that the lean and grimy hand of Bolshevism is clutching at the reins of Government. I cannot be made to believe that our soldiers who have been fighting for four years to uphold law and order in Europe are going_ to come back and tear it down in Canada."
As for the Budget, I regret that I do not like it. I have been a free trader all my life, and with me that is a matter of conviction. It is nothing that I can cast off as one casts off one's garments in Ottawa in the hot summer days. It has been the conviction of a lifetime, and I have not come back here after four years of war to dissemble my views before my fellow countrymen. I am strongly in favour of free trade. In considering the Budget, I wish to discuss two questions. The first one is: What was the attitude of the Government when it appealed to the people? I think I rather agree with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. C'alder) that the tariff wias not an issue when the Government appealed to the country. In this regard, I disagree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). At the same time,
I think everybody will agree that the tariff was not a very important issue in that election, because the great, paramount and all-important question was the winning of the war, and we cannot expect a Government to do more than live up to its promises. As regards the hon. member for Red Deer, I always admire the stand he takes-and I think his robust eloquence in reference to this matter of free trade stands out in singular contrast to the boring platitudes of politicians in this country.

Coming to the question of how I shall vote on the Budget, the first thing I wish to consider is what result will occur if we turn the Government out, as regards, first, the general condition of the country and, second, what Government would take its place, because I mean to vote on this Budget (although people may say: Your vote will make little difference) just as if my vote was to turn the Government out. I would simply say that just at the present time in this country we are confronted by very serious conditions. I certainly do not take the pessimistic view that some people do who think that we are all to be swallowed up by a black revolution. I have an infinite faith in the calm good sense of our Canadian people, and therefore, I do not think we are going to have a revolution. At the same time, no one will deny that we are at this moment confronted with an anxious situation, because we must admit that in some parts of the country the leadership of labour has passed from the hands of our good, sane, sensible, solid labour men into the hands of men whose ideals are foreign to us, foreign to our Government, foreign to our institutions and foreign to those ideals which you and I, Sir, and all of us learned at our mothers' bosoms and our fathers' knees. On that ground, therefore, I do not think I can take the responsibility of voting this Government out of power and bringing on a general election at this time. If the present Government were defeated, the Prime Minister would have to advise the Crown to call upon the leader of the Opposition to form a Government, and an election would ensue. I do not imagine the leader of the Opposition is very anxious just now to assume the reins of Government, and some of his followers have, I understand, expressed themselves to that effect. I cannot help remembering at this time the speech of the leader of the Opposition of May 9. When I came back from the West I read this speech, and I thought at first I was reading a speech of some very high protectionist or some article in some high protectionist newspaper The Liberal .party are to hold a national-convention on the 8th of August. The light, I believe, is still in the window; at least, we have had no formal notification of its having beien removed except in the case of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), I understand that if he ever drags his weary and prodigal footsteps back to that " light in the window," the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) means to pull down the blind. We shall all watch that convention with the greatest possible interest, and we shall examine very closely the platform that is going to be brought down. I want, in the most friendly possible manner, to tell the leader of the Opposition and the gentlemen sitting behind him who will have -a great deal to do with formulating the policy on which they will appeal to the electorate at the next election, that if they wish to attract the Liberal thought of this country, if they wish to appeal to the men in this country who want better things, if they want to catch the rising tide of democracy on the flood, they will have to present a better programme than has been foreshadowed in the speeches of the leader of the Opposition and his supporters during this session.
Therefore I say that in view of the situation in this country, in view of the Government we might expect to obtain in place of the present one, and in view of what we might obtain from that Government in the way of free trade, I am not prepared to take the responsibility at the present time of voting the Government out. After all, I think this is a Budget of expediency, but this being a time of expediency, I think it more expedient to vote for the Budget than to vote against it.
In conclusion, let me say just this: I stand for an increase in the income tax, for an inheritance tax, and above all for a tax on the unimproved value of land. I stand for greater and better and. grander things than anything contained in proposals of the Budget, or that is camouflaged in the amendment of -the Opposition.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before putting the question, I wish to say that when the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) was submitted I reserved judgment as to its validity, because, at first view, it bore resemblance to one presented by the hon. member at an earlier stage of the present session. A careful examination, however, discloses that while a portion contains some matter substantially the same as contained in the amendment previously referred to, there is a portion entirely new, and a large part of the former amendment has been omitted. This being the case, the present amendment may properly be regarded as new within the meaning of the Rules. In coming to this conclusion I am supported by decisions heretofore given in this House, which also would appear to be in conformity with the practice in the British House of Commons.


Mr. PAKENT:: 
Mr. KENNEDY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). Had I voted I would have voted for [DOT]the amendment.


William Thomas White: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
House divided on the motion of Sir Thomas White, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into

Committee of Ways and Means, .which was agreed to on the following division:
Yeas.
Messieurs
Allan,	Knox,
Ames (Sir Herbert),	D&lor,
Anderson,	Dang,
Andrews,	Doggie,
Argue,	Dong,
Armstrong (York),	Mackie (Edmonton),
Armstrong (Dambton),	Mackie (Renfrew),
Arthurs,	Maclean (Halifax),
Ballantyne,	Maclean (York),
Ball,	McCurdy,
Best,	McGibbon (Muskoka),
Blair,	McGregor,
Blake,	McIntosh,
Bolton,	Mclsaac,
Bonnell,	McDeod,
Borden (Sir Robert),	McQuarrie,
Bowman,	Maharg,
Boyce,	Manion,
Boys,	Marshall,
Brien,	Martin,
Burrell,	Meighen,
Butts,	Merner,
Calder,	Mewburn,
Carvell,	Middlebro,
Casselman,	Morphy,
Chaplin,	Munson,
Charlton,	Myers,
Charters,	Nesbitt,
Clark (Bruce),	Nicholson
Clarke (Wellington),	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Clements,	Nicholson, (Algoma),
Cochrane,	Nickle,
Cooper,	Paul,
Cowan,	Peck,
Crothers,	Redman,
Crowe,	Reid (Grenville),
Cruise,	Richardson,
Davidson,	Rowell,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Scott,
Douglas (Cape	Sexsmith,
Breton S. & Rich.),	Shaw,
Edwards,	Sheard,
Elkin,	Simpson,
Finley,	Smith,
Foster (York),	Stacey,
Fraser,	Steele,
Fripp,	Stevens,
Fulton,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Green,	Sutherland,
Grieshach,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Guthrie,	Thompson (Hastings),
Halladay,	Thompson (Yukon),
Harold,	Tolmie,
Harrison,	Tudhope,
Hartt,	Tweedie,
Hay,	Wallace,
Henders,	Whidden,
Hocken,	Wigmore,
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Wilson (Wentworth),
Keefer,	Wilson (Saskatoon),
Kemp (Sir Edward),	Wright,-H20.
Nays.	
Messieurs	
Archambault,	Bureau,
Boland,	Cahill,
Boivin,	Campbell,
Bourassa,	Cannon,
Boyer,	Casgrain,
Brouillard,	Chisholm,
Buchanan,	Clark (Red Deer),
Cockshutt,	McCrea,
Copp,	McGibbon
Crerar,	(Argentueil),
d'Anjou,	McKenzie,
Davis,	Michaud,
Delisle,	Molloy,
Demers,	Murphy,
Denis,	Pacaud,
Desaulniers,	Pardee,
Devlin,	Parent,
Duff,	Pedlow,
Ethier,	Pelletier,
Euler,	Power,
Fafard,	Prevost,
Fielding,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Fontaine,	Robb,
Fournier,	Ross,
Gervais,	Savard,
Hunt,	Seguin,
Jacobs,	Sinclair (Antigonish
Johnston,	& Guysboro.),
Kay,	Sinclair
Danctdt,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Dapointe	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
(St. James),	Tobin,
Deduc,	Trahan,
Deger,	Truax,
Lemieux,	Turgeon.
MacNutt,	Vien,
McCoig,	White (Victoria),-70. PAIRS.
(The list of pairs	is furnished by the Chief Whips.)
Messieurs	
Sifton,	Lapointe (Kamouraska),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Stewart (Lanark),	Gladu,
Foster, Sir George	Papineau,
Cronyn,	Gauvreau,
Bristol,	Kennedy,
Glass,	Cardin,
Burnham,	Proulx,
Ch&bot,	Gauthier,
White, Sir Thomas,	McMaster,
Currie, J. A.	Fortier,
Spinney,	Marcile (Bagot),
Hepburn,	du Tremblay,
Tremaine,	Lafortune,
Porter,	Lavigueur,
McLean (Royal),	Verville,
Mowat,	DfichSne.
The House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Progress reported.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that a message had been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate accedes to the request of the House of Commons for a free conference to consider the Bill No. 19 (Letter A of the Senate), intituled: "An Act to consolidate and amend the Railway Act," and any amendments which at such conference it may be desirable to make thereto, and had appointed
[Stage Direction]
the Honourable Messieurs Blain, Foster, Lougheed (Sir James, K.C.M.G.), Ross (Middleton), McLennan, Power, Dandur-and and Bostock, as managers on their part at the said free conference.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 3.15 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, June 19, 1919.