CANADA MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 133, to amend the Canada Medical Act, being Chapter 137, R.S.C., 1906, as amended by Chapter 16 of the Acts of 1911.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Explain.


Mr. McKENZIE:: This Bill was sent to me by one of the leading men of the profession with a view to my bringing it before the House. The proposed amendment has to do largely with the fees which are now charged members of the medical profession from different parts of the provinces before they can attend the Council. It is thought that they should be permitted to attend the Council without paying these fees.
[The Chairman. ]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) Bill No. 134 was introduced and read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I should like to ask the Government whether it is true that the Imperial Government has appointed an Imperial Board of Investigation for the purpose of inquiring into trade relations between different parts of the British Empire; whether Sir George Perley has been appointed a member of that board, and when the findings of the board, if such has been appointed, may be expected. I should also like to know whether the board will inquire into trade or tariff agreements, and into the tolls or arrangements entered into between the different [DOT] shipping companies within the Empire?


Robert Laird Borden: If the honourable gentleman would allow his question to stand as a notice of motion,
I shall collect any information that is available.



SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: The press of Canada of Saturday last contained the letter of resignation of Lieutenant-Colonel McKelvey Bell, Director of Medical Services for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I should like to direct the attention of my right hon. friend to a sentence in Lieutenant-Colonel Bell's letter of resignation and ask a question with reference to it. After setting forth the reasons for his resignation, he says:
A partial investigation of the work of the department by competent business men and physicians would undoubtedly prove the soundness of the criticisms that I have made.
I desire to ask if it is the intention ot the Government to appoint such a Committee of investigation?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not had an opportunity of speaking to Sir James Lougheed with regard to the letter which has been made public, but it is my intention to do so at an early date.



INDUSTRIAL UNREST IN CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the Prime Minister give the House any information beyond what * appeared in the press this morning as to the labour troubles in Winnipeg and elsewhere in the West?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think I have anything to communicate beyond what has appeared in the press. The situation has been under the consideration of the Government during the past two or three days, but there is nothing to announce at the moment.



SPEECH OF THE MINISTER OF MARINE IN MONTREAL'. .

Mr. C. G. POWER (South Quebec):: I should like to ask whether the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) was speaking on behalf of the [DOT] Government when last Saturday he stated at Verdun that force would be used if necessary in connection with the Winnipeg strikes, and that preparations had been made accordingly?


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I was speaking as one of the members of this Government at a meeting of the Imperial Sons of the British Empire held in the city of Verdun (Montreal) on Saturday last. At that meeting I merely stated the views which the Prime Minister had already expressed in this House. The very brief account of my speech that appeared in one of the Ottawa papers this morning quoted correctly a portion only of my speech. Briefly, what I stated on Saturday was this: That the Government had no objection to or criticism to offer on organized labour; that on the contrary the Government looks with favour upon trades unions as we have known them to exist in this country. I proceeded to say that although a great many persons in the cities of Verdun and Montreal had found fault with the Government during the past month for not being sufficiently active or aggressive, the responsibility for maintaining order in connection with a strike such as that now on in Winnipeg rested first upon the municipal authorities, and next upon the provincial authorities. I then went on to quote what the Prime Minister had said, viz.: that if the authority of the Government of Canada were put in jeopardy; if His Majesty's mails or other public services were wilfully impeded, it became the duty of the Federal Government to see that in the conduct of the business of the people of Canada law and order should be preserved. I sincerely trusted, I said, that an amicable settlement would be arrived at, and I said that the Government had done everything in its power to attain this end, but that, in the unfortunate event of no amicable settlement being reached, and that if the exercise of constitutional authority were interfered with in the city of Winnipeg, it would become the duty of the Federal Government to see that law and order be maintained there, even if force had to be used.



CREDIT TO RUMANIA OF $25,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):: Is there anything in the rumour that Canadian goods sold to Rumania are being paid for in Rumania Government bonds at par while the market price is only 72?


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: I had already explained to the
House that the Dominion Government made an arrangement with the Government of Rumania whereby we made an advance of $25,000,000, charging interest at the rate of 5i per cent, which is the same rate we charge other governments. It is not a transaction in which we buy bonds; it is a transaction between the two governments for the purpose of establishing credits here, which will enable the products of Canada to be purchased by Rumania.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief of Simon John Fraser.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. Ill (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ann Scheib.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 114 (from the Senate), for the relief of Vernon Balm Bailey.-Mr. McCurdy.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eleanor Margaret Webster.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jean Donaldson Sifton.-Mr. Me-Master.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of Andrew Pepper.-Mr. Campbell.

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

*Mr. DESLAURIEBS:: 1.	Is there a legal time now in Canada?
2.	If not, does the Government intend to pass any measure to that effect during the present session?


Robert Laird Borden: Chapters 2 and 18 of the Statutes of 1918 are confined in their operation to the past year. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject during the present session. In other respects, the question relates to a matter of law, as to which an inquiry of this character is not appropriate or usual,


INLAND EEVENUE DEPAETMENT.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What was the expense of The Inland Revenue Department for the year 1911-12?
2.	What was the expense of the Inland! Revenue Department for the year 1917-18?
3.	What percentage of the receipts of the Inland Revenue Department w'as expended in defraying the expenses of the said department in each of the above fiscal years, respectively ?
Hon. Mr. SlFTON:
No. 1. $1,098,585.08.
No. 2. $1,791,012.17.
No. 3. 1911-12, five and seven-tenths per cent; 1917-18, six per cent.


HIGH OOMMISSIONEBSHIP OF CANADA.
Mr. BBOUILLAED:: Has Mr. Huntley Drummond, of Montreal, been offered the High Commissionership of Canada, in London, England?


Robert Laird Borden: Any necessary announcements in regard to such matters are always made in due course.


SHIPPING MASTEE AT BEAE EIVEE, N.S.
Mr. SINOLAIE (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: ,1. Is the position of Shipping Master at Bear River, N.S., vacant? If so, for how long?
2.	Who is performing the duties of Shipping Master at that point, and at what salary?
3.	When does the Government intend filling this office?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, since the 14th August, 1918.
2.	B. L. Warren, Sub-Collector of Customs.

3.	Applications for 'this position will be called for at once.


PUECHASE PEICE OF ICE-BREAKER MINTO.
Mr. SINOLAIE (Queens):: 1. How much was received for the Ice-Breaker SS iMinto, from the Russian Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means (resumed from Thursday, June 5.)
Mr. ANDEEW EOSS McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those of thanks to the Finance Minister for having so kindly allowed the debate to be adjourned from Thursday last in order to give to members of the House, and perhaps more especially to myself, an opportunity of considering in detail the various matters contained in his Budget proposals, I have to congratulate the minister for the clarity of his statement-except in regard to certain of the resolutions-if I cannot congratulate him on the completeness of the information laid before the House.
I have one word of praise to bestow upon him, before I proceed to the more ungrateful task of criticism, and that is that he has had the courage to tell the people of this country not to count very much on any war indemnities which we may get from our foes.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.
Mr. .McMASTER: There are two classes ' of claims against the Middle Empires: First, the claims of those unfortunate individuals who have seen their homes wrecked and their fields devastated, and!

which claims are, I take it, preferred claims. And then there are the claims of the various governments for the expenses of the war, which I would call ordinary claims. I would take it that it would be some time before those ordinary claims had any dividend declared upon them; and I would not like to hold out any hopes to the country that the dividend would amount to very many cents on the dollar.
I propose, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon, to follow somewhat, step by step, the speech delivered in the House on Thursday last by the Minister of Finance. I propose to criticise what demands criticism; and I first charge the Finance Minister with negligence and tardiness in bringing down his Budget. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has under his control financial operations of far greater magnitude than those which call for the care of our own Finance Minister, was able to bring down in his Budget speech on the 31st of April; but it was not until the first days of June that our Finance Minister was able to submit his proposals to this House. No measure of responsibility rests upon this side of the House for his delay. We had been, in the kindliest and still in the most persistent fashion, jogging his elbow and poking him gently in the ribs from time to time, and asking him when he was going to bring down this Budget. This is not a mere question of the convenience of members of this House. If it were, it would be a matter of small moment; but I say that the delay in bringing down the Budget caused financial stagnation in the country, because the manufacturers and merchants of Canada did not know where they were. Men in business and in manufacturing life were obliged to conduct their operations, if I may so term it, from hand to mouth, and the responsibility for this condition lies upon the Government.
The Minister of Finance first took up the financial operations for the five-year period from 1st April, 1914, to 31st March, 1919. He told us that in round figures the total expenditure on war account for these five . years amounted to $1,327,000,000, that the expenditure on current account ran to $832,750,000, and that the capital account for these five years of war stood at the great figure of $180,250,000; in all we spent during those five years $2,340,333,000. During that time the receipts from all sources amounted to $1,110,750,000. So that we ran behind during the war by $1,229,500,000.
The Minister of Finance quite properly said that the people did not grudge the
206i
expense of the war. That is true. The people of Canada did not grudge a single dollar that was expended skilfully and without extravagance. But the people, especially after they begin to pay their income tax, will wonder whether after all this Borden Administration-and I will point out very clearly before I finish that this is the Borden Administration,'-the Administration which is responsible for the purchase of decrepit horses, of dear drugs, of bad boots, -acted providently.
But these you say, are not matters of great importance. Well, they were matters of great importance. And, what is more, this Government was responsible during the term of the war for one of -the most profligate bargains that -was ever entered into on behalf of the people of Canada. I refer to the purchase of the Canadian Northern railway stock for $10,000,000. I will not discuss the question to-day as to whether that railway should have been taken over or whether a receiver should have been put in and the railway bought from the receiver, with a consequent loss to people who had invested money in that railway; but I do protest against a payment of $10,000,000 of the people's money for stock which the commissioners appointed by the Government declared to he pure water. The people of Canada took over this property burdened with $400,000,000 of debt. I know that the acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) may say that we only bought the stock, that we did not take over the debts. Well, the Government of Canada owns and operates that railroad, and to-day if the Government has any sense of honesty and equity it will have to see that the debts are paid and that interest is paid on the bonds outstanding. And, I believe it is doing so. How much had the road cost? The total amount of money which went into that road, according to the Drayton-Acworth report, was not more than $370,000,000, and the amount that the railway could have been sold for as a going concern was certainly less than the indebtedness against it which the Government has got to take care of. We arbitrated the value of stock which our own investigators had declared to be worth less than nothing, and this was done at the time when this great war debt was piling up. It is difficult to find fault with ih-e Minister of Finance,-his personality attracts men on both sides of the House,- but the people will not allow him to forget this bad bargain which he put upon theav

I am reminded in this connection of that ancient hymn, and if I might be allowed to paraphrase it I would say:
White moves in a most gracious way,
His blunders to perform.
Our debt will soon stand at $1,950,000,000. We find that $300,000,000 will be required [DOT]'for demobilization, and that sum will be borrowed in its entirety. How is this debt [DOT]distributed? The Finance Minister told us on Thursday last that Great Britain holds *$362,700,000 of our securities. The House will pardon me if these large figures do not [DOT]come as trippingly from my tongue as they do from the Finance Minister's. Perhaps it would be better for the country if we did mot deal in these large figures with such levity as we have been doing for the last few years. The United States hold $150,-
872,000,	while we have raised in Canada $1,510,000,000.
I would point out to the Minister of Finance that there seems to be-there may he an explanation for it-a discrepancy in the figures here. One figure is given at $1,550,000,000; but the total of the securities held in these three countries amounts to $2,023,000,000. Our net national debt on the 31st of March, 1919, was just about $1,584,-Ouu.000. The difference between the two billion odd-the amount which these three different classes of securities comes to-and the net debt, amounting to^almost half a billion, probably represents assets. It would have been interesting if he had explained this to us. Am I wrong in my surmise that these assets do not give an income, and that we have to pay interest today on something like $2,000,000,000?
Now, reverting for a moment to the fact, that our debt is held roughly one-quarter abroad and three-quarters in Canada, when the minister announced this fact rapturous cheers broke forth from the other side of the House. The Toronto contingent-amiable gentlemen-led in the applause that we owed to our own citizens $1,500,000,000. Mr. Speaker, you have heard of Mark Tapley. Mark Tapley was only really cheerful when things were going badly. If ever I hear that any members of the Toronto contingent have been in a motor accident and have each had only one leg broken I could imagine them lying on the ground and cheering faintly, but cheerfully, that they had not both legs broken !
We will grant that there are certain advantages in owing money at home. Absentee creditors, like absentee landlords, are less desirable than landlords or creditors at home. But everybody likes to own his own [Mr. MdMaster.}
house, and a creditor at home is sometimes more tiresome than a creditor who lives abroad. There is no reason for cheering, I beg to assure my friends from Toronto, because we owe $1,500,000,000 to our own citizens. The Government must collect from all the people the interest on this vast amount to pay it over to some of the people. And I wish to point this out, that the advantage of having home creditors is very much nullified, indeed, by the fact that our bonds were issued exempt from income tax. The people of Canada will have to pay interest on $1,590,000,000 owed to some of the people of Canada, and the people who own these bonds will contribute nothing by way of taxation in respect of the amount which is to be paid them by way of interests
The Finance Minister was very complacent with regard to the conditions of currency; he compared our position with that of other belligerents and he said that there was great cause for satisfaction. I distinctly disagree with him, and hope to be able to prove to the House and to the country that the minister's complacency is ill-founded.
Our currency, both Dominion notes and bank notes, is grossly inflated-an evidence of credit inflation, and a direct result of the issuance of flat money by this Government. Let us examine carefully into the figures. This matter is not easy to understand; I myself had to work at it for hours before I understood it. Although other gentlemen here no doubt will be able to grasp it much quicker than I did, I shall be very glad to repeat anything that does not seem to be perfectly clear.
On June 30, 1914, our Dominion notes outstanding amounted to $114,182,100-we will leave off the odd figures and talk only about the millions. These notes, amounting to $114,000,000, were distributed as follows. The chartered banks held in their own banking houses $92,000,000, in round figures, and they had deposited in the central gold reserve $2,500,000. So that the total owned by the banks and either held or deposited by them amounted to $94,500,000, while there was in general circulation among the public a further $19,500,000, or, to be exact, $19,517,618. For the redemption of Dominion notes the Government of that day held $92,663,575 in gold, against $94,500,000 held in the banks either in their own banking houses or in the gold reserve, plus $19,500,000 in general circulation. This [DOT]sum, as we see, more than sufficed to redeem in gold the entire amount of Dominion notes held by banks in their own banking houses,

3&15
and it was about eighty-five per cent of the whole.
Between June 30, 1914, and February 28, 1919, the Government increased the amount of its Dominion notes outstanding from
5114,000,000 to-what do you think, Mr. Speaker?-$306,000,000. On March 31, 1919, it stood just under $300,000,000-to be exact. $298,058,697.67.
Let us examine the way in which this increase has been made. Starting from June 30, 1914, when the Dominion notes outstanding amounted to $114,000,000, we find that the Dominion Government issued, up to February 28, 1919, against gold, $23,244,-000-of course there is no objection to that, the amount being issued against gold-and it issued to the banks upon deposits of approved securities under the Finance Act oi 1914, an additional sum of $70,528,000. Now, that was issued not against gold, but against securities which the banks deposited with the Government. The Finance Act of 1914 increased the limit of Dominion note issue upon which only twenty-five per cent gold backing is required from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000, and thus the Government was enabled to issue an additional $20,000,000 with a backing of only twenty-five per cent of gold. In that way $15,000,000 of what was practically fiat money was issued. In other words, if, before the Act was passed, the Government of the day wished to issue Dominion notes from $30,000,000 up to $50,000,000, every dollar bill had to be backed by an equal amount of gold; but by raising the limit within which they could issue Dominion notes with a backing of only twenty-five per cent of gold, they were able to issue an additional $20,000,000 and put only $5,000,000 of extra gold into the Treasury.
As regards the $70,528,000, no matter how sound the securities were, the issue constituted a very serious departure from our gold standard. These issues, added to the amount of notes outstanding on June 30, 1914, brought the total Dominion note issue up to $207,954,100. But in addition to these the Government has made further issues of Dominion notes which are now outstanding and against which no accretions in gold have been made to the note redemption fund. These were made up as follows. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company needed $6,000,000 and it came to the Minister of Finance for the money. The Minister of Finance, having at one time in his career been engaged in the newspaper business, had a fondness for printing, so he
set the printing presses to work and printed $6,000,000 of Dominion notes and issued, them. What were they backed by? They were backed by securities of the Grand 1 Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the value of which was the Government's own en-dorsation. So the Government took bonds -whose only intrinsic value was the Gov- -ernment's endorsement; they put these into the treasury, and they issued $6,000,000 against them.
Then another-I was going to say another deserving suppliant but I will not give the. name of " deserving " to the next suppliants for aid-came forward in the person of the-Canadian Northern Railway Company; They were less modest than the Grand: Trunk; they wanted advances of $10,000,-
000.	These advances were also made on the pledge of certain securities of the Canadians Northern Railway Company. Any value attaching to these securities was due to the endorsation of the Government; so that we may without unkindness denominate this issue also as an issue of fiat money.
Then, again, advances were made to the Imperial Government amounting to $50,000,000. These also were issued in Dominion notes backed by securities of the Imperial Government which were put in the strong-box of the Dominion. Our Bank Act provides for the issue of Dominion notes against Canadian securities endorsed by the Government of Great Britain and Ireland. But the securities against which this issue was made were not securities of Canada endorsed by the Imperial Government; they were direct obligations of the Imperial Government. Securities of the Canadian Government endorsed by the Imperial Government have, in times past, represented loans the proceeds of which have been spent in useful work in the development of this country, but these securities doubtless represented loans by the British Government for war purposes.
Further, we have had an excess issue of Dominion notes, made without additional security, amounting to $32,451,299. If a sound financial policy had been followed, these two sums, amounting to almost $100,000,000, would have been raised by taxation from the Canadian people, or, if that was found impracticable, raised partly by taxation and partly by borrowing from Canadian people.
But as matters now stand, the basic circulating medium of the Government, which on the 30th of June, 1914, stood at $114,182,100, backed almost dollar for dollar, that is to say, backed to the extent of

'about 85 per cent, has been diluted by an issue of almost $100,000,000 of currency, backed either not at all, or by securities which are non-liquid. It is, of course, 'elementary that such a dilution inevitably decreases the purchasing power of money, 'or in other words, increases the prices of commodities. And we have also a further indisputable proof of the debasement of our currency. A few years ago American bills and silver circulated quite freely in Canada. We see none now, because, under 'Gresham's law, the poorer money always [DOT]drives out the better; and obeying that law, though possibly quite unconscious of it, any one going into the United States, instead of taking Canadian money, or cashing a cheque in New York on his bank in Montreal or Toronto, collects, where such is available, American currency and takes that down to New York, because he wants to avoid the rate of exchange which is *against Canada and in favour of the United States.
To sum up, the situation on February 28, 1919, with respect to Dominion notes then outstanding was as follows:
Total of Dominion notes outstanding, $306,405,399; held by chartered banks, $185,932,418, as against only $92,114,482 held on the 30th of June, 1914. Deposited by the banks in the central gold reserves, $93,-
250,000,	as against $2,550,000 in June, 1914; while in circulation there was $27,222,981, as against $19,517,618, an increase in general circulation of about 39 per cent; while the increase of currency in bank notes has risen from $96,848,384 on the 31sit M'arch, 1914, to $223,763,000 on the 30th April, 1919.
These inflations in currency are evidences of inflations in credit. A great deal of the war loans floated in this country were taken up by persons with money they borrowed from banks. What share of the responsibility one has to place upon the fiat money issued by the Government, and what share on their reliance on borrowing rather than on taxation, it is impossible to state; but the fact remains that our currency has become inflated, with serious consequences. The Government cannot expect to escape legitimate criticism by saying that it is no worse sinner in this regard than other governments. In one sense all governments have been obliged to adopted methods which have led to inflation, but to plead universal shortcoming is not an excuse.
What are the disadvantages to a people of excessive borrowing during war time? Has our Government as compared with crfher Governments been a greater sinner
IMr. McMaster.]
in this regard? These are the questions with which I now purpose dealing. A war of such world-wide extent as the recent war we have been engaged in for the last five years should be fought with 4 p.m. the actual production of the nations engaged therein. Stocks on hand will, within a few weeks or a few months at most, be used up; and it is through the annual production of the belligerents that the sinews of war must be obtained. And the question arises as to how the Governments shall divert from ordinary channels the productivities of the nation required to satisfy these war needs. How shall ithe Government secure the funds to carry on the war? There are two questions involved in this query:
1.	From what sources should money come -from real savings or from inflated credit?
2.	What means should be adopted for raising money-loans or taxation?
For countless generations men have worked out a mechanism of money credits for obtaining and paying for property, goods and services. It is the growth of centuries. For instance, one of the earliest known appearances of bills of exchange is when in mediaeval times the Papal See drew upon rich Orders in outlying parts of Europe for contributions, and threatened excommunication if the drawees did not accept the drafts. The system reaches its greatest perfection in time of peace, though in the Napoleonic war we have the instance of Napoleon winking at the purchase of greatcoats for his army from Great Britain, and although we learn that all through the Crimea wa-r the Russian Government punctually paid the interest on its bonds held by individual British investors.
However, this war threw out of gear the whole of what has been called the "mechanism of exchange." At any given time there exists under ordinary circumstances at the disposal of private individuals a great fund of purchasing power, which they may use to obtain the goods, etc., they desire. This purchasing power may take the form of metallic or paper money, or it may take the form of credit on the books of a bank, which credit is controlled and operated by the drawing of cheques. Now, if the State or Government wishes to secure for war purposes one-third of the product of the people's industry, it should, at the same time, induce or compel the people to part With one-third of its purchasing power. If this is not done; il the Government, or the banks acting for it, simply create additional purchasing power -new money in the widest sense of the

term-then the. Government and the individual citizens will enter the market in competition for the proceeds of industry. Individuals offering their money for the goods they desire tend to keep industry working on these goods; the State, by offering additional purchasing power will seek to divert industry to the making of goods which the State needs.
In these circumstances, it is inevitable that with purchasing power increasing faster than production, prices will rise. Each unit of purchasing power will buy less goods. The mass of the people will be forced "by the rising prices to forego not only their usual and modest luxuries, but indeed the necessities of life, and thus in a roundabout and incomplete fashion the State will get the better of ithe individual citizens, and production will be devoted to the production of goods required by the State, and away from the production of goods required by private individuals. Under such a condition of inflated prices, the chief burden of war rests upon the mass of people, and industry is only imperfectly adapted to war needs.
I may possibly be able to make my point clearer by the use of an illustration. Let us suppose that the total production of a community ie represented by one million bushels of wheat, and that representing this million bushels among a population of one hundred thousand, there are distributed one million tickets, each of which represents a fractional part of the available supply. But the division has been very unequal among the people. Instead of each person having in hand ten tickets, his just proportion, some may, indeed, hold only one, some two, some three, some as high as 100. Now, supposing the Government needs one-third of the available wheat supply for its soldiers, it can force the people to give up one-third of the tickets; and if it be a just and wise government it will see to it that those who have only one or two tickets representing the amount of wheat necessary for the maintenance of their health and strength, are not asked to surrender their tickets; that those having ten are asked to give up not more than three; and that those holding 100 are required to surrender to the State a very large proportion, indeed, of their holdings. This is one method of taxation-the method of a properly graduated income tax.
The second method would be for the Government to issue some new tickets, say, several thousand new tickets, and place
them in the hands of their purchasing agents for presentation to those in charge of the nation's supply. What would be the result? The State would get its third, but the tickets held by the nation would all depreciate in value, and would represent, instead of one bushel of wheat, a very much smaller portion. This might affect but little the health, strength, and comfort of the men who had formerly held 100 tickets; affect little the health, strength, and comfort of the man who held ten; but it would mean the direst hardship for the man who held one or two tickets. This is the method of inflation. This is why inflation bears so heavily upon the poor classes of our community.
I now purpose dealing with the question as to whether our Government has had greater recourse to borrowing than it should have had. I answer that question in the affirmative. I do not think we should compare ourselves to France, to Italy, to Austria, or to Germany, but that we should compare ourselves to Great Britain and to the United States.
We, like the United States, met, in the first four years of the war, about one-half of our war-time expenditure out of current revenues, while Great Britain met only one-third. But then, Great Britain's expenditure was, comparatively speaking, hugely greater than our own. We spent up to March 31, 1918, less than five times the sum we used to spend every year in peace time, while Great Britain spent twenty-five times its peace outlay just prior to the war. Then, if we ask the question, how much surplus revenue did we raise during the first four years of the war, over and above the total civil expenditure of the last year before the war, we find a very different situation. We raised six per cent, the United Kingdom twenty per cent, and the United States about twice the latter amount.
Secondly, we were in fault, because we did not adopt the other direct method of taxation, the excess profits tax, until the ' war was well under way. We allowed war profits of vast proportions to be heaped up by certain individuals, whose lavish expenditure unduly competed with the Government for the productive work of the nation. Thirdly, because when our income tax was adopted, the rates of taxation were far too low. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is not to blame for that. Last year I very strongly urged on the then Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) that the rates were far too low. This year the Minister of Finance has been obliged to follow the

advice I gave last year, but whether my advice was the determining factor in raising the rates is a question I do not pretend to answer.	[DOT]
To sum up, we had been following an
Percentage of Taxes in theUnited Kingdom.
On	On
Property consump-& income. tion.
1913-	14	
48%	52%1914- 15	
53%	[DOT] 47%1915-	16	
56%	44%1916-	17	
74%	36%1917 18	81%	19%1918-19	
The United States only came into the war in 1917, and I have only the figures for the last two years. It will be noted from the table that the United States turned right round in the course of a year. In 1917-18 they raised practically twenty per cent by income tax and eighty per cent by taxes on consumption, while in 1918-19 it was just the reverse, eighty per cent being raised by income tax and twenty per cent by taxes on consumption.
The next table which I desire to lay before the House-and I am sure on a hot summer afternoon like this it is weary work listening to these long lists of figures-
Some hon MEMBES: Hear, hear.
Mr. McMAS'TER: I do not blame hon. gentlemen for saying " Hear, hear," but I must do my duty, and you know, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental duty of an Opposition is to point out the errors of the Government. The next table is the percentage of rates in the British, American and Canadian income taxes. I said a moment ago that we started our income tax at far too low rates. Listen to the comparison. We will take the rates of earned income of married persons, without dependents, on $3,000, $10,000 and $100,000:-
Americans under the law of 1918 on $3,000 pay $60.
Americans under the law of 1918 on $10,000, pay $830.
Americans under the law of 1918 on $100,000, pay $35,030.
British people on $3,000 (earned income), pay $356.25.
British people on $3,000 (income from investments), pay $445.31.
British people on $10,000 income, pay $2,2150.
British people on $100,000 income, pay $47,187.
Our income tax rate for 1918 for a married person without children figured out as follows :-
Income.	Amount Payable.
$ 3,000	$	20.00
10,000	 392.00
100,000	 17,607.00

unsound taxation system for many years, and we broke away from it tardily and with reluctance. The following tables will, I think, be of interest as affording ready proof of the conditions I have set forth:- United States.	Canada.
On	On	On	OnProperty	consump-	Property	consump-& income.	tion.	& income.	tion.100%100%1%	99%8%	92%17%	83%	11%	89%80%	20%	
Since then our proposed rates are higher. The proposed rates bring the income tax on a man earning $3,000 up to $40 instead of $20, and a man earning $10,000 up to $590 instead of $392; while it brings up to $31,190 the man whose income is $100,000. The Americans have slightly reduced their rate, so that the American and Canadian rates at the present time would be the same if this resolution carried. Let me same if this resolution carried.
Let me say a word to the Finance Minister in the plea for the man, and especially for the woman, whose income is between $1,000 and $2,000. The married man whose income is between $1,000 and $2,000 does not pay any tax, as it is not levied until the $2,000 figure is reached; but the poor unmarried clerk who earns between $1,000 and $2,000 and who has a widowed mother to support, has to pay an income tax, and so has the poor school teacher; and often the fact that a man is unmarried is because he has aged dependents to look after. Would it not be fair for the minister to interpret the word " dependent," in its application to-men whose income is between $1,000 and $2,000, to mean not merely dependent children, but also dependent parents or collaterals in the ascending line? I think it would, and I leave to the kindness of heart of the minister a consideration of this important question-important not to the State, because the loss of revenue would be trifling, but very important to the individuals concerned.
Now, in Great Britain we find the same rise in the currency. Not only did the currency rise from $25 to $52.50 per capita of the population, but the deposits in banks enormously increased. Mr. Hartley Withers, whose little books on finance I would recommend to all members of this House for their clearness and the succinct way in which they are written, in his interesting book, " Our Money and the State," page 66, thus describes the way in which the currency in Great Britain has been inflated:

The method of inflation differs in each country acording to the arrangement of its currency system. During the present war we in England are doing it in three, or perhaps four, ways. The Government has done it by printing paper currency, much greater in extent than the gold which it has replaced in circulation; and by minting a great quantity of silver. The Bank of England has done it by lending money to the Government, by loans to the Allies, to Colonial governments and to private individuals, and the other banks have done it by increasing their investments in Government securities and by making advances to customers in order to enable them to take up Government securities. In other words, most of the inflation has been due chiefly to the action of the Government in either directly increasing the currency itself by printing or coining it, or in borrowing money from the Bank of England and the other banks, instead of getting it out of the pockets of the public, by taxing it or borrowing its savings.
To the credit of Great Britain be it said that, along with this borrowing, the Government put in force the most drastic taxation which enabled that country to raise about a quarter of its war expenditure, inclusive of loans to Allies. The United States did not print any fiat money, but inflation in that country was brought about by the Government obtaining vast advances from the banks on the credit of Government bonds, and the banks, in turn, placed these bonds among their customers, by lending to the customers money wherewith to purchase the bonds. In this way the amount was not borrowed by the Government from the savings, but was largc'y raised upon the pledge of the credit of the people with the hanks. But, again, in the United States, an honest and successful attempt was made by heavy direct taxation to raise a very large portion of the war expenditure.
In the United States the bank deposits subject to cheque grew from $11,026,000,000 in 1913 to $24,600,000,000 in 1918. How is this condition of inflation to be controlled? Partly at least by the adoption of the advice given in Lord Cunliffe's report 'to the British Government: "Stop borrowing!" This report, I have no doubt, the Minister of Finance has carefully read and considered, and the injunction which it conveys-stop borrowing!-I would, with all humility, commend to his serious contemplation this afternoon. The report, the findings of which were concurred in by the Committee of War Finance of the American Government (composed of leading political economists of that country), contained a statement which I may read. And here, I may ask whether our Government took council of the political economists in this country, as they might
have done? The statement in the report to which I allude reads in part:
If a sound monetary position is to tie reestablished and the gold standard to be effectively maintained, it is in our judgment essential that government borrowings should cease at the earliest possible moment after the war. A large part of the credit expansion arises, as we have shown, from the fact that the expenditure of the government during the war has exceeded the amounts which they have been able to raise by taxation or by loans from the actual savings of the people. They have been obliged therefore, to obtain money through the creation of credits by the Bank of England and by the joint stock banks with the result that the growth of purchasing power hah exceeded that of purchasable goods and services. As we have already shown, the continuous issue of uncovered currency notes is inevitable in such circumstances. This credit expansion (which is necessarily accompanied by an evergrowing foreign indebtedness) cannot continue after the war without seriously threatening our gold reserves and indeed our national solvency.
Whether intended or not by the Minister of Finance, it is a cruel deception to call our country prosperous when it is suffering from inflation. Does the minister think that the strikers are striking for fun? We must not even infer, as the minister does, that this debt can be easily carried. We should make the greatest possible attempts to pay back the debt as soon as possible, because, if we allow the time for repayments to be put off to a period too far in the future, we may come to an era of lower prices again, and while to-day one bushel of wheat will pay off, say, two dollars oi our debt, in ten years from now one bushel may pay off only one dollar. The minister points to the increase in bank deposits as an evidence of the prosperity of the nation. May I tell him what Sir Wilfrid Laurier told a Toronto audience years ago before he got into power in 1896? The then Minister of Finance (Sir George Foster) had placed before a meeting of enthusiastic Tories in the city of Toronto, a long series of figures showing how prosperous the country was, and the present Minister of Finance has put before this House a similarly lengthy series of figures to prove the prosperity of the country to-day. Sir Wilfrid told his audience that when he got into power they would only have to put their hands in their pockets and they would feel for themselves. Unfortunately, however, we can feel in our pockets and perceive the difference. If, perchance, we have a dollar in our pocket, we know very well that that dollar will buy only as much as fifty cents could buy five years ago. It is not fair for the minister to assert to the people the fact that because bank deposits have increased from $988,191,367, in 1913, to

$1,604,649,034, in 1919, the country has increased in wealth. And why is it not fair? Simply because money is merely purchasing power. That is all it is. In the year 1913 as much purchasing power was represented by $988,000,000, as to-day by $1,604,649,034, and we are no better off, although we may have an apparently larger amount in the banks.
There is another thing which I would draw to the minister's attention: bank deposits are a poor indication of the nation's prosperity. Savings bank deposits may be some indication, hut bank deposits as a whole, the ordinary commercial bank deposits, do not represent the savings of the nation; they often represent to a greater degree the borrowings of the nation. I go to my bank and I discount a note, let us say, for the modest sum of $1,000. Perhaps I could get that amount if the member for Brantford would back my note. I put that in the bank and my deposit is swollen by $1,000. But that does not represent wealth, that represents my borrowings from the bank and the joint liability of the member for Brantford and myself.
In his Budget speech the minister estimates that pensions will for many years run from $35,000,000 to $40,000,000. He also tells us that we will have yearly large sums to pay for hospitals, convalescent homes, and other things of that sort. No doubt that is perfectly true, and no one will grudge the money for these items of expenditure; but the minister does not give us the slightest hint of how much we may expect to yearly pay for these hospitals and convalescent homes, and I tell him very frankly that his Budget speech is lacking in that regard, that he should have given us some idea of what we shall have to pay for these expenses. "We have great natural resources," says the minister. That is quite true, but we need population; and here I come to a part of my speech which I trust will prove of more interest than these dreary columns of figures: we need population, but in order to have it we require a sounder economic policy. We must come under an economic policy which will not be a direct handicap to agriculture, mining, lumber, and fishing. We must give to our agriculturists, if we are to fill up our vacant cultivable lands, as good living conditions as obtain in the country to the south of us.
The minister talks about exports of manufactures helping us to pay the debt. Quite so, but we will have to give the manufacturers a market to work in, in which their costs will not he increased by a tariff which

bears so heavily upon them. Our market is far too small to operate successfully dumping, by charging our own people a great deal for the goods and being able to send them abroad and sell them cheaper. It is true the agricultural implement men have been doing that to a certain extent. It is true that before the war we find they were selling agricultural implements in far-away Russia as cheaply, or almost as cheaply, as they were selling them in Saskatchewan. But there is only one effective way to help the Canadian manufacturers in my judgment, and that is, to lower their cost of production by freeing from duties, to a certain extent at least, even at present, their raw material, by the education of the workers, and by increasing the facilities for transportation.
And now we come to a portion of the minister's speech which I trust he will not consider me rude if I denominate it as a bouquet of fallacies. He first speaks about the favourable trade balance. Now the favourable trade balance is a relic-a relic of the mediaeval system of mercantilism. A ship leaves Montreal loaded, say, with $100,000 worth of wheat. It arrives in Liverpool. The wheat is sold for $115,000. [DOT] A load of hardware is put on board, worth, let us say at Liverpool, $115,000, and brought back to Montreal where it is worth $130,000. Exports $100,000; imports $130,000; unfavourable balance to trade to the extent of $30,000. But let that ship, leaving Liverpool with its cargo of hardware, be lost in mid-Atlantic. What happens? Exports $100,000; imports nil; favourable balance of trade $100,000. What an absurdity ! let me say it with all courtesy to the Minister of Finance.
The minister then goes on to compare the trade balances of 1914 and 1919. I ask him what about the rate of exchange? Is the rate of exchange to-day, in the year 1919, more, or less, favourable than it was in 1914? The minister said we had an unfavourable trade balance in 1914, and we have a favourable trade balance in 1919. Well, as I remember, in 1914 if you wanted to pay a bill in New York you did not have to add three per cent to your cheque in order to pay it as we have to do to-day. And then the unsoundness of the comparison of the years 1913-14 with the years 19181919! Why the dollar to-day is just worth about 50 cents, what it was worth in 1913-14; and if we divided the figures of 1918-1919 by two, then we would get the basis for a more just comparison. Let us do that. If we compare the revenue, for instance,

which the minister draws our attention to with a broad smile of satisfaction, the revenue in 1913-14 was $163,000,000 as against, he says, a revenue in 1918-19 of $310,000,000. But in order to make the comparison just we have got to divide the $310,000,000 by two and then we find the revenue in 1913-14 to have been $163,000,000 and the real revenue in 1918-19 to have been $155,000,000, or $8,000,000 less than in 1913-14.
Another point, and that is in regard to income tax returns. They amount to $10,000,000-an evidence in itself that the tax has not been properly collected, for there is no question but that if that tax had been properly collected more than $10,000,000 would have been realized. But the bills were sent out tardily. I remember making' my own modest return, sending it to the Government, and not getting my bill for months and months. I grant that I did not write to the Minister of Finance and ask him to hurry up the bill, nobody would do that, but the country was suffering by reason of the delay. We were not collecting the taxes due us and we were borrowing money in the meantime-which was bad financial administration. Now 1 have a suggestion to make to the Minister of Finance. We are told that the Opposition merely criticise in this House and that we should make positive proposals. Here is a positive proposal. The Canadian people are an honest folk; the most of them will make out their tax returns to the best oi their ability. Why not, when a man makes out his return, have him assess what he thinks he is liable for under his return,-and send in the amodnt subject to a refund or subject to be asked to give more. That would furnish money to the Government in the meantime, and it would not be hard on the individual because he would not have this thing hanging over him.
I come to the Estimates for the current year. The Estimates for the current year on ordinary, capital, and demobilization accounts, amount to $620,000,000, and the minister hopes to raise $280,000,000 and to borrow $340,000,000. The Estimates for this year amount to $456,500,000, and in order that the country may have some appreciation of the magnitude of this sum I would pray the indulgence of the House while 1 [DOT]place before it a few figures which have helped me to better understand the situation and which I think may be of assistance to hon. gentlemen. Estimating our population at eight million people, the amount provided for in the Estimates represents a per capita expenditure of just over $57.06,
or for a family of five of $285.30. Now, prior to the war, Canada was by no means the lightly taxed country which some people thought it was. In comparison to the taxation of Great Britain of $123.15 per family, and of the United States of $154.50 per family, the average Canadian family of five persons contributed in federal, provincial, and municipal taxes, the sum of $157.50 to the State. In addition, this country before the war was very heavily indebted to people of other nations who had lent us money. These loans amounted to $3,000,000,000. Some was loaned to the Government, some to the Provincial Governments, some to companies, and some to individuals.
The figure of $456,500,000 is made up of Main Estimates of over $437,500,000 and Supplementary Estimates of almost $19,000,000. And it is a matter, Mr. Speaker, which might be carefully considered by the members of this House that the Supplementary Estimates of this year are just fifty per cent greater than was the whole expenditure on current account and on capital account for the first year of Confederation. That is, I believe, a striking comparison. When Sir John A. Macdonald-and I speak so that those opposite may give me more careful attention than they might if I produced other testimony-laid down the reins of power in 1891, the total expenditure on current account and on capital account was only $40,000,000. It is true that since Confederation our population has more than doubled; but I believe that the increase in expenditure far more than offsets not only the increase in population, but the increase in wealth.
To the expenditure of $456,500,000 provided for in the Estimates, there must be added the special appropriation for demobilization and for other purposes affiliated with the war, estimated at $300,000,000. But leaving these aside for the present, I do not believe that I am exaggerating when I state the thoughtful people of this country are really alarmed at the money this Government is spending. Echoes of speeches delivered in some other places have already been heard in this House.
I emphatically and solemnly charge this Government with reckless expenditure. But to this general charge of extravagance the Government will reply to me, as they have replied to others: " Well, tell us what you complain about/' Of course, that attitude is not altogether, fair. We are not on the inside of the Government secrets. We do not know, for instance, whether it was wise or not the other day, by Order in Council,

largely due to the tremendous borrowings which the minister has carried on. He proposes to continue to borrow; therefore he proposes to continue to keep up the high cost of living. He cannot get the real savings of the people, because the people are not able to do very much real saving in these days. Unless the minister takes heed of the warnings that Igave him- with such earnestness, if another loan is issued there will be further inflation of credit and of currency, and that will tend to maintain the high cost of living and to bring about a continuation of the conditions that the minister complains of. I solemnly warn the minister that he is only putting off the evil day.
What remedy have I to propose? It is a very difficult thing to remedy the high cost of living; it is due, first of all, to real scarcity, and that scarcity can only be met by real production. But you cannot have real production unless you get labour and capital to pull together, and I do not think that this Government has done all it should do or could do in this connection. What Great Britain did in this respect is worthy of notice. They called together in conference the leaders of the employers and the leaders of the employed, and they, with representatives of the Government, sat down and discussed the whole situation. To such a conference in this country we would have to call representatives of the Provincial Governments. I am sure that upon the ordinary workingman who is suffering to-day from the high cost of living a shifting of responsibility as between the Federal Government and the Government of Ontario must have a had effect. The Prime Minister is asked to pass an eight-hour-day Bill, and he says-I think, correctly so-that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to do so. Then the workers apply to the Premier of the great industrial province of Ontario, who holds up his hands and says: It is none of my business; go and ask Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of Canada; it is his business to have such a law passed. This passing of the responsibility from one to the other does not redound to the credit of the country or add to that prestige we would like government to have in this time of unrest.
Let us have such a conference as I have suggested. Let not the Prime Minister say: We have our Cost of Living Commissioner; we have this commission and that commission, and they are holding conferences day by day. It is not that sort of conference

we want; we want the summoning of on industrial parliament to discuss all these matters. That is the way the people of Great Britain were able to avoid trouble, and I am sure that our work-folk are just as reasonable and just as ready to listen to the other man's side of the question as are the people of Great Britain.
Then, I make another suggestion. I agree most thoroughly with the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) who said the other day that to fix prices in the ordinary way might shut off production. But if the high cost of living keeps up, I would ask the Government to consider the advisability of buying up, at prices which will encourage production, such great, staple necessities of life as flour, bacon, oatmeal, perhaps milk, and seeing that they are distributed among the people at. reasonable prices. There will be a loss, and that loss will have to be borne by the State. That is what Great Britain did during the course of tire war. About 94 per cent, if I mistake not, of the commodities used by Great Britain during the war came through the Government in that fashion. While I dislike paternalism as much as any one does, yet as between paternalism and having people hungry in this country, I prefer to have paternalism.
We now come to the question of the tariff. There has been a reduction of 5 per cent, and on some items of 7J per cent. This 7i per cent applies to about 200 items out of about 700 in the tariff schedules. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the minister to this point. There is an apparent mistake in his resolutions, although he may have some explanations to give which will show me that I am wrong. But the minister, in his resolutions, brought down a whole list of items, from which he said that the 5 per cent and the 7J per cent were duties imposed by the Act of the 8th April, 1915, were being removed. Many on that list of items, however, never had the war tax imposed upon them at all. Let me take these matters up. We find " Coffee, extract of, n.o.p., and substitutes thereof of all kinds; coffee roasted or ground; coffee roasted or ground, when not imported direct from the country of growth and production ;coffee, green, imported direct from the country of growth and production, and green coffee purchased in bond in/ the United Kingdom; green coffee, not otherwise provided." The minister says that he is removing the 5 per cent and the 7i per cent tax imposed by the Act of April, 1915,

from these items, but they never were affected by that tax; they were taxed by the law of the 22nd of August, 1914. Again the minister says that he is removing the tax of 5 per cent and 74 per cent from wheat, but he never imposed that tax upon wheat; nor did he ever put it on wheat flour or cotton seed oil or cotton seed meal cake. Then, with almost a flourish of trumpets to show how he is overcoming the high cost of living, he says that he is removing the tax of 5 per cent and 74 per cent from canned vegetables, but he never imposed it on canned vegetables except on canned tomatoes. The small boy should be filled with joy because the tax of 74 per cent has been removed from bananas, but it was never put on. The tax was never put on anchovies, sardines and sprats in boxes of between eight and twelve ounces. Iron ore, quite an important article, was exempted by the law of the 8th April, 1915; the 74 per cent tax was never put on. Iron ore had a certain specific duty put on it by the preceding section of the same Act, so that the duty on iron ore remains just as it is. What shall I say in regard to these matters? Is this carelessness on the part of the minister? I do not like to think so. Is it for the purpose of holding up to the country a large list of things on which the cost of living has been reduced? Surely, it is not. I should dislike, when this war is over, to charge the minister with camouflage. Where do these tariff reductions leave the people of Canada? How are our foodstuffs taxed now that the war taxes are taken off or decreased? Linen clothing is still taxed 25 per cent, 324 per cent and 35 per cent. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, what amusement hon. members on the other side took in my poor farmer in the West 5 p.m. whom I dressed in the morning.
You will remember what a profound argument the Minister of Finance offered against my contention, when I spoke about the high taxes placed upon the farmer's clothes; and when I said the farmer should put on his nether garments after his boots were put on and not before, you will remember what hilarity there was on the other side. May I again call the sympathetic attention of the House to my poor farmer in the West? His linen clothing will still be taxed 35 per cent if it is brought in from the United States. His woollen clothing still bears a duty of 35 per cent and as hon. members sitting in front of you, Sir, will tell you, warm woollen clothing is a necessity out in the West. The duty on fur caps runs as high as 35 per cent. It will be remembered what
hilarity was caused by my reference to socks. The farmer who has to buy a pair of mitts and gets them from the United States has still to pay a duty of 35 per cent and his collar and cuffs still bear a duty of 374 per cent. In the face of that, the minister turns to members from the West and says: Look at what I have done for you. The Minister of Finance is in this position:	The West and the consuming
public generally ask him for a loaf of tariff relief, and, with beautiful courtesy, he hands them on a fine platter a small soda cracker. How do we stand in regard to leather? Leather is taxed 174 per cent; harness and saddlery are still taxed 30 per cent. I am giving the rates under the general tariff. Boots and shoes are still taxed 30 per cent.
Let me now take up the question of agricultural implements. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the revolt which grew up-in -the western part of our country against the principle of protection was exercised in no -small degree towards getting the duties on agricultural implements reduced. It is true that the Minister of Finance has taken off the war tax, but then everybody expected that the war tax would be removed from agricultural implements. How do .the-present schedules stand in relation to what. I might call the normal duties on agricultural implements? I quote the United States' rates because it is only from the United States that agricultural implements are imported to any extent. The old rate on cultivators was 20 per cent, while the new rate is 15 per cent. The old rate on windmills was 20 per cent, while the new rate is 174 per cent. You know, Sir, the Latin proverb about how the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. We have had this Government labouring at the question of reduction of duties on agricultural implements, and it has brought forth a mouse so tiny that the most nervous woman would hardly think of mounting a -chair. Then we come to an article of perennial interest in this House-ploughs. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) may well smile. The normal duty on ploughs -is reduced from 20 per cent to 174 per cent. The duty on hay loaders used to be 25 per cent; at is now 20 per cent. The duty on potato diggers

alas, the influence of the minister from New Brunswick does -not appear to have -been great-has been reduced from 25 per cent only down to 20 per cent, while the duty on farm wagons is reduced in the same ratio. There is little logic displayed in these tariff changes. The tariff, as proposed, shows merely an attempt to

hold divergent interests together by giving them special privileges. Free potatoes, so as to enable onr New Brunswick growers to get into United States markets are offered with kindly graciousness to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), while taxed apples are handed with kindly graciousness to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Burrell) The food of the poor boy, the luxury of the workingman, remains taxed. Why was that done? Because British Columbia, which grows apples, sent six, or eight or ten members-I forget the exact number- to support this Government. But with all respect to those interested in industry, is not this tax on the school boy's apple and the simple luxury of the poor man, rather a mean sort of tax? I think it is.
This is a protectionist Budget, with essentially Tory trimmings in the sense oi special legislation for special interests. Last Sunday I was in church, and heard a very interesting sermon. The minister gave an interesting illustration from bird life. He said that a bobolink, which was accustomed to fly at liberty in the free air of heaven, was captured and put into a cage with canaries, with the result that it forgot how to sing like a bobolink and learned how to sing like a canary. Now into the gilded cage of the Union Government have walked, not captive, but have walked, certain politicians or statesmen who -called themselves Liberal, and this Budget shows that they have lost the accents of Liberalism and have learned to sing like canaries. Only one escaped from the cage, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He is a free man once more; he has not learnt to sing like a canary. I think as I watch the expressions of some of the ministers, that when they think oi the member for Marquette, the line of the poet comes back to them:
Bird of the wilderness, blithesome and cumber-lelss,
Oh, to abide in the desert with thee.
Now we come to another feature of the Budget which merits, I am sorry to say, the sternest reprobation of any one who is interested in the welfare of this country and in proper administration. I refer to the bargain made by the Minister of Finance with the railways. The Minister of Finance has taken the duty off bituminous coal. Now if this duty was to come off, it should have come off in the public interest. But how has the minister taken it off? He has gone to the railways and said: " Freight rates on ploughs and other agricultural implements from points
	-.<* J i
around Toronto to the West are very high. We want to please the West, we desperately want to please them, and we also desperately want to please our protectionist friends in Ontario. There is the very deuce to pay in trying to reconcile these two opposing interests. What will you do, kind manager of a railway? If you will give cheaper rates to Western points from Toronto and other Ontario cities we will reduce the duty on your coal." That is a bargain so improper that it verges upon the immoral. That is not the way the affairs of this country should be administered. It is not the first time this Government had done that sort of thing. We remember that when there was trouble between newspaper proprietors and the paper men over newsprint the Government, in order to help one special interest in the country, forced another special interest to give that other interest paper at lower than the commercial rate, for some time at least. And now today, by a bribe, they force the railroads to give lower than the commercial rates on agricultural implements from Ontario to Western points. Does that arrangement apply to Eastern points? No, the Eastern Township farmer, whom I have the honour to represent in this House, will pay just as high freight rates as ever if he should buy a plough or agricultural machinery from Ontario. Is that fair? Is that right? Is it consonant with British traditions and with the Canadian constitution? Is it consonant with the slogan of fair play for all, special privileges to none? I do not think it is.
The next proposal which the minister makes is this: He says we must postpone the revision of the tariff because this is a time of unrest and difficulty. We therefore should not start revising it until the fall and then, of course, whatever change there may be, up or down, will be reflecteu in the legislation of the year 1920. What the minister proposes to do is precisely calculated to keep up the unrest. The manufacturers of this country wish to know where they are, whether they are to have the same tariff, a lower tariff, or a higher tariff. Nothing is worse for any industry than uncertainty. I believe that the manufacturing interests of this country would prefer a low tariff if they knew it was going to be a low tariff, rather than go on in this condition of uncertainty.
The minister says that the concessions which he has made will mean a loss of $17,000,000 in revenue. How is that loss to be arrived at? Many of the articles on which the 71 per cent tax was placed reached a

prohibitive price and were kept out of the country altogether by this new tax.
I have set forth already this .session, at some length, the burdens imposed by the tariff upon the consumers of this country.
I propose this afternoon to consider some other aspects of the question, and adduce some further reasons for the desirability of the adoption by this country of a policy, which I believe will be in the interests not only of this country but of the whole world. As Hartley Withers, the editor of the Economist says "Finance Ministers and tax collectors have to remember that balancing this year's budget and getting revenue in with the least possible soreness on the part of tax payers, and especially of their own political supporters, is less important than the question whether theii measures and methods are tending to increase or hinder the growth of the country's wealth and the world's output of goods." But before proceeding further on this subject I believe it to be expedient to set forth plainly what I hope for my country and for the world. We should have an objective, known and read by all citizens, to which .all may bend their efforts.
I believe in Canada a nation, living in close alliance with the other British Commonwealths, and in amity and friendship with all the world, and above all with the United States. I am opposed both to the idea of a centralizing Imperialism and to that of annexation. I wish to see a national spirit grow up in this country which will be sane and strong and progressive, and as an outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace-for to me national selfreliance is a grace-I would have us not only frame our own tariff, but fly our own flag, on land as well as on sea.
I would have us decide not only our own cases of lesser importance but also those of greater importance. There is no necessity for separation or a slackening of the real bonds that bind us to the other British Commonwealths. What are the real bonds that bind us to the other British Commonwealths? It is not a question of tariffs. It is not a matter of twopence on tea, as Mr. Austen Chamberlain recently proposed in the British House of Commons. What holds us together is the call of the blood, and how that has been exemplified by Scottish people in this countryYou know how the Scottish Canadian poet sings:
From the lone shieling on the misty island
Oceans divide us and waste of seas:
But still the heart is true, the heart is Highland,
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.
Why, my heart warms whenever I hear a man or woman speaking with a strong Scottish accent, and I suppose the Secretary of State feels the same way when he hears a strong English accent. And as for the Irish, I sometimes wish that as people from Ireland come over to this country, the Gulf Stream, when they cross it, would wash away all their memories of the land from which they came, because the Irish in this country seem to give so much attention to the unfortunate troubles that exist in that country. I sometimes wish that they had forgotten all about the unhappy state of things across the seas, but 'he woes of Ireland and the contests there, about which I do not purpose to speak for a moment this afternoon, seem to have as warm and lively a place in the hearts of the Irish here as though they had never left the old sod. The danger is not that we shall not be British enough-Irish, or Scotch or English. The danger is that we are not Canadian enough, and that we do not realize that the greatest interest in this country is the Canadian interest. It is common ideals and common civilization that must keep us together, and not any particular form of government or any particular institution.
I would for my country that having most gallantly shown our power to fight manfully in a war we deemed just and right, we should fight just as manfully, and if anything more strenuously, to prevent a repetition of war. I wish for my country that we should be a great pacific power, prepared to join hands and hearts with all sincere souls wheresoever they may be found, who, in honesty of purpose and purity of heart are prepared to strive for the coming of that day when the sword shall be beaten into the plough-share and the spear into the pruning-hook and when they shall not learn war any more.
I would also for my country that within its confines true liberty, equality and brotherliness should prevail; that we should make national assets and not national liabilities out of our differences of tongue, of race, and of religion; that few large fortunes should be heaped up; but that a high level of general comfort should prevail. I wish not so much for a levelling down as I desire a levelling up.
I believe that this great war was due in no small measure to two great, and as they have worked out evil, principles- the principle of chauvinism or imperialism, and the principle of Protection. They both had their origin in the selfishness of



man, as exemplified in the desires of capitalistic groups in different European countries to extend the ambit of their nations' power in order that within that extended ambit they might have more advantageous conditions under which they could take advantage of business opportunities in uncivilized, semi-civilized or backward nations. The conflicting national aspirations of protectionist European countries, like France, and Italy, and Germany, in Africa and Asia were in no small measure responsible for the war.
I cherish the opinion that if the international gospel preached and practised by the Great Apostles of Free Trade, Cobden and Bright, had been followed by the rest of the civilized world, this war, as far as we humans can dimly see, would not have happened; and I believe that the way of peace in the future lies in the acceptance of the principle that under the economy of Providence, his footstool is so framed and constituted that each part has certain natural advantages peculiar to itself; that its inhabitants likewise are possessed with certain natural or acquired endowments, and that the application of the endowments of each to the peculiar advantages by them possessed and the free interchange of the resultant products will not only bring about the greatest abundance of national wealth, but more important still, by the growth of inter-dependence among all peoples, will remove many of the occasions for war and conduce to the spirit of peace.
The efforts of Cobden and Bright may not have been and were not entirely successful, but let me say this-that these men taught the British people that their great interest was peace. Without peace, where would have been the natural progress of the Victorian age, and without the material progress of the Victorian age, where would have been the money that flowed from British sources to arm and sustain nearly every one of the Allies in the great war.
And as protection has tended to the creation of a bad international spirit, so has it wrought evil and not good within the nation itself. Quite apart from the economic loss which in my view it has entailed on Canada, the degradation to which it has subjected our politics has been more destructive to national righteousness. The Bed Parlour has been one of the chief demoralizing factors in our national life. No small part of the campaign funds of the Protectionists in the past has been more or less willingly subscribed by protected interests who had to recoup and who did 
recoup themselves from the higher prices, which the retention or the imposition of protective duties on goods similar to those they sold to the public permitted them to do. And apart from this immoral condition there has occurred this great loss to the nation. The manufacturers of this country are among the ablest of our people. Our protectionist principle has practically debarred them from giving to the nation any disinterested advice upon the great question of taxation. If a question as to whether certain tariff rates should or should not be lowered or raised, how can a manufacturer of the articles to be affected, unless he is more than human, consider the question, from purely a national standpoint, and with no regard to what he believes to be his own interest. And this interested viewpoint tends to he more or less unconsciously assumed by the bank which lends him money, the lawyer who advises him, the doctor who attends his family, as well as the bookkeeper and clerks in his office and the work people in his factory.
Harsh you may say, yes harsh but only too true-not that all manufacturers have succumbed to the tendencies of the system -men there are who are alive and sensitive to the public interest, but I take it that these are such in spite of their environment.
The case for freedom in exchange is so overwhelming that we have a right to say that the burden of proof lies upon our protectionist friends, and indeed they appear to have assumed the burden, for during some months past they have filled the press with their protectionist pleas, sometimes frankly enough over the signature of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, sometimes not so frankly over the signature of the Canadian Beconstruction Committee, of which Sir John Willison, paid, I am credibly informed, $10,000 a year by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, is the moving spirit.
Let us examine the statement and spirit shown by these advertisements. The first of these and, I should judge, the most widespread, is put forward in the form of a question: " Where is the Bevenue to come from?" This question in the mouth of a high protectionist is not without the saving grace of humour.
It would appear to most of us who have thought at all about the matter, that the more the tariff approached the protectionist ideal of keeping goods out, the less would it fulfill its functions of a producer of revenue.
It does not seem to have struck the pro-

tectionists or the gentlemen who write their advertisements for them that a very much larger revenue might be collected through a reasonably low tariff than is collected through an unreasonably high one. I say to these protectionist caretakers of the revenue-more economic knowledge gentlemen or more frankness. If you imagine that the removal of barriers to trade will hurt your business say so frankly, and we will discuss fairly and sympathetically with you whatever aspects of the situation you may care to discuss. You are Canadian citizens. Your interests are our care, just as the interests of all other classes of the community are our care, but be not like unto Demetrius, the silversmith, and his fellow craftsmen of old, who in far away Ephesus, when the preaching of the truth affected their business raised the cry of " Great is Diana of the Ephesians," not because they loved Diana but because they loved the profits they obtained by the manufacture of silver images of that goddess.
Does a tariff, running, as I have proved conclusively before, from 30 to 42i per cent on many of the prime necessities of life, and now in some cases reduced to 35 per cent, produce the revenue of which we are so badly in need. No, the proof is, I believe, adequate that as regards many articles taxed at these high rates, the tariff is practically prohibitive and no adequate revenue for the country is derived therefrom.
No, the proof is, I believe, adequate: that as regards many articles the tariff is practically prohibitive and no adequate return for the country is derived therefrom. As examples of -my claim let us consider the way the tariff works, from the revenue standpoint, on several heavily taxed articles. Take articles such as boots, shoes, slippers, gloves, mitts, undershirts, and drawers, and shifts. I do not propose to go into the figures; I have imposed upon the patience of the House by giving as many figures as I have; but I say this: If you compare the consumption of these articles with the amount paid in duty on them, you will see that the tariff is absolutely prohibitive, that practically none of these goods find their way in over the tariff wall; and if you were to reduce the tariff either of two things would result: either the Canadian manufacturer would continue to possess the market by reducing his prices to the consumer or certainly more goods would come over the tariff wall to the great benefit both of the consumer and of the State. Now I wish to leave no false impression, I wish to be per-
207J
fectly fair to the manufacturer of these articles-I do not know whether they take full advantage of the tariff rates imposed on their products, that will depend in large measure in how far competition has been maintained behind the tariff wall; where it persists the consumer may still be given a chance-but I unhesitatingly declare that the tendency of the protectionist system is towards the elimination of competition and the taking of full advantage of the privileges given by the tariff.
What is another plea urged by the manufacturers? The plea is " It costs us more to manufacture our goods because we have got such a narrow market in which to sell them;" and that is to my mind the most serious argument that they bring forward. But do the manufacturers expect that this country will remain forever under the economic disadvantage of having goods manufactured for it in small quantities? I do not think that is reasonable, and I am of opinion that the plea of the manufacturers is exaggerated. I remember a member of this House telling me last year how in his factory he has been able to cut down the cost of manufacturing shells away below the cost of manufacturing those shells in the Old Land. From what he told me, Mr. Speaker, I was proud to think that our manufacturers and our work people were able to produce these articles at so much lower cost than they could be turned out abroad. Next we have the testimony of Mr. Lloyd Harris whose word, I am sure, will have great weight with the Minister of Finance. I find in the Montreal Gazette, a paper whose conservatism is of a most irreproachable nature, under date of May 26, 1919, the following item:
Mr. Harris is convinced that Canadian production will not Suffer by comparison in cost of manufacture with any in Europe. He thinks that the tables have turned, and that many things can now be produced more cheaply in Canada than there, thanks to quantity output and cheaper power. He instances cotton yam and piece goods, which used to be almost a British monopoly, but which can be produced more cheaply in Canada from American cotton than can be spun and woven in Lancashire.
I am surprised to hear that, but I trust it is true.
He thinks conditions are similar in woollens and in many other articles.
I trust Mr. Harris is right in that opinion.
Now a few words re mergering. Just as the lawlessness of people in the liquor business was one of the prime factors moving the Canadian people to prohibition, just as the lavish bestowal of titles enraged certain members of the House in view of the

persons upon whom they were bestowed, just as that brought us to the position where we said "No more titles in Canada," so has the merging of industries in this country and the pouring into their capitalization of oceans of water brought in no small measure a revolt against protection in this country. Ibelieve that it is not right that the people of Canada should be taxed for the purpose of paying profits upon artificial capitalization. And again I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the industrial life of Canada is no.t as artificial as many would maintain that it is. I have given hours and hours, and even days, of study to this question, and my investigation, at least, brings me to the conclusion that there is not more than one-third at the outside of our industrial life which is artificial; that two-thirds of our industrial life would go on under any sort of conditions; 'that is to say that the industry of 'this country is not due to, and is not maintained by, the tariff. Take the food industry, and the paper industry, for instance-industries which are indigenous to the soil of Canada.
I say this last word to the manufacturers of Canada: The tariff is coming down, the day when special privileges will be patiently borne has gone. Your real interests are not opposed to those of the agriculturist, the miner, the fisherman, and the lumberman. Co-operate with the people of Canada in devising what downward steps will least dislocate your business and lead to the least hardship. If you refuse to do so, if you take the position which Rehoboam took towards the children oi Israel- that when Solomon bis father had beaten them with whips he would beat them with scorpions-then there will not be the co-opeia-tion that there should be and which ought to prevail in the interest of the manufacturers as well as in the interest of the whole country. We should co-operate together to reduce the tariff which I believe bears not only upon the consumer, bears not only upon those who are developing and operating the natural resources of Canada, but is a grievous burden upon the manufacturers themselves if they only knew it.
I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) in amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance:
That all the words after the word "that" be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof:-.
The proposals of the Finance Minister are unsatisfactory. They offer no curb against extravagance. They utterly fail to take any adequate steps to relieve the present high cost of

living. They give no definite promise of tariff revision downwards.
. That to relieve the present situation, the tariff should be so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof;
To take off or substantially reduce, as speedily as may be expedient and just to all interested, the duties upon ail other necessaries of life;
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United States should be accepted, and a. general downward revision of the tariff undertaken forthwith in conformity with the principle herein enunicated.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is a well-known rule of the House that no matter may be debated twice within the same session. This amendment is now before me for the first time and I have not had the opportunity of comparing it with, shall I say, a similar amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) at an. earlier stage-in the session.
I make reference to the rule. I will put the amendment, reserving the right to give an opinion at a later stage of the proceedings as to whether it is or is not in order.
Moved by Mr. McMaster, seconded by Mr. Molloy:
That all the words after the word " that " be left out, 'and the following inserted instead thereof :-
The proposals of the Finance Minister are unsatisfactory. They offer no curb against extravagance. They utterly fail to take any adequate steps to relieve the present high cost of living. They give no definite promise of tariff revision downwards.
That to relieve the present situation, the tariff should toe so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof;
To take off or substantially reduce, as speedily as may toe expedient and just to all interested, the duties upon all other necessaries of life;
Also, the reciprocal offer of trade with the United States should be accepted, and a general downward revision of the tariff undertaken forthwith in conformity with the principle herein enunciated.	'
Hon. ARTHUR L. SIFTON (Minister of Customs):	Mr. Speaker, my contribution
to this debate is not going to occupy very much time. It is possible to make long and interesting speeches in regard to tariff matters, I have heard them -on various occasions; but not being a specialist in that line I have no ambition even if I were able, to emulate the gentlemen who make them. Before going into the matter at all, I would like to make a elight reference to the absence from this Government of the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and to express

32G1
strongly my own personal regret at his absence. I feel that I should on this occasion say what he perhaps would not say himself: That when we entered the Government at the same time as the member for Marquette, there was a considerable difference, at least, in the way in which we did so. Some, possibly may have been referred to more or less truly as politicians, and as being willing at least to enter some government, but the hon. member for Marquette, had been engaged during the greater part of his life prior to that in the upbuilding of a semi-public institution for the benefit of his country, and he certainly had no ambition to enter any Government. It was against his own wishes and only from a strong sense of duty that he did enter the Government;
I avail myself of this opportunity to express my own feeling that when he left the Government he was actuated by the same high sense of duty.
As to the proposals that have been made in connection with the Budget, I wish to say that I support them, because, among other reasons, it is the first time in the history of Canada that any Government confronted with the necessity of making changes in the tariff has found some other method of raising the revenue necessary to carry on the business of the country. It is possible that other changes might have been made in regard both to customs tariff and income tax, and the Finance Minister, even after the careful study he has made of the subject, would probably be the first to admit that changes may be necessary from time to time. But the principle has been adopted that it being necessary to raise revenue there is at least another method of doing so than by customs tariffs.
Therefore, on a question of principle, I am prepared to support the proposals that have been made by the Finance Minister, and to say that, so far as the future is concerned, a matter of this kind is, as every one knows, only for a year. It is for this Parliament and this country to decide for the future year by year' what kind of customs tariff and what kind of income tax is required.
I would like to go further, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes, perhaps, we may be a little frank in matters of this kind without hurting anybody's interests or feelings. I believe, in connection with any system of raising revenue that the distribution of the burden with equal justice to everybody is very much more important in many respects than the form of the law. I have found in the course of my administrative experience that some men-we will not say large numbers, hut they compose a majority of the visitors to my office-although they strongly support the existing laws, desire special favours for themselves. I had a rather amusing instance of this some time last year, when a gentleman representing very large interests came into my office. He wanted to get some mining machinery admitted free of duty. I told him that so far as I was concerned I was strongly in favour of all kinds of machinery for the actual development of the country being admitted free of duty, provided the revenue was properly guarded, and that if he could induce the Minister of Finance, with that proviso in mind, to let all machinery in free, I certainly would be oleased. He said, "My God; that would ruin the country." He wanted the machinery of only one plant to be allowed in free. So I say if the fiscal laws of this country are administered to give equai justice to everybody, their form does not make very much difference, and they can be changed from time to time as the exigencies of the country require, and with due regard to the existing conditions of business.
Whatever may have been my views in regard to revenue matters, I may say that they have not varied, and my views certainly never were that our whole fiscal policy should be changed at one session, with the danger of dislocating all the industries of the Dominion at a time when every possible source of revenue is needed to keep the country in the state in which we desire to see it.
It has been hinted that there is going to be what is called scientific preparation in connection with the tariff-that a committee is to consider the whole question during the interval between now and next session. Without wishing to influence the Minister of Finance in regard to this matter, and certainly without any consultation with the members interested, I would suggest that a careful reading by this committee of the speeches delivered in this House by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) might possibly result in such a scientific fixing of the tariff as would satisfy everybody in the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, aside from the proposals that have been made in connection with the Budget, I would like to say that even if those proposals were much less satisfactory-and I wish to cast no reflection on them at all-I would still feel that the members of this House have very good reasons for exercising great care in regard

to the discussion of and the coming to an opinion on this matter.
We are now at what we hope is the end of a five years' war. We hope that it is the end, but even to-day no one can be sure as to that. We have strong hopes that Canada is out of it, but peace has not been signed, and some fifteen or sixteen small wars are going on in Europe. These happenings should receive some consideration from members of the House, in connection even with the consideration of the tariff. Hon. gentlemen have, in connection with other matters of great interest to them, waited for many years, and even if they have to wait another year or two years in this case, I am sure that the people of Canada at large -the people of the West, where I have had the privilege of taking some part in public affairs-will forgive a Government, which administers the affairs of Canada on principles of justice and equality-and no other Government is worthy of the support of this House-for taking any action resulting in delay in connection with matters which are immaterial compared with other important considerations confronting the country. Even if peace is declared to-morrow, for the next three or four years there will be serious times in Canada. The problems in connection with our great debt, the enormous amounts that will have to be raised by the people, the settlement of many questions in connection with the development and reestablishment of our country on a basis even better than before-these are matters of much more serious import to the people than the question whether or not one man should follow what he believes to be in .the interests of Canada in regard to revenue matters. It is not even possible for us to be at the present moment sure of what is or is not for the benefit of Canada in regard to one particular thing. There are as many opinions as there are members of the House in regard to these matters.- The Minister of finance, who has had great experience has probably received large numbers of different applications concerning different small items, and he could only satisfy everybody by granting each request. So that there is no bard and fast principle; we have to depend on the opinions of men who have voiced their views from time to time, and act without the advantage of experience in the actual carrying out of their suggestions.
If times were normal in Canada, then possibly one man would have the right to stand up in the House alone, if necessary, and fight for what he considered to be the pro-
per principle in regard to matters connected with the administration of the affairs of the country. But at a time like this we must consider all the possibilities in connection with any action we may take. If there is a single member of the House-at least, on this side of the House-who considers that a better Budget proposal could be got from any other Government that could be formed in this country during the next two or three years, I would like him to make the proposal so that we may have an opportunity of voting upon it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, it is with great diffidence and timidity that I rise this evening to address you, for various reasons, first, on account of the gravity of the situation which exists throughout the country to-day, and second, on account of the fact that we have had this afternoon two most eloquent speeches. One of these speeches was delivered on this side of the House by the hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMaster), who has certainly covered the whole situation from both financial and commercial standpoints. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will pardon me if I do not always agree with his principles and pronouncements. I have no personal feeling in my disagreements with him, but my spinions, judgments and conscience are as sacred to me as his are to himself. The hon. member for Brorne has certainly given great study to the question before the House, and he has covered the whole ground, leaving very little for any hon. member on this side to say. To the speech of the hon. member for Brome, we had a very eloquent reply from one of the able orators from the West who delivered a short oration which, however, in its brevity, contained a great deal. Cleverness is another attribute to his name in the West, and while it has not been my privilege to enjoy his eloquence for long, I have certainly appreciated the clever way in which he has veiled the confusion which has existed in the Cabinet since the bringing down of the Budget. He has begged -us to wait, and wait; he has given a lesson to the country in procrastination. I am under the impression that the Government have already exercised too much procrastination. I said at the beginning of the session, when speaking on the Address in reply to the speech

from the Throne, that the Government had already procrastinated too long. The war was over on the 7th or 8th of November, and under conditions prevailing at that time, the Government should have had first in mind the summoning of Parliament to consider the grave difficulties and problems confronting the country. It is not by putting off that the Government may expect to remedy this evil and the unrest that exist to-day in Canada, that unrest due already to the too long procrastination of the Government. Had Parliament been summoned in November or early in December and the representatives oi the people been free to exercise their judgment and to give the country and the Government the benefit of their opinions the country would not have been in the position in which it is to-day. Some hon. members took the ground that if we moved to the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, or to the Budget an amendment that might involve the Government, there would be disastrous results, because the country might be plunged into an election. Had an amendment been carried against the Government, which amendment the Government had not been pleased to put into execution, and had the Government resigned ;in February last and an election followed, we could have had a meeting of the new Parliament IbefoTe the first of May. The Winnipeg crisis might then have been avoided and we would have escaped the unrest which exists to-day.
The Minister o<f Customs (Mr. Sifton) has given us one reason why he wants further procrastination and delay. He says:	The
war is over, but peace is not yet signed; we hope it will be signed, but there are at the present time nineteen small European countries involved in civil war; we must wait until it is the pleasure of those nineteen warring countries to bring peace amongst themselves to see what we shall do for the future. May I remind the Minister of Customs that we are sending $25,000,000 worth of goods manufactured in Canada to Rumania to be bought by her on the credit of Canada, and Rumania is a country that is most affected by this civil strife? The Minister of Customs in Ms remarks has been shorter than usual, and I'believe his speech was brief because he was short of arguments to put before the country. Brevity of speech was never his reputation in the West when he could move the masses of Allberta and spoke his mind as a representative of that province in the local legislature, so
that the shortness of his speech cannot be explained by lack of words or ability.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to come back more directly to the Budget speech and the figures given by the Minister of Finance last Thursday when he presented to the House the situation as it exists in Canada to-day. He showed us that the total war expenditure up to date was $1,327,273,848. During the same period, that is, in the five years from April 1, 1914, to March 31, 1919, the total expenditure on ordinary account was $832,757,589, and the expenditure on capital account was $180,277,873. From the surplus available from our revenue over and above current expenditure, we have met the cost of the war to an amount of $275,943,977. Taking into account payments for interest upon war debt, the total paid from revenue on account of war to March 31, 1919, is $438,293,248. This shows that the net national debt of Canada, which on March 31, 1914, was, in round figures, $335,000,000, stood on March 31, 1919, in round figures, at $1,584,000,000.
The minister calculates that demobilization and other expenses during the current year will amount to $300,000,000. Other contingencies which he is not yet able to estimate will bring the net debt of Canada up to $1,590,000,000, or almost two billion dollars. That means a per capita debt of $220. The estimated annual interest charge is $115,000,000, as against $12,883,504 in 1914.
The minister has given a frank statement to the country. A debt of $220 per head of population is an immense burden upon the people oif Canada. It is a burden which no other nation of eight million people ever had to take up. But it will be taken up by the Canadian people with that same tenacious resolve with which they fought for the principles at stake in the war, for the liberation of the world from the slavery and shackles of the Hun-a war in which we enjoyed our share of glory in the victory of democracy and right and justice over autocracy, in the triumph of the principles of freedom, liberty, true Christianity over the oppression, vandalism, and ungodliness of the Hun. The burden will be heavier still on the minds of those Canadian mothers who to-day in ia devout spirit of Christianity are mourning the loss of fifty-five thousand sons of Canada-heroes whose bodies lie in Flanders, but whose homes are in heaven, whose mothers in tears resolved to make the sacrifice for the sake of the sacred cause.
The war is over, and it is now the duty of the Government and Parliament of Can-

ada to see what must he done for the future. Upon the Government and Parliament of Canada lies the responsibility of devising ways and means to restore this country to normal conditions and to bring about the development of the immense resources given to this country by the hand of Providence-resources of the land and the sea, of the soil and the forest, of our immense lakes and rivers with potential water-powers unlimited, of the oceans on both sides of this continent. We must eul-[DOT] tivate these resources in order that relief may be given as speedily as possible to the people of Canada from the abnormal conditions of to-day.
Although our national debt is almost two billion dollars, and the annual interest charge 1115,000,000, one redeeming feature is that this enormous debt is owed largely to the people of Canada in connection with Victory Bonds and other securities. One and a half billions of our national debt is held in Canada, $360,000,000 is held in Great Britain, and $150,000,000 in the United States. It is certainly encouraging to know that the great hulk of the annual interest expenditure will remain in the hands of the people of this country. As regards the $150,000,000 held in the United States, that reminds me that the Minister of Finance has changed his views somewhat in the course of the last few years. In 1911, with the Prime Minister of to-day (Sir Robert Borden) and the Conservative party, he was preaching that we should have " no truck or trade " with the United States, we should' not sell our goods at a profit in the United States, because it might impair our fiscal independence and weaken our loyalty to the British flag and the British Empire. But only a few years ago, instead of selling goods to the United States, tile minister mortgaged Canada to that country to the extent of $150,000,000, 'because he could get the loan from them easily. Times, indeed, have changed since 1911. But I will refer to the question of reciprocity in a few moments.
Our total revenue for 1918-19 was $305,230,000, an increase of $50,000,000 over the previous year. Of this amount, $147,740,000 was derived from Customs duties, about $69,000,000 from income and business profits taxation, and the balance from receipts from the Government railways, post office and inland revenue. This amount of $147,000,000 of customs duties was paid-taxation of raw material-by a population of eight millions; it was paid by the consumers of Canada, by the masses of the

people, for only a very small portion of it was paid by the man of means. During the same year the United States, with a population of one hundred and ten millions, paid in customs duties $221,659,066, which is less than double the amount paid by Canada, although her population is twelve or thirteen times as large. That gives a per capita charge in Canada of $18.45, while in the United States it was only $2.11. These figures, once they are brought home to the mind of the people of Canada, will never be forgotten.
During the past year, for every $92.35 paid by a Canadian family of five for food and clothing, a similar family in the United States paid $10.55. It is obvious, therefore, that as the Canadian consumer has to pay these excessive prices in order to contribute to enormous profits, the American workman enjoys a comfort and general benefit from his wages whieh the labouring man in this country cannot have, and it is no wonder that the Canadian workman is asking for higher wages to ameliorate his condition and at the very least to enable him to live in some degree of domestic comfort. The Canadian workman is suffering from the unduly high cost of living, which is the root of all the trouble and social unrest that is disturbing the country to-day, and whieh is producing a condition unparalleled in the history of the country. The protection which is afforded the Canadian manufacturer is made possible at the expense of the consumer, whose income is inadequate to cope with the high prices which he is charged in every direction. It is desirable that every man should be able to save a part of his earnings as a provision against future want, but far from achieving this fortunate condition the Canadian workman at the end of every month, or on every Saturday night, finds himself in a quandary as to what he will do to make ends meet. The protection of the manufacturer is the oppression of the poor man. The income tax and war profits tax are a hardship on the Canadian people, the returned soldiers and their families included. I may quote to the House, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, just a few figures to show how prices have been increased as a result of the protective tariff which is so greatly to the advantage of the manufacturer but which operates distinctly to the disadvantage of the people generally. I shall read from a report relating to the Dominion Textile Company for the year 1918. '.Here is what the trustees of that

company have to say concerning its operations :
Manufacturing profits for the year recently ended were $3,434,762, against $1,803,371 in 1917-18, an increase of $1,561,381, or in excess of 83 per cent, and substantially more than double those of the previous year. After all deductions, including $1,100,000 for war and income taxes, a newly-established pension fund, and replacement reserve, there remained for common stock distribution the sum of $1,559,888 or equal to 31.2 per cent, against 21.9 per cent in 1917-18, and 15.6 per cent the year before.
It is no wonder that ithe returned -soldier who needs a civilian suit and goes into a store to purchase a suitable outfit finds his resources so meagre as compared with prices that he cannot provide himself _ -as adequately as he should. The Canadian Cottons, Limited, another " infant industry," was also able, taking advantage of the privileges of protection, to increase its dividends from 6.2 in 1914 to 10.2 in 1916, while this year it declared a dividend of 19 per cent. The articles sold by these concerns are the commodities of the poor man, who, like everybody else, has to obtain clothing and footwear, and it is exceedingly difficult for him to get along when such high prices are charged. It will be seen from the figures I have quoted that it is the people of Canada, the returned soldiers as well, who have had to contribute to these big profits, and the taxes paid by these large concerns eventually come Qut of the consumer. It is sincerely to be hoped that the enormous profits made as a result of conditions arising from the war will never be realized in the future, because they entail a severe hardship on the poor classes of the community.
The lion. -Minister of Finance has informed us that it is the intention to abolish the war surtax of 1915 imposing a duty of 5 per cent on all importations from Great Britain and also the 7J per cent duty on importations from the United States and other countries. In 1915 when the minister introduced that measure we on this side of the House took strong ground against it. I, for one, though with feeble voice and poor ability, nevertheless was emphatic in my protest against it. More eloquent gentlemen, notably the hon. member foT Red Deer (Mr. Clark), declared their opposition to the proposal. The hon. member for Red Deer was strong in his opposition to the measure, particularly against the imposition of 5. per cent on manufactured goods from Great Britain-. The manufacturers in Great Britain were endeavouring to keep their industries going in that trying time, and it was not a very happy way of meeting the British people at the beginning of the war -by putting further taxes on the goods they were sending to Canada. On every $100,000,000 worth of goods the manufacturers of Great Britain have been sending us ever since that time they have had to -pay $5,000,000 more than they did before, and the other tax of 7J per cent also affected food products coming to this country including-to the detriment of the manufacturer-raw material. On- the face of it, the manufacturer was placed at a disadvantage in his ambition to reach the foreign markets. But no doubt he was depending on circumventing that 7i per cent by adding to the prices which the people of Canada have had to pay. It is not the manufacturers but the consumers who really suffered in these taxes. By the war tax the minister has collected approximately the same amount as

he has been collecting by the income tax. In 1915, when he introduced the surtax against Great Britain and other countries, we on this side of the House pointed out-and on this point again the hon. member for Red Deer was most eloquent-that there was another way of raising the money. Instead of this measure income taxation could have been extended and would have been an effective means of adding to the revenue. For three years the Minister of Finance has refused to listen'to the suggestions and the prayers of the Liberal party or the Opposition in this House. He would have collected the same amount from income taxes as he has received from the imposition of that tariff on British and other foreign goods, and the people of Canada to-day, and during the last three years, instead of paying enormous prices for food-tuffs and clothing, boots, shoes, etc., would have saved at least to that extent. Moreover, to-day there would not be the unrest and the uneasiness in regard to the imposition of taxes on the masses of the people.
Again, we urged the Government to adopt an income tax of such a character as would apply to all those who should be reached by such taxation. Ultimately the Government did adopt an income tax, although at first they brushed to one side our propositions as though they were impracticable. Their attitude seemed to be that if such a tax were imposed it would not pay the expense of collection. However, the Minister of Finance has disclosed to us what the results of the income tax have been, and I give him credit for his frankness and his honesty. To the extent stated by him taxation has been- lifted from the shoulders of the labourer and placed upon

the shoulders of the rich people who are well able to bear it. At the same time in regard to other measures of relief the Government still asks us to wait until they are in a position to see what can be done.
The Minister of Finance has claimed credit for lowering the tariff upon farming implements; but the reduction of duties in that regard leaves farming implements, practically speaking, in the position they were in before the outbreak of the war. The Government has been pursuing a policy of inaction and it is still advising the country to wait for measures of relief. There is one former member of the Cabinet, however, who because tired of procrastination, and of asking the people to wait, I refer to the ex-tMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) who, the moment the Budget was resolved upon, forwarded his resignation to the Prime Minister. Evidently that hon. gentleman deemed he had been waiting long enough. If the rest of his former colleagues did not hear the protests of the Western farmers ever since the signing of the armistice and the cessation of hostilities, the ex-Minister of Agriculture was keenly alive to their lamentations. He, for one, desired no further artificial barriers between Canada and the United States; he for one wished to see the farming industry, the chief industry of Canada, immediately put upon a proper footing. Had the appeals of the farming industry been heeded, we should have seen a lessening in the high prices which the labourer had to pay for his food in the cities while the western farmers would have enjoyed relief even as early as the first of December last. Those farmers, intelligent men as they are, and anxious not only to ameliorate their own condition but to promote the interests of the rest of the population, more especially in the congested cities of our country, demanded tariff reduction in various directions in order to carry out their aims, and they did not see why they should be called upon to wait. As early as November 27 last, a little over two weeks after the armistice was signed, they met in Winnipeg and urged the adoption of their programme for free trade with the United States in certain lines and for the lowering of the tariff on certain articles which they need, in order that they might immediately make their preparations for the following spring and not be compelled to delay until June arrived, when the preparations for the next year's crop would be completed. They wanted time to prepare themselves and let the country know that during the following summer, if every-
thing went well, they would have a surplus crop with the result that food products might be lessened in price. They were not animated by a selfish spirit in their demands. They were asking for the removal of duties but at the same time they favoured the free importation of food products from all other countries. They therefore asked the Government to give effect to the reciprocity agreement of 1911, and to enlarge the British preference in order that in the course of five years or so we might have free trade with Great Britain. This was the request of the Western fanners, and I repeat now what T said on an earlier occasion. It will be remembered that in March last, when speaking on the subject, I stated that the farmers of New Brunswick, as I knew them, were in complete accord with the Western farmers on this programme. My words were verified when the Farmers' Union of New Brunswick, at a sitting which was attended by a representative of the Ontario Farmers' Association, passed the same- resolution which the latter organization had adopted a month or two previous. So that to-day we have virtually the whole farming industry of Canada urging the Government to put into effect the reciprocity pact. Yet all that the Government has done, after a lapse of eight years, has been to give us free wheat, and also at the urgent request,
I have no doubt, of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), free potatoes. It has taken the Government eight years of consideration to grant free wheat and free potatoes. How many centuries will the farmers of the West have to wait before the whole of the programme which they are urging is adopted? Really, the Government in the last eight years has shown itself capable only of doing the right thing at the wrong time, and thus the ben-fits which result when it does move are not so great as if action had been taken at the proper moment. Had the people of Canada been able to enjoy the benefits of the reciprocity agreement in 1911, more particularly during the intervening period until war was declared, we should not have seen an exodus from the West of many good farmers there who originally came from the country to the south but, after the defeat of reciprocity, returned to the United States.
They stopped the current of immigration from the western states to Canada, and as a result we have lost 100,000 of the best farmers, men who would have helped in the production of supplies of foodstuffs for the Allies. This is the condition to which we are reduced to-day, and it is certainly to the

honour of the memory of our great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the people, now that they have suffered for their mistake, are clamouring for the Reciprocity agreement. We know that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's ('Mr. Fielding) was the foster father of that agreement, and also of the British Preference in 1897. Had the Liberal party remained in power in 1911 the country would have been enjoying the advantages of that reciprocal arrangement with the United States and of free trade with Great Britain. This country has lost by the mistakes of 1911. 'Since that date the Government has done the right thing at the wrong time.
In that year also the programme of the [DOT] late leader of the Liberal party included the establishment of a Canadian navy. We have no Canadian navy. We waited for three years and nothing was done. When War was declared we did not have a cruiser nor a submarine to our name. German merchant vessels were going down the St. 'Lawrence river while our navy lay dismantled in Halifax. Had even our few fighting ships been kept in proper condition we could have seized enough German prizes to pay for the construction of a navy. During the war we have been in the humiliating position of having to depend upon Australia and Japan to guard the shores of British Columbia. Had Sir Wilfrid Laurier's plan been carried out we would have had a navy *to form the nucleus of a greater navy. Next year if we follow the suggestion of the British Admiralty we will have to build the navy which was intended under the programme of the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party in 1911.


Mr. BELAND:: Who is responsible for
there being no Canadian navy?


Onésiphore Turgeon: The responsibility rests
upon the same heads as the responsibility for the country not having the advantage of the Reciprocity agreement. I see my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) smiling. He has come too late to enjoy the benefits of the principles which he advocated in 1911. He will perhaps build up a Canadian navy, but he will do so at the wrong time, at a time when it will not be appreciated, and when it -cannot give the invaluable service that it could have given during the war. Too late, again!
The farmers of the West want the income tax graduated. They also ask that all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected- by the customs tariff be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings. I will not deal with the programme in detail, but it is a very industrious one. It seems, however, to have been instructive only to the late Minister of Agriculture (Mr. iCrerar). He also has been wise enough to abide by it, for it is- according to his own views-the views of a true statesman having the vision of the future of Canada. That programme also requires that all foodstuffs not included in the Reciprocity agreement he placed on the free list; that agricultural implements, farm machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumSber, cement, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils be placed on the free list, and that all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also be placed on the free list. The revisions made by the Minister of Finance are nothing compared with the demands of the farmers of the West, renewed in Winnipeg on November 29 last. They also demand the immediate repeal of the War-time Elections Act. The Government have turned a deaf ear to the request so far. If I understand the situation they will continue to ignore it until a new session is called.
Every protectionist gives reasons, Mr. Speaker, why the country must go easy on tariff revision, and he fears that the manufacturer will not be able to continue in business if he does not get all the protection that he wants. Situated as Canada is, with her vast resources and her tremendous potentialities, I say that if there is a country that should be anxious- to have free trade in the fullest possible measure, it is Canada, for those resources will enable us to compete with the rest of the world.
That the markets of the world are awaiting our manufactures we have the testimony of the appointee of the Government in Europe, Mr. Lloyd Harris. It is only a day or two ago that he sent a message to. the Canadian manufacturers, in which he said:
I want the Canadian people to get a vast vision of the trade opportunities in Europe. It is not trade between one firm and another, but trade between whole nations and a sister nation.
Let the manufacturers of Canada look to the other countries who are in need of our products as well as in need of our foodstuffs. I have always said that all raw materials should be made free of duty. That is the only way that we can put the Canadian manufacturer in a (position to compete with the manufacturers of other countries.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time of thought and of reflection. As the representative of

a farming and fishing constituency, as the representative of a constituency which has also other elements of industry, and as having at heart the interests of Canada at large, I wish to make my position clear before the House and the country. I am a Liberal of the school of Cobden and Gladstone; I am a free-trader, in the essence of the word, just as much to-day as I was a year ago, two years ago, twenty years ago. The time has come when the social and financial conditions in Canada 'are such that the consumer and the workingman should no longer be obliged to pay all the expenses of government. That is a British Liberal principle. I am for free trade, as far as its adoption is practicable, to-day, to-morrow, next year or the year after. I am for a diminution of the tariff in every direction, to every practical extent, so that in the course of a few years Canada may depend upon income taxation and the taxation of land values and of objects of luxury for the necessary revenue to administer the country's affairs.
We talk of tariff for revenue and tariff for protection. A tariff for revenue is necessary, at times. It should be imposed upon objects of luxury; it should fall upon commodities not produced in the country, so that no privileged interest may take advantage of it. It should not rest merely upon the poor man or the workingman in the city. In its policy of protection the Conservative party has always been proud in declaring that they wanted to raise up towns and cities in Canada. But if you want to develop towns and cities, you must first develop the farming industry. Improve the state of the farmer, make him happy and contented, and his sons will remain on the land. But if you do not enable the farmer to enjoy life; if you do not better his condition, the young men will leave the farm to go to the cities; and the result will be not the raising up and development of towns and Cities, but the increasing of non-employment. A tariff for revenue allows goods to come into the country ; a tariff for protection stops goods from coming into the country. And under a tariff for protection the manufacturer, knowing that the twenty-five or thirty per cent duty prevents the foreign manufacturer from sending his goods into Canada, adds a corresponding amount to the price of his goods and makes the enormous profit referred to a while ago-and the people of the country, the workingmen, have to bear the burden.
Canada is in a better position to adopt free trade than any country in Europe,
Mir. Turgreon. ]
where nations adjacent to each other have been enemies and have had to protect themselves against each other. Trade is an inducement to friendship; the more we trade with each other the greater friends we become. The more the nations of the world trade with each other the more friendly and fraternal they become. Free trade would be an inducement to perpetual peace. There is a dictum among old French economists to the effect that the millennium will come when the nations of the world have free trade. Believing in this dictum, I had hoped that the end of the war would be the occasion of the introduction of free trade among the allied nations, binding them together in commerce and in fraternal sentiment, and offering an example to the Hun and to nations which until today have been fighting against each other. If my hopes have not yet been aceom-
9 p.m. plished, I still trust that when peace is signed, as it will be, no doubt, in a few days, the League of Nations, whose intention is to promote harmony among nations, will further that object by bringing about freedom of trade. I hope that before many years have passed, the German nation, regenerated by the influence of a new education, will be admitted to the League of Nations. There is something providential in the work of the men across the ocean who are endeavouring to frame a peace treaty which will ensure the future peace of the world. Free trade among nations will certainly help the League of Nations to bring about that peace, to the great happiness of the world at large.
Free trade has won the war for Great Britain. At the time of the war she had an immense commercial fleet, which had increased year after year as her trade extended across the seas to the shores of every continent. If she had not had that trade and that commercial fleet, Germany might to-day be master of the world and hold in slavery those who contended against her. If free trade has won the war; if free trade made England prosperous, it will make Canada equally prosperous. I do not say that we should have free trade this year in every detail; the country has not been educated to that. We are often reminded by political adversaries, members of the Conservative party, that when the Liberal party came into power they did not introduce free trade. Well, they did not introduce free trade, but they made great progress toward free trade in the first year of their administration.	[DOT]
It has by reductions in the tariff reduced the imposts on food products and

other necessities of the people of Canada by at least $100,000,000, without counting hundreds of millions saved to the people by the absence of excess profits which the manufacturers might otherwise have been able to make upon those commodities. Therefore, the country, during that time, enjoyed a freedom of tariff to the extent of some two or three hundred million dollars. After some two or three years of study and effort, our late leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the ex-Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), effected with the United States an agreement which was designed to create the greatest possible measure of free trade which could be introduced between the two countries. The Conservative party then deceived the people of Canada, and the people refused that agreement, to their great regret ever since. We know what took place at that time. The Prime Minister himself and other members of the Government went to the West and put the western people on their guard against trafficking with the United States lest they might lose their loyalty to the British Empire. The Britisher who cannot deal with another nation or another man outside of his country is not a British man. Britain has traded with every country in the world, and the men of the British Isles have never lost one iota of their loyalty by the increase of their trade. It was difficult to bring about a trade reform of that kind in a short time. We know what the principles of the protectionist party had been before that period. The workman had been educated to the theory that the particular industry to Which he was consecrating his labour could not stand without protection. He was educated to the necessity of voting for his employer whose industry, he was told, would otherwise be ruined and his own employment would cease. That was the education given to the labour element in the first years of the protective tariff in 1878. The atmosphere was .saturated with the poisonous gas of protection which restrained the energy of the people, and capital, or rather the privileged interests, took advantage of the lethargy of the workingman to make him accept a low wage as a matter of charity, the workman being led to believe that it was by charity that, he was being given employment. Therefore, it required some time to divert the trend of financial and economic education in Canada; but to-day I see that the workman of the twentieth century wishes to live the life of an intelligent
Christian citizen the world over. He wishes to enjoy life with his family and to educate his children as well as the professional man and the man of greater means is able to do. To reach his goal, he must have a certain wage, whatever that may be, he does not count that wage by the number of dollars, shillings, francs, or marks that he receives; he counts it by the purchasing power of the particular unit, and he is as well satisfied with three dollars a day if that three dollars can buy him as much food and clothing for his family as can be bought for six dollars to-day. He does not look for an excess of wages; he looks for a decent, Christian living. When I say Christian living I mean that when there is poverty there are bound to be abuses of all kinds, and the labour element will be discouraged; and it is the duty of the nation to see that the moral courage of the labour element in the country is sustained by a wage sufficient to warrant the workingman in living in that state in which he wishes and has a right to live and to bring up his family.
But .even the Conservatives to-day, who are still clamouring for protection and who claim that our industries cannot survive without further protection, are not in sympathy with the principles enunciated by that great authority, Sir John A. Macdonald, who, in 1877, wanted protection for our infant industries. Those infant industries have now reached the age of forty. The infant who cannot walk at forty years of age should be put on some island by itself, and so the industry which cannot stand by itself after forty years of protection might as well be put into an asylum where there is nothing for it to do.
Mr. Speaker, with these remarks I wish to conclude by saying that I hope that the Government may be influenced to adopt a more patriotic attitude, and that we shall not be required, as the Minister of Customs (Mr. iSifton) has said, to wait another year or two for further consideration of the tariff. The Minister of Customs has promised us an inquiry by a commission composed of himself, the Minister of Finance [DOT]and two or three other ministers. ' But this is something better than the tariff commission which has been suggested by some of the Conservative newspapers, .namely, that we have an independent commission entirely free from politics. We have already had too many of these independent commissions with the shifting responsibility from the Government and really making the Parliament of Canada a chamber without authority, without function,

and this the people of Canada are not in a mood to support very much longer. I trust, however, that if such a commission is established it will make faster progress than the Minister of Customs has led us to understand this afternoon, and that before another year the Government will be able to bring down a programme which will be more acceptable to the country. It is to be regretted that Canada is put in such a position by a Government which has not the courage to take the situation in hand and declare in favour of a policy such as the requirements of the country to-day demand. I hope, however, for the best. As a Canadian, a Liberal and a free trader, I hope that the time will soon come when the Cana-, dian people will not be afraid of trouble during an election. We have never yet had any trouble in Canada during an election; even the last election, which was supposed to be so momentous, which was supposed to be likely to cause trouble, was conducted more quietly than ever an election was conducted before. And to-day, under the grave situation which exists, if the Government, rather than wait and procrastinate again for another year or two, would say: Well, our Government is, after all, a Government appointed for the period of the war, as the Union members of it claim every day that ' they joined the Government only for the period of the war. The war has been over for six months, so now they talk of staying till after demobilization. Well, demobilization will be completed in the course of a month or two. Let the Government then, if they have not the courage to take the position which they know the people of Canada are impressing upon them to-day, dissolve Parliament and ask the people to pronounce upon the issue free trade or protection, because it is evidently the intention of the Government to procrastinate and give no hope to the people of this country by a change in fiscal policy.
Hon. C. C. BALLAiNTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): Before speaking in favour of the Budget, which has my heartiest approval and support, and which was presented to the House so lucidly last week by our very able Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), I wish to pay my tribute to my late colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar), who a few days ago resigned from the Cabinet. I had not the pleasure of knowing him until he became a member of the Government, but I am very pleased indeed that I had the opportunity of becoming a colleague of his, and of form-
 ,
ing the acquaintance of a gentleman of such high standing and integrity. As the Minister of Customs said this afternoon, Mr. Crerar entered the Government from a sense of duty and at a great personal sacrifice, and now he feels the necessity of again taking up his business and private affairs. It is true that the other members of the Government did not see eye to eye with him on the tariff, but for all that we fully recognized his sincerity, and he leaves the Cabinet to the regret of all his colleagues. Although he has stated on many occasions that it is not his intention to stay in public life, I, for one, sincerely hope that he will change his mind and remain a member of Parliament.
We have listened this afternoon and evening with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), who have fully explained to the House their views on the tariff. The only criticism that any one would be justified in making of any changes in the tariff which the Government has proposed would be that, in view of our very large national debt, which in round figures amounts to two billion dollars, and the necessity of raising the revenue, no changes should be made in the tariff at all. I believe that the Budget as brought down will meet with the approval of the majority of the members on this side of the House, and will appeal also to a very large number of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I am a Protectionist Liberal, a believer in moderate protection. Before I strayed from the fold I did not find that my views were at variance with those of the majority of the members composing the Liberal party of that day, nor do I think that my views as a moderate Protectionist Liberal would be much at variance to-day with those of the majority of hon. members sitting to the left of the Chair.


Charles Murphy: Oh yes, they would.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: All I can say is
this: We can only judge the Liberal party by the policy they pursued during the fifteen years they were in power in this country. I, for one, saw no tangible signs of free trade during that period. The manufacturers of this country were perfectly satisfied with the fiscal policy of the Liberal Government during those fifteen years, and I Relieve that if hon. gentlemen opposite were again in pcftver and had the responsibility of office placed upon them, their policy for the future would not be very

much different from that they pursued when they were in power.
I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Brome, and noticed that he very carefully avoided all reference to the problem that confronts the Government, Parliament, and the people of this country, of how to raise the necessary revenue. The Minister of Finance stated that it would take 1115,000,000 to pay the annual interest on the national debt, and that next year $40,000,000 would be required for pensions. He also stated in the most convincing manner that the revenue would just meet the interest on the national debt, the amount required for pensions, and the ordinary expenditure of the country, and that any moneys required for capital expenditure would have to be obtained by means of a further loan. I thought that the hon. member for Brome-a genial gentleman whom I admire very much, a good lawyer, and a man very highly thought of in the city from which we both come-after the time and attention he has given ito the financial affairs of Canada, would explain to the House how he would raise the necessary revenue; but, alas, I heard nothing from him in that regard whatever. He made. no reference in his remarks to hi;s formeT speech in this House on the 25th of March last-when I was not in my place in this House owing to a serious illness-and no reference whatever to the amendment he proposed at that time and I could not help wondering whether the leader of the Opposition (Mir. McKenzie) had told him to put the soft pedal 0n his Free Trade principles. I recall with a great deal of satisfaction that the leader of the Opposition stated in this House not many nights ago, that as regards the policy of protection for Canada he was not going to make up his mind on any theories, but on facts, and facts alone. I am in entire accord with him there. In his amendment on the 25th of March, the hon. member for Brome proposed a reduction in the tariff on d great number of articles which I shall not take up the time of the House to enumerate, as hon. gentlemen are perfectly familiar with his amendment and the speech he made on that occasion.
I consulted Hansard this afternoon when the hon. member was speaking to see if I could find there any argument advanced by him whereby the country would raise the necessary revenue if it pursued such a policy as he outlined. If there was to be a reduction in the duties on a large number of manufactured articles, thereby very materially reducing the revenue, and then a further gradual reduction of the tariff
as he proposed, I was anxious to ascertain what counter-proposal he had to meet the situation. I could find nothing on the pages of Hansard to show how the hon. member could raise the necessary revenue but he did say that if the Government took off the 7i per cent war tax, he believed that, as a consequence, the manufacturers would make more money and that the revenue could be increased through the income tax. I am afraid, however, that the hon. gentleman would be disappointed in this respect, for he would not obtain very much revenue in that way. He made another suggestion, that if the tariff were reduced the imports coming into" the country would be larger and we would get the necessary revenue as a result. Well, I am a. tyro in public life and a new member of this House, and while I have not had very much experience in public affairs, I think I may safely say that one can take as his very best guide in matters of this kind the policy of such great men as have filled the office of Prime Minister of this country during the last fifty years. And when the policy of moderate protection has been adhered to by both Conservative and Liberal Governments, that must be the easiest and best way of raising the necessary revenue, and also the fairest and most equitable system having regard to the diversified interests that exist. We frequently hear it said that the tariff is for what some people are pleased to term the privileged or big interests, or the special class. I have been in the manufacturing business all my life and I have no hesitation in saying that if the tariff were framed in the interests of manufacturers alone it would prove a very poor tariff from their point of view. The tariff is not so framed. It is not framed for the manufacturers nor for the farming community alone; nor is it framed with any other special class in view. It is framed and put into effect in the interests of all classes. If the manufacturers could obtain a tariff at their will I say they would not want a High tariff.	I think I am speaking
fairly for the majority of manufacturers of this country when I say that all that they want is just a moderate protective tariff. The manufacturers are not looking for restricted trade but for the largest volume of business that it is possible for them to gain, not only in the home market, but also in foreign markets, and the business men well know that the greater the volume of business the lower the cost of production, and that eventually the manufacturer makes more money by a large than by a small


Mr. OOPP:: What class of ships is that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stan-stead):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. C. C. Ballantyne) has said that the Government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier did nothing to reduce the tariff during the fifteen years that the Liberal Government was in power. But may I point out that the preferential tariff was brought in during that time, and that the letter postage rate was reduced from three to two cents. I am afraid it will be a long time before we get back to the two-cent letter postage rate, although I understand that the United States are going back to the old rate on the first of July.
The Minister of Marine expressed himself as being very glad that there were so many representatives of the West in this
10 p.m. House. Well, you cannot very well keep the representatives of the West from being here-unless you obliterate the constituencies from which they come. But had the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier of 1911 been adopted, the great West would have sent many more members to Parliament than are here to-day, because the very day the elections took place hundreds of wealthy Americans had located tens of thousands of acres in the Canadian West and were ready to purchase the moment reciprocity was approved by the electors. Had that policy been accepted, Canada would be in a far better position than she is in to-day. The West would not be complaining about the Hutterites and Mennonites coming into their part of the country and about the return of Americans to the country whence they came. The member for Ked Deer (Mr. Clark) said a short time ago that upon the millions of acres of land out there enough wheat could be raised to make our appalling debt a mere bagatelle. Well, it would take a large number of people to raise a sufficient amount of wheat to do that. If we had the people to raise that wheat, we should not have hesitated to agree to the renewal of the' forty-four charters that were under discussion the other day in connection with the railway policy.
I am in full accord with the suggestion of the minister that a better feeling should prevail in this country among the different classes of the people. As he has been connected with a great number of industries, he is the man who should set the example. It would be a good thing if the high and the rich pecple in Canada would extend the hand of fellowship to the labouring men, and make themselves approachable; if they would interest themselves in the working-
man, as my hon. friend says they have in most of the factories that have been erected in Canada during the last few years. Let them cut off some of their private cars and limousines; let them extend the hand of fellowship to the workingman, as is done in United States. One of the best resolutions that I have seen go through this House was that which we passed the other day to. do away with the burden of titles, and to let aristocracy out. The day that we lifted the burden of hereditary titles from this country, we started to act upon democratic principles. I have been in the United States on occasions, and I find that the greatest men there are approachable. You will be sitting in some public arena, hotel or park; you will approach some man and engage in conversation with him, and you will find that he is a Chief Justice of United States, the president of a great railway corporation, a senator or a congressman. You will find that you are not at all in any state of frenzy because you have approached such a man; he makes you feel that he is no greater than yourself. A short time ago members of the House were discussing the salaries of judges, which, they said,, were such that the judges could do nothing else but sit upon the bench. In the United States I have known judges to do their own gardening, curry their own horses and milk their own cows-and no doubt they are better for it, mentally, physically, and spiritually. When we have a proper democratic spirit in this country there will be a better relationship between the rich and the poor. I know people who move around 'this country wearing the most expensive clothing and with rubies, pearls and diamonds bedecking their anatomies-and they are called millionaires. But there is a wrong impression going around the country with regard to these people, very many of whom could not pay their grocery bills. And, mind you, they are always throwing tips to waiters. I know other people who are called millionaires who could not raise $50,000 if the rope was waiting for them-excuse me, we are going to discard the rope for the electric chair. Therefore, it is better for us to let ourselves be known as we are. To be sure, many people have got rich during the war, and I certainly hope they will be made to disburse their money lavishly. As I understand by the new Budget, they will be called upon to pay in such amounts that they will remember it.

The one great thing that faces Canada to-day is its appalling debt. The very first week of the present session, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) gave us to understand that there would be a shortage of $100,000,000; that the sums required were enormous and appalling. As a man who has worked fifteen hours a day for more than twenty years, and who, in many of those years, has had to make most strenuous efforts to hold himself together, I think I could beat the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) at the woodpile or at any other pile where hard labour is necessary, and I admire the workingman because I believe the cheerful worker is the happiest person on this earth.
The Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) said that the sum of $40,000,000 was required for pensions, but if we compare our position with that of the United States afteT the civil war, it was more than ten years after the civil war was over that the pensions of the United States reached that enormous sum;. In Canada, iwe (should have adopted a different scheme in dealing with that matter, and instead of putting down $40,000,000 in hard cash for pensions, we should have had an insurance system similar to that adopted by the United States. Every soldier, as soon as he was enlisted or conscripted in Canada, should have had an opportunity of putting $5,000, or $10,000 insurance on his life and the premium should have been deducted from his pay, and then he would have a fund to rely on in the future. I do not believe in living for to-day; I believe every good business man plans and builds for to-morrow and the future. The United States 'adopted that policy, and they stood behind the soldier who had his life insured so that the premiums could not be raised. What did this Government do? They did not adopt such a policy, and the consequence was that as soon as a soldier went to the war the premiums were raised on any insurance policies he 'had. I know a man who had two sons insured in a British company, and he was so provoked by the additional sums his sons had to pay in insurance premiums that he dropped those policies, and as they lived near the American border, those sons went into the American army and insured in American companies. There is no need for this country to have such an appalling amount to pay in pensions as $40,000,000. We could have had our soldiers carrying insurance policies at about one-half or two-thirds of the rates that an ordinary citizen pays.
This would have given our soldiers something to look forward to in the future, in their old age or should they decline in health, as they could have taken out any of the ordinary insurance policies such as straight life, endowment, and so on.
Where are we going to get all this money? The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) seemed to be very much alarmed over the situation, and the expenditure of money has continued; indeed, in one week in this House we voted nearly $500,000,000 for public works. When the railways were taken over-that most stupendous undertaking- we were told by the hon. member for Perth that we on this side of the House did not dare state where we stood. Five minutes after he sat down the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) said that not five hon. members on this side believed in public ownership. No one, I am sure, believes in public ownership unless there is a provision that everything shall be run as it should be, and we who understand these things do not believe that men will work for the Government as they will work for a private corporation. We do not believe men have the same interest as they have in a private undertaking; we believe it will be one long price and that it will be said: Never mind, the Government has to pay the money, so let it go.
I do not believe in these commissions that are being established. I believe the members of the Cabinet and their deputies could handle their departments and save an enormous amount of money. Just three days ago the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) mentioned a little fact, namely, that he saved $7,000 by going to the Minister of Public Works over some cabinets, and the minister said to him: If I had known that I could have saved $62,000 by using wood instead of steel cabinets. We do not believe that the country can run a railroad or any other undertaking without there being enormous deficits. That most excellent authority, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) took issue with the Minister of Finance over the question, whether railway income and expenditure should go into the Consolidated Fund or not. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's claimed that they should and I am as sure as I am here and as the Minister of Finance is there that he knew it could not be done without absorbing the whole revenue producing departments of the Government, that is, customs and inland revenue. He knew, if the railway income and expenditure were put

into the Consolidated Revenue Fund there would be a tremendous deficit at the end of each fiscal year. Indeed, there seems occasionally to be a sort of fellowship meeting in this House, and things are allowed to run through until it is almost enough to make a person think that the Fathers of Confederation, the men who sat in this House years ago, would turn over in their graves if they could see what was becoming of Canada to-day.
*The present Minister of Marine and Fisheries has begun a shipbuilding programme. As the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) said, hon. members on the other side of the House have a great faculty of doing the right thing at the wrong time. Procrastination is the thief of time, and to undertake a great shipbuilding scheme at this time with tonnage costing $200, or double what it should, and without our being able to get cargoes on the other side to bring here, as well as cargoes to carry over, is almost inconceivable. Where are we drifting. Mr. Turriff of the Senate had to raise the matter there. I would think, by reading hip remarks in the press, that he thought there were no men in this House-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must ask the hon. member not to refer to debates in the upper House.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Thank you, Sir. I probably am not very well acquainted with Parliamentary procedure. He used to sit in this House; but what he said struck me as a warning, and I cannot see where we are drifting unless into a desperate situation which we cannot get out of. If I may be pardoned for using personalities, I am one who has been willing to go into things very deeply, to hypothecate every particle of property that I have when I could see with my optics a thing that was not too speculative, and in the different contingencies that have come up, I have had to sweat to get out. The Government is getting into that debt from which I see no way out unless we have an enormous immigration into this country and a tremendous production.
The Government owns praatioally ithe whole press of this country. Why have they not asked the press to drive the facts home to the people of Canada that we must have production from the soil? We know very well that timber is a quick asset, and that ' farm lands give an annual crop. Now if the people had been prevailed on to go back on the land and produce, we should have had something with which to pay our
[.Mr. Baldwin.]
national debt. Let me warn the Government and all those within sound of my voice, that a year from now food stuffs will cost more than they do to-day. Eggs, when they can be got, are going into cold storage at fifty cents. Butter is more than ten cents higher than a year ago; salt poTk, which can be barrelled and kept for years, is now $70 a barrel. Everything made of fats has gone up. Soap is jumping and will probably be as high in this country in a year or two as the boys had to pay for it in France, and 'that is a tremendous price.
There is no way out except, to use the words of the Minister of Finance, to produce and save. I prefer the more homely expression " work " We never shall be able to pay our national debt by working only six hours a day. After the American war the people of that country went into farming in a most- extensive way. They did not build up any navy; foreign powers did their carrying trade. Farm lands were taken up right to the foot of the Rockies, the population increased tremendously, and the United States became a great manufacturing country. And then they commenced to build a navy, but not a very big one until after the war started. Canada is in a very bad environment because we are living next to a populous and rich nation, and we are acquiring the habit of spending money and spending it needlessly. If this poor country was back in the position it was in fifty or sixty years ago we would be in a much better position to pay our debt than we are to-day. We have taken on the burdens of a rich people. Look at the automobiles in this country to-day. Look at the money that is being spent in the playhouses. The United States closed up their amusement houses during the war, but nothing of that kind was done in Canada.
In this country, I am told, we have only 185 people to every mile of railway, which is *a greater mileage according to population probably than any other country in the world, and yet-I do not want to insult the West-the people of the West are coming down here and asking for railways into every squaw settlement and back region. Other people are talking about aeroplanes to go to the moon, the North Pole, the Yukon, and everywhere else. Let us come to our senses as loyal patriotic Canadians and realize that we have got to buckle down to work, economize, and save. There is no harm in my saying that, because the great banks of this country have issued letters warning people against buying too many new clothes, and when those letters were issued the clothes which cost twenty

dollars are probably costing forty dollars now. The saving of forty dollars by a million people means a national saving of forty million dollars. Every one knows that all of us, both men and women, have more clothing than we need. In olden times clothes were worn to protect the body, and not for show.


Mr. BUTTS:: Has any country in the
world a greater railroad mileage per capita than Canada?	[DOT]


Willis Keith Baldwin: Although I have
travelled somewhat I am afraid I cannot answer that question. My hon. friend should put his question to the Minister of Railways. I think, however, that my statement as to railway mileage in this country is correct. I was going on to say that a policy of work and save will save this country. We must economize and do the things that go with it. There must be a better feeling among the people. We have got to make ourselves a people who will extend a cordial helping hand. We must extend good cheer and the brightness of our nature to improve the appalling state of affairs in this country to-day. It seems to me it is worse than a disease, or an epidemic. I believe that this Government has got a "tremendous burden upon its shoulders. Now is the accepted time and the day of salvation-not the day for procrastination. If commissions are going to do the work of the Government I would suggest that we amend our constitution. Our representation in this House is based upon the population of Quebec, and I would suggest that Quebec send a member to this House from each judicial district. That would reduce the membership of this House by two-thirds. If this country is going to be run by commissions and Orders in Council, if Orders in Council are going to do the work which the elected representatives of the people are sent here to do, the adoption of my suggestion would mean a big saving to the country.
I remarked in this House some months ago, that I thought the Cabinet should be reduced by two-thirds, and if necessary have bureaus to help them along. I do not hear any hon. members cheering that suggestion, so I think it is fair to assume that it will not be acted upon.	_
I hope the War Measures Act will be dispensed with as speedily as possible and that its provisions will be resorted to no longer. I think that the Franchise Act is the cause of the unrest in Canada today. Indeed, I think it is largely responsible for the gravest features of the unrest, and the Government should introduce as early as possible a franchise measure that will give to every man who has not committed any act of violence in this country, and who in the past has exercised the franchise, the right to vote. This right should not be based upon any racial line of de-marfcation, but should be within the reach of every citizen who commits no breach of law. I am as much a supporter of law and order as any other hon. member of this House, and I am just as ready to see those punished who commit acts of violence and merit punishment. The Franchise Act should foe based on the provincial lists. It would be less expensive to the country and would be fair. Municipalities prepare those lists and know just who should vote.
In regard to the housing question, I believe that this matter is wrong in every respect. It is not going to help the people in the rural sections, and they are the people whom we want to help. The farmers and poor people of the country need assistance, and I advocated last year the establishment of national reserve banks by means of Which a farmer could secure a certain amount of money, two-thirds say, of the equity in his estate'. I observe that an eminent authority, a banker of high standing, recently expressed the opinion that there should be national reserve banks in Canada.
As regards roads, I think the sum of $25,000,000 has been set aside for the improvement of highways. This is a matter that appeals very strongly to every one who lives in a rural section. Cities can connect with one another only by way of the country, and this question is therefore important to people in the country. What struck me as a notable fact was that the members from Ontario said that for every dollar that was appropriated in this project only 65 cents went into the road, while 35 cents went somewhere else. This is not true in the case of the province from which I come, where everything was done that was possible and every cent expended went on the highways and not into somebody's pocket. While I am on this subject, let me say that the roads and public works of Canada should provide means of employment for every criminal from every jail and penitentiary and internment camp in the country. In other words, every man who is fed and clothed by the Dominion of Canada should work for the Dominion. This is a most opportune time, now that the returned soldier is back in

the country, to put this proposal into effect. France adopted this system many years ago, and I think the United States recently adopted it, with great success in both cases. It is intolerable that native-born Canadians or those who have become citizens by adoption should work for and support criminals and keep them in idleness in aggregations, while they might with profit to themselves be doing work that would fit them to be better citizens at the expiration of their terms of imprisonment, I heartily advocate this system and trust that it will be adopted. It is not too much to expect that those who have violated the law should pay for their keep. This is only common sense and must appeal to every thinking person. Why, even the honey bees kill the drones, for they will not support non-producers, and it would be better for the criminals and for the country as well if such men were put to useful and profitable work. We could move them from one section of the country to another in order that they might be employed the year round. They could be sent to British Columbia in winter and could be put to work in the East in summer. Altogether I think it is time that we should take this proposal into consideration.
Quebec, a province of which I am most proud, has saved the Dominion of Canada on two or three occasions, and it is saving it now. This is evidenced by the fact that there is practically no unrest at the present time in that great province, which can support and sustain tens of millions of inhabitants with its great water-powers, its great valleys and. great rivers. No trouble exists in that province. There are settlements, sixty and eighty miles up rivers, establishing new parishes. Yet they are not rushing into Parliament for public money to drain lands and build railroads. The people are happy and content in Quebec, and they are tolerant, just, and right in their relations with the minority. Under Sir Lomer Gouin, we 'have a government of which we are justly proud, and it is a revelation to compare the state of finance in Quebec with that as revealed in this Parliament. In that wonderful province there are water-powers enough to drive all the industries and to pull every railway train that will ever go through that part of the country, and the possibilities in the future are untold. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have occupied sufficient time in view of the fact that it is pretty well understood on both sides of 
the House that it is desirable that the House should adjourn before very long.


Air. ROBERT JAMES MAN  I ON@Fort William and Rainy River: Mr. Speaker, in my few remarks this evening I shall attempt to emulate the Minister of Customs in his brevity, although I do not hope to follow his example to the extent of concluding in fifteen minutes. However, I shall endeavour to finish in about twice that time. In that brief space I shall not attempt to decide that century-old question as to whether free trade or protection is the best policy for any country, because the greatest intellects in England have been pondering that question for the past hundred years, and have not yet by any means decided it. In fact, they are starting the discussion all over again.
In regard to the Budget which the Minister of Finance delivered in this House so ably a few days ago, I am confident that it will not satisfy the extremists on either side of the House or in the country. Neither the extreme free traders nor the extreme protectionists will be satisfied with the result, but I believe that the average citizen of Canada, when he takes into consideration the fact that Canada owes pretty nearly $2,000,000,000 instead of $330,000,000 as before the war; that $115,000,000 in interest has to be raised; and that a sum between $35,000,000 and $40,000,000 has to be provided for pensions, when he thinks of the vast problems which will have to be dealt with, he will regard the Budget as fairly satisfactory.
I believe that the average citizen will be particularly pleased with the fact that the Government has taken that extra seven and a half per cent off the necessaries of life. He will also feel satisfied that the income tax has been increased and will be gratified with the promise of the Finance Minister that a revision of the tariff shall be made within the next year. I presume the average citizen will understand that the revision referred to is not a revision upwards. The other day when the debate took place here regarding the unrest in the country I attempted to get the floor on two or three occasions, but I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I therefore am now going to say a few words on that subject for the reason that my own city, among many of the cities in the West, is one of the centres of unrest at the present time. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when you take into consideration the vast problems that this Government has handled, and the fair manner on the whole in which they

have been dealt with; when you take into account the fact that we have just finished a great war in which the Allies were victorious-a victory which was partly won by the Canadians-I think it is a fair question to ask why is unrest so prominent in this country? Why is Canada tc-day in such an appalling condition of unrest? If you treat a sickness or malady, whether it be in a human being or in a nation, it is necessary to find the cause; otherwise, you cannot treat that malady intelligently; and until you remove the cause you cannot cure the disease. I should say there are three main causes for the prevailing unrest in this country. The first-perhaps not the most important, but the first-I would attribute to the highstrung condition of the people of the world, due to the mental and physical strain through which they have gone by reason of the recent war. I believe I am safe in saying that none of us is absolutely normal in his mental actions at the present moment. In other words, we are more or less irritable in our mental actions and reactions to-day. That I would put as one of the causes of the prevailing unrest in Canada. The second cause, and a very important one, is the almost prohibitive cost of the necessaries of life; and the third cause, I would say, is that there are in this country a number of agitators, influenced by not the fairest of motives, who are using those other two conditions to stir up trouble.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the reasons for the high cost of living: I would place first, and most important in the list, the fact that in the recent war forty or fifty millions of men throughout the world were taken from productive processes and placed at destructive processes. In other words, forty or fifty millions of men were taken from productive processes and necessarily allowed to use up the products of the different countries of the world, therefore causing a world shortage of the necessaries of life. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps the most important of the causes of the present high cost of living. Second to that I would place the profiteering which has gone on in Canada and in other countries of the world. Now profiteering is not so important a cause of the high cost oi living, but it is to my mind a much more important cause of unrest in Canada. I do not think any man has a right to stand on the floor of this House these days and make the statement that profiteering is going on unless he is prepared to offer some proof that his statement is correct. Therefore, I am going to offer what look 'to me like fairly good proofs that profiteering is going on in the Dominion at the present time. I hold in my hand a letter which was written to the city clerk of Fort William on December 9, six months ago today, by R. J. McFall, " Chief of the High Cost of Living." I cannot help thinking that is a strange title, but that is the way the letter is signed. I shall not read the letter, because I wish to condense my re: marks as much as possible, but in it the writer says that Mr. Crawford, a citizen of Fort William and an accountant by profession, has given him proof of sixteen cases in which the four meat packing houses of that city have overcharged the local consumers in selling meats and such products as butter and eggs to the extent of breaking the law; and he gives forty cases altogether in which he says he can practically supply proof that the packing houses have overcharged the people of Fort William to such an extent that if the city wishes to sue the packing houses and bring them before the courts they can secure a fine of $1,000 in each case, or $40,000 in all; and he advises that the prosecution can be brought under Food Board Order No. 45. He goes on to say that he does not think the retailers are to blame, and that the profits of the packers are dealt with by the Minister of Finance. The question might easily be put up to me that since Mr. McFall has written to the city council suggesting that the meat packers be prosecuted, why has the prosecution not been undertaken? That is a legitimate question, and I am not going to defend the council of Fort William for not doing so except to remark that every city, generally speaking, objects to prosecuting business firms which are carrying on operations within its limits. I think that if the condition of affairs which Mr. McFall has pointed out is to be depended upon, as existing in Fort William it very likely did exist, and does exist now, throughout the country, and it is to my mind the duty of the Government to go ahead and prosecute some of these corporations. I venture to say that if the Government had done that at an early date it would have removed a certain amount of the unrest which now exists.
Another proof that profiteering, to a greater or less extent, is going on in the Dominion, is contained in a report printed in the Toronto Globe, and other papers, of May 25th-the annual financial report of the Dominion Textiles. In that report I read- and I wall condense the statement so as

not to occupy an undue amount of the time of the House-that after all deductions, including $1,100,000 for war and income taxes, a newly-established pension fund, and replacement reserve, there remained for common stock dividend distribution the sum of $1,559,888, or equal to 31.2 per cent against 21.9 per cent in 1917-18 and 15.6 per cent the year before. In other words, in two years the Dominion Textiles Company, which handles the necessaries of life in the form of clothing for the people of this country, doubled their amount of profit and ran it up to 31.2 per cent. I think that is another proof of profiteering in Canada. I do not wish to be unjust to the meat packers referred to in Fort William, or to the Dominion Textiles Company, or ito any other wholesalers or retailers that have been indulging in what we call "profiteering" or making excess profits, because as long as the law permits these companies to make such profits I do not think we can accuse them in a blind, hap-hazard way of doing wrong. These companies, whether wholesale or retail, were organized for the purpose of making money, and that is all they are doing. I presume that if any of the members of the House were shareholders in these companies they would be very pleased to get a high dividend; but the fact remains that such abnormal profits, such examples of profiteering, are one of the causes of the existing unrest.
I'will give what I think is another proof of the profiteering in vogue in Canada in the shape of a statement made by the Hon. Gideon Robertson, Minister of Labour. Hon. Mr. Robertson, when passing through Fort William, gave an interview to the Times-Journal, which has not been contradicted, and therefore may be accepted as being true, in which he says :-
I have enough information before me to assure myself that the jabbers and the retailers are the cause of the high cost of living.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have no desire to indulge in destructive criticism in this matter, but I think the Government should interfere, if it is possible for it to do so, in putting a limit to such profits. I may be told that a committee of the House has been appointed to deal with the matter, and I compliment the Government upon appointing that committee, which is a step in the right direction; but I submit that inquiry by committee is rather a slow process, and I think that while the committee is carrying on its work it will be a very wise move for the
fMr, Manion.]
Government, in order to help settle the prevailing unrest, to attempt to limit the excess profits whioii any company is making on the necessaries of life in Canada. I submit also that according to these reports the Government has the information to carry out that suggestion.
Now, Sir, to show that other countries have taken up this question, in 1915 the Government of New Zealand appointed a body called the " Board of Trade." This is from the Canadian Labour Gazette for last month, printed by the Government of Canada, so I take it to be official. This is what the Labour Gazette contains:
A New Zealand statute entitled " The Cost of Living Act 19115," provided for the appointment of a body to be called " The Board of Trade" to investigate and report on conditions of trade, prices, cost of living, etc., in the Dominion of New Zealand. The Minister of Industries and1 Commerce is ex officio president of the Board.	*
*
The Board of Trade decided, under the provisions of the recommendations to devise a scheme for restricting increases in the prices of groceries. Committees of merchants were formed in each of the large centres to advise the Board and to furnish information as to wholesale prices and market conditions.
*
In regard to bacon and ham, owing to a rise in price the Board recommended that export should be prohibited. The meat trade also received considerable attention. Two state meat shops had been set up by the Board in January, 1917, as butchers had refused to keep in force prices approved by the Board.
*
In regard to footwear a scheme was adopted involving an arrangement with the tanners to supply manufacturers of boots with leather at reasonable prices. The Board reported that as a result of the measures taken by the Government and the Board of Trade to stabilize prices, the cost of food had not increased in New Zealand to the same extent as in America.
*
The price of butter sold for consumption in New Zealand was kept lower than the price for export, and the producers for export were made to contribute to an equalization fund to remunerate the producers who sold for home consumption.
I just mention that to show what the Government of New Zealand attempted four years ago to keep down the high cost of living, an attempt which met with some success. I do not believe that any member has a right to offer destructive criticism unless he is prepared to suggest something constructive in its place. It is very easy to tear down; it is very difficult to build up. It is very easy for members to show where the Government have made mistakes and to blame it for any untoward condition in the country. I do not think that is fair unless they are prepared to offer something

constructive in place of it, and I wtish to submit these suggestions along the lines 1 have been speaking of:
First, I suggest that the Government shall take immediate steps to eliminate profiteering of all kinds so far a,s they are able to do so. I may be asked: How is that to be done? There is the question of limiting such people to reasonable profits. Then the difficulty comes up, of course, of deciding what are reasonable profits. The big dealer on a main street with heavy rent and other overhead expenses has to be considered as well as the small dealer off the main street whose expenses are very much less. But governments are appointed to overcome difficulties, and this is not an insuperable difficulty. The New Zealand Government took over the meat shops and obtained control of meat and the other necessaries of life. That is one possible line of action. Then the Minister of Finance gave us some help in his Budget by reducing the tariff on some of the necessaries of life. I would suggest that if later it is found that the high cost of living does not come down, it might be well to consider reducing the tariff still lower on these same necessaries of life. Another measure which 'the New Zealand Government took was to limit export. Many people in this country throw up their hands in horror when any one suggests such a thing. But if no other means are found practicable for bringing down the high cost of living, and the country is getting into a dangerous condition of unrest on account of that high cost of living, any method that is practicable would he wise to try out rather than let the country drift into that dangerous state.
Another suggestion which I have to offer is that we put down the revolutionary of any type. We have been in the habit of always blaming alien enemies. I think that the Government, particularly at the present time, should take into account the fact that a man is a revolutionary, and should ignore his nationality, whether he is a Canadian, an Englishman, a Scotchman, an Irishman or an alien,-treat them all alike. I was struck the other day by a statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) when coming home from the Peace Conference. He told the soldiers on board ship that it was not essential that any particular [DOT]Government should stay in power in this country or that any particular man or group of men should, but that it was essential that constitutional Government should be upheld. I think that is a principle we [DOT] can all support.
My next suggestion is that the Government should carry on to a still greater extent than in the past-although they have done very good work-efforts for greater co-operation between capital and labour. Unfortunately capital and labour have been antagonists instead of realizing that they are interdependent, and as a result the community has suffered. We should show capital that it is dependent upon labour; and we should show labour that it is dependent upon capital; and we should show both that they are dependent upon the community. By bringing them into cooperation we might possibly settle some of these difficulties. I acknowledge quite frankly the excellent work that Senator Robertson has done to bring about that cooperation.
I appeal to the Government to take up these matters very seriously, and I would not state them on the floor of the House if I did not feel their urgent importance. I am not speaking in any spirit of destructive criticism, hut rather in an effort to offer constructive suggestions, because I think it is very important that we should try to convince the people that we are really sincere in our efforts to bring down the cost of the necessities of life, even if we do not accomplish a great deal in that direction.
I wish to touch on another subject very briefly, and that is the question of the development of our natural resources. Last year I took this question up, particularly in regard to iron, and I pointed out, among other things, that after the war was over raw materials would rule the world of commerce, and that Canada possessed those raw materials in abundance only awaiting the hand of man to develop them. I stated that if you studied the commercial history of the world you found that the commercial development of France, England, the United States or Germany was in direct proportion to the production of pig iron and steel. I said that if Canada was to. take her place among the nations of the world she must develop her natural resources. We have hundreds of millions' of tons of iron ore scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, while at the same time we were importing 95 per cent of the iron ore used in our blast furnaces and steel plants. In 1896, 67 per cent of the iron ore used in the blast furnaces and steel plants of Canada was Canadian iron ore. Of course, a much smaller amount was manufactured then. In 1916, twenty years later, it fell from 67 per cent to 11 per cent; in 1917 to 4 per cent, and last year it had gone still

lower. I would like to point out that Quebec produces 90 per cent of the asbestos of the world, Ontario produces 80 per cent of the nickel supply of the world, and the Dominion produces about 15 per cent of the silver. But of iron we produced 93,000 tons and imported well over 2,000,000; in other words, .we used less than 5 per cent of Canadian ore. Last year we imported $6,000,000 worth of iron ore; of iron and steel products including machinery, $155,000,000; oils, $46,000,000; coal, $70,000,000; or a total of $277,000,000. And yet, taking	coal,	there are	in Canada
the heaviest deposits in the world with the exception of those in the United States. Canada takes second place only to the United States in the immensity of her coal deposits. We have over a million million tons in the western and eastern deposits of this country, but unfortunately we have very little in between. In oil we have in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Peace River District very rich deposits. We have hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore scattered between the Atlantic and the Pacific. We have 19,000,000 horse-power of potential electrical energy in our waterfalls, of which less than 10 per cent has been developed. A short time ago the members of this House heard Stefansson say there were 30,000,009 caribou and 40,000 musk oxen in the Arctic regions of this country ready to be developed into vast meat resources. But attempted oratorical outbursts like mine regarding our natural resources are of no use; unless we develop those resources. I noticed the other day the Finance Minister spoke with some fluency of our vast natural resources. But I repeat, unless we develop them they are of no use to the country. I notice that Mr.. Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in a speech delivered in the western country a few days ago, advised the development of these natural resources.
The reasons I give for the development of these natural resources are as follows: In the first plaee, we have in this country forty thousand miles of railway, and more than half of that mileage of these railways are nurselings in the hands of the Government. Canada has one mile of railway for every 190 to 200 people. The member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Butts) put a question in this regard a few moments ago; perhaps this will answer it. The United States has one mile of railway for every 400 people; Great Britain one mile to every
2.000	people and Russia one mile to every
4.000	people. Canada has more railway
['Mr. Manion.]	!	1
mileage than Great Britain with her 45,000,000 people and than France with her 40,000,000 people; and an equal mileage to that of Germany, with its 65,000,000 people. To make our railways catch up with their development we must increase the population and increase the traffic by developing our natural resources.
Another reason why we should develop these resources is that the debt of this country has jumped from $330,000,000 to $2,000,000,000, and our annual interest charges from $15,000,000 to $115,000,000; and our pensions have reached the sum of $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 per annum. The payment of that debt would be assisted to a great extent if we could work out a proper system for the development of these natural resources, and at the same time provide that the nation should share in the profits resulting from that development. For example, Northern Ontario produced during the last twelve years $220,000,000 worth of gold and silver and about $250,000,000 worth of nickel; yet out of that the nation got very little into its coffers. We are continually uttering the fallacy that if we take out of the earth a million dollars in minerals, we have reduced our national debt to 'that extent. But that is not the case, so long as the entire profits resulting from these developments go into the hands of corporations and private individuals. So I believe that we should work out some system for the development of these natural resources akin to what we have done in respect to our water-powers, which we no longer permit to be alienated into the hands of private corporations or individuals. The system need not be one of controlling them entirely; but Canada should get part of the profits.
We have guaranteed credits-and the policy has been criticised in this House- for Roumania, for Belgium, for England, for France. I am not going to quarrel with that policy. There is, perhaps, an element of risk in it; but in times like these, unless we dare something we certainly shall not gain anything. I therefore agree that this policy should be carried into effect, even taking into account the possibility of loss. But why not work out some system in the matter I mention.
Another reason why these natural resources should be developed, particularly the three that I have mentioned, is the fact that oil, coal and iron are all exhaustible materials, and that we import practically all our supplies of these from the United States. In the near future it

may be advisable for the United States, as a matter of self-protection, to shut off the export of some of these minerals to Canada. If that time should come, it would be advisable for Canada to be in a position to produce these natural resources within -the country.
As to concrete proposals for the development of these resources, there are a number of them; I will simply name them without discussing them in detail.
The first is that the Government itself develop these natural resources. Having regard to Canada's debt, it is doubtful whether it would be advisable for us to put millions into a scheme of that sort.
Second, the guaranteeing of the bonds of a private corporation. That procedure has been tried out in Canada fairly well, with not too happy results.
Third, partnership with private corporations, such as the Shell Oil Company's proposition, which was put before the people recently through the press. That principle might work out fairly well, provided, of course, that the basis of the arrangement were not such that the private corporation took all the cream and the country got all the skim-milk. A scheme might be worked out under which the country, in return for giving more or less of an monopoly of a certain area to a corporation, would get a share of the profits.
Fourth, a bonus or bounty system, such as has. been particularly advocated in connection with iron.
Fifth, a thorough investigation into the whole matter. Hon. members, whether protectionists or free-traders, on whichever side of the House they may be, cannot quarrel with a thorough investigation- more thorough than hitherto has been carried out. By the way, our Geological Survey does excellent work. They have their own professional men-men who have taken excellent university courses, but who are being paid the wages, almost, of ordinary labourers. It would be well-spent money if the Government could see its way clear to increase the expenditure on the Mines Department of the Government.
Sixth, and perhaps the best of all, the appointment of a commission or committee of the House to go into the whole question and try to work out some scheme whereby Canada could develop these natural resources. Commissions are unpopular at the present time because there are many, but a committee of the House could be appointed to go into this question, and possibly bring forth some constructive suggestion.
The development of these resources, then, would help to pay our national debt, would increase our population, would increase the home market for our agricultural products, would provide work for our soldiers and for others who desire work, would supply traffic for our over-developed railway system, would increase the prosperity of our country, would make us independent of American raw materials, and, finally, would turn Canada into one of the great commercial countries of the world-always provided, of course, that we can successfully work out a proper scheme to this end. I hope that in the near future, when some of the vast problems now confronting it are solved and set aside, the Government will take up the question of the development of the natural resources of this country.
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) moved the adjournment of the debate. .


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, June 10, 1919.
Tile House met at Three o'clock.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) :: I move that the House concur in the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the law in regard to sedition and seditious propaganda presented to the House on Friday last. In making this motion might I be permitted to say in the first place that the recommendations of the Committee are not intended to have any effect whatever upon the recognized labour organizations throughout this country. I think I oan state plainly that the recommendations of the Committee have no such object, and have no such effect. Neither were these recommendations inspired by, nor are they the result of, the Winnipeg strike; the Committee was appointed, and entered upon its duties, before the Winnipeg strike was instituted. I mention this matter on account of an article I saw in the press on Saturday last to the effect that the Special Committee appointed in regard to sedition had brought down a report as a direct result of the strike which existed in Winnipeg, and that the

report might operate adversely upon many labour organizations in Canada. This statement is thoroughly erroneous; the report can have no such operation, and no such effect. It is true that the Committee did look over the whole situation in Canada. It is quite true that the Committee did recognize, what I think must be recognized by every citizen of Canada at the present time, and not only in Canada but in other countries in the world, and that is, that we are to a very large extent at this moment confronted with a new situation, and it will be necessary now and in the future to amend our law, both civil and criminal, as occasion may require, in order to meet that new situation. This particular Committee was only charged with the duty of considering the law in regard to sedition, and' in regard to seditious propaganda, and it is only in respect to that subject that the report assumes to deal. It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada to-day there exist many associations and societies developed and organized for the purpose of carrying on a dangerous propaganda, and which, if permitted to pursue their purpose unhindered or unchecked, may ultimately prove a serious menace to our free institutions and to the authority of government in this country. Fortunately, up to the present time, Canada has not suffered to any marked extent from uprisings or from acts of violence or attempted violence which can be directly attributed to these associations, or as a result of their propaganda. In this respect, I think we have been perhaps more favoured than our neighbours in the United States; but we must not permit ourselves to be lulled to rest in any state of fancied security, because it is well known that the same insidious agencies of crime and of revolt which have been operating so freely in the United States, and in some of the countries of Europe, are actually in evidence in Canada to-day-


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: -although at the present time we may still congratulate ourselves that no serious overt acts have been committed so far in this country. I think it will be conceded that, these baneful associations in their origin are not native to the soil of this free country; for the most part they are foreign importations, or Canadian imitations of foreign originals. The growth of these societies in this country and in the United States has been very marked in recent times; it is perhaps a development

of the great war, or of posb-war conditions. However that may be, one is bound to realize that the growth is continuous and the activities are becoming more pronounced almost from day to day. So the time has come when there is something necessary in the way of positive action by this Parliament to the end, in the first instance, that this pernicious propaganda may be stopped in Canada. At the same time the greatest care will have to be exercised that there be no unnecessary interference with, nor curtailment of the sacred right of free speech.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: -of free printing, or of free political thought, statement or action.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: It may be very difficult under these circumstances to know where the line should be drawn. However, I think the House will agree with me in this-that a line can safely be drawn at that particular point where free speech itself, and where free and unlicensed printing itself, may be in the greatest jeopardy through the dissemination of pernicious doctrine in this country .
With these preliminary remarks, may I be permitted briefly to discuss something of the general scope and application of the amendments proposed by the Committee; and at the outset let me remark that I think it will require rather more than a superficial examination of the various sections of the Criminal Code in order to appreciate the propriety and the significance of some of these recommendations.
The subject of sedition, including seditious language, libels, acts, assemblies and conspiracies, offers a very wide field for legal investigation and research. It will be found that there is a great deal of ancient learning upon the subject. Happily in Canada, that particular branch of our criminal law has up to the present time received very limited application-there has been little or no occasion for it. The cases in this country upon the subject are few and far between; in fact, I think I may say that there is practically no Canadian case law on the subject of sedition. If we seek a definition of this little understood subject, we will have to go to the legal lore of the Motherland. But in England, although we find that the crime of sedition is of very ancient origin, within recent years, indeed, I think I may say for centuries prior to 1914, the law in respect to sedition

has been of exceedingly limited application. I think it may be admitted that both throughout Canada and Great Britain during a long number of peaceful years, there have been many occasions-I might say occasions without number-when language has been used and acts committed, which, according to a strict application or interpretation, of the term "sedition" would have been deemed seditious. Yet the law has been rarely invoked in such cases in times of peace.
Under the free and liberal usages and customs which pertain in Canada and throughout Great Britain such technical breaches of the law have been allowed to pass largely unnoticed. They have been allowed to run their course and to expend their force without let or hindrance on the part of the authorities, and usually with little damage or injury to the community. Indeed, one might say that the policy of passive inaction seems to have been established throughout the British Empire in reigard to sedition in times of peace. The law was certainly not dead, it was on the statute book but it was permitted to remain dormant. Prosecutions were not instituted for every trivial word or act which, upon a strict interpretation, could be called seditious. The ravings of soap box orators upon the street comers of Canadian cities and the infiamatory oratory of the Hyde Park spellbinders in Great Britain were not the occasions of very many prosecutions. In normal, unwarlike times, the good common sense of the masses appeared a sufficient safeguard of the Throne, of the Constitution, of the institutions of the country, and of the rights and privileges of the people.
But a change has undoubtedly come over the face of the world, a change probably attributable in great measure to the war which has recently been brought to a close. The great war has undoubtedly been the author of many changes in the social and political fabric of the world. Many new schools of thought have been established, many new ideals 'of government have been set up, many former idols have been overthrown only to expose feet of clay. The serenity and tranquility of the former era has been succeeded by a period of unrest which is experienced all over the world- unrest accompanied by submerged excitement and by a good deal of uncertainty as to the future. Canada, in common with the other nations of the world, must be prepared resolutely to face the situation, as it exists in this country, and to provide
laws which will reasonably meet that situation.
In the first place we must all fully realize that there is being carried on in Canada at this moment, an organized, concerted, and sustained effort to spread false and pernicious doctrines, designed in the first instance to cause dissatisfaction amongst His Majesty's subjects, to set class against class, to hamper, injure or destroy the public service and designed in their ultimate end, to subvert constituted authority and to overturn government itself. I do not think I have overdrawn the picture of the situation as its exists in Canada to-day.
So far as is known, this propaganda is chiefly carried on by means of associations or societies which have come into existence in great numbers and during very recent times in this country. As a result, of the efforts and operations of these societies Canada is being literally deluged at this moment with literature which one would not hesitate to stamp as seditious even under the provisions of the present law and having regard to the definition of the word "sedition" which I shall give to the House in a moment.
During the active progress of the war, as the House is aware, a fairly strong censorship was maintained under the authority of certain Orders in Council, but since the signing of the armistice that censorship has been very materially relaxed. Likewise, during the war, there have been enactments in force in respect to sedition in its various aspects. These enactments were supplementary to the provisions of the Criminal Code and were embodied in Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act. Since the armistice was signed these Orders in Council have been rescinded. It has come to the knowledge of the Government, and it came also to the knowledge of the Special Committee through channels which, while absolutely reliable, are more or less confidential, that since the decision of the Orders in Council in regard to sedition, and since the relaxation of the press censorship, which I have just mentioned, there has been a noticeable increase on the one hand in the efforts of certain doubtful associations and societies, and, on the other hand, a large increase in the circulation of seditious literature. The operators are apparently becoming bolder in their operations day by day. It is believed that a considerable portion of this literature is printed, as well as circulated in this country. Perhaps the largest portion of it finds its way into Canada from the United States, through the mails, through express

companies, by freight, by motor truck and otherwise.
I do. not know that any useful purpose would be served if I were to exhibit to the House or place upon Hansard samples of this thoroughly pernicious and seditious literature, nor would it serve any useful purpose to enumerate those doubtful or baneful societies. However, this information may be obtained by any hon. gentleman who desires to afford himself an opportunity of examining it.
It has frequently been said that government by Order in Council is not popular, and that consequently such government is not usually effective. We in Canada are in this position to-day: The Orders in Council which were in force in regard to sedition have been rescinded; the old enactments of our Criminal Code still stand intact. I believe that the time has come when action should be taken by this Parliament to put in statutory form some, at least, of the provisions which did appear in those Orders in Council.
The report does not suggest any radical amendment to the present sections of the Criminal 'Code. Those sections are left intact, with the exception of two slight amendments, to which I will refer in a moment. I might also point out that the new sections proposed by the committee by way of additional provisions and not in substitution of any present enactment. In other words, the proposed amendments are not for the purpose of altering the present law, but of adding to it. An effort has also been made by the committee to have something like uniformity in '[DOT]egard to the various classes of seditious offences so far as the penalty prescribed is concerned.
The committee, I think, fully appreciated and realized the difficulties which beset it. They have made an honest and an earnest effort to bring to the House a reasonable recommendation for amendments which I think are highly necessary to the criminal law at the present time. However, the committee does not feel that it by any means exhausted the subject. In the opinion of the House we may have gone too far, or we may have fallen far short of what we should have done. The committee is quite willing to place itself and its report in the judgment of the House, and if the report can usefully be amended the committee will be only too happy to see it so amended.
The first recommendation which the committee makes is in regard to unlawful associations. There is to-day no provision in our criminal law in that regard. It seems
fMr. Guthrie.]	.
rather odd that there should be none. There is a_ provision known to every lawyer-section 87-which deals with unlawful assemblies. That section provides that an assembly of three or more persons shall become an unlawful assembly if it is so conducted as to give reasonable fear that a ' -each of the peace tumultuously is immi-ent. If the conduct of that assembly become such that anybody reasonably fears a breach of the peace, the assembly becomes unlawful. And once a breach of the peace takes place, the assembly becomes a riot under section 88 of the 'Code. That is the only provision of our law, so far as I have been able to find out, which renders a meeting unlawful.
The proposal of the committee goes much further than anything in the Code to-day. The committee proposes to make unlawful any society or association, incorporated or unincorporated, one of whose purposes, or professed purposes, is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence, physical injury to person or property, or the like. If these be the purposes, or any of the purposes, of the association or society, it would become under this section an unlawful society, its officers and members under the following subsections will become liable to prosecution and to very serious penalties, and the goods and property of the society will become liable to seizure, forfeiture and confiscation. It will be seen that the proposal of the committee goes very much further than the present law in regard to unlawful assemblies.
Section 2 of the report deals with the present law as contained in our Criminal Code in regard to sedition and seditious offences. I think there is no offence or crime which is so little understood in this country as that of sedition. I doubt if outside of the members of the legal profession any hon. member has a very accurate conception of what the term "sedition" signifies or covers. Up till perhaps a month or so ago I did not have a very accurate idea of it myself. I doubt very much if many lawyers in Canada have any very accurate knowledge of the full meaning and significance of the term, unless they have had occasion to examine into the law. I have taken occasion recently to ask a number of laymen of undoubted general intelligence what their idea was of the term " sedition," and in nearly every instance they have replied that it was treason, that it meant the destruction of the King or other members

of the Royal family-instigation to rebellion or civil war, or something like that.
The popular idea of sedition is that it is something in the nature of treason; but that is entirely erroneous. One difficulty which I think exists to-day in our Criminal Code is that there is no definition of sedition. Consequently we are thrown back upon the common law of England. And when some of the greatest lawyers in England undertook forty years ago to frame a definition of sedition, they reported to the House of Commons the difficulties which they had in framing any accurate definition. In our Criminal Code we have this provision at the present time in section 132, subsection (1) ;
Seditious words are words expressive of a seditious intention.
That does not take us very far.
Subsection (2) : A seditious libel is a libel expressive of a seditious intention.
Subsection (3) : A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between .two or more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention.
I am satisfied that the vast majority of our people do not know what sedition is, and I doubt very much if when speaking or acting or writing they have any knowledge, in many cases, that they are actually transgressing the law.
In 1880 an attempt was made to codify the criminal law of Great Britain. A Royal Commission of very eminent lawyers was appointed for the purpose and a draft Bill was reported to the House of Commons, but that Bill never became law. However, that Royal Commission did attempt to frame a comprehensive definition of the term " sedition," and their definition-which is rather a definition of the term " seditious intention"-is as follows:
" an intention-
(1)	to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or the government and constitution of the United1 Kingdom or of any part of it as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of Justice; or
(2)	to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state by law established ; or
(3)	to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects; or
(4)	to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects."
The Royal Commission reported that the definition which I have just given was as accurate a statement of the existing law as they could frame.
When our Criminal Code was before Parliament in 1892 the original Bill contained that definition. But the Special Committee of the House which dealt with the Bill thought it better to strike out the definition and allow the simple term " sedition " to be put in the section so that the word would carry its full common law significance. The section has stood from 1892 until the present time, just as originally framed. In my humble opinion, it would have far more force, effect and usefulness if the definition had been as it was in the English draft code; people would then have had some reasonable idea of what sedition really consisted. The committee propose to leave that section as it is; anything that has been the law since 1892 in respect of sedition will continue the law.
According to the recommendation of the committee, section 133 is to be struck out. Section 132 makes provision with regard to seditious words or words expressive of a seditious intention. Section 133 is a saving clause, which, in substance provides that if the words are uttered bona fide or in good faith, and for the purpose of remedying some apparent grievance or difficulty, then no offence of sedition shall have been committed. In my opinion, the language of the saving clause is too broad; in practice, it has operated as a cloak or shield which has prevented the imposition of penalties upon offenders who are able to point out to the magistrate or judge that any language they used or words they wrote were written or spoken in good faith for the purpose of pointing out some injustice that ought to be remedied, and that consequently, they were not guilty of sedition. In many cases prosecutions have failed on account of that particular section. My objection to the section is this: That if all a man merely advocates is a lawful change in conditions by the employment of lawful means, that is not a seditious offence. If he acts bona fide and advocates only lawful means, it cannot be seditious; the act becomes seditious only when the man advocates the employment of unlawful means to accomplish a purpose or to achieve an end. Consequently, I do not see very much use for section 133; and it is evident from information which came to the committee that recently, under this section, a number of prosecutions have failed in certain parts of the country.
In regard to section 134, which is the penal clause, the committee has recommended that the penalty be struck out. At



present the penalty is only two years; we have asked that the penalty be made from one to twenty years, which is the penalty we have recommended in respect of the other seditious offences as set out in our report.
The next clause of the report deals with a very important subject, namely, that of printing and circulating seditious literature. It may be argued that under section 133 of the Code as it is to-day a prosecution for seditious libel may take place. That is very true, and if a new clause, as drafted by the committee, is placed in the Code, a prosecution for seditious libel may still take place under section 133 or under the new section 97B. The difference between the two is this: in the section which the committee has recommended | we have endeavoured clearly to set out what is a seditious publication. The section reads:
"97B. Any person who prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, offers for sale or distiibution -any book, n -wspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind, in which is taught, advocated, advised o-r defended, or who shall in any manner teach, advocate, advise, or defend the use, without authority of law, of force, violence, terrorism, or -physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, as a means of accomplishing any governmental, industrial or economic change, or otherwise, shall he guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year, and not more than twenty years.
If the Committee's recommendation is carried out, in the future a prosecution may take place either under that new section or under section 133 of the Code as it now stands, or under both sections.
But we have gone a little further. We have made it a criminal offence to attempt to circulate or to circulate through the mails of this country any such literature -as is described in the section which I have just read. At present there is no adequate provision in our law to prevent the circulation of seditious literature through the post office. There is a clause in the Post Office Act, section 9, which permits the Postmaster General to make regulations in regard to certain matters

to provide that no dangerous, contraband or other improper articles shall be placed therein, and also to formd the use of the mails for the forwarding of any article tne importation of which is prohibited by law, but no penalties are prescribed. We have recommended a rather drastic section in regard to the use of Canadian mails for the circulation of seditious literature. In the opinion of the Committee, the section of the Post Office Act to which

I have referred was not sufficient, and it is now provided that any person who uses the mails for this purpose and is convicted thereof shall be liable to a penalty of from one to twenty years' imprisonment.
The next clause is a provision against the importation into Canada of seditious literature. As I have stated, We have absolute evidence that a fairly large portion of the seditious literature now in circulation is actually printed in Canada; but there is no doubt that a large portion is imported from the United States. There are provisions in our Customs Act, sections 15 and 17 and schedule C, which together provide against the importation into Canada of any seditious literature, but no penalty is by that Act attached to the offence.
The only power of the Customs Department in respect to such importation would be to seize and destroy it, and the man who imported it into Canada is not liable upon any criminal charge. The section which the committee recommends would make it a criminal offence and subject any one guilty of an infringment of the law to a penalty of from one year to twenty years' imprisonment.
Then there is a general provision which makes it the duty of every employee of the Post Office Department or other departments of the Government of Canada to seize any seditious literature wheresoever it may be found, whether in the mails, or in or upon stations, wharves, yards, cars, trucks, motors or other vehicles, or steamboats, and there is a further provision that the literature when seized shall be confiscated and destroyed.	.
Sir SAM HUGhES: Is the party to whom the literature is addressed, supposing it comes through the mails, the guilty one or will it be the one sending it?


Hugh Guthrie: The party to whom it is addressed cannot be guilty under this clause. It was suggested that the clause should go a little further and that we should make it a criminal offence to have in one's possession any seditious literature. One of the Orders in Council which were passed during the period of the war made the possession of seditious literature a criminal offence. You would, however, subject many innocent people to prosecution if a provision of that kind were included in the Act. A man cannot control the situation for himself. Evilly disposed people may mail seditious literature to you, and it will reach you through the post office. Other persons may systematically

distribute it at house doors, and it gets into the household, and it would be rather a radical enactment to say that a man was guilty of a serious offence in this country merely by reason of the fact that seditious literature was found in his possession. If the House is of opinion that the clause should be extended in that way, a few words will do that. We could insert in the second line of clause 97 B these words:
" Or who has in his possession without lawful excuse."
But in the opinion of the committee that provision was a little more drastic than the occasion required.
These are, briefly stated, the recommendations of the Special Committee. It may by some be thought that they are rather radical and that the penalties imposed are higher than the occasion requires. I can only point out that the Congress of the United States has imposed much higher penalties. It is within the knowledge of us all that in certain prosecutions for sedition which took place in the United States last summer, Judge Landis of Chicago imposed prison terms of thirty years, and last week a Bill was introduced at Washington to provide the death penalty in cases where bombs or explosives are sent through the mails, and to provide the death penalty upon any one who belongs to an anarchist society. The penalties imposed in the United States "within the last year or a year and a half are much higher than anything the committee has proposed in this report. The situation is grave, both in Canada and in the United States. Whether much will be accomplished by changes in the Criminal law in lessening the gravity of the situation, it is hard to say, but I believe it to be the duty of this Parliament to make ample and adequate provision for the situation which undoubtedly exists in Canada to-day. I, therefore, move:
That the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider and report on laws relating to sedition and seditious propaganda he concurred in.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if this motion be debatable now I should like, without any desire at all to interfere with the regular order of business expected to be proceeded with this afternoop, to say a word or two with reference to the report of the Special Committee and the observations of the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). Judging by the manner in which the House received the hon. gentleman's reference to the subject of free speech and the rights of organized labour, I take
209J
it that there is, at the present time, in any event, a unanimous opinion in this House that free speech and the rights of organized labour should not be interfered with. However that may be, such was the opinion that prevailed in the committee of which I was a member, and the report from which-not from the whole of which, however-is now before the House. There was in the committee a very sharp division of opinion as to the necessity of amending the Criminal Code, and there was a further division of opinion whether, in the event of the committee being of opinion that the Criminal Code with reference to sedition and seditious propaganda should be amended-in view of the numerous strikes and the general unrest throughout the country-this was the proper time to make such a report to the House and to induce a discussion of matters that would inevitably be discussed by reason of that report and of any action that might follow the introduction of that report. It was on the latter ground principally-coupled with the fact that an opinion prevailed that the present Criminal Code was ample to cover the class of cases to which the attention of the committee was directed-that a portion of the committee, including myself, shared the view that this was not the proper time to introduce such a report as that, the adoption of which has now been moved by the Solicitor General. He himself, in his interesting historical and legal address, showed that that view on the part of a portion of the committee was well founded, because he informed the -House that just as soon as the report was introduced, a newspaper, the name of which I do not know, published an article to the effect that this report would have a bearing upon the strike and the rights of labour organizations engaged in the strike at Winnipeg. Such was not the intention of, but such was the fear entertained by a number of members of the Committee. That fact explains why on the day of the last sitting of the Committee there was at one stage of that sitting a majority of the members of the Committee then present opposed to the bringing in of a report at this particular time. As to the determination to maintain law and order in this country and to enforce respect and obedience for law and order, there never was any question amongst the members of the Committee, but the opportune ness of action at this particular time was a subject upon which there was a sharp difference of opinion, and it seems to me that the very incident referred to by the Solid-

tor General shows that those who held that opinion had good ground for holding it.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that in his judgment there is necessity for some such drastic amendments as are proposed by the report, because the Orders in Council dealing with sedition have been rescinded. I have only to observe on that phase, that according to the information given to the Committee, the offences with respect to sedition and seditious propaganda were committed at a time when those Orders in Council were in force, and in my opinion action should have been taken then, and the delay until this Committee sat, deliberated, and a portion of it concurred in the bringing in of this report, should not have occurred.
The time for action with regard to the practices with reference to which the committee was informed has long since passed, and the question in the minds of a portion of the committee was whether it would not do more harm than good to introduce this subject in the House for discussion at the present time. Because of that view prevailing, there was on the day of the last sitting of the committee a majority of the committee in the room at a certain time actually opposed to the bringing in of the report. The others who remained until the conclusion of the sitting did not submit a minority report, for the reason that they wished to avoid the very discussion which has been evoked here this afternoon, and such further discussion as may take place. Having informed the House of the division of opinion that prevailed in the committee, and as to the points on which that division of opinion existed, I shall reserve anything further I may have to say on the subject until a future occasion, if the report of the committee is concurred in and legislation based upon it is introduced in the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and report concurred in.

Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) moved:: That the report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of consolidating the Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the House of Commons with a view to economy he concurred in.


Mr. BUREAU:: Explain.


William Folger Nickle: The House will remembei that some time ago a special committee was appointed to consider the advisability of preparing a report to consolidate what is commonly known as the Votes and Pro-

ceedings, and Journals of the House of Commons. As the House knows, the Votes and Proceedings are what might be termed an informal record of the proceedings of the House, and are distributed from day to day. The Journals are the more formal documents, and at the end of the session are prepared by the proper officer and distributed as a bound volume to the members. The Votes and Proceedings are also distributed as a bound volume. The committee went carefully into the matter and thought the time had arrived when, by a very slight change in phraseology, the Votes and Proceedings and Journals might be incorporated into one document without their being any loss of information to the members of the House. Pursuant to that conclusion, the report of the committee was drawn, recommending that hereafter there be one set only of documents, and that a bound volume be distributed to the members at the end of the session, but that no bound volume taking the place of what is commonly known as the Votes and Proceedings be distributed. It is estimated that this will effect a saving in the neighbourhood of from 810,000 to $12,000 a year. I think that the committee were of the opinion that the House would be equally well served.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: I was a member of that committee and concurred in the report, the motion for the reception of which I now second. I must say that at first I was averse to the change contemplated, and when you, Mr. Speaker, consulted me a few weeks before the session opened as to the propriety of this change I informed you that I should like to have the opinion of the then oldest member of the House by many years-the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He knew the ancient usages of Parliament and was very familiar with the rules of this House, and I consulted with him and he afterwards consulted with you, Mr. Speaker, and his opinion was that we could well afford to do away with this one volume because it is practically an exact duplication of the other. I have to correct my hon. friend's statement as to the saving which it was estimated would be affected. From the statement which was placed before us it appeared that the saving would be between $25,000 and $26,000 a year. Under the circumstances I thought that I should follow Sir Wilfrid Laurier's advice, as it would mean a considerable reduction in the expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and report concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 135, respecting the rate of interest to b>e paid on loans by His Majesty to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and Quebec, was introduced and read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 136, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, was introduced and read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: In the absence of the Minister of Railways would the Prime Minister be good enough to say as definitely as he can when consideration of the Senate amendment to the Consolidated Railway Act will be taken up.


Robert Laird Borden: That matter is under consideration. It maybe necessary to have a conference with the Senate on the subject.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Hon. Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. A. R. Mc-Masiter (Brome) resumed from Monday. June 9.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House this afternoon I feel that a duty is incumbent upon me. This is, in fact, the first session during five years which it was possible for me to attend, and I am confronted with an agreeable task in this particular-the task of voicing my sentiments of gratitude for the sympathy and the interest shown me in the years of my exile and captivity. That duty I have endeavoured to discharge on all occasions that presented themselves to me, whether speaking in public or in private, since the day I set my foot on the blessed shores of Canada.
Exile and captivity are necessarily accompanied in all circumstances by sufferings of a mental, moral, and physical nature; and if I dare in your presence, Mr. Speaker, and in the presence of hon. gentlemen in this House-I, whose lot during the universal catastrophe has not been any more unfavourable than that of many others-to refer to my own personal and painful experiences, I pray you to believe it is not that I intend to single them out. But I feel that no word of mine could more adequately express my gratitude, through you to the Government and to members on both sides of this House, than by saying that during the long years of prison life the repeated manifestations of sympathy on the part of hon. members of this House of Commons have been to me a source of consolation, a source of encouragement, and a source of comfort. I had been regularly kept informed of the efforts made, and of the steps taken, in turn by the Canadian Government and the Imperial authorities to secure my release, both governments being, as I know, supported staunchly and constantly by influences, religious and lay, which, on one fiart for humanitarian reasons and on the other part on personal grounds, had been exercised in my behalf.
To the Canadian Government, to the Imperial Government, and to the influences, beneficent indeed, which have been exercised in my favour, and which have undoubtedly largely contributed, and which certainly aided to a large extent towards my release, and my ultimate exchange, I beg to extend, through you, Mr. Speaker, my deepest gratitude.
When Parliament convened in the month of February, the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) and the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), the chief whip of the Liberal party, both gentlemen Obeying the generous sentiments of their hearts, pronounced a few words of praise and of welcome, addressing them to my humble person. The occasion might have been, under ordinary circumstances, propitious for me then to answer, but at that moment Canada was dominated by a deep sorrow and a bitter grief. Her most illustrious son, whose life had been so intimately connected with the history of the country, had been removed from our midst by the inexorable hand of death, and I felt then that any personal reference to me would have been considered an unwelcome distraction from the emotion, and the pious sentiment of sorrow, of pain, and of affection, which penetrated the soul of every citizen of Canada. Had 1 on that occasion chosen to speak I would not have refused to accept

those words that were pronounced and addressed to me by the Acting Prime Minister and by my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb)-not that I would have thought that I deserved them, but rather because I felt that they were meant for and directed to the tens of thousands-yes, hundreds of thousands-of Canadians, brave men, who had in the course of the last five years left everything behind them-home, and the comforts of home; parents, and all that is tender and cherishable in the home, comforts, friendships-to pass over the deep, that they might uphold on the battlefields of Europe the principles of international faith and justice which were disowned and treated with utter contempt by one of the belligerents.
That those principles of international right and justice have been disowned, I am an eye-witness. It was my privilege, or my misfortune, to be in Belgium at the moment the war broke out. May I in this debate refer just for a moment to that country. Belgium was attacked without provocation. Having been attacked it was invaded. Having been invaded it was conquered, and being conquered it was subjected to infamies political, administrative, and military, which have aroused the universal conscience of the civilized world. It is against the dark background of those infamies that the virtue and the heroism of Belgium shines out in immortal lustre. Two men principally in Belgium embodied the resistance of the nation-one, the- King; the other, Cardinal Mercier.
*Of these two patriots, one at the head of the army, was the soul of the active resistance; the other, within Belgium, in the occupied territory, was the soul of the passive resistance.
But whether we have regard to Belgium as a nation, or whether we have regard to her king, or whether we consider her civil population, or her army, or whether we take all as they constitute one single, noble whole, the picture excites the admiration of the world.
The glory and fame of Canada attaches to the fact that Canada stood by the word of Mr. Asquith, that word uttered in his famous speech at the Guildhall on the 9th of November, 1914, when, speaking in the name of England, Mr. Asquith said: " We have not drawn the sword lightly, and we will not sheathe the sword until Belgium recovers all, and more than all, of that she has sacrificed." Her vindication is complete to-day, right has dethroned might; the principles of moral and public right, which
[Mr. Bfiland, |
form the true basis of nations, have entrenched themselves where it was attempted to enthrone the principles of hegemony and cruel domination.
Many forces have contributed to this achievement; 'Canada has done her share and the men of Canada who participated in the struggle-the forever glorious struggle- are now re-entering their homes. They are welcomed from one end of the country to the other.
But, as they come back, we find they are different from what they were before they left us. During the days of their youth and adolescence they had been taught to develop amongst themselves a spirit of personal initiative. Individualism and particularism had been cultivated among them, but in the years of the war, the energies that were formerly directed towards trade, production, economic development and social welfare were concentrated upon a single aim and under a sole direction in which they had no participation. For four years they have been taught the arts of war, the arts that are destructive and inhuman; now they will have to cultivate the arts of peace, the arts that are constructive and human.
The task that confronts the Government of the country is, indeed, formidable. But, remembering the time when this country absorbed 300,000 immigrants annually, one might very well ask, why should the task be so overvjhelming? We know that the bulk of that immigration was absorbed in this country without any dislocation of the body politic or economic. There are many reasons why the returning soldiers should be looked upon in a different light. Their mentality and aspirations are different. There are also their peculiar requirements to be kept in mind. A few weeks ago in this House the hon. the Minister of Colonization (Mr. Calder) referred to this point in particular, and he said very properly, I think, that it was to be expected that soldiers coming back from Europe should have different views and aspirations from those which they had before the war. It may be incongruous to compare the returned soldier to the immigrant-the immigrant comes to this country knowing that he is a stranger. True, he is invited; true he is induced to come, but he cannot help thinking when he is disembarking that he is entering a country where no special place has been marked out for him. The returned soldier comes back to his home, takes his place by the fireside, and has extended to him a cordial welcome. He knows that his memory has

been kept warm in his mother's heart, in his father's heart, in the hearts of his friends, and the warmth of this feeling finds expression when he comes back- many have been wounded, perhaps crippled. Were the conditions prevailing in Canada at the present time the conditions that prevailed before the war, the problem which confronts the people of this country, and in particular the Government which has the authority to deal with it, would be singularly simplified. The war has left upon Canada its mark as it has left its mark elsewhere. It is true that we have been spared the destruction of property and the devastation which has befallen many of the countries of Europe, particularly France and Belgium. But Canada has -felt the war very sorely. Industries have been, to a certain degree, dislocated; activities of all kinds have been- adapted to the necessities of the hour; woman has found employment in some fields which previously invited only the industry of men. Moreover, a great financial burden is bearing down upon- the shoulders of the people.
Faced with these conditions, I ask myself, and I ask the House: What policy would be best calculated to remedy the curse of un-employmenit? In some provinces, and notably in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan- and Alberta, there are still millions of acres of fertile land which await only the sturdy hand of the tiller. As to the fertility and productiveness of the land we can entertain no doubt if we are to rely on the numberless reports that are at our disposal.	-
In no epoch of history before this has agriculture revealed itself as of more paramount importance. Agriculture is the mother industry, it is at the very foundation of the needs of life itself. Other industries may live, but should it become necessary to select on industry only, that one would be agriculture. The tiller of the soil is king, his realm is nature, her luxuriant beauty is his, his horizon is boundless, the atmosphere he breathes is pure and recuperating. He is unconcerned about the hundred and one niceties and subtleties which surround the beehives of industry, for he serves one master only, the One above, and he caters to our own mother earth, who treats him as her most beloved child.
I would that we had hundreds of Dr. Robertsons, who at the head of a regiment would invade our virgin lands that are fit for cultivation. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in those new and peaceful fields they would accomplish a task no less glorious than that they accomplished in war, and for which a concert of praise ascends from the lips of every true patriot.
Though the captains of agriculture are not as numerous as we would wish, is it to be contended that we should renounce the establishment of our returned soldiers on the land? I say no. The Government has extended to the returned soldier some inducements in the way of cash assistance. The bona fide settler now is, if I judge aright, perhaps in a position to receive as much as $8,000 by way of loan. On both sides of the House I am sure we will consider this move to be commendable. But it is not sufficient. The incentive should be larger; it should not be limited to this loan in money.
And what other inducement can you extend to the farmer? Give him a fiscal policy which will invite him to the land and which will help him to create wealth for the country. Men on the farm have a special claim to our attention, because primarily this is an agricultural country.
That brings me forcibly to a consideration of the fiscal policy which this country should adopt. During the eighteen years that I have had a seat in this House our fiscal -policy has been the bone of contention as between free traders on the one side and protectionists on the other. The manufacturing interests and the farming interests have been at loggerheads. The farmer is in Canada to stay, and the manufacturer also is in Canada to stay. Their interests, one is forced to recognize, are in some degree divergent, and whilst I am not prepared to embrace the cause of the one to the entire exclusion of the cause of the other, I am inclined to think that the . manufacturer has had the advantage from the different Governments of this country. He was better organized, he was better supported financially for propaganda work, and especially in the period of his early youth and development a full measure of assistance in the shape of a protective tariff was extended to him.
The manufacturer has accomplished great things for Canada-and, perhaps I may add, for himself also. It would be an insult to his -spirit of manhood to contend that he still needs to the -same degree the assistance which was so generously granted ito him by the farmer and the consumer in the days of his youth. I do not want to offend the manufacturer by supposing for one moment that he is not able to compete with his foreign competitor, when in many instances he has held his own remarkably

well in the markets of the world. I do not need any other' demonstration of that than the fact that in this House a few weeks ago the member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie)-an avowed protectionist himself- declared that in his own industry he had secured a pronounced success in the markets of other lands.
We are told that this is an era of reconstruction and readjustment. The main feature of this reconstruction is admittedly the civil re-establishment of the returned soldiers, and a pressing invitation is conveyed to our brave boys to enter the field of agriculture. I say to the Government: Extend to them all possible assistance in that direction, especially in the shape of a tariff that will relieve their shoulders from the heavy burden of taxation that is now bearing down upon them.
It is generally contended that the farmer is the most prosperous of our citizens. I myself am in a position to judge quite accurately the condition of the farmer, for I come from a farming constituency, and I am descended from a farming family. I have no hesitation in corroborating the statement that was made at Belleville, Ont., last January by no less a light in the agricultural world than Professor A. Leitch. Speaking there, after an investigation on a number of farms in the county of Oxford, Ont., this eminent professor was of the opinion that the farmer was barely making a living. He said in particular-and this will be a very short quotation:-
It is next to impossible, unless a man has an enormously large farm, to make over $2,000 a year, and that only by working thirteen hours a day.
Professor Leitch continues to say that the results are not due to bad management, because some of the most efficient men, the best animals, and the highest crop yields were to be found on these farms, but in most of the cases that were brought under his observation on farms of about 45 acres, with about 40 acres of tillable land and 32 acres of actual crop, the owners only averaged $524 of labour income, representing the salary of the farmer and of his wife and children.
The farmer wants free agricultural implements; he wants the free admission into Canada of articles which are necessary in the furnishing of a home. The farmer wants these concessions, because he needs them-
I say to the Government: Grant them to him.
As the years go by it is apparent to me that Canada should have ratified the reciprocal trade agreement with United States

in 1911. The fact that a large portion of the community refused to endorse the scheme is not, in my estimation, an indication that the country was against it. A keen observer of the political events of that day will admit with me the reciprocity proposal was refused for other reasons than economic reasons. Moreover, during the few months that I have been back in this country I have noticed, as you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House have no doubt noticed, that resolutions have been adopted generally by farming communities asking for the enforcement of the Fielding trade agreement. Can we ignore the request of what I sincerely believe to be the majority of the Canadian people?


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did the Fielding reciprocity agreement provide for free agricultural implements?


Henri Sévérin Béland: A very substantial reduction was provided for in the reciprocity proposals submitted to Parliament under the Laurier Administration.
I can hear the strong protests of the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie); I can hear their words of warning-perhaps I should say their words of threatening. Should this Government go one step further in lowering the walls which constitute an almost insuperable obstacle to the entry of foreign goods into Canada, then, according to their view the whole industrial fabric of Canada would be washed away as a chip on the sand by the wave of low-priced imports.
And then, the argument of the adverse balance of trade is invoked. I shall not busy myself even for a moment with these exponents of the argument concerning balance of trade. I shall content myself with saying that trade, well-understood trade, rests upon the interchange of goods. Endeavour to flood the market of the foreigner, succeed, if that is possible, in excluding the foreigner from your market, and the process will lead to abnormal charges, to abnormal rates of exchange; and, if the two countries are of about the same population, to the impoverishment of the country you are exploiting, the inevitable result will be the destruction of the customer whom you prized so much and whom you were exploiting so merrily. Yes, trade, in order to be profitable and enduring, must be reciprocal.
The Government, by its new proposals, has taken steps to secure new markets. I was not aware that Canada needed markets at the present time; what she needs ' especially is commodities-the products of

the farm and the products of manufacture. But be that as it may, the Government has taken steps to advance credits to some nations-to Roumania, to Greece, to Belgium, to France, and, if I am correctly informed, to Italy also. I believe that much could be gained from the markets of France and Belgium, especially during their period of reconstruction. But Roumania and Greece are in too close proximity to countries where social and political conditions are still unsettled and in doubt, and I would urge the Government to be very cautious about extending credits too large to those countries.
But we have markets; there is the market to the south of us, and we have the market of England. Although our goods are admitted free to England, ^.he United States is still the country with which we have the largest trade. That shows that you cannot combat the laws of geography and the laws of nature. Perhaps some hon. gentlemen will be surprised when I say that before the war Canada supplied to England only one-fifth of its import of wheat. In the line of leather and leather goods, our trade with England was pitiably low; in fruit and in cattle it was not what it should have been; in the line of lumber, of pulp and of paper, products which are very closely allied, the market of England should open an almost boundless field for our exporters. The products of the fisheries should have a good place in the market of England. It would be an error to develop this country too much on the side of manufacture and not enough on the side of agriculture. But let me refer to one or two lines of manufactured products so far as our export to England is concerned. England in 1913 imported $40,000,000 worth of carriages, and out of that amount Canada supplied almost nothing. The same may be said of England's imports of shoes.
It is hinted in the newspapers that England should enter on a policy of Imperial preference. If she should do so, the produce of Canada would enjoy a protection or preference on the English market. Let us then develop our trade, especially with the natural resources of this country.
As regards the subject of immigration, what should be the course to adopt. Whatever proportion of returned soldiers may conceivably be placed upon farms, a large number will have to be absorbed by industry. Unemployed men are walking the streets of our cities by tens of thousands. Should this army of idle men be increased? I say: No. I say: Stop immigration for a
while at least. I am ready to concede that an increase in population is conducive to prosperity, as is demonstrated by the example of the United States in the last century and by the example of Canada since 1896; but at the present moment I believe our immigration should be confined to farm labourers and domestic servants of irreproachable physical and moral soundness. It is very doubtful whether unrestricted inmigration at this time would not increase our present unfavourable social and economic conditions.
One guarantee of the early restoration of normal conditions in Canada is the conviction that must prevail in all sections that, during the years of heroism and stress through which the country has just passed, Canada's autonomy as a nation in the great British Empire has been preserved in its integrity. Can we boast-can the Government boast of having preserved our complete autonomy during the war? I am afraid that under the spell and influence of the war, the representatives of Canada in the councils of the British Empire have allowed unsound advice to prevail with them. They have listened too complacently to extraneous influences; and mark you, Sir, in making these remarks, I am making them in the interest of the British Empire itself. Statesmen whose political inheritance is highly prized: Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, have reiterated the theme that complete autonomy exercised without undue pressure or influence is the greatest safeguard for the permanency and solidity of the British Empire.
il deeply regret in this connection the Siberian expedition. Am I alone in this House in regretting it? Am I alone in the country in looking upon it with dismay? No, the number of those who disagree with the Government is, perhaps, greater than is thought. After eight months of sojourn in Canada, I have yet to meet a man who approves this scheme, much less one who is enthusiastic over it. Whether the expedition to Siberia should have been undertaken at all is a debatable question, which might well be answered in the negative. But granted, if you like, that the Siberian expedition should have been embarked upon, by what process of reasoning should Canada, after a contribution of 400,000 men to the Allied armies of Europe, be called upon to supply a share, especially when we know that one of our allies, and not one of the least, Japan, one

of the Big Five, has not contributed any more than a few thousand men, and that those few thousand men from Japan were used to wrest from Germany, Tsing-Tau, the only foothold, the only fortress that Germany had in the Far East. One may refer to the part played by Japan in Mediterranean waters against the submarine menace, and I am ready to concede that Japan has done something in the Mediterranean sea. I do not want to minimize her effort; but apart from that, it must be admitted that Japan has been absent from all theatres of war. A situation which is considered serious develops in eastern Russia, in the immediate neighbourhood of Nippon island. Japan has an available army of
3,000,000 men, well equipped, well trained and well disciplined, one-quarter of which would be sufficient to remedy any situation that was considered deficient in eastern Russia. Japan, moreover, is within a few hours of the new theatre of war. But we are confronted with the bare, cold and shocking fact that Canadian troops, after a contribution of men unexampled in this country, after the sacrifice of 50,000 lives, after casualties that have reached a total of over 100,000, after an outlay in money of about $1,000,000,000, are despatched to the Antipodes to fight whom? Nobody knows. This expedition was a political error, a military mistake, and a wanton extravagance. Are the people of Canada responsible? Is Parliament responsible? The people of Canada and Parliament were not consulted. Who, then, is responsible? The Government is responsible. A few weeks ago, when this subject was broached in Parliament, the President of Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Mewburn), in their eagerness to exonerate the Government, answered that the expedition to Siberia had been asked for by the Imperial Government. Either the representatives of Canada in the War Cabinet have agreed to this or they have dissented from it. If they have approved the scheme, then they have shown a disposition to yield that is lamentable and that will be so considered by the country at large. If they opposed the idea their opposition was disregarded; they were outvoted. If that be the case, I ask: What becomes of Canadian autonomy? During my stay in London last year it was represented to me that a body of men, some Canadians and some English, not members of this Government, were the power behind the Throne, the inspiring mmu behind tins scheme.

If it succeeded, it would be perhaps a decisive move, and the principle of the shaping of Canadian policy in London, If not resented and condemned in Canada, would have been accepted and consecrated. It is of the utmost importance in the reestablishment of normal conditions in Canada that our people should not be under the impression that a body of men whose motives and interests are foreign, if not adverse, to true Imperial and Canadian interests, have a commanding "voice in the shaping of Canadian policy. On the score of autonomy, as on the score of the franchise, the Canadian people are sensitive. Both prerogatives are of the highest political order, and interference with either must lead to dissatisfaction and unrest. With a full sense of my responsibility as a member of this Parliament I say to my hon. friends: preserve both the one and the other. Autonomy for the nation, and the franchise for the individual, are the twin pillars upon which rests the magnificent structure of a free Canada in a free British Empire.
The declarations which have been made so far in connection with the new Franchise Bill are of a very vague character, so much so that it is impossible for any one outside of those engaged upon its preparation to foresee what its main features will be. Since my return I have found in Canada the opinion prevalent among many classes that the War-time Elections Act has accomplished very little for the country, while, it has caused any amount of discontent and dissatisfaction. Indeed, in unpopularity, it ranks next to the Siberian Expedition. But I shall refrain from discussing the merits or the demerits of the Act which is now the law of the land; I may not have been able to grasp the situation that existed at the time of its adoption; but whether necessary or unnecessary the law is certainly unfortunate. By it thousands.of citizens have been deprived of the most precious privilege of a British citizen-the franchise. In every British country the franchise is the corner-stone of all liberty, and let not the House construe my advocacy of a generous franchise as advocating that the full privileges of citizenship should be granted to men who are not in perfect accord and sympathy with our established institutions and our ethics of nationhood. Nothing could be more remote from my mind. But we want to make it clear that this is a country with democratic tendencies, as opposed to the accursed and now obsolete system of rule

by the few. Let me repeat here what I have said elsewhere, that a franchise law in the hands of a government may be as dangerous a weapon as a sword in the hands of the despot. Not one, I hope, wishes to ' disfranchise men simply because they do not share their views as to the policy that should be adopted for promoting the advancement of the nation, moral, economic, and social.


Jacques Bureau: That is their only reason.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In this Parliament there are now five or six vacant seats. Why should not those constituencies be represented? In the early part of the session the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) introduced a Bill providing for the holding of a by-election automatically in case of a vacancy occurring. The rules of the House preclude my hon. friend from pressing his Bill to a conclusion at this stage of the session, but I appeal to the Government to take it up and make it a government measure. I can assure them that it would pass this House and become the law of the land within fifteen minutes. Then when a vacancy occurred by reason of the death or resignation of the sitting member the people of that constituency would be called upon within sixty days to elect a new representative. We are very prone to take our examples from Great Britain-in England a by-election automatically takes place within six or seven weeks of a vacancy occurring.
The conviction is widespread that this horrible war with its cortege of suffering and bereavement has been accepted and fought by the allied nations for the safeguarding of liberty-of liberty threatened by a despotic power-and the hope has penetrated all our souls that out of the terrible chaos of the last four years something may emerge better than what the world had hitherto known. A sad hour indeed it would be for the people of this country, and of all countries, if they should realize that freedom of thought,
5 p.m. freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of the franchise, have been curtailed instead of enlarged as a result of the severe ordeal which has been undergone. There are those who think, or profess to think, that government without the concurrence of the people or of Parliament is to be preferred. On the other hand, there are those who contend with Abraham Lincoln for government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In Belgium in 1915, during eight months of the German occupation, and later in Germany, I was in close contact with the protagonists of the first-mentioned theory, with the disciples of him who believed that rule by the few was preferable. When I left this country I think I was a democrat, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that now after having come in contact with the men who shared the view that rule by the few is preferable, I have decided to remain unalterably attached to the largest possible measure of popular liberty. At the present moment, when clouds which are slow to dissipate overhang all nations, when in some instances established institutions have been overthrown, when unrest and disquietude is felt in some quarters, it is of paramount importance, both with regard to the franchise and to autonomy that the Government, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion.
1 had intended, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on the financial situation, but I will not dwell at any length upon this subject which was treated in so masterly a manner by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mac-Master) yesterday. I cannot refrain from admitting that the Minister of Finance displayed a good deal of frankness in presenting his Budget proposals. He depicted the financial situation of Canada as indeed not very rosy and as being rather gloomy; but, Sir, I believe there is no room in this country for pessimism. The burden is serious, but it can be carried. The debt of Canada being $2,000,000,000, and the nation within a few months having to pay $40,000,000 for pensions; the annual outlay on these obligations will reach a total of $155,000,000. This is a very large sum indeed, and yet after we have met it we shall not yet have spent a single dollar to carry on the affairs of the country. The sum of $155,000,00 is about double what the whole revenue of Canada was twenty years ago. The national debt will be $2,000,000,000 next year. What will it be the year after next? And what will it be after even another year has expired? I venture to say that within three years it will reach the figure of $2,500,000,-
000.	There is a saving feature about it: we owe the money to our own people. The _ Minister of Finance laid a good deal of stress on this point, indeed he contended that it was very much more advantageous that we should owe the money to the Canadian people. It is true that when you come to pay the interest on the public debt you pay it to your own people; but we must not overlook the fact that although the

money was spent in Canada it was money out of the pockets of the people and not money brought into the Dominion from a foreign country. Therefore, while in one respect that fact is advantageous, in the other it is not. Production and economy is the motto preached by the Minister of Finance. I admit that we must produce; it is the only manner in which the affairs of the country can be carried on to a successful end. At this moment, when a large portion of Europe is devastated, when the people there are clamouring for commodities of all kinds, the duty of the Government should be to tap the-natural resources of Canada to the uttermost; and these words of Mr. Auckland Geddes, pronounced at the Imperial Chamber of Commerce a few days ago, have their full application here:
Trade on a huge and hitherto unexampled scale is the only way by which we can make good the losses of the war.
We must practise economy. That was the predication of the Minister of Finance. I am afraid the advice will be futile because the Government of which the hon. gentleman is a member has not supported the predication by example. Large amounts of money have been expended. The cost of registration, to which reference was made yesterday, to the country, has been $650,000. The Minister of Public Works said the brakes must be applied and applied very soon, but it is not for us to do that,-the responsibility rests upon the Government. We have been voting moneys during the present session, (and I notice the same thing occurred in the previous session,) for works that are not productive of revenue, and that are not advantageous to the country. They create, perhaps, an ephemeral inflated prosperity, but that will only lead in a few years to further unrest.
Although the Minister of Finance has not intimated it very plainly, a loan pf a very respectable size will be launched in Canada before long, a loan probably of $300,000,000. Next year, with a deficit in sight of some $320,000,000 or $340,000,000, another loan will be launched, and then perhaps the year .following, a third loan. I want to impress upon the Government the importance of not exempting these loans from income tax, because if that is done the taxation will have to be imposed on consumption and then the poor, the masses of the people, that are less able to carry the burden, will be overladen, which in due course will lead to further unrest and dissatisfaction.

The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion)) last night in a very able speech, which I followed with the greatest pleasure, referred to the existing labour unrest in this country. In that hon. gentleman's estimation there are several causes for the industrial trouble. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, these are the causes of labour unrest: First, the conviction, properly arrived at, that the war was carried to a successful end by the masses, second, a keener realization on the part of the masses of the people of the shocking inequalities of the social world, and third, a common suffering everywhere, because of the high cost of living. What is the remedy? It is to try to afford a better standard of life to the labouring community, and to reduce the cost of living. Reduce the cost of living, is a fine phrase, but how are you going to do it? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you can reduce the cost of living by applying yourself to the three following activities: Increasei production, reduce the taxation on consumption, and in particular bring the profiteer to account. The two former methods I have already referred to during my remarks; but whatever may be the amount of production, be it ample or small, the cost to the consumer may not be diminished by reason of an immoral disposition on the part of some human beings to take undue advantage of a faulty system of distribution. There exists the law of supply and demand. If that law is allowed to have freedom, if it is allowed to follow its natural course, it will operate according to reason and will prevent the oppression of the masses.
But, the just and free operation of the law of supply and demand has been ignored or rather interfered with. Contact has been lost between the original producer and the ultimate consumer. Between the two a parasite or tremendous dominating power has entrenched himself. He is to be found in the warehouse, in the cold storage plant, where he accumulates and holds for a rise in price and a scandalous profit. You would have found him between the consumer and the producer seven or eight weeks ago when the price -of butter was sent up to seventy-five cents a pound. Had not spring threatened him, the price might have been carried to $1 a pound. Have we not in this country an Act known as the War Measures Act which gives to the Government almost unlimited powers? By the War Measures Act brick can be changed into stone. What was the reason for non-interference in this particular instance on the part of the Government?

When such exactions are perpetrated can we wonder at the industrial and social restlessness in Canada? It is claimed that there are dangerous leaders, that Ithere are men who are agitators, that there are in this country-as was affirmed in this House this afternoon by the hon. Solictor General (Mr. Guthrie)-men who want to overthrow our established institutions. No quarter for them, is my advice. But, Sir, no quarter also for another objectionable, and not more desirable, party-the profiteer. Let us try to assist the honest endeavour of labour to gain in this country a better standard of life. This effort is commendable, and anything in reason that can afford a better standard of living, together with some of the comforts of this world, should not be denied the most important, after all, of the factors of production and wealth. It seems to me that if this condition should be reached, social strife would come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, after my Release, and as 1 entered Holland passing out of Germany, I experienced emotions which it is beyond my power to describe. It was on a spring day when nature awakens to a new life. I passed from a world of horror and strife into a world of peace and happiness. It was, as I said, on a day in spring when nature takes on new life. The luxuriant vegetation, the warbling birds, the fragrant atmosphere, the green pasture fields, the splendid herds, the placid streams, the happy children at play-everything appeared to me so beautiful and so entrancing, that I realized in the twinkling of an eye the immense chasm which separated me from a world of horror created by man and from which I had been transported to a world of happiness such as must have been created by God for the use of man. I could not resist the impulse of my soul, and a hymn of praise ascended to Heaven. I expressed the wish that an inspiration might come from above upon the two big elements in this social world who are engaged in conflict one with the other. I wished for an inspiration for the rich, for the employer, for the master, that he might be generous, and an inspiration for the one below, the one who toils, the one who suffers, the one who works, that he might be reasonable in his demands. Victor Hugo, in his magnificent study of Shakespeare, claims that there is a point where the spirit of man and the spirit of God meet and that point the great poet calls l'Tdeal. Comparisons are odious, but I will take that as an illustration only, and I will ask the House whether in this -cruelly tormented world the point may not soon be reached
where the mighty an-d the rich can extend the hand to the poor, to the working man, a point of contact where both hands shall feel the grasp of friendship and understanding, and where there shall be a movement of generosity on the part of the one above, and a movement of reasonableness on the part of the one below. This appealed to me as the cure for the ills from which society suffers at the present moment. It is nothing more nor less than the adequate apppli-cation of the law of Christianity.
This war has come to an end. Several forces have contributed to it-the economic force, the financial force, the military force, the moral force and the naval force. I refer to the naval force in particular, because I will ask you the favour of allowing me to narrate what I was a witness to when I passed from the shores of Holland to the shores of England. It was on the first day of July-Confederation Day. The moment of departure from the shores of Holland was unknown even to the passengers-; all that was known was that the passengers should embark upon the ships at 4 o'clock in the afternoon at Hoek Van Holland. There were five passenger ships laden with human beings, mainly women and children. The moment the passengers had boarded the ships all communication was cut off with the land. There we waited for a day, we waited for a night, and we waited again for half of another day. Then the five ships cut loose from the wharf. We came down the Maas river, the ships turned to the north, and followed the coast of Holland. Nowhere could be seen any ships to convoy and protect us against any attack that might come upon us.
Then when we had reached iScheveni-ngen the five ships headed for the high seas, and suddenly in the far distance a little -cloud of smoke was visible which grew larger and larger as we approached. Every one was wondering what it was, whether it was -a detachment of the German- navy or -a detachment of the British navy. But after a few minutes the news was spread over all the five ships that what we had noticed in the distance was the in-coming convoy- the convoy that had left the shores of England in the morning and was arriving in Holland. And then what a pageant was offered to our sight! This convoy which was- coming through the North sea-the field of operations par excellence -of the German- pirates-consisted of seven passenger ships -convoyed by seventeen war ships. When we came together, after a moment of apparent confusion, the seven ships in-

coming from England entered Dutch waters -the zone of security-and we were heading for the coast of England in single file preceded 'by a grim cruiser and having on each side of us eight torpedo destroyers., scurrying to and fro like hounds of the sea with a speed unimaginable. We continued until one o'clock in the afternoon, when we entered a field of floating mines, and there the British gunner was at work. These mines were visible at the surface of the water as little dark points, and the British gunner alter two or three shots revealed the fact that he had recorded a bullseye- a mine was exploded and a column of water shot into the air. Then we proceeded until at nine o'clock in the evening we noticed in the distance two big lights, which indicated to us the mouth of the Thames. Suddenly those sixteen warships closed upon us as in a movement of affection, and as we passed the line which united those two lights we felt that we were in a zone of security from which the German pirates were excluded. And then with blinking signals the seventeen warships turned about and started plunging into the night, into the tossing waves on another mission of protection and humanity.
That was, Mr. Speaker, one of the most impressive sights which it was ever given ' me to contemplate. The British navy has during this war played a wonderful part.
It has, indeed, saved the British Empire. And in times of peace the British navy is there. But to perpetuate the British Empire, to have it as we want to have it, a galaxy of united nations, one thing is of paramount importance, and that is that each component part should be entirely autonomous.
In the British Empire the law of autonomy should apply; in Canada, as between races and creeds, the law of toleration should find its application; in the social world moderation in demands from the employee and generosity in concession from the employer should prevail; and in the economic world production and economy should go together. These seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the stars that should guide Canada towards her glorious destiny.
Mr. FRANK S. SCOTT (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, it is well known that on the occasion of the Budget debate a good deal of latitude is allowed in the subjects that may be referred to. We understand the circumstances under which the hon. gentleman spoke 'this afternoon, and I rejoice upon those circumstances; but he will not misunderstand me when I say that I shall

not attempt, in the few remarks which I shall make upon this occasion, to follow him in all the subjects which he has introduced.
'He made reference to the 'Canadian Expeditionary Force to Siberia, and I may be pardoned, perhaps, for referring to that for ope moment. As I understand the situation that force was. sent from Canada after consultation with the British Government, and it was designed to operate upon the eastern front against Germany and against her allies, Eenine and Trotsky. As is well known, at that time the position on the western front was most critical, and it was recognized by the British military authorities that something should be done to bring additional pressure "to bear upon the German eastern front. For that reason the force was sent from the Dominion of 'Canada. But in connection with that the point which occurred to me was this, -that in the matter of autonomy at a critical time like that, if that western front had been broken, what would have been the position of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, and what would have been the position of the Dominion and of all the rest of the world.
Now I will pass on to matters in which I am more particularly interested. I listened with a grea-t deal of interest to the speech delivered yesterday afternoon by the chief financial critic of the Opposition in his reply to the Minister of Finance, and the criticism which I would make of the position taken by the member for Brome (Mr. MoMas-ter) is that he had given most careful consideration to this question, but entirely from a theoretical standpoint. While theory has its place and must always be considered, I submit that on an important question of this kind there is a great deal of the practical to be taken into account, and I feel that the member for Brome would have been very well advised, having reached certain conclusions from a theoretical standpoint, to get into consultation with some of the business men in the great city of (Montreal from which he com-es and to discuss -those conclusions before he brought them to the attention of -this House.
One of the first points that he -made in his speech was that owing to the delay in bringing down the Budget this session there was stagnation in some parts of the country, and that great loss of business had resulted. I cannot agree with him in that conclusion. I may point out, however, that as a result of the introduction of the low tariff, free trade resolution by

my hon. friend in this House on March 25 last, a great deal of doubt and uncertainty was created in the minds of the business people of the country and a great deal of real loss took place. Let me illustrate'. In the city from -which I come a manufacturer told me that his firm had prepared plans for a new addition to their plant, but that when the resolution of the member for Brome was introduced and the controversy which took place at that time went from one end of the country to the other, they felt that they would not be justified in going ahead with the extension, so -that it was held up-at any rate, for the time being.
This controversy with regard to the tarift seems to come up in this House with regularity. It certainly is not a new question in Canada; it is not a new question in the Motherland or in the United States. For a hundred years they have been, debating in the United States whether or not the fiscal policy of that country should be governed by free trade principles or by the principles of protection. During all these years, while the cause of free trade has not been without its advocates, the keen business sense of the American people asserted itself from time to time, and the United States, during a century of the most remarkable industrial development of any country of the world, has -stood fast by the policy of protection.
The member for Brome said that it always amused him when the advocates for protection asked where the revenue was to come from. I shall not refer at length to that phase of the question; for the sake of argument, we will allow that matter to take care of itself. But I wish to say a few words upon the policy of protection and to state what I believe to be its merits- because from business experience I believe it to be the policy which is in the best interests of the country. I shall take one or two lines of industry with which I am familiar and endeavour to outline what I conceive to be the working out of the policy of protection as applied to them.
The first industry to which I shall refer has seen its greatest development in the neighbouring province of Quebec. I refer to it because I have some personal knowledge of it, and because it has been singled out by the advocates of low tariff and of free trade as one of the industries that was not playing the game fairly and that was taking undue advantage of the tariff. I refer to the boot and shoe industry, which has been referred to by newspapers
throughout the length and breadth of the country as an industry that was taking an unfair advantage of the tariff. I have a number of extracts here; I shall not burden the House by reading them all. Perhaps the following will be sufficient to emphasize my point; it is from an editorial published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 10:
The American manufacturer sells a pair of shoes to the American retailer at $5; the retailer adds his profit and sells to the consumer. When the American manufacturer sold the shoes at $5 he miade his legitimate profit. The Canadian manufacturer makes the same quality and same priced shoe, but knowing that he is protected to the extent of a 30 per cent duty he adds that duty, of $1.5*0, to the shoes, and sells them to the Canadian retailer at $6.50 instead of at $5. Yet at $5 he would be making his legitimate profit. Now, who gets this " protection " money? Not the government. Not the1 Canadian retailer. Not the consumer. The money goes into the pocket of the Canadian manufacturer, and simply adds that much to his legitimate profit. Let us see how this workedi out in 1913.
Then ifoHows a statement of the importation of shoes and so on. That kind of propaganda has gone from one end of the Dominion to the other. But perhaps the newspapers are not to be blamed; there was a very good excuse for it. On March 25 the member for Brome introduced his resolution for free trade on certain articles and reduction of tariff on others. Speaking to that resolution, he said:
Now, the man pulls on his -boots. If they came from England they were taxed 22J per cent; if from the United States, 32J per cent,-and if they were made by a Canadian manufacturer I beg leave -to suggest that you will find their price was just a little under what they could have been produced for abroad and brought into the country, freight and duty paid.
His contention is that the Canadian manufacturer takes the American price and adds the duty of 37J per cent, and that is his price to the Canadian consumer. After all, Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of all this controversy. In the remarks which I am about to make, I shall endeavour to show that that contention is absolutely false and incorrect.
I said a moment ago that the newspapers were not to be blamed for carrying on propaganda of this kind, having regard to the fact that a member occupying the important position of the member for Brome, who is chief financial critic of the Opposition, and who comes from the great commercial city of Montreal, made a statement of that kind. The least that he could have done under the . circumstances was to have secured people

engaged in that business or made inquiries in some other way and found out the exact facts. As a result of the working of the tariff on shoes, what is the situation? Some years ago there was a duty of 25 per cent on shoes. In 1907, representations were made to the Liberal Government of that day that fancy shoes, or the higher grades of shoes, were being imported into this country, and that it was desirable to increase the duty to 30 per cent. The present hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who was Minister of Finance of that day, took these representations into consideration, and on the higher grades of shoes he increased the duty to 30 per cent and on staple lines of shoes he left the duty at 25 per cent, where it is at present. What is the result of the increase in duty on fine shoes "to 30 per cent? Cer-tian American factories which had been doing business in Canada, paying the 25 per cent duty and shipping their goods in here, found, with the increase in the duty and the progress1 made by Canadian manufacturers, it increasingly difficult and well-nigh impossible to meet the competition and pay the duty, and the result was that in more than in one instance factories which had connections over here started branch factories in the Dominion of Canada. The first point I want to make is this, that if it had not been for that duty, those Amreican plants would not have moved to Canada. How does this policy of protection work out as regards costs?
Some days ago I wrote to the Canadian branch of one of the most successful shoe manufacturing concerns in the United States, stating: You should be in a position to know perhaps more than any one else just what there is in all this talk that we hear about the Canadian manufacturer taking full advantage of the duty, which with the war tax is at the present time, 374 * per cent. I asked him if he would give me the prices charged by his American plant and by way of comparison the prices charged by his Canadian plant, and I am going to give these figures to the House for its consideration. He gives me the prices on three classes of high grade shoes. On a tan calf bal, the United States' price is 57.50 as compared with the Canadian price of $8.25. The difference is, therefore, 75 cents, or an increase, not of 374 per cent, but of 9 per cent. On a gun metal bal, the American price is $7.15 as compared with the Canadian price of $7,60. The difference is, therefore, 45 cents, or an increase

of 6 per cent over the American price. On a vici kid shoe, the American price is $7.40 as compared with the Canadian price of $8.35, the increase being 13 per cent over the American price.
Just allow me to point out this difference: If the argument of our free trade friends were correct, that Canadian price of $8.25 would have been $10.30; that price of $7.60 would have been $9.85, and that price of $8.35 would have been $10.15. Then I am met with this question: Why, after all, should there be any difference? There is a difference in the price of those three articles varying from 6 to 13 per cent, and that difference is arrived at in this way: All hon. members know that we pay duty on our raw material. Since this war began we have h.ad a duty of 74 per cent on hides, and a similar duty on leather, and wherever these commodities have been imported from the United States the Canadian manufacturer must of necessity add that duty to the cost of his goods. We are told that our customs receipts amounted last year to about $150,000,000, part of which is taken up in the small difference to which I have just referred between the Canadian price and the American price on shoes. As an example, upper leather coming into Canada from the United States is subject to a duty of 224 per cent; patent leather, 324 per cent; sole leather, 25 per cent; cotton lining, 324 per cent. That comparison in prices is on the finer grades or the more expensive shoes. An investigation at the present time into the cost of shoes as between Canada and the United States on the more staple lines will, I believe, show that where Canadian goods are made from materials produced in Canada the prices will be just about the same; perhaps in Canada some will foe lower. I have here a statement prepared by the War Purchasing Commission with regard to the purchase of army shoes. The Canadian War Purchasing Commission kept a close record of the prices paid by the Canadian Government and those paid by the American Government. The United States Naval Department, in 1918, were paying $5.99 for shoes, while the Canadian Naval Department were buying shoes of a similar character for $5 a pair. Those were more staple shoes and made of Canadian material. I am not going to burden the House by reading this statement too much in detail, but in September, 1918, the Canadian Militia Department were buying 'Canadian pattern boots at $5.40 per pair, while the United States War Department were paying $6.45 for their pattern boot, and

their boot had no better wearing qualities than the Canadian, as they -permitted the manufacturers to use a lighter leather. Therefore, the conception that the Canadian manufacturer is governed by the duty in the selling price of his goods is absolutely incorrect.
There is another industry closely allied with the shoe industry, and I want to refer to it to-night, because it bears out perfectly my contention as to how the tariff has worked out and is going to work out when applied to Canadian industry. As hon. members all know, shoes are made upon wooden lasts, and the manufacture of lasts is quite an important industry. Some years ago lasts were largely imported from the United States, although we had some small Canadian factories. There was a duty of 30 per cent on lasts.
As the Canadian manufacturers improved their methods, American manufacturers found it difficult to ship their goods into Canada, and the result was that the best and most successful last manufacturers in the United States established plants in Canada. There has been a duty right along of thirty per cent on lasts. What has taken place? The price of lasts in the Dominion of Canada to-day to a shoe manufacturer is exactly the same as the price in the United States, which means that the manufacturer has taken absolutely no advantage of the duty. As I discuss these question with our friends from the West and elsewhere from time to time I sometimes hear this argument: "If we can manufacture goods just as cheaply in Canada as they can in the United States, what is the object in having a tariff at all? Why not do away with it?" On this very point I am going to read a statement made by the member of this House prior to 1911, on a motion to reduce the duties on agricultural implements:
My 'belief is that if this motion were passed we would strike a severe blow at one of the great industries of the country. I believe the International Harvesting 'Company in Hamilton would And it to its interest to close up its business, at least as much as is devoted to mowers and binders, and have them made at the American branch and bring them froim the United States. The factory in Hamilton is an American concern. With a moderate duty we have induced American capital to come into Canada and to establish that great industry, and after we have brought it in and established it Canada, I believe that if they were to pass this resolution that the Company operating that industry would find it profitable to close their. Hamilton factory and bring in the goods which they make in the United States.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. SCOTT (Resuming):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I had just concluded the reading of an extract taken from a speech delivered in 1907 by the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the importance of continuing the tariff. It seems to me that if it was important, from the standpoint of maintaining our industries that the tariff should be upheld at that time, the necessity for doing so is far more important now. I return again to the question why, if Canadian manufacturers are producing goods, as I know they are in a great many cases, just as cheaply as they are being produced in the United States, the tariff should be maintained. My answer to that question is this: We are living side by side with the greatest industrial nation in the world, a country which is a great deal larger and stronger than ours from an industrial standpoint, and a much richer country. What is the position of that nation at the present time? We know the the Government of the United States, and their business men and captains of industry, are reaching out to all corners of the earth in order that they may take advantage of export trade. Consider the close proximity of this Dominion to that great country; look at the great advantage that the American manufacturer enjoys with regard to the Canadian market. If the tariff that now exists between the two countries were removed it would mean the equivalent of adding to the market of the American manufacturer eight or ten additional states. Look at the strong position the American manufacturer already enjoys. Take almost any line of manufacturing and the tastes of the Canadian people are just about the same as those of the people in the United States. We read the same magazines that they do; they advertise at great expense, and if it were not for the present tariff the American manufacturer would be able to ship his goods into the Dominion and dump them here, and Canadian manufacturers, at least in but very few lines, would be unable to compete with him. The reason for that is that the industries of the United States take care of their own market. In so doing, all working charges, all overhead expenses, and all salaries are met. Open up the Canadian market, without a tariff, to the American manufacturer, and what will be the result. He can produce goods at a lower price and the charges which I have enumerated, having already



been provided for, he can quote for the business offering in this country much lower figures. Therefore, just as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) pointed out in 1907 that it was good business for the Canadian people to maintain the tariff, 1 contend that at the present time it is particularly in the interest of our _ people that we should follow the same policy. We have heard a great deal already in this debate about the great financial obligations that are burdening our people as a result of the war. In my opinion the only way in which Canada will be able to successfully meet these financial obligations in future is by increasing business and trade. Rather than consider at this time the reduction of the tariff, it occurs to me that we might better find out how we can encourage o-ur industries and develop our business so as to successfully meet our financial obligations in the years that are to -come. Great Britain had not been very long engaged in the recent war until she discovered that her great necessity at the outset was the manufacture of shells, -and she turned to Canada, to tlhe United States, to every country from which she could hope to secure supplies of shells. The Mother Country had only been a short time engaged in the -struggle when her public men realized that in a long, drawn-out encounter such as the war promised to be, even with the great wealth which Great Britain possessed she -could not carry on- the fight along these lines to- the limit that her adversary, Germany, could, unless she changed her methods. Why was that? It was because Germany was making her own -shells, spending the money within her own borders, and giving employment to her own people. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd George and the Parliament of Great Britain -soon realized that -if they were to be able to continue the war, maintain Great Britain's financial equilibrium, -and carry on as they should they had to establish great shell industries in- Great Britain, and they did so. It appears to me that, now the war is over, we in- Canada are confronted with exactly the same -conditions of affairs, from a business standpoint, as Great Britain was at the time to which I have referred. We have great financial obligations and in my-opinion the only way in which we can meet those obligations is by manufacturing and producing at home.
These are one or two thoughts in connection with that viewpoint that I would like to leave with the House to-night. I am not one of those who say that the tariff is a cure for all evils. I do not main-
I-Mr. Scott. 1
tain for one moment that there are not individuals who are taking unfair advantage of it. I do not say that the tariff at all times- w-orks out in just the way it should. We never saw any method of taxation yet that is perfect in its operation. Take the operation of the tariff in connection with the motor car industry. It does not appear to me that things are not working out in the industry just the way they should. Considering the scale on which the purchase of motor cars is carried on it is a great big burden on the Canadian people, and the quicker we find out some way of making these motor cars in Canada the better it will be from the Canadian standpoint. What is the situation in regard to the motor car industry? It is true we have so-called manufacturing establishments in Canada, but as a matter of fact they manufacture comparatively few of the parts -that go into a motor car. These parts are imported from the United States and the customs duty is paid on them. Well an-d good. It would be a great thing if these goods could he made right here in this Dominion so -that, instead of having an adverse balance of trade and an exchange rate Of 3 per -cent against us, such as we have at the present time, these things would be made right here and a new industry would be built up.
There is another industry that I would like to refer to along the same lines. Some years ago Parliament -put a duty upon sugar. As a result there was established in Canada, on a very small scale, what is known as the beet- sugar industry. In 1902 there was under cultivation in sugar beets in Canada an aggregate area of 2,000 acres. In 1918 the acreage had increased to 25,000. In 1902 the production of sugar was 3,000,000 pounds; by 1918 it had increased to
50,000,000 pounds. In 1918 the total consumption of sugar in Canada was 600,000,000 pounds. I am informed that during the year 1919 the beet sugar factories of Canada will produce one-twelfth of the sugar consumed in this country. If we had no beet sugar establishments here, and if we had to import all our sugar we would send out of Canada 57,000,000 that at the present time is being left in this country, while employment in agricultural production is being given by this industry to 1,500 men. Beet sugar agriculture is one of the most profitable agricultural employments that any man can engage in. I am informed that in the county of Kent, where that business is largely centered a man engaged in sugar

beet cultivation can clear $100 an acre, and that land values have increased there, as a result of beet sugar cultivation proving so successful, from $100 to $250 per acre. In 1918 the Dominion of Canada sent abroad in payment of her sugar bill $40,000,000. Is it not a proper thing for this country to have regard for a situation of that kind? What are we doing to bring about a condition under which 85 or 90 per cent of the sugar that we consume in this country will be grown and manufactured here? Are we going to make a big success of the beet sugar industry as they did in Germany? Germany took up this same proposition, developed the beet sugar industry, and as a result enriched her soil and placed herself in a splendid position as a country of agricultural production. If we do that we will have in Canada 250,000 acres devoted to the production of the sugar beet. This area will be in the highest possible state of cultivation, because it is a well known fact that the cultivation of the sugar beet does more to enrich the soil than any other crop. We would, I repeat, have under this culture 250,000 acres and our farmers would receive $27,500,000. This industry would give employment to thousands of men in our fields and factories. Instead of talking about revising the tariff, if the Government would try and encourage industries of this kind, we would be going about things in the proper way.
I would like to speak briefly upon the question of the business profits tax. I am rather inclined to think that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will agree that this is not a very desirable method of taxation. I have heard that view expressed by men occupying prominent positions in this Government. When it was first introduced, I did not like it. I did not think that the principle was sound, but the war was on, and people after all were ready to assume pretty nearly any obligation they might bo called upon to assume as a result of the war. It may be that we are considering this as a war year. For that reason perhaps I should not too strongly criticise this tax. I do not know that the Canadian business man will object to paying that tax once more, but I submit that it is not a proper or a fair tax. I am going to take what may perhaps seem an extreme case to illustrate the operation of this tax; I am going to take a business with a capital of $100,000 and making $25,000 in profits. By careful management, by turning their capital over several times, I have no doubt, some businesses will be able to obtain that much.
210J
With a capitalization of $100,000 under the operation of this business profits tax your business institution would be exempt on $7,000, or 7 per cent on its capitalization; the tax takes 25 per cent of the earnings from 8 to 15 per cent on the capitalization; 50 per cent of the earnings from 15 to 20 per cent; and 75 per cent, or three-quarters of the earnings, over and above 20 per cent. Figuring that cut, the tax on a business making those earnings would be $8,250; if the business earned $50,000 instead $25,000, the tax would be $27,000. That is an illustration of what a man would have to pay who is carrying on an industry and giving employment to a great many people. I am going to contrast his position with the position of a capitalist who has perhaps retired from active business. He has secured a fortune of, I am going to suppose, $500,000. His income from that $500,000, properly invested, is $25,000. If he has invested his money in some ordinary security he will pay, I think, under this new income tax, about $2,800 or $3,000; under last year's income tax he paid considerably less. Now you see the difference. Here you have a man engaged in business taxed $8,000 if he makes $25,000, and taxed $27,000 if he makes $50,000; while the other man, engaged in no business-playing golf perhaps in the afternoon, with nothing at all to worry him -gets off with a great deal less; and if he is fortunate enough to have that money invested in Victory bonds he pays absolutely no tax.
The point I want to make is that no individual in this country wants to avoid paying his fair share of taxation, but that this is an unfair discrimination. I do not consider such a burden taxation; it is confiscation of a man's property. I know in my own district more than one manufacturing institution that has been borrowing from the bank more money than in ordinary times they ought to borrow, and now they have to go to the bank, to borrow still more money to pay their taxes. 1 submit that that is not a proper condition of affairs.
If you are going to have an income tax you can apply it just as you are applying it at the present time to a manufacturing or business firm and you can make that concern pay the tax the same as you make an individual pay. But I do submit that if we are going to have an income tax we ought to have it applicable to all people, and that a small part of the community should not be singled out in this way. I think it is a mistake from a national standpoint. There is no money of more impor-

tance to the people of this country than money invested in industry, and I maintain that this $40,000,000 a year that has heen taken from a few through the operation of this business profits tax has been taken out of industry, and that by far the greater part of it should have been left with the owners in order that they might extend their organizations and in that way build up the trade of the country.
Since I became a member of this House I have heard from time to time a good deal about the income tax, and I understood that when the farmers were liable to the tax everything would be perfectly satisfactory to them. Well, 1 do not know how the other members find it, but I am convinced that when the income tax-we have not really started to operate it yet-is in full operation, it is going to be the most unpopular method of taxation that ever struck the Dominion. As a rule the farmer goes to the bank manager of his county town about certain matters of business. The farmers of this country are going to their bankers to-day about this income tax, and my conversation with a number of country bank managers leads me to the conclusion that this income tax is not very well received by the farmers, and that they are more concerned about how they are going to get out of paying than they are about paying it.
The income tax as we have it at the present time is being paid by a certain class of people; by the salaried man whose salary is fixed and it is known just exactly what his earnings are; by the industrial worker, because the manufacturer is required to' make a return to the Government of just exactly what his men earn; and by the man that I referred to a moment ago, the man of wealth who has interest coming in from his investments. But in so far as the ordinary individual is concerned, the Government is not getting any income tax from him, and I do not believe that by any system we could work out the Government will be able to get a fair return of income tax from the people generally.
The neighbouring republic has been working on this income tax longer than we have. There are 6,000,000 farmers in the United States, and last year only 15,000 of them paid income tax. Does any one believe that when the war was at its height and prices for agricultural products were never so inflated, that out of those 6,000,000 farmers only 15,000 were liable to income tax? We have heard a great deal during the last year or so since the Democrats
tMr. Scott. J
came into power about the great change that came over the people of the United States on the tariff question. I admit that when the Democrats came into power some tariff reductions were made. But what is taking place in the United States at the present time? President Wilson before he landed in New York on his return from the Peace Conference sent a cablegram to this effect-I have not a copy of the message itself: We have to revise our tariff, and we have to have a tariff with some kind of teeth in it. Take the proceedings of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives right at the present time. They have been discussing the question, and the- views of the chairman are given in the following extract:
The importance of the home market is emphasized by Chairman Pordney of the Ways and Means Committee of the next United States Congress who has forecast a higher tariff for the United States. " I am not in favour," he says, " of chasing rainbows around the world to find a market for our surplus-which in amount is only about 7 per cent of our normal production-and at the same time neglect our home market and open the bars to the flood of goods offered us, made by the cheap labour of the world, to the detriment of the labouring people."
The first resolution dealt with by that Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives in the United States is in favour of an increase in tariff-I have the items here with respect to certain articles. The United States, as I said before six o'clock, have had over a hundred years of this tariff controversy. There have been times when they weakened upon this question-public opinion ebbs and flows-and when there have been changes of Government; but every time there has been a weakening of the tariff in the United States, bad times have followed. You may point out that there has been an exception during the last four years, since the Democrats came into power. But that is not a fair criterion, because the great war came on and all the energies of the industries of United States were directed to supplying the needs of Europe and of other nations of the world. But, make no mistake, the trade policy that has built up the United States will build up Canada.
I was present in this Chamber .the other day-I think you were present, Mr. Speaker, as well as most members of the House-and had the privilege of listening to an address delivered by a distinguished Canadian, Professor McLennan, who told us something of the work carried on by him and by others in connection with the efforts to meet the submarine menace. He told us

what could be accomplished by the application of science and research work to trade and to commerce, and he made inspiring references to the resources of this great Dominion. You will remember how he went from province to province and pointed out the great natural resources possessed by each. The great thought that he had for members of this Parliament and of the Senate was this: Faced as we are with this great debt and with the obligations resulting from the war, we have to look at things in a new way. His idea was that we had to call to our aid science and industrial research, and that we had to develop the industries of our country. I believe that is the policy of the future; that is the thing that we have to do. Suppose we had gathered around a table representatives of all the provinces, and suppose we were proceeding with the policy outlined by Professor McLennan. Suppose we had a report from British Columbia telling us of their great resources and suggesting how those resources might be developed; what would we th'ink if some representative from Ontario or Quebec said: That may be all right, but British Columbia is a long way off; we have no direct interest in the matter? If that view were taken we would not get very far, from a national standpoint. What would you think if the people of the Maritime Provinces represented that certain things should be done in order to bring about the development of that part of the country, and the people of Saskatchewan or Manitoba said: No, we are a long way removed from the Maritime Provinces; we have no direct interest in the thing? If we follow a policy of that kind we shall never get very far in a national way; but that is exactly what the Canadian people are doing in regard to this tariff business. We are looking at it from the sectional standpoint when we ought to be looking at it from the national standpoint. Only by having the national interest in view can we hope to bring about the proper development of this Dominion; of that I am assured.
I confess that as I listened to the remarks of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) yesterday, I became just a little pessimistic, just a little depressed. He painted such a gloomy picture of the mistakes that had been made that I wondered whether, after all, we had done as well as we might have done. I have since had some time to think over his speech, however, and I am persuaded that, looking back over the past, looking back to the days when the National Policy was introduced and we began to develop our industries, and looking back over
events of the past five years in Canada, no man has any reason to be ashamed of Canada's record. There is in Canada too much minimizing and belittling of our national effort; there are too many class jealousies, too many cleavages. From now on, if we are to face the future successfully and meet the heavy obligations that confront us, we must look at these things from a different viewpoint; we must work for a common purpose. With our friends from the West we may have differences of opinion on these questions, but one thing is certain-we are all Canadians. There can be no doubt about that; the war has shown it, and it is only necessary that we should look at matters from the national standpoint in order that the future of Canada may be assured.


Mr. JOHN PATRICK MOLLOY (Proven-cher):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the remarks of the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott), and he certainly ran true to form. He told us the same story that has been told by every other manufacturer-member and every other member representing the manufacturers during the last ten years, during which time I have been in this House.
The hon. member speaks about sectionalism. He does not have to go outside the boundaries of his own province for sectionalism; it does not exist in Western Canada. He is supporting the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White)-and he well might; he did not find fault with a single item in the whole thing. Why? Because it is a protectionist Budget, a Budget in the interests of the protectionists of this country, to which we, representing the farmers of Western Canada, object. I hope you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, while I read from the Ottawa Citizen of June 6. In an editorial published on that date, the Citizen deals with the effect of the Budget. It says:
Sir Thomas White's latest Budget is likely to have one stimulating effect: it should cause the people of Canada to study their economic position in the world with an intense personal interest, more than ever before. It is a conservative Budget. High protectionism is still maintained as the fiscal policy of Canada. The Finance Minister proposes no substantial step towards, a low tariff policy.
It is true that the war tax of five per cent against British trade, and the 7J per cent tax: against the commerce of other countries, both taxes added to the tariff in 1915, have been taken off. But the tariffs are still maintained sufficiently high to promise no considerable reduction in the cost of living.
Further on, it says, speaking of the manufacturers and the loss of $17,000,000
I

which the Government promise to take off and which they are going to replace by an income tax-to which I have no objection:
When they-
That is, the people of Canada.
-paid 17 million dollars customs revenue, they also contributed about 51 millions a year to private protectionist enterprise, above necessary prices.
And further on it says:
The Government will still take about $130,000,000 from the people in customs taxes; andi protected interests behind the tariff will enjoy the privilege of adding about three times as much to prices of goods produced in Canada.
That is what I object to. I am not going to follow the advice of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) and attempt to discuss the tariff scientifically, I am going to endeavour for a short time to discuss it in a common sense way. The Minister of Customs said last night that the tariff is only for a year. But I have heard the same story for at least thirty-five years. I have lived over forty-three years in Western Canada, as long or nearly as long as the Minister of Customs has. As a pioneer and as the son of a pioneer I have seen the struggle of the people in Western Canada. I have seen the farmers of that country besieged and put out of business by the machine men and horse dealers in the old days. I have seen men there struggle for years endeavouring to make a living for themselves and their families, and in the end the majority of those that I knew threw up their hands' in despair. I remember in October, 1895, the night that I, as a mere boy, attended a meeting in Emerson at which Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then plain Wilfrid Laurier, spoke. Wheat was then selling in the town of Emerson, which is in the county of Provencher, at 38 cents a bushel. I had bought oats myself at 11 cents a bushel, and to my personal knowledge these were the prevailing prices in Western Canada for many years. I remember one year in the month of March coming home from school and passing down the main street I saw a group of farmers congregated. They could hardly contain themselves because wheat that day had gone up to 50 cents a bushel.
Statements have been made as to the money farmers have made in Western Canada. I will deal with that matter first and come to the other later on. On a previous occasion, we had before the House, if I may be allowed to say, an amendment somewhat similar to the one that is now

under discussion. As a man who has lived in Western Canada all his life and who has been returned to Parliament three times by the people who know him best, I believe I know what is uppermost in their minds. I will not take upon myself, as some hon. members do, to speak for the whole West, but I will speak for the county of Provencher, and what is true of that county applies, I know, to the province of Manitoba. Some western members said that they could not support the amendment to which I refer because it would have meant the defeat of the Government. That statement is not correct; it would not have meant the defeat of the Government had they all voted for that amendment, nor will it mean the defeat of the Government should they all vote for the present amendment. And speaking for myself, the last thing I desire is the defeat of the Government at the present time. I am a good enough Liberal to wish that they would remain in power a little longer, to stew in their own juice. They can put up a little longer with some of the troubles and inconveniences that they are now undergoing. They were anxious for the position, and, as far as I am concerned^ they can find a way out as best they may.
I say the western members should have voted for that amendment. My position in this House is somewhat unique. Coming here in 1908, I came as a low tariff man; I have remained as such ever since, and I will remain as such as long as I am privileged to hold a seat in this House. I came here with Mr. Clifford Sifton, the one other Liberal member from that province, and he jumped the job. Later on I was elected on the question of reciprocity with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise) and he jumped his job, for he did not vote for the McMaster amendment. As far as the province oi Manitoba is concerned, I am alone. With this amendment before us, every rural member from Manitoba can vote for that which he .represents, and while high-brows may hold a different view, I hold that it is my duty while I am a member of this House to vote in accordance with the will of the people who sent me here and not to attempt to represent the whole Dominion of Canada. Perhaps that is a debatable matter, but that is the position I have always taken and the one that I am going to maintain. It makes no difference whether members from Manitoba were originally Conservative or Liberal, the people of that province, with perhaps the exception of the people of one constituency N

in Winnipeg, are straight low-tariff people, and there is an opportunity for members from that province to set themselves right before the people they represent. If they do not do so-and I understand some are not going to do so-that is their business, but at the next election the other fellows who come in will be those who will represent the views of the people. One of the members of the present Government, who was formerly a Liberal and who, I hope, is still a Liberal, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), speaking in this House, said that the people of western Canada are a unit on the tariff question; that they are all for a low tariff; and that is true.
Speaking from actual personal knowledge, let me say that farming in Manitoba has not been the paying proposition that some hon. members seem to think it has been. Not long ago, I heard an hon. member say that all the farmers of Manitoba and the other western provinces were clearing from $15,000 a year up. As a matter of fact, the history of Manitoba as regards crops is as follows: In 1912, to take as an instance the farm of Mr. Morrison who, at that time, represented the county of Macdonald, there were over 720 acres of wheat that he never cut, and thousands of farmers were in more or less a similar position; in many cases a binder was never put in the field. In 1914, throughout all western Canada, including Saskatchewan and Alberta, there was drouth. In 1916, there was rust, and in 1918-only last year -millions of acres of grain were destroyed by the prevailing high winds. That is every second year. The year 1915 was a banner year, but 1915 only partially made up for the losses of 1912 and 1914. There are, it is true, in western Canada individual cases where men, on account of high prices and being fortunate with their crops, made [DOT]some money. Some of them voted for Union Government and in some instances managed to keep as many as four sons and in others seven sons at home; but the average man who was either without help or had to pay the prevailing high wages did not make money. Therefore, I say that the farmers of western Canada did not make the amount of money that some hon. members would lead us to believe they did.
What is preventing the western farmers to-day from making money? First of all it is the high price of machinery; secondly, the high price of labour; and thirdly, the high price of lumber and cement. Wages have more than doubled.
For example, I have working for me a boy twenty years of age. Three years ago I paid him $40 a month. Last year I paid him $45, and $50 for the last five months of the year. This year I am paying him $70 a month and board, which is equivalent to $100 a month. Last year in the province of Manitoba, on my own farm, and on everybody else's for that matter, we paid for threshing oats and barley 12 cents a bushel, and 18 cents a bushel for wheat.
I want to say a word as to lumber. In the province of Manitoba, the oldest settled of the Western Provinces, the people are trying to go into the raising of live stock, and the first thing they run up against is the prices of lumber and cement, which are almost prohibitive.
As to. the reduction this tariff effects in the price of machinery, that does not amount to shucks; there is practically no reduction whatsoever. The reduction in the freight rate does not amount to anything either and we will not accept it. The first to benefit from the 71 per cent duty taken off coal are the railway companies. The deficit on the Canadian National Railway- and there will be a deficit-will be paid largely, and altogether so far as Western Canada is concerned, by the men who ship their grain over that railway. Freight rates have jeen boosted within the last year and a Y if. My grain cost 12 cents per hundred t<- carry. The rate was raised to 16 cents per hundred, and now the railways are asking for a further boost, and as usual, if they desire it very much, they will get it-. What will be the difference in freight rates so far as Western Canada is concerned?
1916 rate from Chicago to Regina on car load lots, 6th class freight (Agricultural Implements)

82 cents.
1916 rate from Hamilton to Regina-86 cents.
1919 rate from Chicago to Regina-$l,.02i made up of 27 J cents being the rate from Chicago to Minneapolis, and 75 cents being the rate from Minneapolis to Regina.
The present rate from Hamilton to Regina is J1.12J.
With respect to the present rate from Chicago to Regina il should he stated that between April 1, 1918, and February 1, 1919, the rate from Chicago was $1.13, made up of 27 ^ cents rate from Chicago to Minneapolis, and 85 cents from Minneapolis to Regina.
It will be observed that in 1916, the difference in the rates was only four cents, but the difference between the price of every machine used on a western farm, and a similar machine used in Dakota and the Middle States of the Union, is represented in dollars, not cents.

We contend that at this particular time more than at any other, the farmers of the West are not making the money that people imagine, and it is due to the high cost of machinery1, lumber, cement and wages. Wages is the highest item of all. This Government could very well put implements on the free list. That would have encouraged more men to go on the farm and stay on the farm, and would have done something towards reducing our national debt, which after all will have to be paid out of the natural resources of this country -the forest, the farms, the mines, and the fisheries. No encouragement whatsoever is given to the farmers in this Budget; that is not the intention of the Government. There are no objections from the manufacturers' point of view to these items being left as they are. I am sure that the Budget will not be accepted by the people of Western Canada. No matter how I or any other hon. gentlemen in this House may vote, the people of Western Canada have made up their minds that from 1878 down to the present time the manufacturers of machinery in this country have been unduly protected, and the protection has been wrenched from the producers of this country who have had to pay an undue amount of taxation to make up the revenues of the country.
The reduction on the cost of machinery by reason of the lower freight rate will not amount to anything whatever. I heard a man say the other day, who has farmed out West for many years, that he never objected to the price he received for his products of the farm, but the thing he objected to was the price he had to pay.
It is the price we have to pay
9 p.m. that we object to to-day. Everything that is used on the farm is taxed to the very limit. In 1912, the year when farmers' crops were destroyed by rain, binders were worth $160. This year they will be worth $248. Ploughs have doubled in price. Drills which cost $135 a year or two ago, now cost over $200. I bought a wagon a few years ago for $65; I bought another last November and had to pay $135. I objected to the price,- but I paid it. The dealer who sold me that wagon met me on the street about two weeks after and told me that the wagon I paid $135 for was now costing $168. The manufacturers of Canada last November or December fixed the price of the binder that will be used next August, and the same is true with regard to wagons and every other piece of machinery that will be used on

the farms of Western Canada, and Eastern Canada as well.
As to the national debt, the amount is beyond my comprehension, and, I think, of the majority of the people of this country. It is simply appalling. The Government, instead of making the farmer pay taxation on every implement he buys, might better have taxed some of the land in Western Canada held by speculators. One hundred million acres of land are held by speculators to-day, and I think I am safe in saying that the majority of these men do not live in Canada. When I was home at Easter a farm that a few years ago was raw prairie was selling for $50 an acre, or $25 an acre cash. The owner of the farm, an American citizen, had not seen it in twenty-two years. My neighbours and myself, and men like us, who have taken our chance in that country and spent our time and money in building roads and schools, in erecting churches and post offices, and establishing little towns, have increased the value of that man's land from, I suppose, $6 or $7 an acre to $50 an acre-$50 an acre cash is the market price in some sections now. Let the Government, as was suggested by Mr. Buchanan, writing in the paper of my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), put a tax on the one hundred million acres of land held for speculative purposes by wealthy men. For all this land is held by wealthy men; the poor man cannot afford to speculate, he does well if he is allowed the privilege of living on the land and working it.
By imposing this tax the Government, of course, would ease the burdens of the taxpayers and the burdens of the producers in Canada; they would receive from that source money which would doubtless make them inclined to reduce the duty on agricultural implements and on the necessaries of life.
Now, so far as regards the farmers of Western Canada-and those of Eastern Canada also, because they are agreed on the matter-I maintain, that the proposition is an absolutely fair one. They say to the Government and to the people: Give us free agricultural implements with which to produce food, and make all food free. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the offer is unanswerable. They are not asking for any favours-they have never asked for any favours, and they do not want any now. What better or fairer proposition could they put before the people? As regards free wheat, that was granted by Order in Council in April, 1917, and it has now been made law. But we are not going to ship any wheat to the United States this year. The people there are pro-

ducing the largest wheat crop in the history of that country, wh.idh will amount to twelve hundred million bushels. Furthermore, I do not know that the United States would be very anxious to admit our wheat. The American Government has set a price on the wheat produced in that country, they have guaranteed tihe price, and they will see to it that their own wheat is disposed of before the Canadian wheat is allowed to be thrown on the United States market, because it will not be needed. The farmers of this country are standing for what might be termed a human, even deal. They propose to get it, and get it very soon. We are not worrying about the Government. They can keep the club that is wielded by the manufacturers and by some of the big interests of this country over the people for just so long; -but there will come a time when the people will resent it and resent it in an unmistakable manner.
In passing, I wish to say that there is a strong feeling of unrest in the province from whidh I come, and I charge the Government with being responsible for a lot of that unrest, outside altogether of the high cost of living. The statement which I make is this: The Government does not represent the people, and has not represented them since the 17th day of December, 1917. iMy ground for making the statement is that the Government was not chosen by the free people of Canada. That fact, together with the actions of the men who compose the Government, and the language used by the press of this country, the terrorism and the intimidations which were resorted to, the climax capped by the War-time Elections Act, prove to me conclusively that this Government does not represent the people. A great many of the people are of the same opinion, and that is one of the causes of the prevailing unrest, to say nothing of the high cost of living, and Ihe waste of public money that has gone on.
In the amendment which has been moved we are asking not only for free wheat but that the reciprocity pact of 1911 shall be given effect to, which will not only take in free wheat but also barley, oats, and many other articles. The American tariff of October 3, 1913, provides for a duty of fifteen cents a bushel on barley, six cents a bushel on pats, two and a half cents a pound upon butter and butter substitutes, and twenty per cent ad valorem upon cheese and substitutes therefor, one cent a pound on beans, and so forth. Free wheat alone will not satisfy the people of Western Canada; we want also a free market for everything we have to sell and
everything we need to buy, and we are willing that everybody else shall enjoy the same privileges that we do.
The agriculturists of Western Canada do not entertain-nor have I heard a single man at any public meeting, or anywhere else, express any such opinion-a feeling of antagonism towards the manufacturers of this country. The agriculturists of the West and of the East alike are anxious and desirous to see the manufacturers prosper in whatever lines they may be engaged. But the one thing the people refuse to do is to continue to pay the manufacturers that undue tribute through the taxation which has been levied for so many years past. The manufacturers of this country have, we believe, received protection at the expense of the common people for too long a period and have in fact enjoyed an undue amount of protection; and if, after all these years they cannot stand, so to speak, on their own feet, or on their own merits, and cannot compete with the manufacturers of other countries, as the grain-growers and the stock-raisers of Canada [DOT] have always been prepared to do, then as far as I am concerned they can shift for themselves-they have received all the patronage and protection to which they are entitled.
From the proposals that have been brought down by the Finance Minister, it would appear to me that the same interests that were out for the defeat of reciprocity in 1911 are behind this Government and behind this Budget. ..We see the Same Italian hand, the same leaders, and the same Government that defeated reciprocity in 1911. I charge the Government with having catered, and purposely catered, to the rich as against the poor. And the best proof of that is to be found in the way the Victory Loans in Canada have been handled. Those loans, to begin with are drawing interest at five and a half per cent, whereas a lot of the money invested in them was formerly drawing but three per cent. A lot of those bonds have been sold to people who can ill afford to pay for them, and who have in many cases defaulted payment. In other cases, by the most desperate efforts, the purchasers accumulated the money which they promised to pay. But where are these bonds now? The Victory Loan bonds of Canada are gradually getting into the hands of the very wealthy, and into the hands of the profiteers-the pets of the Borden Government and of the Union Government-and the Flavelles of Canada. That is where those bonds are go-

ing, and the common people of this country will have to>
pay the interest upon them. Nothing of any value has heen accomplished by this Government although it was heralded far and near as the best administration that ever existed, or would ever exist, in Canada. Instead of being a success, it has been an absolute failure from the day its members took office until the present * time, and no one knows that better than the Government itself. There are vacancies in the representation in this House from Prince Edward Island to the province of Saskatchewan, and yet this Government is afraid to hold one single by-election. Unless I miss my guess the present vacancy in the Cabinet will not be filled on a byelection either, unless some gentleman from the city of Toronto should be chosen as Minister of Agriculture. If the Government would accept a hint from me I would suggest that they choose as Minister of Agriculture the editor of the Orange Sentinel. I think he could be elected in the city of Toronto, hut he would not be elected for any constituency in Western Canada, and I doubt whether he would be elected for any seat outside of the city mentioned.


Jacques Bureau: He (has not got to be elected under the law as passed last year.


John Patrick Molloy: No, he can just walk in. I have heard the statement made that all Western Canada supported Union Government at the last election. I understand from the last three or four hours that I have spent in this House, that a number of hon. gentlemen who were believed to be opposed to the Government are going to support it, but that is their business. The War-time Election Act, which should have been entitled " Thou shalt not vote unless thou votest for Union Government," was a big factor in returning the Union Government in'Western Canada.
I am going to mention something else that was a big factor in returning the Union Government in Western Canada. I remember, on the 29th of November, 1917, being called up by a friend of mine and asked how I was getting along, and about my chances of election which I thought were very good. He said: "As far as you are concerned, you can stay at home; the farmers of this country are going to elect you." It just happened that that night five or six others did the same thing and gave me the same encouragement. I watched these men very closely. There were those who said that there were farmers in Pro-
[Mr. Molloy. 1
vencher who were opposed to this Government but who were bound to vote against me because their sons were exempted, something that the Government had no right to do-If the law of the land was conscription, why should the Government exempt a man's son, your son or anybody else's son? And I know cases where farmers, who had four, five and six sons who were not conscripted. I know one farmer in particular in the county of Provencher, who happened to be one of the men who called me up. He had four sons at home during the entire four years of the war. He walked out of town last year with $85,000. He refused to give anything to the Victory Loan, to pay any income tax. The sons of a man with that amount of money could have gone to the war as the sons of other men went, and he was not the only one whose sons were permitted to remain at home. A large percentage of the people in Western Canada did not vote for the Union Government because they thought it woulcj be a better government. They were opposed to the Government but they supported it because their sons were exempted in a good many cases. Not all of Western Canada supported Union Government but if Union Government got support in Western Canada it was due largely to these things,-western farmers' sons being exempted, the War-time Elections Act., intimidation and fraud.
There is one other consideration in connection with the matter as far as farmers are concerned. In almost every district in Manitoba there are a number of Canadian-born farmers who had moved to the United States, remained there a certain length of time, and then come back. These, without exception, say that they are sorry, due t-0 the taxation which this Government is going to maintain, that they did not remain in the United States because there everything they require is much cheaper than it is here-their machinery, boots, shoes, clothing, fruit, canned goods and practically everything you wish to mention. Why should machinery, boots, shoes, clothing, fruit and so on not be as cheap in Manitoba as in the bordering counties of Minnesota and Dakota? If this Government were not controlled by the big interests we would have cheaper goods. As long as they are controlled by these interests the manufacturer will get his and the farmer will get his- but in another direction. The manufacturers will get all the assistance they require while the producers will be left to shift for themselves.

. I want to say a word to the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the Budget as it affects the people of Western Canada. The Minister of Finance can mail the Budget back to his friends, the same people who opposed reciprocity in 1911, namely, the mighty manufacturers, the Mackenzie-Mann bunch and the rest that go with them, and I am sure they will find it interesting reading. I would like to suggest another thing to the minister, and that is when he retires-and that will be very shortly-he write a book and entitles it, "The Four Big M's". The first "M" will deal with the Mountebanks who placed him in the Govei'nment and the big business people of this country who are looked upon as his discoverers. Second, he can deal with the Millions that he has unduly wrenched from the pockets of the poor people of this country. Under the third "M" he can deal with the Mountains of debt that he is going to leave to the people of Canada when he does retire, and which, I repeat, will be very shortly. Under the fourth "M" he can devote several chapters to the Misery he has brought about, the Mountains of debt and the waste of Millions by the Mountebanks of this country.


Mr. HENRY HERBERT STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of this debate on what is undoubtedly the most important Budget ever presented to the people of Canada through its Parliament, my mind runs back to the war session of 1914. It was a very brief session, a matter of only a few days, but the country at that time was faced with stupendous problems, problems the extent and magnitude of which we did not then know. At this particular time we are again faced with immense problems. The problems of to-day are different, it is true, from the problems of 1914 and the subsequent years, but notwithstanding, there are problems just as complex and just as difficult of solution as were the special problems of those fateful years. Not only is that the case but, Sir, contrary to the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Molloy) who has just taken his seat, one of the main problems we are faced with is the immense debt. It is not due, as stated by the hon. gentleman, to the action of the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), but it is due to the events of the past five years. I think it is the duty of this House to set aside, in so far as we possibly can, alla personal animus and look these immense problems squarely in the face. It has been stated by a statesman who held one of the highest places in
our Empire, in presenting the Budget to the British House on an occasion fraught with difficulties, that the best way to overcome these difficulties was to look them squarely in the face. That should be the key note of this Parliament at this important session and with these momentous problems confronting us.
The other day the hon. member for Brome -who has assumed the role of financial critic for the Opposition-made a reference to the Minister of Finance which I did not think was worthy of the occasion, and, indeed, Sir, I am quite confident that his leader would not endorse it. Nor do I believe that it is becoming to the House or to one occupying the high position to which my hon. friend aspires, to deal frivolously or lightly with one of the noblest hymns in our literature. The hon. member used the paraphrase -which I will quote. He said:
.White moves in a most gracious way,
His blunders to perform.
And upon that he based his criticism of the Minister of Finance. If the hon. gentleman had been in his seat I would have directed his attention to the fact that one of the most important rules of the House is to refrain from naming an hon. member personally. I certainly think that he does not carry with him a very large degree of the intelligent opinion of this country when he refers to the Minister of Finance as having performed a series of blunders. I am of opinion that the minister's work during the whole period of his term of office, and more particularly during the most perplexing years that have just passed, has been marked with that high degree of ability and devotion to duty which will earn for him a high place amongst the statesmen of this country. What is the sense of casting what are really personal aspersions upon a minister who is at this time literally expending his very life blood in trying to carry on the financial affairs of this country? Personally, I wish to pay my tribute to the Minister of Finance for the excellent manner in which he has directed the important affairs of his office.
With the indulgence of the House I will deal with some of the criticisms of the hon. member for Brome. He speaks, of course, officially for hon. gentlemen opposite, and I invite them to consider with me some of his criticisms. Let us see if they have any merit. If they have any merit, it is due to the House to give them every consideration. On the other hand, Sir, there may he honest

differences of opinion between the two sides of this House as there might he between two individuals, and an expression of those differences may permit of some solution, or at least of an effort to that end.
My hon. friend very strongly condemned the Government for its policy of financing Rumania, and I presume-subject to correction-that he included in that the financing of other European countries. Let us see if this is fair criticism of the hon. Minister of Finance and of the Government. The facts are that a market existed in Rumania for our manufactured goods. There was a demand for goods; we had the goods to supply. Directly, as a result of the war, the credit of the average trader in Rumania was nil; not only that, but it was physically impossible to carry on business. His storehouses and places of business had been physically destroyed by the invading enemy, and there was a complete disruption of the financial and commercial affairs of the country. Therefore it was impossible for the manufacturer or for the trader in Canada to sell goods to the trader in Rumania, although the market was there. What happened? The Rumanian Government, recognizing the chaotic condition of the country, stepped in and said: "We will take the position of our traders for the time being until the country is reinstated in the ordinary conditions necessary to carry on business. And if you can assist us in the financing by making the nation a loan of $25,000,000, we shall be able to carry on." 60 instead of getting the credit of the individual trader, we got the credit of the nation. I have absolute confidence in the trading done under those circumstances^-for that implies absolute confidence, Sir, in the Minister of Finance and in the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the British Government, who has been our adviser in these affairs. That is briefly the situation, and it applies also to the loans to other countries which have been referred to. il argue from that that the criticism of my hon. friend was not fair, it was not sound ; and I venture to say that it does not receive the support of those manufacturers or traders who claim allegiance to the Liberal party. I am quite sure that as business men they will support the action of the . Government in this regard.
My hon. friend criticised very keenly indeed and deplored the bond issue in Canada of $1,500,000,000. He pointed out that it is a tremendous loan. Undoubtedly it is. He also pointed out that it is an exceedingly heavy burden, and he -made a comparison

between the landlord at home and the absentee landlord, and remarked that the former was sometimes more troublesome than the latter. But, Mr. Speaker, he refrained from saying that from one and a half to two million people, citizens of Canada, came forward and tendered this loan to the Government from time to time when called upon to do so. Out of our 8,000,000 population from one and a half to two million-1 have not the exact figures, but it is between the two I have named-came forward and helped their country to carry on. In my estimation that is a complete ^answer to the allegation that the moneyed men escaped taxation by subscribing to the loans.
What large institutions subscribed to the war loans outside of the individuals I have mentioned, who formed the bulk of the subscribers? It was the banks, insurance companies and other institutions. And whose money was it? Was it not the money of individual citizens which those citizens had entrusted to those institutions? We often refer to a bank or to an insurance company as if it was some individual who in his own right held the full capital of the institution, whereas it is held by hundreds, thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands of individuals. So when you analyse these criticisms you find they are based on this fact, that one and a half to two million people subscribed, and that even in the case of the large subscriptions they are again subdivided among a large number of individuals.
Now I come to my hon. friend's criticism of the tariff, and if I might be permitted, Mr. Speaker, without violating the rules of the House-and I shall, I think, keep within the rules-I would refer to a resolution proposed by the hon. gentleman some weeks ago-I think it was on March 25th-in which he gave expression to certain suggestions. I shall not read it, because that would not be in order, but I shall refer briefly to the views that he enunciated on that occasion, and then I desire to deal with the amendment before the House. He suggested at that time, in a resolution moved in amendment to the motion to go into Supply-it was really a want of confidence motion-first, that the most should be made of our natural resources. No one has objected to that; as a matter of fact, one of the objects of the proposals brought down by the Minister of Finance is to give effect to that principle. I will point out very briefly one or two facts in connection with this phase of the question.	[DOT]

We produce in Canada very large quantities of lead and copper, yet during all the years that we have been producing these things we have been shipping them to the American market in very crude condition- in the form of ore or of copper matte and spelter. For some years I have advocated consistently that these metals should be refined in Canada in order that a market might be created in our own' country for refined lead and copper and in order* that we might encourage the manufacture of these articles and their shipment to foreign countries in manufactured form. New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, tlhe Singapore district, all import manufactured copper products, so that there is a large market for goods of this kind. Yet all these years we have been shipping the raw material to the United States and reimporting into Canada the manufactured articles of copper and lead. Now, the placing of a moderate duty on lead and copper will materially assist us in that regard; so I suggest that we are giving effect to the first point made by the member for Brome in his resolution of March 25.
Then he says that taxation should be imposed upon those best able to bear it. A moment ago my hon. friend (Mr. Molloy) offered some criticism of the business profits war tax and of the income tax. I am not going to debate the point, other than to say this: it must be admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite that we have taken a decided step towards imposing these taxes upon those, to use their own phraseology, most capable of sustaining the burden.
Then, the resolution of March 25 asks for reciprocal trade with the United States. But the next point is a rather striking one; they advocate the repeal of the five per cent war tax and the seven and a half per cent war tax. Have we not done that in the proposals which are now before the House? The five per cent war tax in respect of the British preference has been completely wiped out; the seven and a half per cent war tax has been wiped out in respect of something like two hundred articles. Is this not a decided step towards meeting the views of my hon. friends as expressed on March 25? Yet we are told in the resolution now before us that the action of the Government has been entirely unsatisfactory. What will satisfy hon. gentlemen? What do they want? We meet them, as it were, half way; yet we are told that the proposals of the Government are entirely unsatisfactory.
Then, we were asked on March 25 to put on the free list staple articles of food. We have done that. We have embalmed, as it were, in the statutes of Canada the Order in Council of a few years ago, virtually meeting the requirements of the reciprocity pact of 1911, without doing so at the dictation of the Washington government.
The next point suggested was with regard to agricultural implements, and so on. Just at this point I invite the attention of members of the House who differ from the Government to the phraseology of both resolutions-the resolution of March 25, and the motion now before the House. On March 25 the member for Brome, in his request with regard to farm implements, and so on, suggested that anything done should be without derogation from the provisions of paragraph (b) of his resolution. What is paragraph (b)? It is that the offer of reciprocity contained in the reciprocal trade agreement of 1911 should be accepts ed. In other words, the hon. member says to the western members on this side of the House: we will give you free implements- and he leaves that impression on their minds. But, tucked away in the phraseology of the resolution, we find words to this effect: "subject to the provisions of the reciprocity agreement." In other words, he intended to limit any concessions made with regard to the tariff to the reciprocity agreement. I submit that the provisions of the schedules placed before the House by the Minister of Finance meet that situation practically in its entirety.
Then he went on to request substantial reductions in the tariff. I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite, and also of hon. gentlemen on this side who seem to think that the Government did not go far enough, to these words: "having regard always to the requirements of the public revenue" and the affording of "reasonable opportunities" for adjustment, and so on,-he would reduce the duties. That was in the resolution of March 25. In his resolution of to-day he use3 language a little different, but almost the same. He proposes a general reduction in the tariff, "as may be expedient and just to all concerned." I repeat that I invite an examination of this language. What does it mean? My hon. friend who preceded me, (Mr. Molloy), said: We want a free market; we want free agricultural implements; we want free this and free that; and we intend to have them. But where is he going to get them? He certainly is not going to get them from a government of which the hon. member for Brome may

be Finance Minister, because that hon. gentleman, officially representing his colleagues in this House, on two important occasions-once in moving an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and again in moving ah amendment to the Budget- uses the language to which I have directed attention, " having regard to the requirements of the public revenue." Is that not exactly what the Finance Minister is doing to-day-trying to face Canada's enormous debt and at the same time to make substantial reductions in the tariff? It is to be noted that the Finance Minister did succeed in making substantial reductions in the tariff, in spite of the necessity for revenue, and also in meeting the demands of hon. gentlemen opposite in that the added taxation is imposed upon those who are best able to bear it. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, in all reason, if we have not met their views as expressed a few weeks ago, almost in their entirety? As a matter of fact, in some respects we went beyond what they had hoped.
So much for that phase of the question. But the member for Brome did not stop there. He went on to blame the war upon protection. He said he believed the great war was due to two great, " and, as they have worked out, evil principles,"-imperialism and protection. I ask the hon. gentleman, did the fact that Great Britain was a free trade country keep her out of the war? Great Britain could have kept out of the war quite easily, but she did not do so, because it was not a war in which the issue was protection, free trade, or taxation; it was a war precipitated by the violation of solemn treaties, and it would not have made any difference whether we had protection or free trade; we had to take part in this war or lose our status as a nation.
Then, my hon. friend says that free trade is the panacea for all ills. I quote from his remarks:
I cherish the opinion that if the international gospel preached and practised by .great apostles of free trade, Cobden and Bright, had been followed by the rest of the civilized world, this war	would not have happened.
Let me call your attention, Sir, to his argument. He is presumably suggesting to the country that the party to which he belongs and for which he spoke on that occasion officially were standing for free trade. What does he say? He says that free trade would be possible had it been followed by the rest of the civilized world. That is quite conceivable. I confess that there is much in the theory of free trade

that has attracted my attention for many tears, but here is the stone wall to which I have always come in debating or reasoning this policy of free trade, namely, that as long as there is another nation which exercises what is termed the selfish policy of protection, so long will you be interfered with in the freedom of trade. That, of course, is a maxim that you cannot, perhaps, apply generally, but it certainly applies* in a country like Canada, and it applies in a manner that you cannot escape from, as is demonstrated by the very language of my hon. friend from whom I quoted a few moments ago. His lang'uage in both resolutions was to the effect that he proposed reductions in the tariff if expedient, having due regard to those interests, and I say that is made necessary by the fact that we are alongside of a nation of 100,000,000 with tremendous capabilities of manufacture, and a density of population making her market so great that our manufacturers cannot hope to compete with hers, at least, for a great length of time.
Let me briefly bring to the attention of the House the condition of Canada as it affects this policy. The fiscal policy of a country is one or other of two-either free trade or protection. If the policy he that of protection it may he a moderate protection. Nevertheless, you are confronted with the choice of one or the other. We have in Canada a very wide diversity of interest. On the extreme West we have British Columbia with its mining, timber and fishing. In the middle West, you have the three Prairie Provinces, so far as the settled parts are concerned 'almost an entirely agricultural population. But in the northern sections of those provinces, you have huge natural resources in the nature of oil, coal and other minerals. But when you come eastward into the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, what do you find? You find not only large agricultural resources, but stupendous water-powers which twenty-five, forty or fifty years ago meant little but picturesque scenery. To-day those waterjpowers are measured by horse-power; they are measured as units of energy, capable of producing tremendous power for manufacturing concerns. While Ontario, perhaps, at the time of Confederation and for many years after was not fitted to compete with the coal areas of the Eastern States, because industry depended upon the presence ol coal for the development of steam energy, with the development of electrical machinery and power, Ontario, and Quebec in particular are destined to become among the

greatest manufacturing centres of this continent. This, however, cannot be brought about in a day; it is not something that' can be evolved over night;, it is a process of time. What has been the policy of Canada under the governments of Sir John A. Macdonald, of the late and revered leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of Sir Robert Borden and under the present Union Government? The policy .has been a continuity of one idea, namely, to give an opportunity for the utilization of those great natural resources in the way of industrial development in order not only to develop the one great basic industry of agriculture-and that is desirable-but to develop those other industries the combination of which go to build up a great nation and people. For after all, history proves, beyond all per-adventure, that the trading nation, the nation that can send its goods into and meet and trade with other countries is a nation which is going to rise to the highest standard of civilization. That has been history repeated over and over again, and I shall not weary the House with illustrations. Therefore, I say that with our wonderful resources of agriculture, mining, lumbering, fishing and manufacturing, Canada is most fortunately situated to build up such a nation and people. I said a moment ago that we were faced with the alternative of one of two policies-free trade on the one side and protection on the other. Protection is capable of being moderate. You can have a high protection, such as Germany and the United States have, but we do not believe that is desirable. We on this side believe that a fair, decent protection, to enable our industries to get solid footing and to compete with the great country to the south, with its intense industrial life, is the type of protection we should have. We believe that this carried out in a moderate and sane degree is in the best interest of the country. On the other hand, I ask my hon. friends opposite this question: Are they in favour of free trade? I am reminded at this point of the words of their leader (Mr. McKenzie), an hon. gentleman who has distinguished himself during the past few months in filling the very difficult position in which he found himself so suddenly and unfortunately placed. That hon. gentleman the other day stated in the House what in his view was in the interest of Canada, and it was not free trade. My hon. friends opposite must frankly, if they would so address themselves to the House, say that it is,, to say the least, a partial free
trade. What difference is there in the terms? Moderate protection and partial free trade are synonymous terms; there is no difference between them, and well do hon. members opposite know that. I would invite the attention of hon. members who have'a faint hope that it may be possible to introduce a complete free trade policy in this House and in this country, to the language I have repeated on more than one occasion to-night of the hon. gentleman who represents the financial policy of the Opposition.
The other evening my hon. friend (Mr. MoMaster), in referring to the high cost of living, used two phrases, and again I take from his own mouth what I consider to be a complete answer to the criticism that he has hurled at this Government On page 3365 of Hansard he is reported to have said that the high cost of living was due to the scarcity of goods. He is absolutely right in that. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) described that situation to us at greater length than the hon. member for Brome did, and for some days now we have been sitting as a parliamentary committee studying the high cost of living, and every witness who comes before us impresses upon us that one fget, that the great fundamental, underlying cause is the scarcity of goods. Without labouring the question, as it has been reiterated so often, we have millions and tens of millions of men taken out of productive life and used in other lines, leaving a shortage of labour in the civilized world. My hon. friend knows that; he enunciates it as his reason. He says that the high cost of living is also due to an inflated currency. This' we know, and inflated currency is not confined to Canada, nor to this continent; it is common to the civilized- world; Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the other nations of Europe have very much inflated currencies.
Perhaps I should not have included Norway and Sweden. This is owing to world conditions; it is one of those peculiar phenomena known to finance. The high cost .of living is due to scarcity of food stuffs, goods and so forth, and to an inflated currency. How does my hon. friend propose to remedy this? By reducing the tariff as it may be expedient and suitable to those who may be affected. That was his answer; you could get nothing else out of his speech but that. " As it may be expedient." That is an intimation to the manufacturers that should hon. gentlemen opposite happen at some future time to come into power the manufacturers need have no

fear, because their interests will be carefully studied before there is any reduction. So those of my hon. friends who are interested in manufacturing and may have felt a little anxiety should take heart; there is nothing in my hon. friend's amendment to make them anxious. His proposals are simply a repetition of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in the years that have gone by. I congratulate them upon it, but I do think it would be better to be frank about the matter and say exactly what they mean.
Let me draw the attention of the House to what we have done. We do not say to the people that we propose to reduce the tariff as it may be expedient; but we have reduced it. We have placed on the Table lengthy resolutions reducing duties in a very marked degree, to the extent of some $25,000,000 of revenue at least. We may not have gone as far as some extremists would like, but we have given these reductions. We do not say in camouflaged language that we will make reductions as it may be expedient after due consideration. We say that we have studied the situation, have estimated the amount of revenue that is necessary to carry on, and have succeeded in devising a scheme for getting revenue to replace the amount that will be lost in duties, through the positive and definite reductions we have given. We say to the people of this country: We have to increase your taxes. I am quite sure that the leader of the Opposition, when he speaks in this debate will say something to this effect. He will not talk nonsense and say that he is going to reduce taxation, but will tell the people:	"We have a big
national debt consequent upon the war, and Canada's part in that war. That debt has to be faced, and the people of this country will have to pay heavy taxes for years to come." I am certain he will face the facts in that way, and that is what we are doing. We say we must raise the revenue whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, but we also say this: We look into the future and have absolute confidence in Canada's ability to rise to the magnitude of this.task. We believe that Canada is able to bear the burden, and will bear the burden, but in placing that burden upon the shoulders of the people we are considering the best and most just method of distributing it. , We have placed a larger burden upon the shoulders of the rich than upon the shoulders of the poor. In the resolutions which are now before the House, and which we on this side, generally speaking, support heartily, we have reduced the cost of living

to some degree at least, and we are endeavouring to find better and more effective means of reducing it. We have done our best in that regard. We have laid the burden of taxation very, very largely upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it.
A word on one or two other points before I sit down. I wish to impress upon the House the importance of the very much criticised bargain, so-called, made with the railways regarding freight rates. I have been trying for a great many years, so far as my feeble influence goes, to secure some reduction in freight rates, and I have found it a very difficult task. The freight rate question is a very important one. The Minister of Finance has succeeded in securing a substantial reduction in freight rates from eastern Canada to the Prairie Provinces. I have one thing to ask of him now. I invite his attention to the desirability of reducing commodity rates from the Pacific Coast to the Prairie Provinces, and from the Prairie Provinces to the Pacific Coast. Without labouring the question, I will put on Hansard this fact: Up to about ten years ago a merchant in Vancouver could ship goods as far east as Golden, about 450 miles distant, at the same cost that a merchant in Montreal could ship the same articles to the same point, a distance of 2,600 miles. In other words, ten years ago we used to be able to ship 450 miles as against 2,600. That has been reduced until to-day a merchant in Vancouver can ship as far east as Calgary as against the Montreal rate, or 600 miles against 2,300 or 2,400. Some
10 p.m. articles we can ship as far east as Begina, or 900 miles as against 2,000 miles. I state these facts merely for the purpose of asking the Minister of Finance and the Government to make an effort to extend this reduction on commodity rates to the West, because it would materially and decidedly assist in reducing the cost of goods to the Prairie Provinces.
I have this one further suggestion to make: Not only the Government but this Parliament should address itself to the development of the immense natural resources of this country. In eastern Canada, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as in the province of British Columbia, there are immense deposits of iron ore. There are also throughout this country tremendous deposits of copper, lead, zinc and silver. These are remarkably rich sources of revenue for the country, and I believe that any capital wisely expended on the development of these resources will bring splendid returns to this Dominion.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) ((translation):: 

county." To me it was a thing unheard of till Ithe morning of polling day, .and I inferred therefrom that in many other places throughout the county, they had taken the same stand, namely, that the voters' lists had been handed over to the Opposition candidates a few days before polling day, so that, under such circumstances, it was no easy matter to have names struck off or added to the lists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard again and again gentlemen on the floor of this House casting reflections upon the province of Quebec, not only during this session, -bult for many years past. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), on April 9th last, speaking about the slackers and evaders in the province of Quebec, made the following comparison: " A father has five boys in his home, all good strapping, sound lads; he is attacked by a bunch of bandits over night and, when the old gentleman calls for help, four out of the five sons only need to know (that the father is in difficulty and needs help to get them to the spot. But the fifth lies in his bed upstairs and says: Let the old man and the other boys fight it out."
The hon. member for Brantford went no further. He 'should have informed us whether the fifth boy had been treated as the others had been. Had he received a similar treatment, T say that he was wrong in not lending them a helping hand; but I take it that he was the drudge in the family, and if he did not answer the calls of his father, I congratulate him for it,
I say that we, the people of the province of Quebec, who are looked upon as slackers, as evaders, and who are being thus treated by the English-speaking people of Canada,
I say that we are in the position of the fifth boy above referred to; that we do not receive at the hands of the majority the treatment we should get and that is the reason why we do not respond to the call as readily as our English-speaking fellow countrymen do.
The participation of the counties of the province of Quebec in the war has often been referred to in this House, I often noticed that my hon. friends to your left, sir, endeavoured to show that the soldiers from their constituencies had cast their ballot in other counties. As far as I am concerned, I do not complain on 'that score.
I do not know the exact number of soldiers who have enlisted in our county-I may say that I did not insist upon recruiting-but I know that three soldiers did cakt their ballots overseas for the county of Laprairie-

Napierville. I cannot complain, as I have taken 33 and i of the vote. To tell the truth, with such opinions, as I have frankly given expression to in this House, I never believed that I could get any soldiers' votes. Ye't I have taken one-third of the military vote in my county, and I am quite satisfied.
I was rather amused to hear hon. gentlemen, on the floor of this House, refer to our marine and militia. So far as I am concerned, I should like my hon. friends to stop talking about our navy and our militia, because when a -country is bankrupt it can no longer do anything in that direction, and it behooves that country to let alone those matters for a while.
The people of this country are disgusted hearing all that talk about shipbuilding and militia matters. Those who travel a little, see in the large centres, Ottawa, Montreal, and aboard the trains, many young soldiers who apparently never were wounded-and so much the better for them-who are still wearing the uniform. At a time when farmers are lacking labour for production 1 wonder why the *Government should keep those soldiers idle in the Large cities, and thus waste the money of the country. Officers are thus allowed to strut about with gold lace and to live in idleness. We have a good many of'those officers walking around in uniform, who get 7 or 8 dollars a day and their living expenses, I believe, in first-class hotels. And both political parties apparently wink at all that. I have condemned in the past both political parties as to our participation in the war and unfortunately, they do not seem to be willing to hack me in order to put a stop to what is actually taking place in the country; for soldiers are still to be seen, at every street corner, at all hours of the night. And yet we are at peace. The war came to an end on November 11th last, or at least, the armistice has .been signed and peace will soon be concluded. Again, I ask, why so many soldiers?
But, brushing aside for the present that question, I now come to the speech of the hon. the Finance Minister. The hon. minister on the 5th of this month, told us that our national debt, in March 1920, will stand at no less a figure than $1,950,000,000 or in round figures $2,000,000,000. The minister always shows us the net. debt. The net debt does not mean much to us. I had rather be told the gross debt. At all events, what I am concerned about is the gross debt of a man, of a government, of a municipality, of a company. Let us take the case of a farmer, for instance-I am speaking of mat-

ters I am familiar with-who owns a good farm which is mortgaged to the extent of $4,000 or $5,000. Aeccording to the Minister of Finance, that would be the farmer's net debt. But if he owns the grocer, the butcher, the baker, the blacksmith, $2,000, that must be added to his net debt:	His
debt, will then be $6,000. Now, the minister's accounting is apparently similar to that of the farmer whose farm is mortgaged, but who does not say: "I owe $2,000 more." No, Mr. Speaker, a country's actual debt, is its gross debt.
I tried to-day to get the "Official Gazette." In the past, the actual debt was to be found there every month. There was a page which gave the assets and liabilities. I do not know whether it was the hon. Minister of Finance who prevented it, but for some time the public debt has not been mentioned therein. I really believe the hon. Minister of Finance must be somewhat ashamed to show it because it is enormous. However, if I remember .rightly-speaking from memory -in the month of April last, the gross debt of Canada amounted to $2,682,000,000, in round figures, and the net debt, on the same date, was twelve hundred and odd millions of dollars. . If $300,000,000 have been added to it since, then I can assure you that the gross debt must have reached, if it has not .exceeded, three billions. The Minister of Finance may not understand my remarks; I regret it, but he may read them later on. In the .same column which gives the net debt, the assets of the country are shown to have been $1,243,000,000 in the month of April last. I ask the Minister of Finance what these assets are worth. How much hard cash could he get. to-morrow in exchange for the $1,243,000,000 of assets which he had in the month of April last.
I surmise that funds have been advanced the British Government for ammunition, for provisions of all kinds and that, as a set-off, the British Government have' paid for our men overseas, for their maintenance, for their food, for the military stores spent upon the battlefields-which we shall have to pay for because we entered the -war, as some hon. members on the other side said, so as to pay for everything. Very well, but it is expensive. Now how much is debited to England and is a part of our assets, and what constitutes the balance of those assets? I understand it is money loaned to railways, to Mackenzie and Mann and others. We also have the railway, it is true, but that part of the assets is not worth a cent in my opinion. Then,
2114	'i |	I;' ii
our gross debit is now nearing three billions and shall be three billions and a half two years hence. And while making that assertion I stand in no fear of deceiving anybody. I said so in my constituency a year ago, I shall repeat it this year: At the end of the war, the gross debt will exceed three billions.
Where do we stand with all these liabilities? We have a population which scarcely tops seven million inhabitants. In our liabilities are not included the railways wdiich we have taken over. Besides, we intend to secure the Grand Trunk which will increase the debt to four billions. Why? In order to please some politicians and to open situations of $25,000 a year.
I am opposed to that, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, the >
situation is such that we shall have to pay next year $115,000,000 as interest and pensions amounting to thirty or thirty-five millions, that is, in round figures, $150,000,000. The hon. Minister of Finance has not included .anything for the maintenance of the hospitals erected throughout the country for our returned soldiers. I often pass through St. Anne's in the county of Jacques Cartier, where I notice that the Government have erected buildings for the accommodation of 1,500 to 2,000 diseased soldiers. You must agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that had the money been expended by business men, by men knowing what is in the interest of the people of Canada, the hospital would not have been erected at a distance of 23 miles from Montreal, but close to that city, so that later on, when the soldiers would have been cured and would have left the hospital, the buildings might have been turned to account by the city of Montreal. At all events, I consider that that hospital is very badljr located.
I am .told that in Toronto the Government have done better than that, that the hospital is close to the city. 'So much the better.
Now, what will be the expenditure entailed by these hospitals? That I do not know, but I understand that it will be no less than from twenty to twenty-five millions for the next year, and perhaps two or three years. So that to the cost of our silly meddling with the war will have to be added not only $150,000,000 for interest and pensions, but twenty to twenty-five millions for the up-keep of our hospitals during a few years. That is where Canada stands. Why are we in that situation to-day? As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is the consequence of the policy of the Govern-

so as to be able to re-sell for $24 or $25. And those gentlemen have the ear of the Government, they are 'all powerful and everything goes on as well as 'possible with them.
Those are the people who make and unmake governments: hands off.
I am much less 'Concerned about the fiscal question than about the rights which we have in this country. I have always been a free-trader, and am still a free-trader, because I know that those manufacturers who are always clamouring for a high protectionist tariff only aid at rounding off their fortune. They are in their right in demanding an increase in the tariff, but they are no more in earnefst than the hon. minister was in 1913, when the 'Bill for giving dreadnoughts to Great Britain came up for discussion before the House. The right hon. Prime Minister then declared that warships could not be built in Canada. Mr. Churchill had cabled to him from England that we were too backward in shipbuilding in this country and 'that it would take fifty or perhaps seventy-five years before we could undertake anything in that line of business. Then the war broke out and we did build warships. INow, when manufacturers come and tell us that we cannot turn out, agricultural implements as they are making them in the United States; when they tell the Minister of Finance that in order to protect them, 20 or 25 per cent duties have to be imposed, I do not take any stock in their sincerity, and if the minister does believe them, 1 am bound to say that he is very credulous. No, sir, the protective system was devised to rob the people, and I use the word robbery because that is the only word that I can think of to express my idea. Protectionists may well be likened to thieves who steal apples in an orchard. While one shakes the tree his pal picks up the apples on the ground and drops them into the bag. Let me add that in their work, the protectionists have the hacking of the Government.
See what is happening in the United States with their high tariffs. Some individuals in that country have piled up colossal wealth, hundreds of million dollars. Can a man live long enough honestly to amass such a fortune? The span of life for a business man is from 30 to 40 years at most. Dare you tell me that it is pQssible for him honestly to pile up hundreds of millions? Surely not. 'He piles up those millions because he has the backing of tihe Government who lets him plunder the people by preventing foreign competition. That is what you [.ST. Lam:tot. ]
call protection. Protection makes the consumer pay for his goods three times what they are worth.
Give the people of this country absolute free trade-that is what I advocate-and free trade will give you honest governments. When you directly tax the consumer, he knows what he has got to pay, but when you tax him indirectly, as he is being taxed today, through customs duties, you make him pay unawares four or five times more than through direct taxation.
Should I go and tell the people in Lap-rairie-Napierville: "We are going to remove the duties and impose a tax of $20 per capita." What would the farmer say. "My dear sir, what do you mean by doing that? Are you crazy?" Yet he is paying now, through indirect taxation $20 per capita and the increase in price given to the commodities 'by duties ranging from 25 to 30 per cent, which, in many cases, doubles the sale price. And not only does he pay the duties, but he pays four or five times more for his goods.
(Let me tell you, before resuming my seat, that I am interested in that reciprocity question, but I am still more interested in the well-being of our'Ontario brothers. Western Canada is becoming Americanized. The Ontario imperialists who wanted to save the Empire at any cost, are now bending their efforts towards destroying it. Canada is actually in the same state as the town of Maisonneuve, at the time of its annexation to Montreal, in bankruptcy. Personally, as a Quebec man, I depreoate it; but our Western friends are clamouring for secession from the rest of Canada, because ithey look unfavourably upon the stand taken by the Ontario high protectionists. And later on they may say: "We are drifting towards the United States \" I deprecate such a stand, but as I already said that is bound to happen. What should the Ontario people do? Let them fraternize with the Quebec people; let them do away with the 17th school regulation and allow our French-Oanadian children to attend French-Oanadian schools. After all, I believe that the Ontario people are not more wicked than other people and in aspersing the Frenoh-Canadians, and reflecting upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier, they only aimed at remaining in power. They bluntly say what they think; but as to the Western people, they so badly deceived us at the last elections that -we can no longer trust them.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at greater length than was my intention at the outset, but it was because I wanted to clearly de-fine my position.

On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.
Wednesday, June 11, 1919.