Right Hon.   S@: moved:
That in view of the late period of the session, Private Bills sent 'by the Senate to this House for concurrence be read twice on the same day, and that Rule 103 relative to posting of such bills be suspended for the remainder of the session.
He said: This is a motion which has been passed by this House jn previous sessions under similar conditions.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This is
merely a formal motion, but in the absence of notice it cannot be passed without unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 165 for the relief of Lily Maude McCormack.-Mr. Glass.
Bill No. 166 for the relief of Herbert Henry Brown-Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth) presented the first report of the Select Stand-
IMr. Denis.]
ing Committee on Public Accounts, and moved concurrence therein.
Georges Henri Boivin: This motion requires unanimous consent as notice .has not been given. Is it the pleasure of the, House to adopt the motion?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is it a unanimous report?


Mr. MORPHY:: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Was any portion of the Station ground at St. Alexis Station, Bonaventure county, leased to O. J. Levesque? If so, for how long and at what price?
2.	Has the Management of the Canadian National Railways leased the said ground to one Arsenault, of Blaquiere and Arsenault and to Ludger Gallant? If so, what was the reason of the change and who recommended it?
3.	Is the Management of the Canadian National Railways aware that the Station ground at St. Alexis Station is very limited?
4.	Have any applications been received for the erection of a platform at that place, for the loading and unloading of freight? If so, why was this not granted?
5.	Will the Management inquire as to whether or not the public Interest is not being made subservient to that of individuals at this station?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. Recommendation of general superintendent and superintendent.
3.	Station grounds considered large enough to accommodate all requirements at this point.
4.	Application received in August, 1919, but work was deferred in that and succeeding years on account of large amount of more important work at other points.
5.	Licenses of occupation are dated April 1, 1921, and are at pleasure of minister. They may he cancelled on short notice. It is not considered that they are detrimental to the interest of the public.


HIGHWAYS-HAMILTON-BRANTFORD ETC.
Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: 1.	What is the cost of that completed portion of the Hamilton-Brantford highway lying between Paradise Road (the western boundary of the City of Hamilton), and Binkley's Corners (just before the turn in road leading to the Village of Aneaster)?

2.	What is the distance contained in that portion of road where the permanent roadway has been laid?
3.	What specifications were called for on the Hamilton-Brantford highway?
4.	Is it true that portions of this pavement, put down last year toy the Warren Paving Co., will have to be relaid this year?
5.	What amount of money was paid by the Dominion Government to the Department cxf Public Works of Ontario for this Hamilton to Brantford highway?
6.	What is the estimated cost of the highway between Hamilton and Brantford and what is the distance?
7.	Is it proposed to build a subway under the T. H. & B. tracks on this highway, at or near Binkley's Corners, and, if so, what will be the cost of same?
8.	What roads in the county of Wentworth have been approved of as highways by the Dominion Government and what roads have been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario?
9.	What is the estimated cost of the Hamilton-Brantford highway between the T. H. & B. railway track and the village of Ancaster? What distance is it?	*


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$141,253.46.
2.	9,100 feet.
3.	Concrete, asphaltic concrete and war-renite bitulithic.
4.	No.
5.	$5,220.76.
6.	$658,907.05-19.18 miles.
7.	The Canada Highways Act and regulations do not permit of payment of any portion of the cost of building subways, which in any event, would be a matter for the consideration of the Dominion Railway Board, the province and the municipality. The cost of building a subway under the tracks of the T. H. & B. is not included in the cost 6f improvement of the Hamilton-Brantford highway.
8.	The following roads have been approved of as highways by this department: Hamil-ton-Queenstonhighway, Hamilton-Brantford highway, Hamilton-Jarvis highway, Dun-das street highway; and the following roads have been proposed by the Department of Public Works of Ontario: Hamil-ton-Queenston highway, Hamilton-Brantford highway, Hamilton-Jarvis highway, Hamilton-Chatsworth highway, Hamilton-Kitchener highway, Dundas street highway.
9.	$121,000.-2 4-5 miles.


WAR INDEMNITY-CANADA'S SHARE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency) :: Mr. Speaker, I see in the Montreal Star of the 18th instant a news item headed:
2271	.
Canada may get part of German payment.
Ottawa, May 18 (Canadian Press).-A small proportion of the first German payment on reparations may come to Canada. The payment of 150,000,000 gold marks made will, it is stated here, be applied to the cost of the Allied army of occupation.
I should like to know from the Government if there is any truth in this assertion.


Right Hon.   S@: The matter has been noticed in the public press, and, in accordance with what has been read by my hon. friend, Canada has her rights in her share of the reparations when paid. Further information cannot be given at the present time.


IMMIGRATION OF MENTAL DEFECTIVES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in a notice published in the Toronto Telegram of May 17 of a convention which is at present in progress in Toronto, described as the National Public Health Convention, there is a report of an address delivered by Dr. J. D. Page, referred to as Chief of the Division of Quarantine, Federal Health Department, Immigration Service, in which he is stated to have said:
That thousands of mentally defective eximperial soldiers are coming to this country, their papers being made out to cover "what it is not desired to see." He alleged that their passage is being paid to "this colonial dumping ground" by the British Government, and other agencies, which desire their riddance from Great Britain.
''It is a more important work than fighting the Germans," declared Dr. Page. "These defectives come from all countries, the most friendly of them, and we have had tout one interpreter to deal with them. This year we may have four."
I desire to ask the hon. gentleman whose department covers the work referred to in this speech whether he has any knowledge of the state of affairs disclosed by this federal officer, and if so what steps are being taken or will be taken to prevent its continuance.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration) :: In the first place, I would doubt very much whether that statement was made by Dr. Page. In the second place, Dr. Page himself is in charge of this work and if such a condition did exist I would think one of his first duties would be to call immediate attention to it. I can say that he has not done so, and more than that, from inquiries I have made recently with reference to inspection from the

physical as well as from the mental standpoint, I understand that within the last year no such condition has prevailed. I shall, however, take the very earliest opportunity to inquire whether this statement was made by Dr. Page.



PRIVILEGE-MR. LAPOINTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to a question of privilege I desire to quote from the report of a meeting held at Marysville, New Brunswick, as published in the Fredericton Gleaner of Saturday, May 14, 1921. At that meeting the Minister of Labour, Senator Robertson, is reported to have used the following words:
Unfortunately, however, Mr. King would not be able to put his labour views into effect in Canada because 59 out of 72, or a total of 70 per cent of his following in the House of Commons were from Quebec and only a few weeks ago Mr. Ernest Lapointe, member for Quebec East, had definitely put forward the policy of the Quebec Liberals as favourable to the National Catholic Union, which divides labour along sectarian lines, and which was most undesirable as it did not make for national unity.
Mr. Speaker, this statement is wholly untrue and is a wilful misrepresentation of the facts. As to the purpose for which it was made, it is so obvious that I need not qualify it.	[DOT]


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: May I ask my hon. friend if he has any authority for the authenticity of that statement other than the newspaper report?


Ernest Lapointe: Except that this report is in the Fredericton Gleaner, which is a good newspaper favourable to the Government in the Maritime Provinces.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has no certainty of its authenticity other than that?


Ernest Lapointe: Only that this paper reports it.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, in to-day's Montreal Gazette I see an article headed as follows:
Asks Suspension of Scott Act. No answer to Quebec's Request has been received from Ottawa.
The article says:
In the meantime the business of the city is suffering from the prevailing conditions, that could be easily corrected by the Federal Gov-IHon. J. A. Calder. ]
ernment consenting temporarily to suspend the Canada Temperance Act.
I would like to know what the Government intends to do in regard to this matter.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: The statement in the newspaper that the condition could easily be remedied by the Dominion Government is inexact. In that particular matter the law does not allow any action by the Governor-in-Council looking to the suspension of the Scott Act on a petition such as has been made unless it be found that the provincial law with regard to liquor is as restrictive as the Scott Act. If there be any difficulty in the way of the suspension it would result from the fact that the present Quebec legislation would be found to be not as- restrictive as the Scott Act. The question is receiving careful consideration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 18, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, the Budget speech
of the Minister of Finance is always looked forward to as one of the most important if not the most important feature of a session. This occasion, I feel sure, is no exception to the rule. On the contrary, having regard to the stupendous difficulties with which we are confronted-largely the after-effects of a great and prolonged war which has lpft its mark on almost every one of the great nations-conditions have been very much disturbed, and we have cause to feel grateful and to congratulate ourselves that the Minister of Finance has been able to present a Budget which shows that there is a substantial balance on the right side of the ledger for the past year.
I shall not attempt to follow the speeches that have been made by those who have immediately preceded me. After a debate as prolonged as this one has been, continuing as it has for nearly two weeks, there must of necessity be a great deal of repetition, and nothing can be gained by going over the ground which has been pretty well covered by previous speakers.' I hope, therefore, that those who have immediately

preceded me will not feel that in not paying particular attention to what they have had to say I have overlooked the arguments which they have presented to the House. I understand that the leader of the official Opposition is going to speak this afternoon. I shall, therefore, be as brief as possible in order to give him full opportunity to deal with the questions to which he has undoubtedly given very close attention, more so than would be possible in the case of ar ordinary private member.
There is no getting away from the fact that we have tremendous difficulties ahead of us. It is only natural that that should be the case; every country is facing difficulties of a similar nature. Even our great neighbour to the south of us is apparently suffering in that respefct to a much greater degree than we are, and we, in turn, are very much affected as a result of conditions prevailing in that country. The Government of that country have very recently passed and are about to put into effect tariff legislation which is bound to affect us very seriously. We should, insofar as is possible, be guided by the experience through which other nations and peoples have passed, and also by the experience which we have had ourselves. There are in this chamber hon. -members who can recall the time when we had a very satisfactory commercial treaty arrangement with our neighbours to the south, but that treaty was terminated by them after having been in effect for some ten of twelve years. We had developed between the two countries channels of trade that were suddenly severed; we were thrown upon our own resources at that time .and we had to go out and open * new channels of trade. A somewhat similar condition of affairs confronts us at the present time, and we have also to face the fact that the deflation in the value of the dollar has seriously affected us in our dealings with them.
The condition of our domestic affairs at present is such that we see the folly of the course pursued by this country for many years past in regard to railway construction. I am not going to attach all the blame to any particular party; but it is quite apparent to everyone that the very unsatisfactory condition of our transportation facilities to-day is largely attributable to the desire of the Liberal party to obtain a prestige which good business methods would not justify, and the inevitable result has come about. We have in this country transcontinental railways which the Government have been compelled to take over and to
operate. Very recently, and at the same time there has gone into effect a very substantial increase in the freight and passenger rates on the railways of this country. To my mind, no one thing has had such a tendency to cause the present feeling of lack of confidence and inability to do business as the increase in railway rates in Canada, -and the Government should take immediate steps to see that a reduction in that respect is brought about. I am satisfied, from close observation, that the increase has not resulted in any gain to the railway corporations of this country. On the contrary, tariff has fallen off to such a degree that unless something is done quickly, we shall be in a very difficult position before the next winter comes upon us, and it is hard to foresee what may be the result. I merely refer to this matter at this time, as I believe that it is the one outstanding question above all others that ought to be attended to immediately as it directly affects the people of this country at present as nothing else does.
I am referring particularly to those who engaged in what is known as industrial enterprise and in agricultural pursuits. Under the present condition of affairs, practically al? the profits, if there were any some time ago, are now turned over to the railways, and the result of this is that there is a tendency to slacken up and not to do anything but wait for some change to take place. It is necessary that the people of Canada should obtain a confidence that they have not to-day. It is necessary and essential that we should take stock of ourselves and of our resources, in order to meet the difficulties with which we are confronted at the present time. Even more important than that is the fact that we should face our difficulties as a united people with a determination to overcome them and to see that they are overcome quickly. If we do not do so, you may rest assured that our difficulties will be prolonged, and that the prosperity which the resources of this country justly warrant us in believing will be ours in the future will be considerably delayed.
There is before the House an amendment moved by the hon. member who represents the constituency of Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who was for many years Minister of Finance under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is not necessary for me to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member further than to state that he has been in the habit,

for several years past, of moving amendments along similar lines. I would imagine that an hon. member, with the experience he has had, would endeavour to place before the House something that would be of a constructive nature and that would be helpful in suggesting methods of overcoming our difficulties. When you read the amendment moved by the hon. member, you can come to no other conclusion than that he was anxious to divide the House on a question that would not commit the party, with which he is now affiliated, to any particular policy. The same thing happened a year ago and also two years ago. A year ago an hon. member now sitting opposite, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), stated that he would have been much better pleased with the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, if it had contained a little more milk and a little less water, and had not been such an ' apparent attempt to divide the House on a question which meant nothing.
I stated a few moments ago that it was necessary that we should take stock of ourselves and of our resources. Under our system of government, a system that has been worked out and evolved through centuries by the genius of the best minds of the people of the British Empire, a system known as the party system of government, we are supposed to have a keen and alert Opposition who are carefully watching the Administration to see that' nothing is done that will be to the disadvantage of the country, and to ensure that the Government will be careful and guarded in everything which they do. I believe that system has been adopted by practically every progressive country in the world. It is not something new, but it is something that has been evolved through the experience of centuries, and that has stood the test of time. Very recently we find that there is a tendency on the part of some people to discard the old system, to throw it into the discard and to evolve something new that will be much superior to it. They say: We will divide the people of this country into classes; we will do away with the old party system, and we will have a group system of government. This, Mr. Speaker, is advocated by quite a number of people, and I think it 'is well for us to consider what motive they have in their minds when they advocate such a policy. It has been advocated here in this House, 
and in several of the provinces; I believe that it developed out of conditions which prevail owing to the affect of the war. It is undoubtedly true that during the war a propaganda was carried on throughout the world that has had a tremendous effect on the minds of the people of all countries, and if I were asked to place my finger on what I consider to be the greatest handicap under which we are now labouring, and the one thing above all others to which many of our difficulties are due, I would say that it was organization; I believe that organization is the greatest curse that we have to-day-that is, the organization of people into sections and into bodies with a view to promoting their own selfish interests regardless of the effect such action may have on the gre^t mass of the people who are not so organized. The result of this organization is that the unorganized people are almost forced to follow the same course in self-defense. As a result of these organizations, the Government is handicapped and the people are divided. Under the old system that has been in vogue in the British Empire for centuries men who were elected to represent the people in Parliament felt that they represented not only the people of the constituency which returned them to Parliament, but the people of the whole country. Is that the condition to-day? Is that the condition that would prevail under this new system of class consciousness that is being advocated and developed?
A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) delivered an address in this House, and with his keen analytical mind he endeavoured to place clearly before the House and the country some of the things that are in evidence at the present time. I was somewhat surprised to hear the leader of the group which terms itself the National Progressive party refer to that speech of the Prime Minister as a "cheap political vaudeville" effort; I think those were the words he used. Now when the leader of a group in this House makes a statement of that kind with regard to the Prime Minister of this country, I think he can take no exception if we ask ourselves what a vaudeville exhibition means? My idea was that it was a variety entertainment. The leader of the Progressive party, who so characterized the Prime Minister's speech, was returned as a member of this Government. At the last general election, he was taken into the Government, and then went to the constituency of Marquette and was returned as a supporter

of and a member of the present Government. To-day he is in opposition to the Government and is taking a stand by which he hopes to secure a following in the country and to discredit the Government of which he was formerly a member. Now my idea of the constitutional practice in the past was that when a minister, or a member of Parliament, differed with the Government of which he was a member, and which he had been elected to support, he went back to the people who had elected him, explained his position, and handed in his resignation to the people from whom) he had received a mandate to represent them in Parliament and support the Government. Did the leader of the National Progressive party do that? Is this another new trail he is attempting to blaze in defiance of'past precedents? He is going to create precedents, and apparently this is one of them-that the people of the constituency of Marquette do not count when he wishes to follow his own sweet will.
I do not like to question the motives of any,man, but when an hon. member sitting in opposition to the Government of which I am a supporter makes such a statement as was made by the leader of the Progressive party, I feel I am justified in referring to the movements of that hon. member since he has been a member of Parliament. I shall not go back further than a month beyond that time. Let us see what has been the record of the hon. member who charges the leader of the Government with putting on " cheap political vaudeville " in this House.
He has for a number of years past been the president of a corporation in Western Canada, known as the Grain Growers' Grain Company. On September 1, 1917, the Grain Growers' Company amalgamated with the Alberta Elevator Company and formed the present United Grain Growers, Limited. On October 12, following the president of the amalgamated company, Mr. Crerar, was sworn in as a member of the Government. One month after the amalgamation of these two big corporations took place he took his seat as a member of the Government in this House, at the same time retaining his position as president of the United GrairnGrowers, Limited. He professes to see in existence in this country conditions of government which very seriously affect the farmers of this Dominion and he considers himself a Moses who has been called to deliver the farmers of this conutry from the oppression under which they have been labburing in the past. That is his stock-in-trade argument in the most of the speeches he has made in by-elections in which he has taken part.
Let us follow the hon. gentleman's career while he was a member of the Government for about one and a half years. Let us review a few of the important matters that became legislation on his recommendation as Minister of Agriculture, and which very seriously affected those engaged in agriculture in Canada. On October 12, he became a member of the Government, and about two weeks afterwards, on October 25, after he had become accustomed to the official harness, he had developed to such an extent that he felt he would be able to do something for the poor down-trodden farmer, and as a result of the sleepless nights which he had devoted to agricultural interests, he evolved a policy of granting a license to certain people. They would have to come to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), president of the United Grain Growers, Ltd., and Minister of Agriculture for Canada, in order to get the license to do business. He granted a license to two of the large packing companies of this country. You have heard a great deal about the exorbitant profits made by the packing houses of Canada, hut what do you suppose this license permitted them to do? It permitted them, notwithstanding the fact that for years past, in fact, so long as anyone here can remember, the product covered by the license had been surrounded with municipal, provincial, and federal regulations to ensure its purity and to establish a standard which commanded attention throughout the world-it permitted them, I say, to adulterate that product. By reason of the act for which he was responsible, as a result of the recommendation which he placed before the Government, and which became law, with his approval, there was granted to the packing companies of the country the right, through this license, to adulterate butter and place it on the markets of the country, this right being denied to the manufacturers of butter. This was done, and still continues to be done as a result of the efforts of the hon. member who leads the National Progressive party to-day.
The hon. member developed rapidly, and his next move was made in November, 1917, the following month. He devised another brand-new scheme, something that had never been done before. As Minister of Agriculture he entered into a contract with the terminal elevator companies for

the purchase of all recleaned screenings at $35 per ton, a price they had never before enjoyed, and one that was very satisfactory to them. According to the Auditor General's Report, for 1920, there has been paid out, in connection with this transaction during the two years for which he had contracted, the sum of $436,846.77, and from the sale of this commodity that he had purchased, there was received $288,165.63. I understand that the matter is not yet closed and that it is impossible to know, at the present time, what the condition of affairs is and the deficit may exceed the amount indicated. There is, however, one thing which is quite apparent to the farmers of the country, and that is that he was instrumental in having disposed of to them and placed on their farms, as a result of extensive advertising, noxious weeds to an extent they had never dreamed they were purchasing. Carloads of this stuff were returned to the Department of Agriculture because of the weed contents, and they absolutely refused to accept it, and as a result there is a deficit in the department to-day of $148,681.14, according to the Auditor General. And the matter is not yet cleared up. Yes, Sir, he makes a great ado in his election campaigns, as he did in the constituency of East Elgin a short time ago, about no one being able to connect him with the sale of those screenings,, though he cannot deny that they were sold by his company to the parties from whom the Government bought them while he was minister. I happened to go into the constituency of East Elgin, which immediately adjoins- my own. I arrived there on the very day when the hon. member for Marquette arrived. He was met at the station as I got off the train. Evidently he did not see me. He was taken to Port Burwell, where he delivered an address; and one of the first things he referred to, according to the press reports of his speech, was the criticism to which he was being subjected by myself m that campaign. He said that members of Parliament were as thick in the constituency as Jew peddlers. I met two other members of the House from a nearby constituency when I was there, and I can assure you there was no lack of outside support for the candidate whom the hon. gentleman was assisting. He referred to what I was stating in this campaign, and the criticisms I was making with regard to his policy before I even spoke in the constituency. Now, Sir, I criticised his policy and his administration in this House 
at the last session, and while the hon. member does not deny my statements in the House, he goes out up and down the back concessions and the small places, where he thinks he will be able to get away with it, and contradicts what I stated in the House. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. McDermand), knows full well that one of the most effective arguments which were made use of by his supporters in that campaign was this very matter to which I am referring. One of the dealers in mill feeds in the town of Aylmer canvassed the constituency and this was his whole argument why they should vote against the Government, and the thing they pointed to more than all others is the adulteration of mill feeds that had taken place and for which the Government was responsible yet did not intimate that the hon. member for Marquette was responsible. I say that the hon. member for Marquette, the president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, was the man above all others who is responsible for this, because it was on his recommendation that this thing went into effect,


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: Hear, hear; it was very successful.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, it was very successful, according to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) who is also a director of the United Grain Growers' Company. They were very successful, he says. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that his general manager, Mr. Rice-Jones, before a committee of this House, declared, as the leader of the Progressive party afterwards declared in Elgin, that you could not connect his company with the sale of screening's to the Government.


John Flaws Reid: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: butter declined in price during one week to the extent of 25 cents per pound, and the market has become absolutely demoralized. The price of cheese has also fallen in proportion, and to-day the outlook for the dairy products of Canada is as dark and unsatisfactory as we have had to face for many years.
The hon. member for Marquette saw fit to leave the Government shortly
4 p.m. after he had succeeded in placing on the statute books of this country some of the "progressive" legislation to which I have just alluded. In September, 1918, he had been doing so well that the United Grain Growers' Limited, the company of which he was president, decided to increase his salary from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, as a mark of their appreciation of the valuable services which he had been rendering. On June 6, 1919, the hon. member decided to resign his seat in the Government, and I am going to read the reason he advanced for taking that course. On June 4, 1919, he sent a letter to his leader-the man who had been labouring hard during all the years of the war and who had eventually succeeded in forming a Union Government representing all the political parties in this country-which reads as follows:
My dear Sir Eobert,
The Government, in its consideration of the Budget to be placed before Parliament to-morrow, has reached, I take it, definite and final conclusions as to the form it will take. As you are aware, I am not in accord with it and therefore cannot support it, either in the House or in the country. Having reached this decision, there is only one course for me to follow, and I therefore tender you herewith my resignation as a member of the Government. The reason for my decision shall he given more fully when the subject is under discussion in the House.
In view of the fact that the military business of the war, through demobilization, is not yet completed, permit me to say that only strong conviction upon this issue, reached after earnest consideration impels me to take this course.
I cannot refrain from expressing my appreciation of the heavy worries and responsibilities you have so courageously faced during the war, and particularly in the last year-worries and responsibilities which I venture to say the people of Canada do not yet fully understand; and also the fine manner in which you have represented Canada overseas in the delicate and difficult negotiations preliminary to the signing of Peace.
Let me also thank you very sincerely indeed for the many courtesies and kindnesses you have shown during the past eighteen months, to one quite inexperienced in parliamentary work and in the very intricate and difficult problems of government in this country.
I am, yours truly,
T. A. Crerar.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: He writes a very nice letter.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, "a very nice letter", I hear my hon. friend say. He (Mr. Crerar) differs with his party and he resigns, mark you, the very day before the Budget was brought down-keep that fresh in your minds-and he states that he will give a fuller explanation when the matter comes up in the House, which he did later on when he stated on June 11:
I felt there was only one course for me to follow when I found myseif at issue with my colleagues, and that was to tender my resignation to the Prime Minister, which I did.
And he added:
In my opinion the present Budget is a protectionist Budget. I think there is no disguising that fact.
That was the statement of the hon. member a few days after the Budget was brought down. Well, what did the Budget contain? Remember he had no mandate from his constitutents to demand any tariff concessions when he was elected to this House. But in deference to the requests that had been made by people from Western Canada a reduction of about 12i per cent was made in the tariff on most of the articles which he contends should be placed on the free list. He said:
This is a protectionist Budget.
That being so he could not approve of it, and consequently felt that it was necessary for him to resign his seat in the Government.
If there were any members of that Government, Mr. Speaker, who would have been justified in sending in their resignations that time they were those who advocated a protectionist policy for this country, because it had been departed from in that regard to a greater degree than had been the case since the National Policy w'as adopted in 1878. The hon. member was reproved by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), who was then a member of the Government, and who pointed out that these concessions had been granted in deference to the desire of some hon. members from Western Canada. Even then there were differences of opinion among some of his (Mr. Crerar's) supporters, particularly his chief lieutenant (Mr/ Clark, Red Deer) who is not at present in the chamber. The hon member for Red Deer on June 12, the day following, states:
I cannot quite agree with my hon. friend from Marquette-and this is the only disagreement I shall have with him-in describing the

Budget as a protectionist Budget. I think a fairer thing' would he to define it-and I think history will so define it,-as a Budget tending towards free trade.
It was the opinion of the hon. member for Red Deer, that it was " a Budget tending towards free trade." But the president of the United Grain Growers' Company, Limited, says that it is a protectionist Budget, and consequently he cannot stay in the Government any longer.
Well, Sir, I am unable to understand what actuated the hon. member, but on June 5, when the Budget was brought down, the general manager of the company of which the hon. member was president, was subpoenaed to testify before a committee of this House, and on June 27, in evidence under oath he made the statement, in answer to a question put to him by a member of the committee as to whether his company, which had been buying large quantities of agricultural implements, would not stand to lose very heavily by virtue of having those implements in their Warehouses when this very substantial reduction of 121 per cent took place:
Why, no. We were living in hopes of a reduction of the tariff, and we had a lot of it in Ibond, so we escaped the duty.
The president of the company, in the pay of the company, was a member of the Government with a full knowledge of what the Budget contained, and it is somewhat significant that his company should purchase largely and hold in bond a lot of agricultural implements, anticipating a reduction of the tariff.


Mr. CRERAR:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Sutherland: Assuredly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Do I understand my
hon. friend to state that the company with which I was connected profited from my knowledge of what the Budget contained? If that is his statement, then I wish to give it an unequivocal denial, and to state that my hon. friend is making an assertion which is absolutely contrary to fact.


Donald Sutherland: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not the authority for the statement which I have made. I gave the authority for it, the general manager of the company of which my hon. friend was president.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend another question?


Donald Sutherland: Most assuredly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does he find in the evidence of Mr. Rice-Jones before the Cost of Living Commission anything anywhere to the effect that I used the information I had of the Budget to the benefit of the company with which I was connected?


Donald Sutherland: I pointed out that the Budget was brought down on the 5th day of June 1919, and that the hon. member saw fit to send in his resignation to the Prime Minister on the 4th of June, the day immediately preceding, and that his claim was that he could not remain in the Government on account of the difference he had with his colleagues with regard to the tariff, which he asserted was protectionist. The hon. member who sits on his left (Mr. Clark, Red Deer) differed with him and claimed that it was a tariff which tended towards free trade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not the point.


Donald Sutherland: Well, Sir, I have pointed out that the general manager of the company, of which the hon. member was president at the time /and in the pay of, claimed that they did not suffer the loss which was pointed out they would likely suffer, by reason of the fact that they anticipated the reduction in the tariff and had this machinery purchased and in bond waiting for that reduction to go into effect.
The hon. member became quite gay the other day in speaking on this debate with reference to the Prime Minister, whom he endeavoured to answer, and he said:
Were those who sit as he says, angularly opposite, "servile tools and minions" in 1917, when at their country's call, he their judgment right or wrong, they assisted my right hon. friend and his Government when it was on the brink of ruin and in despair?
In ruin and in despair! A Government which had carried on for upwards of three years during the most difficult period in the history of this country that any Government had aver had to face. The danger at the front became even greater as the years went on, and it was necessary for us to bend all our energies to the task which lay before us. The Prime Minister of Canada, regardless of the political effect, regardless of the effect upon the party which he had led for many years and which had acquitted itself so admirably during the war, virtually scrapped that party and formed a union of both political parties to carry on. The hon. member says, what about 1917? Where were we then? Let me point out that when efforts to form a Union Government was

first undertaken, several trips were made to Ottawa by gentlemen from Western Canada. It was only after it became certain that a further extension of the life of Parliament would not be granted and that the country, notwithstanding the peril with which it was' confronted, was to be plunged into a general election-it was then and then only that the War-time Elections Act was passed. That Act disfranchised thousands of alien enemy birth and extraction and gave the franchise to the men who were fighting our battles for us at the front; and it provided that the 50,000 men who had given their lives for us and for our country should in some measure be represented through the granting of the franchise to women who were the wives, mothers and sisters of soldiers at the front. It was only after that Act was put through that the hon. member for Marquette joined the Government, and we have evidence that even while he was a member of the Government he was not true to the Government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to remain in my seat under the imputation that my hon. friend is throwing across the floor. I think he should either retract his statement or go further and produce evidence in support of it.


Donald Sutherland: Oh, I will go far enough to suit my hon. friend; he need not be alarmed about that. My authority is that of a prominent member of what is now the United Farmers of Ontario. Mr. Good, in an article which he published in the Canadian Countryman under date of December 17, 1919, pointed out the difficulties which that organization had to contend with, and pointed out also in another article that the movement had its origin through the efforts of the Provincial Government of Sir William Hearst to organize farmers' clubs with a view to co-operating to further their own interests, and that had it not been for the assistance they had received from the grain growers of the West and the frequent visits they had had from the hon. member for Marquette, they would not have been able to pull through. That is a very serious statement indeed; it has already been placed on Hansard during the session of 1920, and the hon. gentleman has taken no exception to it. Mr. Morrison, the secretary of the United Farmers of Ontario, claims that the movement in Ontario had its inception in a deputation which came to Ottawa and asked that farmers' sons should be exempt from military service. I quote from the
[Mr. Sutherland.!
Canadian Annual Review with reference to this delegation:
The Government received on May 3rd a delegation of farmers protesting against the abolition of the practical exemption of farmers' sons from conscription. On May 14th a great delegation of 5,000 farmers swept down upon the Capital and used every political and personal effort to compel a change of Government policy; They even asked and were refused permission to wait in a body upon Parliament; they came, in the main, from Ontario and Quebec-the Globe estimate being 3,000 from the former and 2,000 from the later province, with a few representatives of the Maritime Provinces and the West; they were led by the Hon. J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture in Quebec, L. T. Pacaud, M.P., and 14 members of the Quebec Legislature, together with Manning W. Doherty, W. A. Ames, and other leaders of the United Farmers of Ontario.
And what did Hon. Manning Doherty have to say when he was here? Referring to the promises which had been made by the Government, he said:
We took these promises seriously. We do not believe there is sufficient justification for breaking this pledge.
And what was happening at the front at that time? Over a thousand British soldiers were being killed every day and about five thousand were being wounded and becoming casualties. It may be that Mr. Doherty was honest in his convictions at that time, but when Mr. J. J. Morrison, secretary of the United Farmers of Ontario, makes the statement quite recently, that that organization had its inception at that time, he is evidently proud of the fact. Well, if you look over the reports of some of the commanders of the military forces of the British Empire, made about that time, you will find that one great commander in the East, General Allenby, had been carrying on a successful campaign in Egypt and Palestine. He had captured the seaports, forged ahead and captured the Holy City; his troops had crossed the Jordan, reached Elsalt, and were about to form a junction with the troops of the king of the Hedjaz, and advance on to Damascus. But, what actually happened? According to General Allenby's report to the War Office dated September 18, 1918, the first week in April, the 52nd Division was withdrawn. The second week in April the 74th Division was withdrawn and hurried to the Western front, followed by 9 yeomanry regiments, 5J siege batteries, and, later, by 10 British battalions and 5 machine-gun companies. In May, fourteen battalions of British infantry had to be withdrawn from Allenby's command and hurried to the Western front. Hon. gentlemen opposite evidently take pride in the fact that they were opposed

to sending men to assist our armies on the front at that time-a time when the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian forces sent that memorable message to Canada; "From the agony of the battlefields the prayer goes forth that the Homeland will not desert us in our hour of need and of our approaching triumph."
This was the meissage that was given to the people of Canada shortly before this movement had its inception, and to-day we find that this movement is linked up with the official Opposition in this House, an Opposition led by the hon. member (Mr. Mackenzie King) who will immediately follow me. I have a very vivid recollection of something that happened back in 1911. In that year the hon. member who now leads the official Opposition was a candidate in North Waterloo, and at that time during the campaign, he made a statement which did not apparently do him very much good in the election. It was a statement, however, which not many would like to have credited to them under similar circumstances. It will be recalled that, shortly before that election, the leader of the Opposition of that day (Sir Robert Borden) who afterwards became Prime Minister, was anxious that we should do something to strengthen and make more effective the navy of the British Empire. I am quoting from a Globe report of a speech delivered by the hon. member who leads the official Opposition:
The Hon. Mr. King read extracts from Hon. Mr. Borden's speeches in the House of Commons in which the Conservative leader referred to the danger of war with Germany and urged the Government to go to Britain's aid with a dreadnought or a cash contribution.
"Are the people of this country going to place at the head of affairs a man who will be precipitated into such a position as this, who will take from the treasury of this country and who would have taken enough money to build two dreadnoughts and send that money to England so that they could spend it as they pleased? And against what country? He was ready to spend money to build warships to fight Germany."
This is the official report of a newspaper which was representing the hon. member in his candidature in that election. A little later on he was a candidate in the general election of 1917 in a historic Liberal constituency, and he was turned down with a larger majority against him than had ever been given in favour of any Liberal in that constituency.


Mr. GORDON:: They bought him out.


Donald Sutherland: I hear a voice
saying: "They bought him out." At any
rate they did not buy him out in Peterborough where he was appealing to the people along different lines. My reason for referring to this just now is that the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me has evidently a very excellent opinion of his ability to win elections. I have here from the Peterborough Examiner of February 5, 1921, some of his advertising during his campaign. He says:
You know my record for the last fifteen years, and my policy has been Peterborough first. I will continue this policy in spite of the unfair and tricky tactics of political adventurers.


George Gordon: Your friends.


Donald Sutherland: I thought he referred to his friends opposite. Any one reading his statement would take it for granted that he was referring to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).


George Gordon: The voters of Peterborough did not do so.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member (Mr. Mackenzie King) states very loudly that this Government are usurpers, that they are usurping the office that he should have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: : Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: Yes-that we are "usurpers" and consequently we should stand aside and give the hon. member an opportunity to form a government! What did one of his colleagues in this House have to say in regard to that in a letter that he wrote to a party in Peterborough? The following extract is from a letter received from a prominent Liberal member of Parliament, a member of the present House of Commons. I see him in the House at present, and if this is not correct, I hope he will deny it:
I see by the press you have an election on in Peterborough-some noise, too. Five candidates in sight and one or two more coming. Too bad! The Liberals and Farmers should be ashamed of themselves. Our mutual friend Burnham is fighting the fight that they have been howling for for months, and why aren't they consistent? My idea was that Burnham and Meighen should have been allowed to settle this point as to whether the Government should bring on a general election now.


Mr. LALOR:: Who said that?


Donald Sutherland: This is a letter written by a Liberal mehiber of Parliament to Mr. W. H. Croft and by him communicated to the press. The hon. member was afraid that there would be a test as

regards his claim that the Government were usurpers. I see another advertisement in the same issue of the Peterborough Examiner:
Vote for Gordon and protect the man who believes in the protection of labour as well as Industry.
This is all in the advertising of that campaign. On the night of the election, although my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) polled about one-third of the votes, I read this despatch:
Hon. W. I.. Mackenzie King, leader of the Liberal Party, to-night despatched the following telegram of congratulation to G. N. Gordon, the successful Liberal candidate:
"The Liberal party joins me in heartiest congratulations to yourself and the Liberals of Peterborough on your splendid victory. No political contest in years has been of like significance. We may now look forward with confidence to the triumph of Liberal principles throughout the Dominion."
It did not matter although they did differ during the Campaign. But there is another election in the province of Quebec, and I am going to refer to that very briefly, for two reasons. One is to show the policy that is in effect, the efforts that are being made and the object they have in view. In September, 1919, there was an election in the constituency of Hull across the river from Ottawa, and one of the members in this House is credited with having made a statement, part of which I will give. It is contained in the Ottawa Evening Journal of September 20, 1919:
Deafening applause greeted Mr. Lucien Cannon when he went to the platform to speak. Like the other speakers, Mr. Cannon practically confined his remarks to praises of Dr. J. E. Fontaine and strong condemnation of the present Government.
A little further on I read this:
"I have gone into the House to vindicate the rights of the French-Canadians," stated Mr. Cannon. "I do not regret in anyway the battles that I have fought and I consider that they are an incentive to greater efforts. I am not here to preach revolution, but I do say that we, having come here first, are the masters in this country. We have the right to vindicate the rights our forefathers won."
And a little further on:
He spoke at great length of the manner in which Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King had supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the dark times-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: Why do you not join up with your friends?


Michael Clark: The Prime Minister says that we have done so.


Donald Sutherland: He spoke at great length of the manner in which Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King had supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the dark times, and he was sure that all French Canadians would give the new Liberal Chieftain the support they tendered to Laurier.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: They will, too.


Donald Sutherland: I notice in the Ottawa Citizen a report of another byelection campaign that is now being carried on in the constituency of Yamaska. It says:
Mr. Boucher said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order, I
*must ask hon. gentlemen to maintain the dignity and decorum of Parliament.


Donald Sutherland: The report says:
Mr. Boucher said that there had been Liberal traitors who had left Laurier, such, for instance, as Hon. W. iS. Fielding, and like L. J, Gauthier, recently.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are so kindly disposed towards each other that you may rest assured that if they were called upon to form a Government, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) would not likely be included in it.


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend tell the House what Mr. Mondou said about the IPirime Minister of this country?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend or his colleagues will have their opportunity later on. Now I want to refer to the policy that has been advocated both by the official Opposition and the opposition led by the hon. member for Marquette. Both advocate the removal of the tariff on articles of food. Both advocate that the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff. The Farmers' party also advocate complete free trade between Canada and Great Britain within five years. Both advocate proportional representation. One of them advocates the adoption of an eight-hour day, and the other a direct tax on unimproved land values. I am not going to comment on those because I wish to say a word or two with reference to a matter on which a good deal of emphasis has been placed. I find that in the Liberal platform adopted in 1919 reference is made as follows to ocean traffic facilities:
Adequate facilities and tonnage for ocean traffic are a vital concern to the commerce of Canada and the utter lack of foresight on the part of the -Government in neglecting to see that such facilities and tonnage were provided

for the immediate after-the-war period is not only humiliating to the Canadian people, hut is materially impairing our export trade.
Further on I find this:
We are confronted with the lamentable situation that no adequate provision has been made for the transportation of the products of the farm, the factory and the forest to the markets of the world.
Yet hon. gentlemen opposite are loudly condemning the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Government because ships have been built in this couintry. These same gentlemen in 1919 were condemning the Government for not doing what they now condemn them for doing. Is not that a consistent attitude to adopt?
I want to point out one of the things that has been accomplished by the Government's policy of building ships, and that is that we have to-day ocean rates such as we have not had for many, many years. The products of this country can be landed to-day in the markets if the world at a reasonable rate, which is something I do not remember having been the case at any time in the past.
Take, for instance, the matter that has been referred to by the Millers' Association of this country-the discrimination in the rates on flour and wheat. That discrimination was so great that it was practically impossible for the millers tc ship their flour. That is now a thing of the past. Though some of our ships may be idle to-day, I contend that they have rendered a valuable and splendid service to this country in obtaining better ocean rates; we jnay look forward with confidence to the future if we can only get our railway transportation facilities down to a proper basis. Even if we have to tie up some of our roads in order to bring about lower railway rates, we shall have accomplished much if we succeed in reducing them.
I have spoken longer than I had intended, but I was anxious to show the motives that are in the minds of some hon. gentlemen who are so loud in their criticisms of the Prime Minister and his Government. They say: We must have the farmers represented in this House; we must have labour represented in this House. Let me point out to hon. members-and I know whereof I speak-that the Prime Minister of this country was born and grew to manhood on a farm near a small town in the county adjoining the one in which I live. In his early years he attended the school in the nearby
town until he could receive no further education there, and then he went to the university. He graduated from a humble farm home in the county of Perth, and like thousands of others from Ontario he went to Western Canada. He was not long in that country before his sterling worth was recognized by the people amongst whom he had located, and soon he was elected as their representative in this House. He has been in the House now for quite a number of years. He entered Parliament as a very young man, and from the day he came here down to the present time he has been noted as one of the hardest-working members in the House. It is acknowledged by every one that he has not been called to the Premiership through pull or influence of any kind; it was through sheer outstanding ability. He is a self-made man. By burning freely of the midnight oil he had qualified himself to enter into competition, as it were, with the best intellects of this country. He outstripped them all and became Prime Minister of this country at an age younger than that of any other man that ever reached that high position. When hon. gentlemen opposite say that the farmers and labour must have representation in this House, I say to them that the farmers of this country have in the right hon. the Prime Minister the finest example of the product of a farm home that we have ever seen in this country. I say further, that labour has in the right hon. the Prime Minister one of the finest specimens of the product of hard and diligent labour that this country has ever witnessed. I say that the right hon. the Prime Minister supported the ex-Prime Minister during the years of the war and rendered him valiant service; he never deserted him. He stood by him and they carried on government, just as the right hon. the Prime Minister is endeavouring to carry on government to-day. When we find that there is an effort being made to link up all the discordant elements in this country, under the leadership of the allied Opposition, with a view to defeating the Government, I say that it is time for plain speaking in this House, and that is the reason why I am speaking as I am to-day. I am sorry that I have found it necessary to speak as long as I have done. But I do wish to emphasize again the fact that one of the leaders of the allied Opposition was a member of this Government. It is quite evident, from articles which have been published, that he intrigued with

other elements that were endeavouring to establish a party in this country in opposition to the Government, and the hon. leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was absent from this country during the early years of the war, hurried back to Canada when the election of 1917 was on. He entered the contest in opposition to the policy of the Government, in opposition to the cry for help that had been sent across the seas by Sir Arthur Currie from the agony of the battlefields: "We beseech you to support us." Although he opposed the offer of such help, he was chosen leader of the official Opposition, over and in place of men who had been in this House for many years, and who had not been repeatedly turned down by their electors. The hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) who sits almost immediately to his right was a leader in the House, but he was not acceptable to those who were selecting a leader at the time the hon. gentleman who now heads the official Opposition was chosen. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we have to-day in this country, supporting this Government, very many of the best and sanest representatives of the Liberal party, men who have the best interests of the country at heart; and for that reason I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, I know that some hon. members will take issue on that statement, but I declare it to be true, nevertheless. Now, we have in Canada a country that is but slightly developed, and if we are going to divide ourselves into independent sections, groups and communities, we shall not get very far. Nor shall we make that progress which we should and reach that stage of development of which this great country is capable through proper co-operation, if the great province of Quebec, with all its resources, is going to refuse to join the other provinces in the government of the country. But, however^ this may be, of this be assured, that you will receive fair and decent treatment from the other provinces; and I think it is unfortunate and deeply to be regretted, after the work that was accomplished by many of Canada's great statesmen from that great province in the years gone by, that we should have a condition such as now exists in this Dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When Parliament assembled some three months ago, meagre as was the programme of legislation out-
lined, hon. members were given to understand that at least one subject of first importance would command their attention during the present session. That subject was a revision o.f the customs tariff. The announcement of the Government's intention with respect to this revision was no mere afterthought on the part of the ministry. It was made with all the formality and solemnity that attaches to a declaration of matured policy, conveyed to the country through the medium of the speech from the Throne by which His Excellency opens the proceedings of Parliament.
I shall not speak of the many public professions which preceded this formal announcement. They are well known to the House and to the country. One or two among the number may, however, be mentioned.
There was the declaration of Sir Thomas White, the former Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech of June 5, 1919, to the effect that a general revision of the tariff was "long over due," but, owing to the war, unavoidably overdue. It was urged that, because of the unsettled condition of international trade, still hampered by war restrictions and prohibitions and by exchange conditions, it would not be practicable to make a sound general revision of the tariff at that time. The hope, however, was expressed that within a year conditions would have become so stabilized as to permit of a general revision of the tariff The Finance Minister urged that, preceding the revision, a thorough inquiry should be conducted by the Minister of Finance and two or more of his colleagues, and gave it as his view that this inquiry might well be commenced about the autumn of that year. It was stated that the result of such an inquiry should be "a body of information which would enable the Government to effect a general revision of the tariff fair to all parts of the community and effectually promoting the national welfare of Canada." This pronouncement served the purpose of the avoidance of any tariff revision during the session of 1919.
The autumn of 1919 came and went, but the inquiry foreshadowed for the fall of 1919 was not proceeded with. This occasioned a second official declaration. It was made, not by Sir Thomas White, but by his successor in office, my honourable friend the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). It took the form of a statement issued to the public on December 15 of that

year. That statement was intended to prepare the public mind for a further postponement of the day of tariff revision preliminary to the session of 1920. In that remarkable utterance, not only the time of general revision, but the time also of the inquiry which was to precede it, was further postponed. It was urged that international and economic conditions were in many respects worse than they were six months previous, or at any time during the war. Whilst this might serve as an excuse, if not as a reason, for delaying the general revision, it was evidently recognized that it would not serve with like effectiveness as a reason for abandoning the promised general inquiry which was to precede it. Accordingly the Government hit upon the rather unprecedented device of reversing the order of procedure with respect to inquiry, and instead of having the ministers confer with consumers and producers in a series of public hearings throughout the Dominion, announced its intention of having interested parties present their views and opinions in the form of written statements, which could be "systematically analyzed and classified for the purpose of making them a basis of general public inquiry to be held throughout the country."
The written statements were made to do duty for the session of 1920. Parliament was informed by my hon. friend, in his Budget speech of May 18 of that year, that though unfortunately trade and economic conditions were yet unstable, the tariff investigation had commenced, and public sittings would be held throughout Canada after prorogation. My hon. friend went further than promising the prosecution of the inquiry; he told the House that to make the inquiry thorough the Department of Finance would have the assistance of expert and other advisers, and he went on to say, "I am further of the opinion that not only should the investigation proceed, but that information should now be given of the principles.and policies of the Government in the light of which effect will be given in the tariff revision to follow to the evidence and facts developed in the inquiry."
Then followed a somewhat pretentious and high-sounding enumeration of principles and policies, preceded by the declaration, "Our policy calls for a thorough revision of the tariff," and concluding with a reiteration of the affirmation that "a general revision of the Canadian tariff based upon the foregoing considerations was due." This statement of the hon. the Minister of
Finance was limited only by the condition that the revision should not be undertaken "until a thorough inquiry is made to ascertain the essential facts upon which tariff provisions must necessarily be based."
That brought us to the end of the session of 1920. I shall omit for the moment reference to the somewhat remarkable, if not momentous, happening which occurred when the session ended, the disappearance in name, of the old Unionist party, and its disguised continuance under the all-embracing designation of the National Liberal and Conservative party. All I shall mention is that, as respects the tariff, the platform of the party as approved on July 1, 1920, called for a thorough revision.
Before the summer of 1920 was over, my hon. friend and certain of his colleagues, together with their experts and other advisers, entered upon the public sittings of the investigation, which was announced as having commenced when the statements of consumers and producers were called for. Across this continent, from ocean to ocean, at most of the important centres throughout the Dominion, and at great expense to the country, the Committee of the Cabinet conducted its hearings. Nothing was omitted in the way of press propaganda to have it appear that the committee was doing a great public work, and incidentally that protection was the one thing which everybody wanted. When the public hearings were over, the country was given to understand that the delay in the summoning of Parliament was due to the time required by the committee to get its information in shape for the tariff revision which was to be the main feature of the present session. Finally, on February 14, Parliament reassembled, and with the opening of Parlia ment came the pronouncement, in the speech from the Throne, respecting tariff revision.
I invite the attention of hon. members to the wording of the paragraph in the speech from the Throne referring to the promised tariff revision, and in particular with respect to the need for such revision.
"My advisers," says His Excellency, "are convinced of the necessity for revision of the customs tariff." There is no uncertainty there. "Conviction" and "necessity" are strong words, and both find a place in this terse and emphatic sentence. His Excellency continues: "In order to secure the most complete information, a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry." Here again are clear and emphatic words. Not only has the inquiry been con-



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ducted, but the inquiry has been extensive and thorough. The pronouncement continues: "The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course." It is unnecessary to quote further. No declaration could be clearer. It only re-
5 p.m. mained for the Budget to be brought down for the House to enter upon the important work of this session.
I need not remind hon. members how week after week I inquired of the Government when we might expect the Budget, nor need I remind the House of the questions asked the ministry with respect to rumours that the promised revision might not be forthcoming, and of the Government's repeated denials of all such. Patiently we waited for pronouncements of the Finance Minister, allowance being made from every quarter for the protracted delays because of the supposed magnitude of his task. What, then, was our surprise and the surprise of the country when on Monday the 9th instant, my hon. friend, in presenting his Budget to the House instead of submitting the conclusions founded upon the hearings of the committee of investigation, and outlining the measure * of revision of the customs tariff promised by His Excelency in the speech from the Throne, calmly informed the House that it was "not proposed to put into effect now a general revision of the tariff schedules."
I shall not delay the House by repeating the platitudes with which my hon. friend sought to conceal this complete change of front and humiliating retreat on the part of the ministry. There was nothing in anything he said which might not be said at any time, which, in fact, has not been said over and over again with respect to every contemplated revision of the tariff. It is true that my hon. friend made allusion to some emergency legislation being enacted in the United States, and which may or may not become permanent; but since when have hon. gentlemen opposite come to believe and to affirm that Canada cannot revise her tariff independently altogether of what the United States does or proposes to do? What was the whole burden of their professed objection to the reciprocity agreement? It was that it rendered Canadian tariff conditions dependent on those of the United States. The representation was not true, but it gave expression to a point of view which

is the only right and proper one, namely, that every country must regulate its own tariff in accordance with its own needs, and should be free to do so wholly irrespective of the action of any other country.
Let me point out that the fact that the Government of the United States was likely to revise its tariff, and that in a manner possibly prejudicial to Canadian trade, was well known to the Government long before the assembling cf Parliament. The attitude of the Republican party towards the tariff was well known, and, as the House will recall, the return of the Republican party was assured on November 2 last. That the Government not only knew, but sought to have the Canadian public believe, that the return of the Republican party to power would mean additional barriers to trade between the two countries, is apparent from publications for which hon. gentlemen opposite are themselves directly responsible.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet published by the National Liberal and Conservative Party Publicity Bureau, entitled "What the Return of the Republican Party to Power in the United States means to Canada." It bears on the title page th« following quotation from the Torontc Globe of November 3, 1920: "Canadians may be prepared for an additional barrier to trade between the countries." That pamphlet was issued during the by-election campaign in East Elgin held in November of last year, and its whole purport is to arouse the electorate to the certainty of a raising of the American tariff wall in virtue of the return of the Republican party to power. The first paragraph of the pamphlet reads as follows:
Canadians generally, and the electors of East Elgin in particular,
would do well to give the most serious consideration to the result of the election in the United States on November . 2nd as it affects Canada, because there is no doubt that the return of the Republican Party to power will have the most important bearing on our future trading relations with, the United States.
That was in November. Subsequent events only served to confirm the predictions made.
The American Republican party was in power when the advisers of the Crown made their- promise of a revision. The Fordney Bill, which subsequently became the Young Bill, was introduced in the House of Representatives early in December of 1920. It was February 14, 1921, that our Parliament reassembled, and that the speech from the Throne declared the

conviction of His Excellency's advisers of the necessity for the revision of our customs tariff. If uncertainty as to American tariff legislation is a reason for delay in our much needed tariff revision it was as much a reason in the month of February as in this month of May.
As late as April 20, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, as to whether it was an accepted fact that there was not to be a general revision of the tariff, the Prime Minister replied in the negative.
In his remarks on the Budget, the Minister of Trade and Commerce led the House to believe that one of the reasons there had been no general revision of the tariff was the unfavourable state of the exchange with the United States. "The exchange situation", he said, " grows worse every day-and upon the exchange conditions, much depends in the fixation of your tariff." Now what are the facts? As between February 14, when the speech from the Throne promised revision, and May 9, when the Budget was brought down, the only change was favourable to Canada. On February 14, the rate of exchange between Canada and the United States was 14 per cent, and the value of the Canadian dollar in New York 86 cents; on May 9 exchange was at 101, and the value of the Canadian dollar therefore 89.75 cents.
Under these circumstances, it is useless for the Government to seek to have the country believe that it was influenced in its decision to withhold the tariff revision at the present session because of any actual or proposed action on the part of the United States. There were other and more subtle influences at work. That they can be shown to be more sinister influences as well is, I fear, unfortunately only too true.
But one of the alternatives is possible; either the Government, despite all its professions, has never had any real intention of revising the tariff; or, having such an intention, it has been frustrated in the carrying out of its intention the moment advance had been made to the point where definite action became necessary. It matters little which of these alternatives we take: the one really significant fact is apparent, the Government is not a free agent, in the matter of either intention or action. Its members in truth do not constitute the real Government of Canada to-day. In word and act, it is but the visible expression of influences and forces which dictate the policies, aye and in large measure are controlling the destinies of Canada to-day- forces and influences which constitute the real though the invisible government of this Dominion.
Were I to adopt the language of the right hon. the Prime Minister, and apply to him and his associates the terms which in his gratuitous and vituperative manner he has applied to a highly responsible and representative group of honourable members of this House, I would speak of him and his colleagues as "the servile tools and minions" of these sinister influences and forces. Let me remind my right hon. friend that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and that there is a passage of Scripture which says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
To say that the changes being made in the American tariff are responsible for the abortive professions, the frustrated intention of the Government, is to assume an unlimited degree of gullibility on the part of the Canadian people. The failure of the Government, at this time of high living-costs, and much needed increase of production, to give any relief from burdensome taxation to either consumers or producers, is not due to any circumstances so much a matter of chance as the present emergency legislation of the United States; it is due to a deliberate and determined effort to thwart trade and to restrict competition in every direction, with the Mother Country and our sister dominions even more than with the United States, in order that a few wealthy men and their immediate friends and associates may reap still larger fortunes through obtaining, not a much-needed home market, as they would have us |believe, but a monopoly of the Canadian market, in addition to markets abroad secured for them through Government action in a variety of directions and at enormous expense to the taxpayers of this country. Let me proceed to make good the truth of this assertion.
I have referred to the need for a thorough revision of the tariff as set forth in the Budget speech of my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance in May of last year, and to the demand for such a revision as set forth in the platform of the National Liberal and Conservative party as framed some six weeks later. I wish now to draw the attention of the House to a comparison of the two statements pertaining to this
[Stage Direction]
so-called thorough revision. The comparison lets in a flood of light; it reveals the whole situation. . It is not often that a political party discloses in a manner so apparent, and shall I not add, so abhorrent, the sinister influences that frustrate its good intentions and bind and shackle its freedom of action.
In referring to the Budget speech of my hon. friend, I made mention of the pretentious and high-sounding principles and policies in the light of which it professed effect would be given, in the tariff revision, to the evidence and facts developed in the inquiry which he and his colleagues and experts and other advisers were to conduct. Those principles and policies were of course fresh in the minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and were before them in printed form in the pages of Hansard when, at the end of the session on the 1st of July, they met in secret conclave to disown the name of the party to which they belonged, to rechristen it as the National Liberal and Conservative party, and to draft the platform of policies and principles on which they were thereafter to stand.
That the principles and policies outlined by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech were actually before hon. gentlemen opposite at the time of the drafting of their political platform is wholly apparent from a reading of the two pronouncements. With a single remarkable exception, to which in a moment I shall refer, the one follows the other almost literatim et verbatim. Each has its six main assertions of policy and principle, under the letters a, b, c, d, e, f; and each has the development in extenso of each of its several assertions. To all intents and purposes, with the exception mentioned, both pronouncements are the same throughout.
My hon. friend in delivering himself on the Budget had evidently two objectives in mind. He was seeking a means of avoiding any immediate revision of the tariff; and he was trying out on interested parties and the public in advance the tariff plank of the political platform which he and his friends had in mind for the secret conclave to be held at the close of the session.
Now here, Mr. Speaker, is the astounding disclosure which a comparison of these two apparently identical pronouncements reveals. To appearance, they are identical; in reality there is from the one an omission of a statement of policy and principle contained in the other, which omission is dam-

aging, shall I not say "damning", in the extreme.
I have already alluded to the statement of guiding principles and policies being set forth in the case of each in the six main assertions which appear in the case of both, under the letters a, b, c, d, e, and f. Let me repeat, they are, with one exception, practically identical in virtually every particular. Let me read the two statements to the House.
Here is the statement of principles and policies as given by my honourable friend to the House in his Budget speech on May 18, 1920:
Our policy calls for a thorough revision of the tariff with a view to the adoption of such reasonable measures as are necessary-(a) to assist in providing adequate revenues, (b) to stabilize legitimate industries and to encourage the establishment of new, industries essential to the proper economic development of the nation- to the end that a proper and ever-increasing field of useful and remunerative employment be available for the nation's workers, (c) to develop to the fullest extent our natural resources, (d) to specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country, the sister dominions and colonies and Crown dependencies, (e) to prevent the abuse of the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer, and, (f) to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy.
Observe, Mr. Speaker, that there are the six assertions of policy and principles, a, b, c, d, e, and f.
Now let us look at the statement of tariff policy as set forth in the official platform of the National Liberal and Conservative party. The language is the same. Observe, too, that it has its six assertions: a, b, c, d, e, and f.
A thorough -revision of -the tariff with a view to the adoption of such reasonable measures as are necessary-(a) to assist In providing adequate revenues, (b) to stabilize legitimate Industries, (c) to encourage the establishment of new industries essential to the economic development of the nation, (d) to develop to the fullest extent our natural resources, (ej to prevent the abuse of the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer, and (f) to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy.
Do you observe any difference, Mr. Speaker? To all appearances they are the same; they begin and end the same.
(a)	in the case of each is "to assist in providing adequate revenues."
(f) in the case of each is, "to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy."

(e) in the case of each is the same; it is "to prevent' the abuse of the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer."
(b)	in the case of each begins "to stabilize legitimate industries;" but here a slight change occurs: (b) in the case of the speech of my hon. friend continues: "and to encourage the establishment of new industries essential to the proper economic development of the nation." In the case of the political platform of the National Liberal and Conservative party, this part of
(b)	is made a separate proposition; it is not set forth as a part of (b), but appears as
(c)	. Why is that? It is because, between the time of the speech of my hon. friend on May 18 and the holding of the secret conclave on July 1, it had been found necessary, at the instance of the influences which control the Government, to drop something from the pronouncement of my hon. friend and, if possible, to conceal the omission.
Well, let us see what policy or principle it was that it was found necessary to drop when the party platform was framed. It was not the next proposition (c) to develop to the fullest extent our natural resources; that has become (d) in the party platform. That, Mr. Speaker, completes the slate so far as the statement of policies and principles in the party platform is concerned; a, b, c, d, e and f are now complete. The division of (b) in my hon. friend's speech into (b) and (c) of the party platform, and the placing of (e) of my hon. friend's speech under (d) in the party platform, made possible the squeezing out altogether from the platform of the party of
(d)	as given to this House and to the country in the Budget speech of my hon. friend.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what is (d) ? What is the policy of the Government as set forth in the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance in May, 1920, which it was found necessary to delete from the platform of the party as framed some six weeks later? If it has passed unobserved, the House and the country will be astounded, I think, when I read it. Here it is, Mr. Speaker:
To specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country, the sister dominions and colonies and crown dependencies.
Let me read that again, and read it along with the context:
Our policy calls for a thorough revision of the tariff with a view to the adoption of such reasonable measures-
Mark the words, Mr. Speaker, "reasonable measures":
[DOT]-as are necessary to specially promote and increase trade with the mother country, the siste* dominions and colonies and crown dependencies.
Would you have believed it, Mr. Speaker 

these words stricken out? And that by the hon. gentlemen who call themselves Empire-builders, that by the party that claims to have arrogated to its ranks all the patriots; that parades and boasts of its loyalty; that talks of a community of interest, of keeping the Empire united, of the family of nations comprising the British Commonwealth? And as if this were not enough-oh, unkindest cut of all-to choose for the occasion of thus stabbing at the heart our interimperial trade, July 1, the birthday of our Dominion, the anniversary of the day on which the Mother Country gave us our status as a self-governing Dominion, the beginning of our nationhood within the British Empire-was there ever like ingratitude or baser treachery?
Why has this policy, this policy of promoting and increasing trade with the Mother Country, the sister Dominions and colonies, been erased and effaced from the platform of hon. gentlemen opposite? I) is surely not because of the sacrifices oi life and wealth shared in common in the Great War; it is surely not from motives of loyalty or affection towards the Mother Country; it cannot be from a desire to unite, to bind and to consolidate the different parts of the British Empire; nor is it from any concern for the great body of consumers in our own country. The Prime Minister has given us the answer. He knows. He ought to know. It is due to the dictation of the few wealthy men whose powerful interests are alone responsible for his being where he is to-day, the interests that demand what he calls "protection," that are not satisfied with the adoption of such reasonable measures of tariff revision as are necessary "to assist in providing adequate revenue," "to stabilize legitimate industries," "to encourage the establishment of new industries," "to develop the natural resources," "to prevent the exploitation of the consumer," and "to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy," but who, for their own selfish ends and personal aggrandisement, wish to control and monopolize the trade of this Dominion and are prepared, in that endeavour, to sacrifice every obligation of honour, of loyalty, and of human need.
In the light of this disclosure, what becomes of the hypocritical pretension that
[Stage Direction]
emergency changes in the United States tariff are responsible for the absence of any tariff revision in accordance with the professed intentions of hon. gentlemen opposite?
Hon. members will do well to reflect upon the significance of this episode. It gives the key, to all the rest. It explains the usurpation and maintenance of power by the right hon. the Prime Minister, against all constitutional right and the will of the electorate of this country. It explains the somewhat frantic and certainly undignified appeals made by my right hon. friend whenever he enters upon his advocacy of protection. It should let the country understand why we on this side of the House, however different the shades of opinion or however wide the divergences of view that may exist between us, are at all events one in our inability, to use the words of the amendment which is before the House, to concur in the declarations by the Government that the tariff should be based on the principle of protection. They talk of protection; it is not protection they want, but monopoly.
Mr. Speaker, is more needed to explain the sinister forces and influences that are dictating the policies, and for the time being controlling the destinies, of this Dominion? I have referred to their combined power as constituting the real, aft>eit an invisible, government, compared with which the Government we see personified in hon. gentlemen opposite is but as form and shadow. Perhaps the time would be well spent if we paused for a moment to look a little more penetratingly behind the shadow, and discern what we can of the reality. A moment's reflection will enable us to see how this organized power came into being, and how menacing its existence is to the social and industrial wellbeing of our country.
I need not remind the House that for four years the energies of this country, the energies of its Government, of its industries, as well as of its people, were strained to the one herculean task, the winning of the war. It was inevitable that during that period there should be the closest kind of association between certain of the financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests, and between these several interests and the Government and its members. That association between tbe more active and prominent members of both groups was uninterrupted, and indeed necessarily intimate, over the greater part of the entire period. They

were linked the one to the other by the most powerful of bonds. There was the bond of disinterested public service at the moment of the greatest crisis in the world's affairs, and there was the bond, wholly different in character it is true, but to some individuals even more powerful, of personal and private self-interest at a moment of opportunity such as has presented itself but once in the history of this world.
During those four years, a sum amounting to something like two billions of dollars was loaned by the country to the Government, and under Government direction was disbursed among these financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests. The Government was permitted a free hand; in the loans thus subscribed, the sacrifices present or future were never questioned; in the spending of these vast sums little or no check was exercised by Parliament; Orders-in-Council, at the caprice of the ministry were permitted to replace legislative enactments of both Houses of Parliament. It was an era of unparalleled opportunity both for the exercise of autocratic power and for the bestowal of favours. Strange indeed it would be had not the closest kind of relationship been formed between the controlling factors on both sides. That they were so formed, every Canadian citizen is well aware.
With the termination of the war and the demobilization of the military forces, this era of unlimited expenditures and unparalleled contracting came to an end. Not, however, the association between the financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests, among themselves, or with the Government. In considerable measure, it is true the compelling force of. the bonds which had united these interests with the Government were lessened. Hon. members of the Government who read their obligation to the country in terms of disinterested public service, recalling the pledges on which the Government was returned to power, one by one retired from the ministry. Others of their colleagues, for reasons best known to themselves, continued in office. Similarly, it is to be presumed, among the financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests, were numbers of influential and prominent men who were quick to sever the intimacy of the relations formed with members of the Government during the period of stress and strain, and to give their thought to their particular business interests regardless altogether of Government favours or action.﻿MAY 19, 1921
Unfortunately for our Dominion, all the men of great wealth and power have not been of this class. The same self-interest which caused members of the Government to cling to office despite honourable obligation and constitutional right, has operated in like manner to cause certain members of the financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests to continue to look to Government for special favours and special privilege, and in return to support the administration by direct methods as well as indirect in its retention of power against the will of the people as a whole. Thus we have come to have in Canada, on the one hand, a Prime Minister and a ministry to whom usurpation of office and the exercise of autocratic methods in Government belong as a sort of natural right, and, on the other, a small circle, a sort of little oligarchy of interwoven financial, manufacturing, transportation and distributing interests, prepared, in return for a continuation of favour and special privilege, to use their wealth and influence to keep the Administration in power, and thereby constituting in a very true sense the real though invisible Government of this country.
We have, in other words, political power united with plutocracy in a bond of selfinterest, the former the visible symbol of authority, the latter the governing and directing force in the State. We have a Government democratic in form, but autocratic in behaviour, and back of that Government, and vastly superior to it in many respects, we have the privileged coterie of wealthy and influential men,' connected with certain of the financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests mentioned, who are not satisfied with sharing in the control of industry and the State, but wish to dominate both. They are for the time being able to exercise this domination at their own free will, for the Administration owes its existence to their dictation and its continuance in office to the powerful influence which in a multitude of directions they are able to exert. There is" the real situation with which this country is faced at the present time. That is the danger to Canada at the moment, not that her Government is a Government carried on in the interest of the people as a whole, but rather that we have on the one side the selfish groups united together working for their joint ambitions, and, on the other, the great body of the people left to look after themselves.
This is the explanation, first of the Government's change in policy and principle respecting the promotion and increase of trade with the Mother Country and the sister Dominions in the period intervening between the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance and the secret conclave of July 1 of last year. It was part of the price paid by the Administration to these representatives of special privilege for a continuance of their support. It was not limited competition they were after; it was a monopoly of Canadian markets. Secondly, this is the explanation of the failure of the Government to revise the tariff at the present session. It was not fear of the consequences of American emergency legislation-that really was a ground for action-it was the maintenance by the favoured few of their privileged position as it has come to be in consequence of the war and conditions as they have grown out of the war. Thirdly, this is the explanation of the declaration made by the Prime Minister in the course of his lengthy speech on Friday last:
"This Government stands for the tariff that Is in existence to-day, and in any adjustment that will he made we will admit the principle of protection and we will apply it. . ."
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Hear, hear. But protection for whom? Protection for these favoured interests, not for the great masses of the people. The invisible government has decreed that thus he must stand, and so the day of tariff revision in the interests of either producers or consumers is indefinitely postponed.
I shall not ask hon. members to accept my analysis of the situation as a last word. Did time permit, I might cite an abundance of evidence as proof of its accuracy. Fortunately we have the evidence of one who has been on the inside, one of the Government's own supporters who was permitted a peep behind the scene, in a position of exceptional opportunity, who was appointed to office by the Government itself, and who has given to the public a description of what he has seen, in the form of an official document, a State paper, may I not term it.
It was thought that a life position and a good salary would be enough for Mr. James Murdock, when he was appointed a member of the Board of Commerce, and that he might ibe expected to lend himself to the Government's game of pretending to be solicitous of the well-being of consumers

and the public interest though all the while screening and protecting from public disclosure and public censure the few wealthy men whose business interests through close association, have become intimately interwoven and whose combined strength constitutes the power behind the throne, applying the simile for the moment to the present Administration. Fortunately, Mr. Murdock was not of the spineless and time-serving character it was hoped he would prove to be.
Having accepted nomination as a member of the board, he came at once into a specially favoured position. Indeed, strategically, he was in the best of positions; he was where he could view, on the one side, the organization of the specially favoured interests I have been describing, and, on the other, the relation thereto of hon. gentlemen opposite. Both situations he had described with perfect clearness; they are depicted in the official communication sent the Prime Minister in June of last year, and which the Government has had before it ever since. Here is the situation as respects the favoured interests.
Referring to the preliminary investigations of the Board of Commerce, and the necessity for some governmental machinery to protect the consumers and producers of the country against the kind of protection my right hon. friend has been advocating, Mr. Murdock says:
(a)	Business men living together under the protection of the tariff have got to know each other so well that price-fixing agreements and arrangements are the rule, rather than the exception. The board has already on file evidence in some scores of cases of such agreements. Not all of these are reasonable or proper. It should not be left to the unfettered will of the businesses interested to fix prices on necessaries of life. . .
(b)	Combines which have fastened themselves on the production and distribution of certain essential articles of food, such as canned fruits have introduced systems of merchandising which are injurious to trade and the consumer, and prevent fair competition. . . .
(c)	The board has discovered that unfair and excessive profits are being taken by certain textile manufacturers, cement companies, and other large concerns. It is In the public interest that these investigations thus begun be not stopped at this point. . .
(d)	There is reason to believe that sugar is not the only commodity in which speculation to the detriment of the public has taken place. . .
(e)	Without a Board of Commerce the public has no organization to watch and protect its interests, while on the other side there is the most complete organization and cross-organization : Manufacturers' associations, retail associations, packers' associations and hundreds of other associations. The public, unorganized as the sands by the sea, requires a protector against the super-organization of modem business."

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Murdock speaks of the need of protection, but it is not the protection of the members of the associations he has described, but the protection of the great body of consumers that are like the sands of the seashore, without any protection whatever against what he terms the super-organization of modern business. It is the few wealthy men responsible for this super-organization of modern business depicted by Mr. Murdock who constitute the ring that controls the Government of Canada to-day, that shackles its freedom of action, and compels the Government on pain of extinction to do its bidding. It is the favoured position of these privileged few that the Government is striving in all its measures to advance and to protect.
Let us see how, in this particular, the situation appeared from the vantage ground accorded Mr. Murdock while a member of the Board of Control. Here is what he has to say of the Government's attitude as he came to know it-and let the House remember that this was a statement issued to the Prime Minister of this country by Mr. Murdock, while Mr. Murdock was still a member of the board:
I am convinced-
1.	That the majority of the Cabinet of which you are the honored leader are not, and have never been, in sympathy with the provisions and intent of the Board of Commerce Act and of the Combines and Fair Prices Act.
2.	That your advisers only recommended to Parliament the passage of those Acts as the result of temporary alarm incident to the Winnipeg strike and other strenuous demonstrations when the people demanded some means of controlling profiteers.
3.	That as soon as the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act were made law by the Parliament of Canada, honourable gentlemen prominent in the councils of Canada and members of your Cabinet at once began to undertake to minimize, to as great an extent as possible, what they believed to be the unnecessary and unfair provisions of these two Acts when applied to the businesses of those for whom those honourable gentlemen no doubt had first regard.
4.	That the chairman appointed by your Government to the Board of Commerce was regarded by certain interests as being safe and sane in conserving to Canadian manufacturers and other large financial and business interests the generally unrestricted leeway heretofore enjoyed by such interests in the taking of profits, determined alone by the so-called market price and governed by supply and demand. . . .
Then, with special reference to the chairman, in paragraph 10:
10.	That during the entire term of service in which he and I were together connected with the board .... nothing was done which could in any way affect the business and financial interests, which, in his judgment,

should be protected from encroachments upon or interference by the Board of Commerce of Canada.
11.	That the general, viewpoints and desires of the former chairman were well known by various honourable members connected with your Cabinet, and especially by the Hon. Mr. Calder.
12.	That many of the honourable gentlemen composing your Oabient saw in the former chairman's resignation an opportunity almost beyond their expectations to minimize the activities of the Board of Commerce, and to prepare for its demise and that several of them repeatedly undertook to thwart the board's desired activities by quiet and hidden restrictive opposition since that time.
14.	That on January 28, 1920, when this board issued a declaration challenging the right of the Cabinet to interfere on behalf of the textile manufacturers in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association (they having made representations to the Government that it would cost $1,500,000 to prepare the data asked for by a questionnaire of this board, and that it would take weeks to so prepare) certain of your honourable colleagues were prepared to concede the claim made by the textile manufacturers and relieve them from the necessity of complying with the board's requests for information, and that only the public challenge to your Cabinet placed in the newspapers by the Board of Commerce prevented the textile firms from being relieved of the requests foi data made by this board.
15.	That later records show that the textile manufacturers had ample reason to struggle desperately to prevent the- true facts from being known to the board and that if this board could have secured the assistance desired, a statement of the facts and figures disclosed, followed by an order as the results of the analysis of the statements of affairs sent to this board, would have startled and incensed the Canadian public beyond anything that has developed in recent months.
Finally, as indicating beyond shadow of doubt his view of the Government's relationship to the super-organization of business interests he has described, Mr. Murdock concludes:
In connection with your suggestion that I continue as a commissioner ot the Board of Commerce until the decision of the Privy Council, I feel that the people need, and are entitled to, some results now. The light should be let in. I believe your Cabinet will devise some means to prevent the Board of Commerce from functioning, even should the Privy Council give a favorable decision. My conscience will not permit me to become a high-salaried time-server.
Could anything be clearer, Mr. Speaker? There are the specially favoured duly protected interests on the one side; the Government, their protecting and willing servants, on the other; and the whole a matter of public disclosure and now of public knowledge.
Let me say, so that my words will not be capable of misconstruction, that in making these references to certain
financial, manufacturing, distributing and other business interests I am making no attack on big business as such, I am making no attack on wealth as such, 1 am making no attack whatever on vase organization as such, for in these days of competition between industry and industry, between locality and locality, between nation and nation, between continent and continent, large organization is absolutely necessary, and vast accumulations of wealth in particular industries are absolutely necessary if the country is to hold its own in competition. So I am making no charge against the organization of business as it is carried on to-day, nor against the men to whom this.country is, indeed, vastly indebted for their skilful organization of industry and the way it is carried on. But what I wish to do is this: I wish to distinguish between those men who are prepared to share in the government of industry and in the government of the country, and those men who wish to monopolize and dictate in matters of industrial policy and the- control of political affairs. You have in every country the two types. You have the men who are willing to work with their fellows and to share with their fellows, and you have others who wish to dictate, who wish to control, who wish to monopolize, and it is these latter groups that have been brought into combination through the circumstances of the country being as I have described them, and who are controlling this country at the present time. Think of a Government permitting itself to lie under the shadow of such an indictment! Mr. Murdock's charges were made on the eve of prorogation a year ago; the Government has taken no steps to free itself from all that those representations imply. Why has Mr. Murdock not beeen summoned to appear before some committee of this House and prove the charges he has made? There is one reason, and one reason only: the Government knows the charges to be true, and that any attempt at investigation will mean the letting in of more light.
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and we have not only the failure of the Government to defend itself against these most serious of charges, but we have also the record of this Government with respect to legislation to protect consumers and producers against the exactions of combines, monopolies, trusts, and mergers that seek to enhance prices and restrict trade unduly. We know, too, its record with respect to profiteering and profiteers.

When the Borden Administration came to power, there was on the statutes an Act to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts, and mergers. It was known as the Combines Investigation Act, assented to on May 4, 1910. That law may not have been all that could have been wished; like other legal enactments, it was capable of amendment, but it at least afforded some protection to the public against the unrestricted acts of these combinations.
Under that Act, large powers of inquiry were given the Board of Investigation instituted thereby. The consumers were permitted to name their own member of the board; the expense of investigation was borne by the Government; heavy penalties were imposed upon combines restricting manufacture, trade, or competition. The Act gave the Governor in Council power to direct that, if it appeared to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that, with regard to any article, there existed any combine to promote unduly the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers at the expense of the consumers, and that if it appeared to the Governor in Council that such disadvantage to the consumer was facilitated by the duties [DOT] of customs, such article should be admitted into Canada free of duty or at a reduction in the duty.
This important Act was repealed by section 15 of the Combines and Fair Prices Act, passed in 1919. This Combines and Fair Prices Act was meaningless apart from the Board of Commerce Act, passed during the same year. The Acts were passed because at the time the people of Canada asked, yea, demanded that something should be done to check and pursue the profiteers. The fate of this legislation is well known. The truth respecting it has been told in the statements from Mr. Murdock which I iiSYfc just read.
On February 23, Judge Robson, the chairman, resigned, admitting that he himself was not in sympathy with the Act. Then doubts arcse as to the powers of the board, and the matter went to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court dividing itself on that question. In the meantime, the board issued its first report, dated May 1, 1920.
The report, amongst other things, says:
While the present commissioners had been
aware that there was close association between the various manufacturers of and dealers in commodities, your commissioners express profound surprise at the extent to which such organization has proceeded.
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
And further, about packing houses:
These packing companies are beginning to
exhibit a rather close association in their operations, and it would be quite undesirable to permit them to obtain in Canada anything like the impregnable position which, for a time, they had secured in the United States.
The interim report concludes with a minority report by Mr. Murdock, in which the following^ appears:
My belief is that it would be very much in the public interest for the public of Canada to know something more of the reasons that prevented the Board of Commerce of Canada from performing its functions in controlling profiteering and combines against the public interest as by law intended.
Here, early in 1920, was direct information, to the Government by its own board of the extensive association between various manufacturers and dealers in commodities, of the combines existing among packing companies, and of profiteering against the public interest. And yet no action was taken by the Government. Instead, the board was allowed to die, or rather, because of its exposures, was strangled by the Government. On June 16, Mr. O'Connor resigned, and a few days later, on June 25, Mr. Murdock, its sole surviving member, resigned.
Then an amazing happening occurred. Some months later, notwithstanding the loss of its entire membership, the board for some reason or another, was resurrected and was reconstituted in a sort of fictitious fashion. Members of the Civil Service were taken from their important posts of duty, and loaned to the board so as to constitute a temporary tribunal. For some little time the public tried to fathom the Government's solicitude on its behalf. It was not long, however, before they were undeceived. It soon became plain that it was not the interests of consumers the Government had at heart. It was the wealthy friends of the Government again, those belonging to one of the specially favoured of the privileged groups, this time the sugar refiners. I shall not go into the details of what took place at the time, the conversations and interviews between the refiners and members of the Government on the one hand, and members of the Government and their temporary appointees on the board on the other. Suffice it to say that, to the amazement of the entire country, the board, on October 14, issued an order fixing the price of sugar to Canadian consumers at 21 cents per pound and virtually prohibiting the importation of sugar at a moment

*when sugar was selling in the United States and should have been selling in Canada, at from 12 to 14 cents a pound.
After all that had been made public of the board's doings and misdoings by Commissioner Murdock, this was the last straw. Public indignation has seldom been at a higher pitch. The Government had at last to choose between its friends. In vain the sugar refiners sought to retain Tor the Government the support of the press, by the distribution of costly explanations paid for at advertising rates. Public clamour could not be silenced, and the Government, for once obliged to heed the voice of the people, suspended the order and allowed the board again to dissolve by permitting the temporary appointees on the board to resign. Prom that day to this, nothing further has been heard of the Board of Commerce; the combines in almost every branch of commerce and trade have been permitted a free hand and the consumers have been left absolutely without protection of any kind.
Little wonder is it that when Parliament assembled, the Prime Minister found it necessary to give some assurance to his followers that this intolerable situation would not be indefinitely prolonged, and that some protection would be granted the public during the course of the session Protection was promisel, and protection has been given, but it is not the protection that was asked for. More and more protection there has been for the trusts and combines, the super-organization of business, but none for the consumers.
I hold in my hand a despatch to the Montreal Gazette giving an account of the . sessional programme as outlined to his supporters by the Prime Minister at the first Government caucus. It is dated Ottawa, February 18. After mentioning that the Government caucus "was informed to-day by the Prime Minister of the sessional programme and its details," it says:
An important measure not yet before the House was indicated by the Prime Minister;
And it continues:
"To the caucus the Prime Minister forecasl legislation to control trusts and combines where the former Combines Act and the comatose Board of Commerce have failed. This legislation will probably be brought down before the Budget debate.
Hon. members opposite will be able to vouch for the accuracy of the representations contained in this despatch. But what, may I ask, has become of the promised
legislation? You will observe, Mr. Speaker, no mention was made of this legislation in the speech from the Throne. That would have been too conspicuous. The friends of the Government would never have permitted that. The assurance of the Prime Minister was enough to silence agitation during the session, and once again we find the Government, with respect to its legislation on trusts and combines, just where it was with respect to promoting trade between Canada and the Mother Country and the sister Dominions, just where it was with its promises of tariff revision-absolutely fettered and manacled by its friends, the few wealthy men who are responsible for the super-organization of business which dictates the Government's policies and controls its actions.
Do you see now, Mr. Speaker, why this session has gone by, with nothing constructive in the way of legislation; why to every one in the House and in the country there appears to be something wanting, something lacking: why the word "reconstruction," of which we heard so much for a time, has virtually been dropped from the vocabulary of the ministry; why, in the twc to three-hour speech of the Prime Minister a day or two ago, one will search in vain for a single expression revealing any human feeling or sympathy with the needs of the people; why, from beginning to end, it was one long plea for protection, not protection of the consumer, which is what is needed in Canada to-day, but more and more protection for these few wealthy men and the interwoven financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests with which they are associated.
Do you see also, Mr. Speaker, why it is, in the Budget which has just been presented by the Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) that this year, as in former years no account whatever has been taken of profiteering; why another year has been allowed to pass without any effort whatever having been made by the Government to recover any of the war-time wealth; why, instead of the removal of any of the taxation that bears immediately upon the masses of the people, the duties upon the necessaries of life, it is the business profits taxes and the luxury taxes that have been abolished? The Prime Minister says we are all for protection. Let him have it so; but let me tell him that the protection for which we stand is the protection of the consumer against the exactions of combines, monopolies, and the super-organization of associated business, not the protection of
\

these specially favoured organizations against the interests and well-being of the people at large.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was speaking of the protection afforded to special interests in their actual or attempted monopoly of Canadian trade and markets. Let, me now come to the bestowal of favours in another direction. Mr. Murdoik has exposed the manner in which, as n-spects the necessaries of life, the food, the clothing, the articles required for the shelter of the people, associated businesse

, with their trade agreements, combines, and monopolies, have been permitted, with the assistance of a protective tariff, and to the detriment of consumers, to reap their excessive profits through unrestrained freedom of action. Let me now direct the attention of the House to the manner in which, through the interweaving of business associations and interlocking of directorates as respects a different class of enterprises, the Government has, at great cost to the taxpayers of Canada, accorded a privileged position to another few of its wealthy friends.
The two classes of expenditure most severely criticised in this House and throughout the country to-day are the expenditures on account of the Canadian National railways and the Government merchant marine. They are the two classes of expenditure about which the representatives of the people in this Parliament have been able to obtain the least information. The public know that freight and passenger rates have been increased; they know that last year there was a deficit on the national railways amounting to $48,242,536.65; that this year there is a further deficit estimated at $70,331,734.88; and that, despite the increase of rates, the deficit estimated for the ensuing year will in all probability be in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000. They know, too, that despite repeated protests, and without due regard for either the law or customary practice, $70,000,000 has been spent on the construction of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. They are aware that, as respects the latter, contracts were awarded by the Government without calling for tender; that the work of construction was distributed by the Government among its friends from the

Atlantic to the Pacific; that in many cases the contracts had been awarded, and the work permitted to get under way before the money for the purpose had been appropriated by Parliament.
The condition, however, of which the public is not as yet fully seized is the significance of the methods devised by the Government for permitting to a few of its wealthy friends a free hand in the awarding of contracts with public moneys, and claiming for itself immunity from all responsibility to Parliament and the people for enormous outlays of public moneys in the work of construction and operation of these vast systems of transportation by land and sea.
What have hon. gentlemen opposite attempted to do in the various discussions that have taken place in regard to these enormous deficits? They have talked about the increases that have been paid to the labour on the road, and throughout this country a great deal of publicity has been given to the wages that are being paid to the workingmen. Well, the Government talk about protecting labour. < Let the people's representatives in this Parliament get the facts, let us find out the truth in respect of these contracts-how they are being awarded, whom they are going to, and the prices paid, and labour will be able to take care of itself. We wish to protect labour just as much as hon. gentlemen opposite, but our methods are somewhat different. We believe the best protection that can be afforded any group of people in this country is the protection which comes from ample publicity in dealing with public affairs, not from concealment.
Talk of the super-organization of business, of the interweaving of financial, manufacturing, transportation, and distributing interests-I venture to say that never in the history of the world has a scheme been devised so well calculated to make interweaving and interlocking of private interests complete, or to permit, on so unlimited a scale, and in a manner so whol'y indefensible, the use of public moneys to augment private fortunes at the expense of the state.
What is the method to which I allude? For clearness of understanding as to its significance, let me present, by way of contrast, the method that has hitherto obtained in the management, operation, and control of like enterprises by the Government of this country; the method, for example, that obtained formerly in the management of the Intercolonial railway

and that obtains to-day under the Post Office Department. In both the latter instances, we have the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to Parliament for all that pertains to the management, operation, and control of a government enterprise, fully recognized and adhered to. In everything, the right to the fullest publicity is maintained. Contracts awarded are awarded in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by law. Parliament looks to the minister, and the minister expects Parliament to look to him, for an accounting of every cent of public money expended under his direction, the names of the persons to whom the contracts have been awarded, the manner in which, and the terms on which, the awards have been made, the prices paid, and so forth and so forth. In other words, it is recognized that public moneys are being expended, that they are held in trust by the ministers of the departments concerned, and that the public is entitled to be satisfied in its mind both as to the necessity for, and the economies exercised in, the transactions pertaining thereto.
Compare this now with the methods devised by the present Administration in the expenditure of public moneys on those vast transportation systems. Both in the case of the Canadian National railway and the merchant marine, the Government has constituted boards of management. These boards are composed almost exclusively of the Government's own friends; almost without exception the gentlemen who compose these boards are associated with large industrial enterprises and businesses which are engaged in the manufacture, selling and distribution of the equipment and supplies required by these Government undertakings. In the awarding of contracts, they are given a perfectly free hand. They may award to whomever they please, in whatever quantities they please, and at whatever prices they please. That of itself one would think, where there was no personal liability, and where the moneys to meet the required payments were not coming out of the bank accounts of the parties concerned, but out of the public treasury, would be sufficient to encourage an .all but unlimited degree of extravagance. But what is to be expected where, in addition to this opportunity of helping one's friends, an undertaking is given by the ministry that, no matter what the transaction, notwithstanding it is out of the taxes of the people that payments have ultimately to ibe made, the people's representatives in Parliament shall be denied all right of inquiry, all right of information, on the score that such right and knowledge are not in the public interest? And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation as it has existed for the past couple of years, and as it exists to-day. Is it any wonder there are huge expenditures and colossal deficits? The wonder of wonders would be how deficits could be avoided under such a system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be said this is mere theorizing, let me give to the House the names of the members of the boards concerned, and the names of the companies with which these gentlemen are concerned. But, first of all, let me give a list of a few articles of commerce required in connection with the equipment and supplies of these transportation systems. It requires no understanding of human nature to believe that, unless the gentlemen who are directors of companies directly or indirectly concerned in furnishing such equipment and supplies are woefully neglectful of the business interests it is alike their duty and personal advantage to watch and further in every manner possible, the companies of which they are directors, or businesses associated with such companies, are not likely to be forgotten in the contracts awarded, and in the prices paid for the articles necessary to the equipment and supplies of these vast transportation systems.
But before I speak of the companies with which these gentlemen are connected in a business way as directors, let me refer to the classes of commodities which are likely to be required in large quantities as supplies . and equipment for the Government railways and the Government merchant marine.
Iron and steel (locomotives, rails, cars, castings, couplers, bolts, bars, etc.).
Cement.
Oil; coal oil, white lead oil, boiled linseed oil.
Gasoline.
Lumbei and timber, for car decking and roofing and for construction (fencing).
Paints..
Cotton and wool waste.
Uniforms for conductors and employees.
Coal.
Food of all kinds.
Ties.
Pullman and sleepers materials.
Electric materials.
Fuses.
Wheels.
Hose.
Air-brake materials.
Tie plates.
Hotel supplies.
Insurance.
Advertising.
Printing.

It requires only the mention of this list to show what enormous patronage is extended through this particular source,-a patronage running into millions of dollars; and all of it, mark you, under this arrangement is disposed of by the Government's friends just where they think best, and the people's representatives in this Parliament are denied all knowledge of where the contracts are placed. Now who are the members of the Board of Directors of the two companies? The personnel of the two directorates is the same, and is as follows:
Mr. D. B. Hanna, of Toronto.
Mr. A. J. Mitchell, of Toronto.
Mr. E. R. Wood, of Toronto.
Mr. R. Hobson, of Hamilton.
Major G. A. Bell. C.M.G., of Ottawa.
Sir Hormisdas Laporte, of Montreal.
Mr. A. F. Barnhill, K.C., D.C.L., of St. John, N.B.
Colonel Thomas Cantley, of New Glasgow, N.S.
Mr. R. T. Riley, of Winnipeg.
What are the companies with which these gentlemen are connected? Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish it distinctly understood that I make no reflection upon any of these gentlemen or their business integrity,
I merely place the information before the House and let it speak for itself. This list is taken from the Annual Financial Review for June, 1920, and, by the way, it dpes not, I believe, begin to include the companies with which these gentlemen are connected in an indirect way, nor is it complete as regards the companies of which they are directors. Mr. D. B. Hanna, is president of the Canada Flour Mills and a director of Canada Steamship Lines, Limited; Electrical Development Company of Canada, Limited; Canada Mortgage Investment Company; British-American Assurance Company; Western Assurance Company; Canadian North Prairies Lands Company; Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited; Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company; Sao Paulo Light and Power Company. Mr. A. J. Mitchell is a director of the Western Canada Flour Mills. Mr. R. T. Riley is vice-president of the Union Bank of Canada and of the Great West Life Assurance Company. Mr. Robert Hobson is president of the Steel Company of Canada, Limited, and a director of the Canadian Locomotive Company, Limited; Bank of Hamilton; Tuckett Tobacco Company, Limited; North Star Oil and Refining Company; Chartered Trusts and Executor Company; British Empire Trust Company;' Dominion Power and Transmission Company; Toronto General 
Trusts Corporation. Sir Hormisdas La-porte is a director of Credit Foncier Franco-Canadian; Societe d'Administration Generale; Frontenac Breweries, Limited; La Sauvegarde Life Assurance Company. Mr. A. P. Barnhill is president of the New Brunswick Electrical Company and the Acamac Land Company, Limited, and a director of the Eastern Trusts Company; St. John Iron Works, Limited; James Pender and Company, Limited; Telegraph Publishing Company; Fenton Land and Building Company; Westfield Land Company; Times Publishing Company. Colonel Thomas Cantley is a director of Eastern Car Company, Limited; Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Limited; Brandram-Henderson Paints and Varnishes. Mr. E. R. Wood is president of the Central Canada Loan and Savings Company, vice-president of the Canada Life Assurance Company; National Trust Company; Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and director of British-American Assurance Company; Western Assurance Company; Canadian Bank of Commerce; Dominion Steel Corporation; Toronto Savings and Loan Company; Calgary Power Company; Mexico Northwestern Railway Company; Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited; Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company; Sao Paulo Tramway, Light and Power Company; Mexico Tramway Company; Mexico Electric Light Company; Toronto Railway Company; Toronto Power Company, Limited; Toronto Electric Light Company, Limited; Electrical Development Company of Canada, Limited; Dominion Securities Corporation, Limited.
Major Bell, being the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals, is not included in the list of directors of any companies. I imagine that if he is doing his full duty as a deputy minister, which I believe he is, his whole time is taken up in the department and practically none of it can be given to the work of this Board of Management.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that I do not for a moment desire to be considered as reflecting upon the honesty or business integrity of the gentlemen connected with these various boards. All I wish to say is that if these gentlemen are directors of a large number of business enterprises from which commodities in the nature of supplies and equipment for the railways and merchant marine can be or are being obtained, they

are not true to their obligations as directors of those business concerns if with the inside knowledge they have of what is available in the way of contracts they do not go after those contracts and try to get them for the companies with which they are connected. That is their duty. The duty of a director is to watch the interests of the businesses with which he is connected, and I say that these gentlemen being on the board of directors of various companies, and having knowledge of large numbers of contracts running into millions of dollars, it is certain that they would not be doing their best by the companies of which they are directors if they did not look out for the interests of those companies.
Could interlocking of directorates be carried to a degree of greater perfection? Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, all these vast industrial concerns, and many more, to all intents and purposes represented by this little circle of favoured individuals who comprise the Board of Directors of the Government railways and merchant marine, who have a free hand in the disbursing of millions upon millions of the public moneys, with a guarantee that no information will be given to the people through their representatives in Parliament as to how or to whom the moneys were distributed. Need we look further, Mr. Speaker, for an explanation of the size of the deficits in these undertakings, and the vastly increased expenditures, and consequent increased taxation to which the people of Canada are being subjected. Could a more powerful combination of business interests be imagined? What government under such a system should not be able to keep itself in power indefinitely?
I wish now tc refer to a somewhat parallel method of dealing with public moneys [DOT] in a manner which ensures benefits to friends of the Government and not to friends only, but to supporters in this House. I shall not take up much time in referring to this parallel; it was referred to at some length last night by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). I refer to the system of making loans of public money to foreign countries and then, through the agency of the Government or its friends, ensuring the placing of contracts with business concerns in this country, with which members of this House are associated as directors, the money, in settlement of these contracts, being paid out of these loans to foreign
countries. Remember, Sir, that this money is the money of the taxpayers of Canada. The Government in thus loaning it and allowing it to be disbursed for the purchase of commodities to be sent to these different countries, has devised another scheme under which so far as any accounting for public funds is concerned, there is no way of finding out what opportunity there has been for freedom of competition or what opportunity there has been for anyone other than the immediate friends of the Government to secure contracts. Sir, as an indication of the way in which this system works, let me cite to the House some of the contracts which have been awarded and some of the orders given to industries with which some friends, not remote, but immediate friends of the Government, sitting on Government benches opposite, are concerned. I shall spare the House the possible pain of having to listen to the names of hon. members who are directors of these concerns.


Mr. SHEARD:: Give the names. Let us have it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend is not one of them, so he is perfectly safe in calling for the names. But while he nods his head in one direction some of his neighbours are shaking theirs in another.


Charles Sheard: Let us have the names. Let us have the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Archambault: Take your
medicine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that the House may appreciate what this system amounts to, I may say that the Government have given to Roumania a credit of $25,000,000 and to Greece a credit of $25,000,000. It is extremely doubtful, as has already been pointed out, whether these amounts will ever he wholly refunded. Of these amounts $26,989,000 has already been advanced. Now, of the amount of $26,989,000 advanced to these countries, which since the war have been in great need of foodstuffs especially, $3,500,000 has gone for foodstuffs and some $23,460,000 and over has gone in the supplying of manufactured articles to these particular countries-manufactured articles for which we in Canada, according to my hon. friends need such great protection. Of the manufactured articles supplied1, contracts have gone to the following concerns of which some hon. gentlemen on the opposite side

and one or two Senators, friends of the Government, happen to be directors: Brantford Roofing Company, $65,000; Welland Vale Manufacturing Company, for edge tools, $137,234.87; Maritime Nail Company, nails, $77,304.95; Dominion Iron and Steel Company, $66,138.48; Sherwin-Williams Paint Company, $31,490 and $11,332; Monarch Knitting Company, knitted goods, $293,295.80; Stanfields Limited woollens, $21,780; Renfrew Woollen Mills, woollens, $114,041; Massey-Harris Company, agricultural implements, $536,000; Peck's Rolling Mills, $26,694.96.
There, Mr. Speaker, are some of the contracts which run up, as I say, to somewhere around $23,000,000 of the money of the people of this country, which has been lent to these various countries and which has found its way back to companies of which hon. members of this Parliament, sitting opposite to me and listening to my remarks at this moment, and other friends of the Government are directors and managers. I do not know in what terms one can adequately describe such a use of the public moneys. Hon. gentlemen opposite think there is nothing irregular about it; that it is all perfectly right and proper. Well, I hope we are not losing altogether the British tradition that when a man takes a seat in Parliament he is at least supposed to be above reproach in the matter of contracts with which he and the concerns with which he is connected have to do in so far as they involve business relations with the Government. But, perhaps, it is a matter of little wonder that hon. members opposite should find it difficult to see anything wrong in this procedure, when we find the Prime Minister himself standing up and defending in this House the action of one of his colleagues in soliciting business from another government for his private firm and using as a means of getting that business the influence and prestige of his office as Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue. We are now beginning to see some of the reasons for the enormous expenditures to which the people of this country have been subjected and for the steady increase in the burden of taxation.
I have referred to the action of a minister of the Crown in soliciting business-the carrying of cargoes from France to Canada. I would point out that that minister is a member of a Government which is managing a merchant marine, a merchant marine which has not sufficient business to enable it to operate profitably; yet he uses his name as a minister of the Crown in order
rMr. Mackenzie King.]
that he may enter into competition with the Government's own business; that he may take away that business from the Government and give it to his own firm. And the right hon. the Prime Minister stands up in this Parliament and defends that kind of thing. Well, Mr. Speaker, as long as my hon. friends opposite have that conception of public morality I see no hope of economy in public expenditures or that the taxes upon the people will be made less burdensome.
Now, Sir, in order to conceal these methods of doing business, in order to remove their possibilities from the arena of public discussion, to divert public attention and the public mind from any careful consideration of this stupendous situation, the one really menacing factor in our national life, the right hon. the Prime Minister is at great pains, whenever he speaks, whether on the platform or in this chamber, to misrepresent the position and the attitude of his opponents on the tariff, in the hope that their time will be spent in refuting his misleading statements. It is perhaps natural that he should adopt such a course. I regret that the Prime Minister is not in his seat this evening, and that he has not been in the chamber all afternoon; I should have preferred to address these remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, direct to him. However, he will, no doubt, have an opportunity of reading them, and I trust that he will pay particular attention to what I have to say in regard to the tariff. Having misrepresented, session after session, the intention of the Government itself with respect to tariff revision, it is not surprising that he should adopt the same tactics in dealing with the intention of his opponents. In the few remaining minutes that I desire to speak, may I attempt to show the nature of these misrepresentations, and at the same time restate the Liberal position as it is and as it is set forth in the amendment which is before the House? Hon members will recall that my right hon. friend, m his speech of a day or two ago, said he wished primarily to deal with the amendment. I shall endeavour to follow him in this particular, though in others I hope I may escape the ill effects of his bad example.
My right hon. friend has misrepresented the position of his opponents in three important essentials. My hon. friend, the leader of the Agrarian group (Mr. Crerar), has shown wherein this is true of himself, and hon. gentlemen with whom he is associated. May I be permitted to do the same

as respects myself and the position of the Liberal party? In this matter of the tariff, we have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister and his colleagues as to principle, as to aim, and as to method.
First, as to principle. My right hon. friend has endeavoured to have it appear that the issue, as respects the tariff, is one of free trade versus protection. Over and over again, he has made this assertion. Sometimes, oddly enough, he has said that we of the Liberal party, like himself, believed in a tariff based on the principle of protection; at other times he has said that we believe in a tariff based on the principle of free trade; then again he has said that, as respects the tariff, we have no principles, or were without any principle. Quite obviously, all three statements are not correct.. As a matter of truth, not one of them is correct. That I may do my right hon. friend no injustice, let me quote a sentence or two from one or two of his speeches. I shall give only one or two quotations, but they will have a familiar sound to hon. members of the House. Here is a quotation from a speech delivered dj the Prime Minister at Sherbroke on September 21, 1920, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of September 22. My right hon. friend said then:
What then is the issue? It is the old subject of trade policy.
Back to the old question of free trade or protection the pendulum has swung- again. Once more the people of Canada have had to decide whether one principle or the other is to prevail.
Elsewhere in the same address my right hon. friend used these words:
We have, therefore, a clear-cut issue. Do we want free trade in this country or do we not? .... The majority of the opposition to the Government of the day is composed of free traders. . . .
There is a positive statement. made by the Prime Minister of this country, although my right hon. friend knows as well as I do that the issue is not between protection and free trade. He knows that there is no free trade issue in this country at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend laughs. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, the issue is not between protection and free trade. If any one has any doubts on that score, let him read the second clause of the amendment which is before the House, and which will be supported unani-
229	.
mously, I believe, by hon. members on this side of the House. What is the first sentence of that clause? It is to the effect that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of the customs tariff. So long as you recognize a customs tariff, you cannot have free trade. The tariff is, as this amendment states, a tax. It is a tax on imports, and a tax on imports is an obstruction to trade. Free trade means the absence of all tax; it means what it says, complete freedom of trade, and the raising of revenues by some other method exclusively, by income tax, for example, and when my right hon. friend says that the issue is between protection and free trade, he does not describe the situation aright. The minute a tax is imposed on trade, that moment trade is obstructed. The obstruction may be made to serve primarily one of two purposes: it may be made a means of raising revenue, or it may be made a means of affording protection to some industry within the country. Usually it serves both purposes in some measure. A tax imposed for purposes of protection will incidentally afford revenue, and a tax imposed for purposes of revenue will incidentally afford protection. The art of statesmanship in the imposition of taxation lies in making taxation as light as circumstances will permit, and in having regard for existing national needs in whatever taxation is imposed. The issue, so far as the Liberal party's attitude on the tariff is concerned, is not and never has been in this country, between free trade and protection; it has been between a tariff imposed primarily for purposes of protection, and a tariff imposed primarily for purposes of revenue.
My right hon. friend says it is either free trade or protection; that there are only the two grounds: there is no middle ground between. Let me quote his exact words:
I said a moment ago that any body of men framing a tariff must adopt one of two principles, the protective principle or the free trade principle, and I say that every public man owes it to the people to declare definitely on which of the two principles he stands.
That was a statement made at Winnipeg on October 25, 1920. The House will observe that my right hon. friend is choosing his own ground in making the alternative. He makes the assertion, and then he begins to argue from his own premises, but his premises are not right to begin with. He says:
There is a free trade tariff, and there is a protective tariff.



[Stage Direction]
He goes on to say:
Is there a man or woman here who knows whether Mr. King stands for tariff on the free trade principle, or on the protection principle? You may keep on asking him, hut you will never get an answer, yes or no.
My right hon. friend knows very well that I never give an answer, "yes" or "no," on premises that are entirely false. The question is not between protection and free trade. He says, in an issue between protection and free trade, there is no middle ground. In that I agree with him, if by protection he means tariif and by free trade absence of tariff. The one is the negation of the other. That issue may be fought out theoretically, but practically there is no such issue in this country, and never has been. My right hon. friend says: "You can have two kinds of tariff and only two; you can have a tariff founded on one principle, that of protection, or another principle, that of free trade." That, Mr. Speaker, is where my right hon. friend misstates the case. You cannot have a tariff on the principle of free trade, for the principle of free trade means the absence of all tariff. What my right hon. friend should have said, what he would have said had he not deliberately been trying to becloud the issue, when speaking of the only possible alternatives of a tariff, is that there are but two kinds, a tariff based on the principle of protection, and a tariff based on the principle of revenue. Had he stated the alternative in these words, he would have correctly described the issue.
In dealing with taxation, the aim should be, as the amendment before the House states, to make taxation fall as lightly as possible upon the people of the country. The art of statesmanship as respects taxation, and as respects anything else, consists in having as much regard for the interests of the country as possible. If, when you are framing your tariff with one object or another in view, you do not take into consideration all the other objects that are to be served, you do not do your full duty to the people whose representatives you are. Unless my hon. friends opposite, when they are framing a tariff for purposes of protection, say that they will give no consideration to the revenue that is to be raised they should not hurl a stone at us because in regard to a tariff designed primarily for revenue purposes, we have some regard for the interests and needs of the country in whatever direction those needs may present themselves. As regards the tariff, my right

hon. friend has never once spoken of there being an issue between a tariff primarily for revenue and a tariff primarily for protection. He has tried to make an issue between free trade and protection, and speaking of the first alternative and omitting altogether the second, which must be as familiar to him as it is to every other hon. member of the House, he has shown that he has been trying to draw away the minds of the people from the real issue and cause them to think of something which is not the issue at all.
The position which I have just stated has been the position the Liberal party has taken in regard to the tariff since it has taken any practical interest in tariff matters. In the last speech he delivered bn the Budget before the war, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated in the clearest possible terms the position of the Liberal party on the tariff. Here are Sir Wilfrid Laurier's words. They will be found in Hansard of April 23, 1914, page 2844:
We have always contended, that the policy best suited to this country is not a protective tariff hut a customs tariff for revenue purposes.
There is the statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. There is the statement of the Liberal party in the matter of the tariff. That is where Sir Wilfrid stood; that is where I stand; that is where our party Islands and is prepared to stand when the day of reckoning with the electorate comes.
As to the aim of our fiscal policy, my right hon. friend states that we aim to destroy the industries of Canada, though here again he finds himself in a curiously contradictory position. He says that in the West, where he alleges they want Free Trade, we are free traders, and that in the East, where he alleges they want Protection, we are protectionists. That, Mr. Speaker, would look as though, instead of seeking to destroy, we were doing our utmost to conserve.
My right hon. friend, if I may be permitted to say so, in this regard has done his utmost to misrepresent me personally, from one end of the country to the other. The other day, from his seat in the House, he could hardly wait until he had hurled across the floor at me that I particularly was being subjected to the criticism by the public that I stood in one place for one thing and *in another for another; that I particularly had created throughout the country the impression that I was trying to be all things to all men. Here is a statement of my right hon. friend as given to

the women of Toronto. I think my right hon. friend should have been a little more careful of the truth in talking to the ladies. This is from a report in the Ottawa Citizen of April 18 of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at a meeting of the Women's Liberal-Conservative Association at Toronto on April 16:
Touching on the tariff question, Premier Meighen said that in Eastern Canada the opposition had advocated moderate protection,' and in Western Canada free trade.
Then as reported in the Mail and Empire's account of the same meeting:
In Eastern Canada, the Opposition had advocated moderate protection, and in Western Canada, free trade. Everythihg their leaders had spoken had hound them to free trade.
I should like to say to the Prime Minister of this country-I do not know whether the rules of the House will permit it-but if the rules permit it I would say that he knew that was not true when he said it. If the rules of the House so permit, I will say that, but if they do not, I will not, Mr. Speaker.
Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out.to the hon member that the rules of the House would not permit him to say that any hon. member of the House wilfully made a mis-statement or told an untruth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, Mr. Speaker, I am prevented from saying what I should like to have said. However, I wish to say this: that statement is not true, and every hon. member of this House knows that it is not true. Then at a meeting of the Conservative Club, in Toronto, on April 16, 1921, the Prime Minister is reported in the Toronto Mail and Empire as saying::
But is there any one knows where the Hon.
William Lyon Mackenzie King stands?	
Mr. King was an advocate of ruthless tariff reduction out West, but in the East he stood for the adequate protection of industry.
I challenge the right hon. the Prime M'n-ister to point to any utterance of mine in the West than can possibly be understood as meaning that I stood for ruthless tariff reduction. It is very easy to misrepresent, but it is another thing to undo the evils of misrepresentation. My right hon. friend has gone out of his way to have it appear that my attitude on the tariff has been one thing in one place and another in another. He says I have not been frank on the tariff issue. His example in that particular has been followed by his colleagues and many of his supporters, and has been
enlarged upon, of course, by his party press. Indeed, the order has gone out from my right hon. friend's office, through his publicity office, that this is to be the line of attack upon myself and the Liberal party; that it is to be made so much of a barrage on all occasions that the public is not to have an opportunity of ever learning the truth that is being obscured by this policy of misrepresentation.
As I have said, some of the colleagues of my right hen. friend the Prime Minister have followed his tactics. I was somewhat surprised to find my hon. friend the Minister of Finance doing exactly the same thing. I have here a speech delivered by my hon. friend at Peterborough in which he said, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 31, of this year:	[DOT]
Now Mr. King comes into West Peterborough and tells the people that if the Liberals got into power tomorrow they would not make a single change in the tariff without first submitting it to the people.
Now that was not wholly true to begin with. I was referring to the by-election and the consequence of it, and I told the electors of Peterborough, what was true, that if on a vote of want of confidence in this House the Government opposite should be defeated, and we on this side of the House should be called upon to associate ourselves together in a Government, we would not do what hon. gentlemen opposite were then proposing to do, namely, revise the tariff, before there had been an appeal to the people, but that we would state to the people what our tariff policies and principles were, and that the people would be given a chance at a general election to pass upon them.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: That is what was said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is
now my hon. friend's interpretation, I am glad to have it But what about this? My hon. friend went on to say, and this is in quotation marks :
"Out on the prairies, Mr. King is one of the most marvellous free traders and tariff-smashers you could find anywhere."
Again, I ask my hon. friend to point to a single utterance of mine which justifies that remark. He cannot do it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No difficulty whatever about it. All that was necessary at that time was to read the newspaper reports of my hon. friend's utterances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge
my hon. friend to bring into this House

and read to hon. members any bona fide report of any utterance of mine that justifies a statement of . that kind. Such statements, Mr. Speaker, I say are absolutely false and untrue. The speeches I made through the Canadian West were made in the hearing of thousands of persons; they were reported very fully in the western papers,' and in despatches to the East; they were made within the hearing of several hon. members of this House, and I challenge both my hon. friends, or either of them, to point to a single sentence in all that I have said which will afford a shadow of justification for their allegations. I have looked through the press reports of the different speeches I made in the different cities, and I find that every one. of them on this question of the tariff tallies, verbatim et literatim, with the policy of the Liberal party as I have already stated it in this House, and as it is known to the country. There is not a single item in any of those newspaper reports to justify any such statement as was made either by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance or the right hon. the Prime Minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will be
pleased to send a report of a speech to my hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, read it
to the House. My hon. friend knows that secret communications are not a desirable way of carrying on public business. That there may be no misunderstanding as to the position I took on the tariff during the western trip last fall, that there may be no misunderstanding as to the position I took on the tariff when I spoke in the Maritime Provinces a little over a year ago, that there may be no misunderstanding of my present attitude on the tariff may I read to the House from the account of a speech which I delivered in the city of [DOT] Toronto on August 14, of last year, before starting for the West, and which appears under the conspicuous heading, "Mr. King on All-Important Tariff Issue -A tariff for consumers and producers", on the front page of the Toronto Globe of August 16. That statement, to all intents and purposes, is identical with the presentation of the Liberal attitude on the tariff as made at every meeting at which I have spoken on the tariff since the Liberal Convention of August, 1919. It is in all essential particulars true to the Liberal platform as laid down at that convention, and it is absolutely in accord with the aim of the Liberal party on fiscal policy as set forth in the amendment before the House.

I	challenge any man or woman in this country to show that I have anywhere, at any time, swerved from the views and opinions and statement of policy a's set forth in this quotation, which is both clear and comprehensive. Before giving the quotation from the Globe-may I say this to my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) who I understand is to follow me, and with whom I see the Minister oi Finance is at the moment conferring, that my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver, when he spoke in this House in the debate on the Address, made certain quotations from western papers which I have looked into since, and I find that my hon. friend quoted only part of what I said and never finished the sentences. I ask him when he speaks in this debate tonight, if he reads any extracts of my speeches, not simply to pick out the parts that suit his purpose, but to read the entire paragraph. This is the quotation which I wish to give from the Toronto Globe of August 16, 1920:
Speaking on the all-important tariff question at the Liberal picnic Saturday, Hon. W. D. Mackenzie King, Liberal Leader, said:
"We believe that the time has come, indeed that it is already long past, when a downward revision of the tariff is necessary. In this revision we believe that there should ibe substantial reductions of the duties on the necessaries of life, in other words, on those articles which go to make up the food, the clothing, the shelter of the Canadian people; that certain specific articles required for the purposes of consumption and other articles essential to production should be placed upon the free list, and that in regard to the implements of production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing there should also be a substantial reduction of duties. It is not a question of free trade or protection. ..."
"In revising the tariff to this end care will be taken of the position and needs of all the industries in our country, but such tariff as may be necessary in this connection will be, under Liberal policy, a tariff for consumers and producers, and not a tariff to further the interests of combines, monopolies or of any special or privileged classes. . . ."
"It is not honest to say that we can do away with the tariff. We can revise it, and that is the policy of the Liberal party. And I shall say in regard to tariff policies exactly the same in the city of Toronto as I shall say in the Western Provinces. I have not one message for the city and another message for the country-one message for the employer and another for the employee."


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Will my hon.
friend be good enough to tell the House if he stands by the policy of the Liberal party, as outlined at the Convention of 1919, favouring a British preference of 50 per cent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement I have just read to the House is intelligible to every hon. member, and I

think my hon. friend has quite enough intelligence to see whether there is anything that is inconsistent, in what I have just read, with the platform laid down by the Liberal party at the Liberal convention. Now, Sir, my hon. friend the other day, in the course of his address, quoted from a speech of mine in Victoria, and from an article contributed by me to Maclean's Magazine in January last. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman made a thorough search in every direction before he got hold of that speech and that article, and they may be presumed to be the best examples he could obtain for the purposes of his argument. I do not know whether his reading of them supplemented by his tone and gesture, served his purpose, but if he will compare that speech and the article in Maclean's Magazine with what I have just read to the House, he will find that they not only accord with each other, but are almost identical in language with the speech in Toronto from which I have quoted. In one or two respects, it is true, the article in Maclean's Magazine contained matter not there stated. For example, I find this clause.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Nothing about
preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just wait a minute. I do not know whether my hon. friend is the one who is responsible for getting his party to strike out that clause in regard to promoting trade between the Mother Country and the Dominions. It seems to me, from the nature of his remarks in the House, that he is acting as the special agent for those who were desirous to delete that clause from the party platform. Now, in the Maclean Magazine article of January 15, there is this additional sentence:
In this revision, we believe that the home and its needs should be a first consideration.
I want to emphasize that fact. I want to make it clear that in revising the tariff of this country we are going to consider first, foremost, and always, the needs of the homes of the people of the country. Then there is the further statement:
With the Liberal party, the main concern respecting: the tariff is not free trade or protection ; it is revenue, and the simultaneous development of industry in such manner as is likely to serve best the interests of the Canadian people. . . There will be required for purposes of revenue large sums of money which, of necessity, will have to be raised by indirect taxation through a customs tariff.
Now, I think I have perhaps said enough tc make clear the position which we, on
this side of the House, and which I myself, take in regard to the tariff and the principle on which it should be framed. The aim we seek in a revision of the tariff has been well set out in the amendment which is before the House. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) would have the country believe that our aim is to. destroy industries throughout the country, as though any political party would seek in any way co destroy the industries of a nation, and its consequent prosperity. What we aim at is well set out in these two clauses of the amendment:
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resource's of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises giving promise of enduring success:
4.	That such changes should be made in the customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion.
That aim, I contend, is in
9	p.m. accordance with the needs of Government, in accordance with the needs of the country, and in accordance with the needs of the great body of consumers in this Dominion.
Now, finally, a word as to the method by which, if entrusted with the duty of tariff revision, we should wish to proceed. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government, when on the public hustings, has a way of describing those who disagree with him in any particular as Bolshevists, nation wreckers, I.W.Ws., O.B.JJs., and by any other epithet that denotes destruction and revolution. The right hon. gentlemen should be somewhat more careful of the language he uses. Let me say that the only aim we have is to do things in an orderly and decent manner, and that aim is well set out in paragraph 5 of the amendment:
5.	That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
When the language of this amendment is used or when in speaking I say that in revising the tariff some regard should be had to the position and needs of industry, immediately my right hon. friend gets up and says that we are in exactly the same boat as he is and out for protection. Well, I know that my hon. friend is fond of monopolies, but when has he ever had the right

to a monopoly for doing things in an orderly fashion? We on this side believe, [DOT]as respects the tariff, and as respects everything else of national importance, in proceeding along evolutionary, not along revolutionary, lines, and, if the opportunity is given to us, anything that we do shall be done exactly as described in the spirit of this amendment.
Did time permit, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer at some length to the last clause of the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I will hot. With regard to the last clause of the amendment, I desire to say only a word or two. In many respects, it is its most important part. My right hon. friend said that he intended to address himself to the amendment, but I observe that; although he spoke for two hours and a naif, he omitted altogether reference to this particular clause. No doubt he felt that reference of any kind would prove embarrassing. Let me read this final clause:
fi. That the House, while recognizing that the obligations arising from the war must be met, and declaring its readiness to make all necessary provision for that purpose, regrets that the financial proposals of the Government are not made with due regard to the economy that is so urgently needed, and expressed the opinion that, before resorting to new taxation, the Government should make a subtantial reduction in the proposed expenditure.
This clause, Mr. Speaker, goes to the root of the matter. As I have said, unless we can keep down expenditures through economy and retrenchment, tariff revision will be of little service in any respect. I might repeat what has been so truly said by hon. members as to the many ways in which economy and retrenchment might be exercised with respect to the Estimates that have been presented to the House-as to how economy might be effected as regards the railways, the Merchant Marine, the foreign credits of doubtful nature, of which I have spoken, as regards the building of dry docks and piers, and as regards certain matters in respect of which the provinces are associated with the Federal Government and which might well be left for the present to the provinces alone, such for example, as questions of technical education, housing, and the making of roads; and, also, as to how economy might be effected with respect to military, naval, and police expenditures, all expenditure which we might in very large measure considerably curtail, for a while at least.

Now, Sir, with all these statements I am -in entire accord, but what I wish to say is this: With a situation such as we have, and such as we know exists, economies effected in the directions suggested mean simply the lopping off so many branches here and there while the tree itself is decayed at the heart and rotten at the roots. We must go deeper than these surface indications and deal with the vitals and crux of the situation. It will avail but little to discuss the Budget in its details when we have a super-organization of business interests controlling the Government and dictating its policies; when we have an interweaving of financial, manufacturing, distributing and selling interests with some of their more ambitious members associated with hon. members who hold their positions in the Government against the will of the people; when we have groups of special friends helped by means of loans and foreign credits such as I have already described. When you have that kind of situation, what can be accomplished in the way of small economies here and there will have very little effect indeed in meeting the real issue. What is needed most in this country to-day is t* break this selfish combination of political autocrats and industrial plutocrats which has grown and developed during the war and fastened itself like an octopus on the people of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is a task which is too large to be performed by this House; it is a task which the people alone can successfully undertake. We of the Opposition may do our best, but we are powerless when the Government has in its hands, and uses against us, the weapon of the closure the minute, on matters of public expenditure, we try to let in light. The only way in which that combination can be broken is to give to the people of this country their right to have a Parliament composed of their own representatives chosen in their own way. Until that right is granted we will never know what the assets or liabilities of this country are. What is the good of discussing the Budget of my hon. friend in its few details when we have this great combination at work using public funds in all directions to further the interests of a few specially favoured groups? We may make the best effort we can-we have been doing that- but we are powerless in the face of the weapons that hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to use on behalf of the interests that are sustaining and keeping them in power. But we do ask-and ask in the

name of the people of this country-that for the sake of Canada's present condition and for the sake of her future need, the people be granted the right-the constitutional right which is theirs-of electing a Parliament of their own choosing, and of breaking without further delay a combination which is so inimical to the public weal.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, when the leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) opened his remarks this afternoon he upbraided the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) for occupying two hours and a half of the time of the House. I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he has equalled the effort of the Prime Minister in so far only as time occupied is concerned. My hon. friend has succeeded in placing upon Hansard almost an exact copy of a stump speech which he has been uttering from one end of Canada to the other.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Once again I must call upon hon. members to assist the deputy speaker in upholding the dignity and decorum of Parliament. I fear that several hon. members have forgotten that these deliberations are taking place in the House of Commons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know my hon. friend's opposite somewhat resented my reference. I had no desire to cast any reflection upon the speech which the leader of the Opposition has delivered through the country. It was eloquent, and I propose dealing with many features of it. I want to say that I have a high regard for my hon. friend's ability on the platform. I must confess however, that I have not quite as high a regard for the conclusions which he arrives at.
Now my hon. friend has spent a good deal of time this afternoon and evening in repeating his old charge that this Government is the creation of invisible, unnamed big interests. The hon. gentleman knows that that is a very useful cry, that it appeals to a certain class of the population in this or any other country-anything that is in the nature of "a big interest" presents itself in an onimous fashion before the minds of the people. Therefore my hon. friend considers it good tactics to associate this Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, with what is known as "big interests". I have two things to say
to the House in regard to that. The first is that I think it is most unfortunate for any leader of public opinion, or anyone attempting to lead public opinion, to constantly harp upon the idea that wherever you have capital associated in companies or corporations you necessarily have corruption and that which is inimical to the best interests of the community. That is not the case. This is the day of big businesses. This is the time and the period in the development of civilization when small amounts of capital are associated in larger capital organizations for the purpose of the development of business generally. It is an economic situation, and no man has a right to constantly insinuate that there is a sinister influence behind such. The second thing I desire to say is that if there Is any foundation for what my hon. friend says, if there is any ground upon which he can base his insinuation that there is "a sinister influence"-and I use his own words-then he owes it to this House, and he owes it to the country to say what is the sinister influence and who the individuals are that he has in mind. Will my hon. friend name them? Will he tell this House what ibig interests are behind this Government and directing its affairs contrary to the interest of the country at large? I might go on and ask my hon. friend to name the large interest's of the country to which he has reference, but I think that would not be fair; I do not think it would result in any good. But my hon. friend has no right at meetings in the country, or in this House, to insinuate that there is, as he says, "a sinister" influence behind the Government in the form of "big interests".
Now I am going to deal with some matters that my hon. friend brought up. For instance the hon. gentleman spent considerable time on the system of national railway control in this country. It is not my intention to go into that in detail, but I submit that my hon. friend has given to the House a subject which is quite a proper one for controversy. He holds that the national railways of Canada should be under the control of a minister of the Government and be run by his department. Parliament decided two years ago that another method should be adopted,-the _ incorporation of a company and the appointment of a board of directors. I grant that my hon. friend has a perfect right to take the position he does, but I question his right in drawing a picture which goes to every quarter of this country, in which he insinuates not only that the board of directors of the national railways are irre-

sponsible-that is his own word-but that there is some form of sinister maladministration by them. These directors are leading citizens of the Dominion, selected from various parts of the country, and they have been before the public in one capacity or another for many years. They are all honourable men, and I submit that my hon. friend did neither himself nor this House credit when he insinuated that they were doing things as directors that were dishonourable, and that they themselves were dishonest,-because if they were not there was absolutely no force in my hon. friend's argument. He stated that they were distributing the money of this country regardless of the cost to friends of theirs and to companies they were associated with.
Now, my hon. friend has no right to make that statement unless he can bring to this House some proof to substantiate it; and, if he has that proof up his sleeve, then he owes it to this House and to the country to lay it on the Table. My hon. friend no doubt would interrupt and probably would say: "But we have not been given all the correspondence." That is an old demand of his. In the various motions he has brought before this House he has demanded that all the correspondence, all the contracts, and all other information in connection with the national railways shall be laid on the table of the House. But I draw this to your particular attention, Mr. Speaker: he has never moved for any specific, closed contract, and that is all we get from the Auditor General or from any department. There is no opposition whatever from this side of the House to bringing down any reasonable information that my hon. friend wants, but neither he nor any other member of the Opposition has ever moved for specific information. They say to us and to the Government: "Bring down everything, lay it on the table of the House, and let us rake it over to see if we can find something that is wrong." If he suspects there is anything wrong with the transactions between the Canadian National Railway Company and the firms with which the board of management are connected, let him name those members, let him ask for what he wants, and in all probability he will get the fullest possible information.
And so I say to my hon. friend that his course is not fair in discussing the principle whether there is to be departmental or company control of our national railways. We hold that it is better that the national railways should be run, by a
[Mr. Stevone.l
board of directors, similar to the management of the great Canadian Pacific Railway Company, rather than as a department of this Parliament. My hon. friend cited the Intercolonial, but surely he does not presume to bring that railway forward as an example of first-class management. Why, ever since the Intercolonial has been in' operation, and that was before 1870, it has never paid a cent bf interest on the capital investment, and nearly every year it has had a deficit in operation. Yet my hon. friend says: "This is the system that we want." He has a perfect right to say so, but he has no right, I repeat, to drag the names of honourable men before this Parliament and insinuate that they are dishonourable in the discharge of their duty,-so insinuating under the protection of his position in this House and for the purpose simply of making an argument to bolster up his case.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to follow my hon. friend in some detail, but I shall do so in connection with the problems and questions that have been raised in the course of this debate. I think perhaps if I were to describe my hon. friend's speech in one sentence, I would say that he has succeeded in coining a new phrase, which no doubt will appear in most of the newspapers to-morrow, namely, "political autocrats and industrial plutocrats." That is going to be the battle cry of my hon. friend. That is what he seeks to establish.
He had something to say about the loans to Roumania and Greece. My hon. friend from Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) last night gave the same information that the hon. leader of the Opposition submitted to-night. The insinuation was that this Government had paid put moneys buying goods in Canada and had shipped those goods to Roumania and Greece, that money having been distributed to friends of the Government. I purpose to examine briefly what grounds there are for such a charge. In the first place, the loans to Roumania and Greece were based upon a statute of Parliament, and the Government had absolutely nothing to do with the letting of the contracts. As far as I have been able to check them up-and I have not been able to check all of them- these contracts were let in Paris by representatives of the Roumanian and Grecian governments. All that the Government of Canada did was this:	under the instructions of Parliament it set aside $25,000,000, I think it was, and out of that, on the

direction of these two foreign governments, paid the bills.	_
Now, my hon. friend quoted certain firms that had sold goods, and he said that these firms contained the names of some hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House.
I am not going over this in detail, but the names of seven firms were cited, and hon. gentlemen here or in the Senate, supporters of the Government, were said to he associated with those firms, the insinuation being that there was something crooked in the letting of those contracts. Why did not my hon. friend also state- and, again, I have only had an opportunity for a few moments to check this up, because my hon. friends opposite have had this return constantly in their control up until this morning-why did he not also say that these firms had associated with them as directors hon. gentlemen supporting the Opposition? There is nothing wrong in that; indeed, I claim that it is perfectly all right. But my point is: why seize upon what is an honourable and proper transaction and seek to fasten it in an improper way upon members dn this side of the House? For instance we have Senator Dan-durand, a very fine old war horse of the Liberal party, associated as a director with the. Steel Company of Canada, which did business with those governments. I am not criticising that for a moment; it is perfectly proper. Then we have also another very excellent supporter of the former Government and the Liberal party, Senator Beique, associated with Canada Cottons, a very large and important firm that got extensive orders, and properly so. But why in the name of fairness and common sense do my hon. friends stand in their place and seek to give the impression to the country that there is some sinister underhand work going on when there is absolutely nothing of the kind? There are 216 firms which are mentioned as having received business from Roumania and Greece, and out of those 216 firms my hon. friend succeeded in finding seven Kvith which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were more or less directly connected.
Now, in the concluding portion of his remarks the hon. leader of the Opposition made a strong charge of extravagance against the Government. Well, it is the duty of the leader of the Opposition and his party to expose extravagance on the part of the Government if they can do so; it is a fair battle ground, and I have no hesitation in meeting them half way in the matter. I have taken a little trouble to
check up the proposed expenditures of the Government and you will be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the result when a comparison is made with the expenditure of the former Liberal Administration. By the way, in making this comparison I am not criticising the Government of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier at all. I have under my hand the Estimates of 1911 of a government of which my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was a very prominent and active member, and at a time when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was custodian of the funds of the country. In that year they brought down an Estimate for expenditures amounting to $138,000,000. I have no criticism of that expenditure; I let it stand as a perfectly honest and fair Estimate. But I ask the House, what is the amount of the Estimates this year, outside of extraordinary expenditures, which I shall deal with in a moment? It is $177,000,000; that is the proposed expenditure on exactly the same account as that for which $138,000,000 was voted ten years ago-a difference of $38,000,000.' It is a proper subject of debate whether or not that increase is justifiable, and I propose, Sir, to show it is justifiable. But before going into the matter in detail, let me observe that last year the actual expenditure of this Government-a government charged with extravagance-was $141,000,000 out of consolidated revenue fund, only $2,000,000 more than the last Estimate of the Government of my hon. friend opposite, in 1911. Now, Sir, an examination of these figures reveals certain facts. For instance, the Department of Trade and Commerce shows an expenditure of $2,300,000 more this year than it did in 1911. The increase is accounted for by the transfer of the Statistical Branch from the Department of Agriculture, involving an additional expenditure on the part of the Trade and Commerce Department of $1,800,000; the administration of the Canada Grain Act, $1,175,000; relief to the West in the matter of seed grain, $825,000; protection of timber, $1,000,000; fuel investigation-a most useful effort to improve the development of our natural resources- $200,000. Then there are some other items, but what I wish to impress upon the House is that the increase of expenditure this year over the expenditure of 1911 is more than accounted for by the increase in the cost of materials, wages, and the salaries of the Civil Service, and the general increase coming with a period of

ten years of development on the part of the country. So I submit that my hon. friends have very little ground for complaint against the Government, on that score.
The main attack of my hon. friends opposite has been directed against the Militia and Naval Estimates. Will the House believe me when I say that in 1911 my hon. friends opposite proposed a larger expenditure on naval affairs than we propose this year? It is true that in respect of militia the proposed expenditure this year is somewhat larger, accounted for wholly by increased cost of material and salaries.
Now, we have the question of the increased debt. I will say this to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition: he has had nothing to do with the increase in the debt during the last seven or eight years; he is fully exonerated in that regard. But what I do wish to say to him and to the House is that the increase of the debt in Canada is attributable wholly to war costs and expenditures. I will not weary the House with figures, but it may be interesting to note in passing that $103,000,000 has been paid off the public debt this year. It is true that the whole debt has slightly increased, but it has been increased by the addition of investments of a paying and interest-bearing character.
I now come to the question of the tariff, about which we have heard a good deal in the last hour. It is rather interesting to note that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has at last made a clear-cut statement as to where he stands on the tariff. He says he is out absolutely for a tariff for revenue. It is my purpose to examine very briefly what that means. The hon. gentleman made rather harsh and, I think, unfair statements with regard to the Prime Minister's various utterances in this connection. The Prime Minister has been complaining for the last year or more that my hon. friend would not make a clear-cut statement as to where he stood on the tariff so that we might know on what ground to debate the' question with him. He would not move his 1919 platform ; he will not move it yet-he positively refuses to move it. He is either ashamed of it or he knows that some political advantage is to be gained in refraining from moving it. I do not see why he should complain about our asking him to move his own platform, but that is what he does. Now, what is my hon. friend's position in this matter? He challenged the Minister of Finance a few moments ago

to quote any words of his to show that he had made the remarka at Peterborough attributed to him by the minister. Now, I have under my hand the address which my hon. friend delivered in Peterborough. He was referring to the possibility that at this session, which was then approaching, in the event of the defeat of the Administration he might be called upon to form a government-Peterborough is a manufacturing city; the people there would not stand for free trade, would not stand for the reductions in the tariff mentioned in this pamphlet, "A message of Liberalism"-and my hon. friend knows they would not. This is what he said to the people of Peterborough:
Should the contingency of which I speak arise, should the Government ibe defeated, should a Liberal Administration be formed, advantage will not be taken of such a situation to introduce legislation on the tariff.
If I am misquoting my hon. friend he will correct me; this is exactly what he is reported to have said in Peterborough. He goes on to say:	,
Nothing will be done in the way of altering or amending the tariff in the smallest particular without reference to the people In the first instance and the submission of the Liberal policy to the electorate at a general election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is
right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend Says
that is right. He spent about half an hour in this chamber a little while ago upbraiding the Government for not bringing down a complete revision of the tariff this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend will observe that my remarks related to what I would do, and I was presenting to the people of Canada my plans.
I was upbraiding the Government for not bringing down any revision this session because in the speech from the Throne they said that they were going to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I give my hon. friend credit for that. I was saying, when my hon. friend interrupted me, that he upbraided the Government because they did not bring down a complete revision of the tariff this session. Had the Government done that, he would have been the first on his feet condemning the Government for tampering with the tariff before an election and also before we knew what the United States were going to do. It would be a positively preposterous and asinine thing for any Government to do that, and he knows it. All that my hon. friend is

sorry about is that the Government were not so simple and stupid that they would fall into such a trap. The idea of this Parliament attempting a general revision of our Canadian tariff in the face of a known general revision of the American tariff being under way! It is infinitely better for this country to wait and see what the general tariff of the United States is going to be. It is an absurd thing for any one to suggest that the American tariff does liot affect the affairs of this country. It is one of the most important factors in determining the business activities and the direction of the industrial life of Canada. We must take cognizance of the American tariff in the revision of our tariff. Had there been no disturbance of the American tariff; had, for instance, President Wilson been continued in office and his policy continued, we could safely have proceeded with a revision of our tariff. But with the complete turnover in the United States, with a new economic vision before the people of that country, to say that we shoud proceed with a general revision of our tariff, is, in my estimation, arrant nonsense. That is not all that I have to say to my hon. friend. I hope the House will remember what I said a moment ago, that in Peterborough, which is a protectionist city, my hon. friend pledged himself that his party, if they were brought into power, would not touch that sacred institution known as the tariff. In the city of Kamloops, he delivered a speech and he delivered virtually the same speech throughout the West. He made statements of this kind:
Let me tell you what that policy is-
He refers to the policy laid down at the Liberal convention in 1919, and I will read just an extract from his speech so as to put myself in proper order. He says:
Take for instance, the Liberal convention held last year-
That is 1919.
-in Ottawa. This convention was decided upon by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and was called for the purpose of formulating the policy-
That was the main object of that convention.
-which would carry out the principles of Liberalism as believed right by the men and women who attended it.
He goes on:
It was attended by delegates from all parts of Canada. It was a convention which lasted from two to four days. This great gathering
drafted and formulated the policy of the Liberal party.
That policy I have here, and again I say to my hon. friend-and I submit that not only am I in order in saying it, but it is a perfectly pertinent request-why does he not move the tariff platform contained in the declaration of Liberalism passed at this convention to which he attaches so much importance? He has not done so, and he will not do so because it contains provisions that, he knows perfectly well, will violate the sentiments and desires of large centres of influence in Eastern Canada, and he knows that the only part of Canada that will be very much appealed to by the tariff proposal in that platform is the middle West. Therefore, he will not put it on record; he will not bind his party to the platform which they drafted in August, 1919. But I was going on to say that this was what my hon. friend said at Kamloops:
Let me tel'l you what that policy Is. We say the time has come in Canada when the tariff should be reduced.
Is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly,
that is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again I ask hon. members to remember that in Peterborough, in October, a few months after this, which was in January or early in February, he pledged himself not to touch that sacred institution of the tariff under any circumstances, while at Kamloops he says "We start on this at once."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend wants deliberately to misrepresent the situation. When I was speaking at Kamloops, what I said, as he read it, is absolutely true, that that was the platform; we would do nothing until we were in power, and that meant after a general election. When I was speaking in Peterborough, I was speaking at a by-election and I sought to make it plain that come what might I did not wish to have a revision of the tariff until after a general election.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must say to my hon. friend that his explanation at the present moment is a turning of a pretty sharp comer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.
The Minister of Finance said that I was quite right in what I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member is at
issue with me, and I want to give him all opportunity of correcting me if I am wrong, I submit these words to the House and the

House can judge for itself. My particular complaint of my hon. friend is that he goes through my province and the other western provinces telling the people that the platform of 1919 is the platform. But he positively refuses to put his party on record in this House on that platform, and why? The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) let the cat out of the bag the other night, if you will permit me, Sir, to use that homely phrase. This is what he said; or he used words to this effect: "Why, the tariff is not an issue; we will not let them make it an issue." Can my hon. friends around me, with their experience in caucuses, imagine all the happy conferences that have been going on between the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), for instance? I can imagine the hon. member for Cape Breton North saying with that splendid Scotch stubborness of his, "Noo, Sir, I will not allow that platform to be moved." He would not allow it to be moved, because he knows, that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea), the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and many others would not go on record in this House in support of this resolution, the reciprocity agreement, the revision of the tariff downwards and the putting on the free list of "wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net twines and fishermen's equipment; cements and fertilizers," and so on. They would not go on record in support of that, and my hon. friend does not dare to test them out on it. Some one mentions 50 per cent preference.
A few moments ago my hon. friend took two documents and he repeated the statement. He took a speech by the Minister of Finance in 1920; he tobk utterances of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as expressed in July last, and he wandered through clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). I shall not read them to the House. He then struck a most tragic attitude; he said that he found that (d) was missing, and he said to his much warmed up associates:	"And what do you think
this is?" He came out with the startling revelation that we had failed to include in our platform a statement

made in the Minister of Finance's speech, "to especially promote and increase the trade with the Mother Country." My hon. friend laid that as the foundation for an innuendo that the Government and its supporters on this side of the House , were seeking to lessen the trade with the Mother Country and to interfere with the Imperial connection. Will the House believe me when I tell it that had he turned over the page he would have found that clause set out in heavy leaded type on the other page.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I would not. I challenge the hon. member to show it.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend be patient just for a moment? I repeat that the hon. gentleman laid that as the foundation for a charge that this Government and this party were departing from its ancient tradition of close connection with the Mother Land, and were seeking to interfere with the trade of the Mother Country and the Imperial connection. That is a charge that touches a pretty tender spot in hon. gentlemen on this side, and they will not tolerate my hon. friend or anybody else getting away with a charge or insinuation of that kind. It was a bare insinuation and nothing more. I am going to read the two clauses in this platform. At the very commencement we find this, and it is the foundation of the platform upon which the party on this side of the House stands:
Firm adherence to British connection in full confidence that Canada will find its amplest scope for development, usefulness and influence as a member of the Britannic commonwealth with the status of a self-governing nation equal to that of the other members.
That alone would have been sufficient to convince my hon. friend that there was nothing wrong; but this is what I complain of. I do not like to characterize his effort as dishonest but I will tell the House that I cannot characterize it as a genuine effort to do what was fair. Here is the other clause in the platform, set out in leaded type.
The principle of trade preference between the different members of the Britannic commonwealth should be maintained and extended from time to time to such a degree as may be found practicable and consistent with Canadian interests.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend may ask a question, but not make an argument.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not what the hon. member has just read a part also of the speech 6f the Minister of Finance which was delivered at the time I have spoken? It is, verbatim et literatim; but the other clause is gone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, is it not clear to any one with the slightest desire for fairness in debate from the two clauses I have read that we stand exactly where we have always stood on this question of trade with the Mother Land? But that is not all. We bring something more than empty words. We bring forward to the House the agreement and treaty with the West Indies, which was ratified in this House within the past two weeks, extending this very principle. The members of the Government spent weeks and weeks last summer with the delegates from the West Indies studying out the many ramifications and the intricate clauses of this agreement and treaty, which was ratified this year. Yet my hon. friend has the audacity to insinuate in this House that we are not playing the game with the Imperial connection.
Oh, hon. gentlemen opposite say to us, the conditions in Canada to-day are due to the fact that you rejected reciprocity; had you not rejected reciprocity, we would have had prosperity in this country to-day. That has been the attitude adopted by the hon. gentlemen opposite. Now my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in nearly all his speeches in different parts of this country has used a phrase something like this, that the people should govern.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I ask him who rejected the reciprocity agreement that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the late Mr. William Paterson framed at Washington, and brought humbly back to this Parliament in 1911, and which was before this Parliament and debated throughout the length and breadth of this country for months. Parliament then adjourned, the Prime Minister going to the Old Country. On coming back, he re-asssembled Parliament, and finding that he could not pass part of the reciprocity agreement he appealed to the people on the one sole issue of reciprocity, and the people rejected reciprocity by an overwhelming vote. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says that we ought to appeal to the people. Now if there is one thing upon which we have a clear-cut mandate from the people,
it is that we must not tamper with the proposed reciprocity agreement.
My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says: Let us have a tariff for revenue only. I have noted repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, in debates in this House that when an hon. gentleman puts forward an opinion or a definition some hon. gentlemen question it; they brush it aside, by turning a sharp corner, or in some way or other. So I decided some time ago to hunt up a definition of "tariff" from an authority they would accept, and 1 happen to have it now in my hand. I have taken this definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I do not think anybody will accuse me of being a partisan in doing that. I invite my hon. friend, who to-night for the first time since he has been leader of the party opposite has taken a stand on this issue, and who says, we stand for a tariff for revenue only, to listen to this definition of "tariff":
Resort is made to tariffs, or import duties, partly to secure revenue, partly to affect the course of industry within a country. Strictly speaking, these two objects are inconsistent with each other; since a customs duty, in so far as it causes a domestic industry rather than a foreign industry to supply the market, ceases to be a source of revenue-
This will suit the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) very well.
-but in a great number of cases the imposition of a duty causes only a partial displacement of the foreign supply, and hence brings some revenue from that which remains. This circumstance strengthens the hold of the protective system especially in countries where customs revenues are important sources of revenue, the combination of fiscal conveniences and of protection to home industry being a highly attractive one.
Where tariff duties are imposed solely for revenue, an equivalent excise tax is imposed within the country, so as to put the domestic producer precisely on the footing of his foreign competitors; and tariffs so maintained are in complete conformity with the principles of free trade.
The reason I read this definition is for the purpose of showing to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that we on this side stand for a tariff which has for its underlying basic principle the protection of home industries. We hold that that protection should extend only so far as is necessary to maintain those industries in Canada. That is where we stand. My hon. friends say they want a tariff for revenue only. Now I will tell the House, and I submit that this cannot be gainsaid, what a tariff for revenue really is. My hon. friends angularily opposite, as they are termed, have that policy in their platform, and it is this: where you have a tariff for revenue

only, you put on a moderate duty, but you put on precisely the same excise duty on the same goods manufactured within the country. If my hon. friends start on the policy of a tariff for revenue only, it will work in this way, and in this way only, if they accept the term that is accepted everywhere by all economists. Suppose they put a. 30 per cent tariff on woollen goods. They must then put a 30 per cent excise tariff on woollen goods manufactured in Canada. Suppose they put $2 a ton on steel. Then they must pay $2 a ton excise on steel manufactured within Canada. So that virtually it wipes out all protection. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has been absolutely correct when he has stated time and time again that there are only two forms of tariff, one based upon the free trade principle, and the other upon the protective principle; and- there is no other plane on which it can stand. It is true, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, that very often the two are in practice more or less merged, that is to say, they are designed for the purpose of raising revenue; and that is exactly where we stand on the principle of protection.
My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), made a rather interesting statement the other day in his speech, which was supposed to be the official declaration of the Opposition. He said, in effect: "I have no use for protection at all and I never had. Not only that, but I emphasize the fact more than ever to-day that I have no use for protection; and if I had to choose between the two, I would choose a tariff based on free trade principles." That is what my hon. friend said, and he does not contradict my quotation. But he goes further than that, and this is where we get some interpretation of the policy of my hon. friends opposite. He says: "If any industry comes here hoping to become established by reason of an import duty, or protection, my advice to them is not to come, but to stay out." That is what he says. So that we have my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), standing on a revenue tariff and calling for an equal excise duty on every item that is represented in that tariff, and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's declaring officially, on behalf of the Opposition, that he stands for a tariff based on the free trade principle. This is the nearest approach to a clear-cut declaration which we have had from hon. gentlemen opposite.
	I
Now, I desire to turn my attention for a few moments to my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who, I observe, has left the chamber. I should be glad if he were present, because I have a few things to say unto him. I advised my hon. friend this afternoon that I intended to make certain references to himself, and as I did not wish him to think that I wanted in any way to take advantage of any temporary absence of his, I gave him that notice of what I proposed to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not want to hear it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would rather have
him present when I make these remarks, and as he is not here, I will withhold some of them until he returns. In the meantime, I shall proceed with other remarks in reference to the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend, in connection with his tariff position, makes the statement that the Prime Minister had taunted them with not moving their platform.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Here he is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am pleased to note that my hon. friend from Marquette has returned to the chamber. Now, Mr. Speaker, this Parliament, since its birth, has followed all the traditional practices of the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain, one of the most cherished principles of which is that of honour among the members. Members are allowed privileges based exclusively upon a sense of honour, and I think we cherish that tradition. At any rate, so far as my knowledge goes-and for twelve sessions I
10	p.m. have been a member of the House-these privileges enjoyed by hon. members have been very highly valued and very jealously safeguarded. My horn friend, the other day, Sir, made what I think was perhaps the best speech he has delivered since he has been in this House, -save for two qualifications. My first qualification of that statement-and I shall deal with it at a later stage-is that the hon. member's arguments were based upon what I, at least, content to be a false premise. That, of course, is no reflection on him; he has a right to his views. The other qualification is in the fact that he made a charge which I think was unworthy of the hon. gentleman. Now, I am going to deal with the latter first, and then, with the indulgence of the House, I shall deal with

the hon. gentleman's arguments on economic matters. I shall refer to my hon. friend's charge that the candidate of the [DOT]Government in York-Sunbury had been appealing to the prejudices of the people in that constituency in a very base manner, and I shall read what Hansard reports as the statements made by my hon. friend and then I will read what my hon. friend exactly did say. After that, I purpose reading certain things to illustrate the effect of his unfortunate and exceedingly unfair, uncalled for, and baseless charge. I trust the House will be patient with me, because I consider this a matter of importance which should not pass without serious consideration and note. My hon. friend is reported in Hansard as having said:
On what platform is his candidate running in York-Sunbury at the present time?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to interfere with my hon. friend, and I take no exception to hit reading from the Debates, but I shoulc. like to have the ruling of the Chair. Yesterday my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Ross) was attempting to quote from Hansard, but was prevented by the Chair. I do not believe that the ruling given last night is very wise, because it is almost impossible to discuss a question intelligently if an hon. member is not to refer to what other hon. members have said during a debate of this importance.


George Green Foster: The ruling had reference to a former debate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to prevent my hon. friend from reading from the Debates, but I want the ruling of the Chair to apply to both sides.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the Speaker
gives his ruling, I should like to say a word to the point of order. My hon. friend is apparently not cognizant of the rule, which, if I mistake not, is that an hon. member may not refer to a previous debate in the same session; but he is privileged to refer to any previous speech in the same debate in which he is participating.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Steele) :: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) is not well taken. Bourinot, at page 357, says:
Neither can an hon. member, in speaking, refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session.
It will be seen that the authority here laid down does not preclude an hon. member from quoting from the same debate in which he is speaking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To continue:
Does the tariff take a leading place in the discussion? Not according to the best information I get. My right hon. friend's candidate is running on a new-no, I will not say an altogether new, platform; it is an old platform of some of my hon. friends opposite. His candidate is saying privately to the Protestants of the constituency:
I do not want any Catholic support; are you going to vote for the man whom the Catholics are voting for?
Some hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Meighen: The hon. gentleman has made a very serious assertion. He will be good enough to support that assertion by quotation.
Mr. Crerar: I have no doubt that my right hon. friend can get witnesses to prove it.
Mr. Meighen: I never heard it.
Mr. Crerar: I accept at once my right hon. friend's statement; but I am stating what his candidate is saying down in York-Sunbury. And did not my right hon. friend within the past eight months, through his agents, approach the Catholic Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view to having him come into his Government? Did he get that inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that statement, please? I did not quite catch it.
Mr. Crerar: Yes, I will repeat the statement did not my right hon. friend or some one representing him approach-
Some hon. members interrupted at this point and one hon. member said:
Somebody told somebody else.
Some hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Crerar: Did not my right hon. friend or some of the members of his Government-I will put it that definitely-approach the Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view of having him come into the Administration?
Mr. Meighen: I want to state that that is absolutely false so far as I am concerned or so far as any one is concerned acting upon my authority.
Mr. Crerar: I at once, Mr. Speaker, again take my right hon. friend's word for it.
Mr. Meighen: I may tell my hon. friend as well that his previous assention is denied categorically by the candidate and by every one in the county from whom I have heard.
Now that is the report that appears in Hansard. That report has been changed, that is not what my hon. friend said. My hon. friend in that report is represented as asking the Prime Minister a question. He has also changed-or the words have also been changed-as regards the time-; the two months is changed into eight months. Now I am going to read to the House exactly what my hon. friend did say and then I shall make a few comments:
Mr. Crerar: On what platform is my right hon. friend's candidate running in York-Sunbury at the present time? Does the tariff take a high

place in the discussion? Not according to the best information I can get. My right hon. friend's candidate is running on a new-no I shall not say a new, platform; it is an old platform of my hon. friends opposite. His candidate in York-Sunbury is saying to the Protestants of the constituency: I do not want any Catholic support; are you going to vote for the man whom the Catholics are voting for? That is the position.
Then there is the part about interruptions and so on. I quote again:
Mr. Meighen: The hon. gentleman has made a very serious assertion. He will be good enough to support that assertion by quotation.
Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) goes on:
I have no doubt that my right hon. friend can get a score of witnesses to prove it.
Mr. Meighen: I never heard of it.
Mr. Crerar: My right hon. friend, perhaps, has not heard it, hut I am stating what his candidate is saying down in York-tSunbury.
Then he goes ion to the other reference which I shall read later. What I wish to say to my hon. friend is this:	He entered
into a matter of controversy with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave a categorical denial to the statement. It was in the form of a direct charge against the Government. My hon. friend corrected his speech in the Hansard room, and on Hansard it appears changed in substance from what appears in the transcript of the notes of the reporter. I shall read the second part which, in my estimation, is worse a great deal than the first.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who changed it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The speech was corrected by the hon. member for Marquette himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Within the past two months-
Now, I 'want hon. members to follow me-
Within the past two months my right hon. friend, through his agents, also approached the Catholic Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view to having him come into his Government.
A positive statement.
Did he get that inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)?
Mr. Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that statement, please? I did not quite catch it.	.
Mr. Crerar: Yes, I will repeat the statement: that my right hon. friend or someone representing him approached-
Then there was some interruption and he goes on again:
My right hon. friend, or some of the members of his Government-I will put it that
 J jj
definitely-approached the Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view of having him come Into the Administration.
Now on Hansard it appears as an innocent little question which makes the Prime Minister's denial somewhat absurd. But it was a positive statement by my hon. friend on his responsibility as a member of this House that the Prime Minister had approached this individual in New Brunswick. The Prime Minister gave a categorical and positive denial to it:
Mr. Meighen: I want to state that that Is absolutely false so far as I am concerned or so far as anyone is concerned acting upon my authority.
Mr. Crerar: X must at once, Mr. Speaker, take my right hon. friend's word for it.
Mr. Meighen: I may tell my hon. friend as well that his previous assertion is denied categorically by the candidate and by everyone in the county from whom I have heard.
This is not a small thing. It is a very serious thing for any hon. gentleman to take advantage of the confidence placed in him in allowing him to make any slight correction or changes in his speech, other than grammatical errors, which I am sure would be highly appreciated by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter for any hon. gentleman to change the substance of his speech, especially on a matter that is in controversy. Now I have a wire the Prime Minister sent to Mr. Hanson-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will
permit me. He has made a rather serious reflection on me and one that is not at all warranted by the facts. There was considerable uproar in the chamber here when I was addressing those particular remarks to the House. I submit to you, Sir, and to the House, that I have not changed in substance at all the statement I made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am
prepared on my responsibility as a member of this House to make the statement that what I read as being what my hon. friend said is exactly what was transcribed from the notes of the reporter; and I make this

further statement that my hen. friend corrected his speech. I make the further statement that the speech as it appears in Hansard is not, in substance, in accordance with that my hon. friend said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. '


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now I have just one
further statement to make-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just going to
say this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The change in the substance to which I refer-and my hon. friend will desire to have this


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was
completing the sentence:	The change in
the substance to which I have referred is-


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I rise
to a point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am simply making


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Levi Thomson: My hon. friend is bound to accept the statement of an hon. member as to what he said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Michael Steele: The hon. gentleman must accept the statement of another hon. member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friends
will wait a moment until I complete the sentence-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made the statement,
Mr. Speaker, that the speech was changed in substance to this extent-and this is what I want my hon. friend to catch- that he changed what was a statement into a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am perfectly in
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That he changed what was in the form of a definite statement, which I have read, into the form of a question. Now, my hon. friend may take the ground that that is not a change in substance. I have the opinion that it is, and what I wish to say is this, that in so far as it was a matter of controversy between the hon. gentleman and the right bon. Prime Minister no change should have been made whatever, and no hon. gentleman has a right to make such a change.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend
permit me? At the time I was speaking there was such an uproar in the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and I submit to this House that I made no change in substance in the correction of the report of my speech. In the taking down of the notes the reporter, probably due to the disturbance in the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -did not get the exact words I stated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, I am not
prepared to take the jibes of my hon. friends opposite. They can take their medicine once in a while surely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have stated that I
made no change, and'I think my reputation in this House is well enough known for my hon. friend to' be aware that I do not do that sort of thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Got him on the
hip.


Mr. CAHILL:: Who has got it on the
hip?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to submit to the regular procedure of this House. My hon. friend states that he did not make any changes in his speech? Am I right?


Mr. McMASTER:: In substance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I say this, Mr. Speaker, that I made no change whatever in substance in my speech.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will permit me?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will send him over
the copy, and if he will say he made no corrections I will take his word for it. That is fair.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker-



Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who has the
floor?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend has sent over to me is not a transcript of the reporter's notes at all, but is something that his typist has prepared for him. Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to say one word further? I did make some changes in my speech- changes that are ordinarily made by members in their speeches-and to the best of my judgment I put my remarks in the words in which I expressed them. There was such a hubbub in the House at the time I was speaking that the reporter did not put in the form of a question what I had stated in that form.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will send back the notes that he refuses to look over? I am simply stating the fact, that this is an exact copy of the original transcript of the notes, with the changes marked thereon. My hon. friend says that he did not make those changes. X am bound to accept his word. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that whoever did make those changes was indeed trespassing very seriously upon the customs and the high privileges of this House.
Let me give my hon. friend very briefly some of the results of the seeds of dissension that he sowed. Let him remember that the Prime Minister categorically denied those statements. The hon. member gave them to the House, based upon a .foundationless rumour which he seized with avidity and dragged into this debate, and already the result is the sowing of racial and religious prejudice throughout the country. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) who is associated with Le Canada will find on the front page of his paper this article-but before I quote it I would appeal to such hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec as the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland)- if he were in his seat, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil)-hon. gentlemen who have been in this House for many years, and I would ask them if they have ever known me during my twelve years as a member to utter one single sentence derogatory of the Province of Quebec? They never have. I appreciate the high stand they take usually. But what I deplore is this report, based upon the statement of a leader of a political group, which is sent broadcast 
throughout the province of Quebec, and can only result in perpetuating the lack of understanding between the two races. This is the article in Le Canada of May 18, 1921:
A Good Subject for Meditation by the Electors of Yamaska
What will the electors of Yamaska think when they learn that the candidate of Mr. Meighen in York-iSunbury has declared on all his platforms that he refuses the support of the Catholic electorate. Can it be that Dr. J. W. Edwards, member for Erontenac, has inspired Mr. Meighen's candidate?
The Honourable Mr. Crerar practically stated in his speech on the Budget yesterday that Mr. Meighen's candidate is fighting his election in York-Sunbury upon the backs of the Catholics.
From a despatch of the Canadian Press we extract the following statements of Hon. Mr. Crerar in the Chamber yesterday:
And this is the extract:
In York-Sunbury, declared Mr. Crerar, the candidate of my hon. friend, Mr. Meighen, stated to the Protestants of the county: "I do not wish the support of Catholics. Are you going to vote for the man whom the Catholics are voting for?"
Then it completes the extract from the hon. member's speech. My hon. friend comes from the broad West where we have no religious distinctions, and yet seizing upon an idle and false rumour he brings it into the debate and by hurling it across the floor at the Prime Minister, succeeds in getting it into Yamaska, where it is calculated to defeat the Government's candidate. Moreover, it is a reflection upon an honourable citizen, Mr. Hanson. The Prime Minister wired to Mr. Hanson:
Mr. Crerar stated in Parliament yesterday that you were saying privately to the Protestants of the constituency that you did not want any Caholic support and asking them if they were going to vote for a man for whom the Catholics are voting. Please wire me the facts as to this.
To this Mr. Hanson replied:
Statements made by Mr. Crerar as to my attitude towards Catholic vote are entirely without foundation in fact. Would esteem it great favour if you would give my absolute and unqualified denial to same.
Now, let me tell the hon. gentleman just exactly how Mr. Hanson has treated his candidate. On platform after platform Mr. Hanson has stated that he had known his opponent for eighteen years and considers him one of the most honourable men in the province. Mr. Hanson has eulogized the hon.. gentleman's candidate, and this is the treatment we get in return. As I said a moment ago, this is an attempt to stir up, for the advantage of his own candidate in another county, racial and re-

ligious prejudice at the expense of an honourable and respected private citizen.
Now, let me turn to the tariff question. My hon. . friend made certain statements in the House the other day to which I wish to refer briefly. For instance, in denouncing the protective principle in the tariff he said that from 1881 to 1917 the number of agricultural implement factories was reduced from 234 to 90; boot and shoe factories from 4,000 to 185 and woollen factories from 1,994 to 80; and on these figures he based an argument that protection was destroying industry. Let me give to the House briefly some figures in this regard-and this will indicate the unsoundness of the economic arguments of my hon. friend. He poses as an economist, as a super-business man; I am going to show the House and show him that some of his economic arguments have mighty little foundation in fact. In the first place, he quoted from the census book, and what do you think he did? He gave as the figures in respect to woollen factories, the figures which come under the head "Tailors and Tailoring," the number of such institutions in 1881 being given as 1,994. What are the facts? Let us see what the output of these industries has been; that is the real test of the progress of an industry. In 1880 the value of the products of the agricultural implement industry in Canada was $4,400,000; in 1890, it was $9,597,000; in 1919 it was $37,700,000. Let us take woollen goods: in 1880 the value of the output was $8,100,000; in 1900, $7,000,000; in 1919, $27,000,000. That is the extent of the increase which took place under the system of protection. Where, then is my hon. friend's argument? He contends that because there were 1,994 tailor shops in Canada in 1881 and the number of woollen mills is what it is to-day, the whole industry has been going to the bow-wows.
What did the hon. gentleman quote in respect to the boot and shoe industry? Every cobbler shop in Canada. In the figures he gave from the census report he included three boot and shoe factories as operating in Caribou in 1880! In the census report the figures, are given covering all the shoemakers and shoe repairers in Canada, numbering about 4,000. Now here are some of the facts. In 1880 there was capital invested in the boot and shoe industry in Canada amounting to over $6,400,000; in 1900, $11,000,000; in 1918, $33,000,000. The value of the product was as follows: in 1880, $17,000,000; in 1900, $18,000,000; in 1918, $46,000,000. These are the figures that count. The hon. gentleman sought
to base an argument yesterday on the number of boot and shoe factories and stores in 1881 compared with the number to-day and to show that this industry was vanishing under the protective system. I need not go into any further detail on that score.
The hon. gentleman makes an indictment of the agricultural implement industry of Canada, and what is his indictment? It is that they sell cheaper abroad-a contention which is repeated and reiterated time after time and year after year in this House-and that they will not sell their products to the United Grain Growers. I assume that if I can refute my hon. friend's arguments on these two points, his condemnation of the agricultural implement industry is proved to be without foundation. In regard to the first point, I have under my hand a statement signed by the Massey-Harris Company giving the figures with regard to the selling prices of binders, mowers and hay rakes in various countries last year. This document was secured by me some months ago for the purpose of looking into the charge that had been made. Now, these are the figures for 1920, in respect to an 8-foot binder, delivered: Ontario, $286; Regina, $309; Great Britain, $408, on current exchange; Australia, $528; Argentina, $513. Now, let us take the prices for mowers: Ontario, $100; Regina, $105; Great Britain, $166.85; Australia, $170.40; Argentina, $217

the Argentina figures are for payment in gold. Then, these are the prices for a 10-foot dump-rake: Ontario, $58; Regina, $65; Great Britain, $84.55; Australia, $92.40; Argentina, $132. These figures are accurate in every detail, and the Massey-Harris Company make a declaration that they have never under any occasion sold for export at a lower price than that at which they sold in the home market. In the face of these statements, which can be verified at any time, why do my hon. friends persist in maligning and slandering the Canadian agricultural implement industry?


Michael Clark: May I ask my hon. friend a question? He will see that I am seeking the light. Does he mean to indicate his opinion to this House that protected industries in any given country do not sell cheaper abroad?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am making no hypothetical declarations at all. I am giving the exact facts.


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend answer that question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am prepared to debate at any time-I [DOT]would do it now were the occasion opportune-the question of free trade with my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: I would ask my hon. friend another question. What does he mean by dumping?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What do I mean by
dumping?


Michael Clark: Is not that selling cheaper abroad?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is what we mean by dumping; I will give my hon. friend a concrete example.
Mr.. CLARK (Red Deer):	Selling
cheaper abroad.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend be patient and let me answer his question? My hon. friend does not want an answer; he does not like to be answered. So far as dumping is concerned, this is the fact: as regards Canada, it chiefly affects United States and Canadian trade. In the United States they have immense factories with a tremendous market and with a highly organized business; in Canada we have a small market and not such a highly organized business. The large American concern will, for the sake of breaking the Canadian market and breaking the Canadian industry, sell goods in Canada at a loss. That is what is meant by dumping; they have done it and did do it until my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's introduced an anti-dumping law-and they would do it again if my hon. friends came into office and carried out their platform.
My hon. friend has caused me to digress a little from the point with which I was dealing. The second charge made by the hon. member for Marquette against the agricultural implement manufacturers is that they will not sell to the United Grain Growers. The United Grain Growers are a large institution; they sold last year about $6,000,000 worth of goods of various kinds, which I intend to deal with in a moment. It has been stated during this debate that the Canadian implement manufacturers will not sell agricultural implements to the Grain Growers. Well, the Massey-Harris Company-and the same applies to many of the other agricultural implement manufacturers-for a period of sixty years have been building up an organization consisting of repair stations, distribution depots, salesmen, experts to set up binders and other machinery. All over
CMr M. Clark.]
the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, particularly on the prairies, large warehouses have been built, clerical staffs established and a distribution system put into effect, and they have taken a very great pride in the service they render. My hon. friend's company went to that concern and to others, and said to them: We will buy from you if you will sell to us direct from your factory. In other words, they said: If you will put your whole distributing organization out of business we will buy from you-because that would inevitably follow. My hon. friend shakes his head. Does he mean to tell me that that is not the result? Does he mean to tell me that if the Massey-Harris Company sold their machinery to him in all the places where he and his company have storehouses and depots the depots of the Massey-Harris Company would not have to go out of business? Not only would they go out of business, but my hon. friend would not commit himself to handle only Massey-Harris goods; he would handle any goods, and that is his right. Then, where would the Massey-Harris interests go? Who would look after them? This would absolutely ruin their whole system.
I have another thing to say to my hon. friend and to his secretary, Mr. Rice Jones. When he was examined under oath here in 1919, Mr. Rice Jones said: "We handle no binders." "Why do you not handle binders?" They may now, but they did not then. He replied, "Because if we handle binders, we have to keep a man to go out and set them up, because the average farmer does not know how to do that." He would not handle binders because he would have to give service with the sale of the binders. They ask the Massey Harris Company to maintain a great service system, thousands of men throughout Canada selling their binders; but they ask that company to allow them to purchase all other classes of machinery from the factory in Toronto. A more unfair proposition could not be imagined, and my hon. friend has no right whatever to hurl at the manufacturers the statement that they refused to sell to him, because they have never refused to sell to him on reasonable terms.
My hon. friend has another complaint. Not he, perhaps, but many of his party, time after time in this House some years ago, in most doleful tones inveighed against the great lumber combines in the West. How often have we heard them talk about lumber combines. What did they do?

The United Grain Growers' Grain Company, one of the largest institutions in Canada, undertook to set up a saw-mill of their own; they bought a timber limit and they set up a saw-mill, the whole investment, according to my hon. friend, being $850,000. I have under my hand the annual report for 1920 of the United Grain Growers, Limited, and I find that they report for last year a loss of $97,000 on operations, without any charge for capital. With a capital of $850,000, you have an additional charge of 8 per cent or, say $68,000, making a total loss of $165,000. Yet these are the gentlemen who want to run the country. I notice one of the hon. gentlemen angularly opposite laughed in a rather sarcastic manner when I made this statement. Perhaps he will laugh when I read the words in the address of his president at the annual meeting of the United Grain Growers. Who is his president? The address of the president in this little booklet is signed, "T. A. Crerar, president." This is what he says. These are not my words; these are the words given to the shareholders at the annual meeting in December last:
At the end of December, a year ago the operations-
He was dealing with the United Grain Growers Sawmills, Ltd.
-showed a loss of slighly over $97,000, this including several large items written off the books entirely-
I want hon. gentlemen to listen to this. -particularly an expenditure of $14,000 in-cured in building a logging railway, which a change in the plan of operation rendered largely useless.
Would we not have a glorious howl in this House if hon. gentlemen opposite found that the Government had spent $14,000 on a railway which they afterwards found was useless? My hon. friend goes on to say that the investment is $850,000, and proceeds:
It may be recalled that when this enterprise was undertaken it was with a view of getting into a position to Ship carlots of lumber direct to farmers and farmers' associations, reducing thereby the expense of the middleman.
How they keep harping on the middleman! I want the House to follow this and see how they worked this out in practice without the middleman.
It may as well be admitted that this method of operation offers very little promise of success, and your Board is now inclined to the view that iit will be necessary for the company to establish a number of retail yards at suitable points where sufficient promise of success offers.
The eternal cry from that corner of the chamber for the last two years has been: "Do away with the middleman." They come down with a loss of about $100,000 on the operation of their saw-mill, and they say: "We have come to the conclusion that we must put in the retail yard1 or the middleman." It was the fact that private dealers were able to undersell them. Let us see what Mr. Rice Jones says in his report as general manager. This is what he says:
Our Lumber and Builders' Supplies Department have been completely reorganised. With the dropping off in the demand for lumber, it was found impossible to maintain the service which was being given by this department in preparing plans and specifications without incurring a heavy loss. Consequently, the lumber department has been linked up with the supply department and a minimum staff only retained.
And so on. But that is not all. Not only have my hon. friends opposite failed in the transaction, but they show a loss in this statement of $52,000 in 1920 on a turnover of sales of farm machinery and supplies of $6,900,000. The year before they showed a loss of $59,000. It is no wonder that hon. gentlemen will be asking: "Where do they get the money? If they lose on the main transactions in this way, how do they carry on?" I told the House in 1919 how they carried on. They carry on out of the money they get in overages in their elevators. What are these overages? In a book called "Deep Furrows"-and I commend it to any hon. member who wishes to get an inside view of the institution,- this picture is given. It pictures two big bronzed men riding to an elevator with loads of wheat and one man meets the other man. These two men start to talk about the iniquity of the elevator companies. These men were Mr. Motherwell and Mr. Crerar and there started the birth of this great movement. The birth of the movement was to stop the iniquitous dockage by the elevator companies in the Prairie Provinces. They got into the game; they got large subscriptions; they worked up class sentiment as they are doing today. With what result? First they leased an elevator for, I think, $85,000 a year, and out of that elevator year after year they are taking fees amounting to about 13 per. cent on the capital. They get the screenings; but over and above that, they have been getting from dockages of farmers' wheat hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, out of dockages, which I claimed two years ago, were absolutely illegal not only for them but for others. I showed from a report of the Price Waterhouse Company that they were not only

illegal but immoral from the standpoint of business morals and ethics. Out of dockages they got $15,000,000, taken from the pockets of the farmers of the Prairie Provinces over a space of a few years. I put on the Order Paper a resolution asking that this $15,000,000 be paid into the general exchequer of the country by the elevator companies. What did my hon. friends opposite do? Supported by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and other gentlemen, they induced the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) who was then Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, to amend the Grain Act to cover up this nefarious business. Instead of standing by their declared policy of protecting the farmer against dockage, they perpetuated the system; they made it law, so that I think I am not mistaken that last year or the year before they took something like $300,000 in dockages. This is the way in which they make up 'their loss. One year they had a loss of some $80,000 on the Grain Growers' Guide. This was paid out of the farmer's pocket in dockages. "Oh," but they will say-my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) in one case said it-"they are all members of the society." They are nothing of the kind. They buy grain from every farmer they can buy it from, and there are only 45,000 members in the three Prairie Provinces, if I am not mistaken. They buy grain from whoever will sell it to them, and that grain is docked af these elevators, including the ,Grain Growers' elevators, and illegal profits are made by the elevator companies at the expense of the grain growers of the prairies. That is the way they cover up losses made in operations on legitimate business. These are the hon. gentlemen who are asking this country to put them on the treasury benches and into power so that they can carry on the affairs of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is it not a fact that the Government Terminal Elevator at the head of the lakes had had greater overages than any other terminal elevator at that point? If that is true, -has not this Government been defrauding the western farmers?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Because my hon. friend had an amendment made a year or so ago legalizing 1 of 1 per cent dockage. I told this House plainly in 1919 that I considered this whole business of dockage was nothing more or less than stealing from the

farmers of the prairie, and I hold the same view to-day. I hold further that this House was not well a'dvised when it put through that amendment at the request of my hon. friend the leader of the Agrarian party and his supporters in the House. It is a complete reversal of their policy, an absolute abandonment of their principles, and all the purpose it serves is to cover up losses in other branches of the company's operations. If that privilege of deducting dockage from the farmers were taken away, the whole institution would fall like a pack of cards. I have detained the House much longer than I have intended, but interruptions have made it necessary for me to continue a short while longer.
The Government proposals in this Budget are very simple. Certain increases are proposed in internal taxation. My hon. friends opposite say that this bears heavily on the poor man. If they would examine these proposals, they would find that the heaviest increase is in the tax on spirits. Now I do not know that any one is worrying about the poor man's spirits; I do not think the poor man is himself. Food is exempt very largely, with the exception of package food. We expect to get our revenue from customs, excise, post office, and from other sources. My hon. friends directly opposite and my hon. friends angularly opposite have proposed to cut off a very serious amount of the customs tariff, and they offer to this House absolutely nothing in the place thereof. We stand on a clear-cut definite policy of a tariff of moderate protection, to the extent that is necessary to maintain the industries in Canada in a state of prosperity. That is a simple clear proposition; that is where we stand, and where we propose to stand. My hon. friends opposite talk about direct taxation, but in all the years they have been there they have not offered one single proposal of a new internal or excise tax except one and that is a tax on the unimproved value of land. I must take a moment to speak on that.
My hon. friend the leader of the Agrarian party proposed it again the other day. What does he mean by a tax on the unimproved value of land? He did not explain the tax the other day; he skated all round it, but did not explain it. According to his platform, which I have here, it means a tax on land in Canada with improvement exempt. If you have a tax of that kind, the farmers of this country will pay a very large portion of it-and perhaps that would be as well. My hon. friend

gave an illustration of what he means by a tax on land, and I saw at once what he was driving at. He was trying to show the farmers of the West that if he and his friends came into office he would put the tax on the cities. His illustration was this: There are two lots owned by one man. The man builds an apartment house on one lot, while the other lot is vacant. He said that by the building of that apartment house you increased the value of the vacant lot, and what we mean to tax, he said, is the increased value of that vacant lot. Now that is taxing the unearned increment, and not the unimproved value of the land. My hon. friend is mixed in his definitions in these various matters that he undertakes to explain with such profound authority. I repeat, that is taxing the unearned increment, and not taxing in any sense the unimproved value of the land. My hon. friend will probably say:	We intend to
tax the unimproved wild lands. How much does he expect to get from taxing the wild lands in 'Canada? It is a joke. The estimate of the best actuaries in Canada is that a 1 per cent tax on all the lands in Canada, exclusive of improvements- and that is their proposal-would bring in $80,000,000. Who would stand for a tax on all the lands in Canada? The first people would be the hon. gentleman's own followers. How many cities in Canada can stand an additional tax on land? We' tried a tax on unimproved land in Vancouver; that is, we exempted all improvements; it pretty nearly ruined the exchequer of the city of Vancouver, and we had to go back to a tax on improvements. The same thing has been tried in Alberta. Those who have tried it anywhere know the fallacy of the whole suggestion. In any case we have the municipal and provincial authorities, and this is a field of taxation which is exclusively theirs, perhaps not constitutionally, but certainly by practice. When my hon. friend seeks to pull the wool over the eyes of his followers on the prairies, he and they will have a sad awakening if the day comes when my hon. friends angularly opposite will be responsible for putting that tax in operation.
I want to make one further reference, and it is to a matter altogether apart from these debatable and controversial subjects. I refer to the appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington. I confess to the House that my mind perhaps was not so nimble as that of the hon. member
for Durham (Mr. Rowell), nor was I so well informed in international affairs as the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), both of whom have so ably put this matter before the House. After thinking the matter over carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the Government should not delay longer in appointing a Canadian representative at Washington, and I will tell the House why. The matter is of supreme importance, and I think that I should not lose this opportunity of making a reference to it. My reason for desiring this appointment to be made without delay is that there never was a time in the history of the world when things were in such a precarious condition as they are in today. The League of Nations has been formed, it is true, and I think we all hope that the League of Nations may prosper, but we all recognize the difficulties of diverse nations, races, views, and interests, getting together in the form of a League of Nations. I think we all will agree on this also, that the commonwealth of the British Empire, this group of autonomous nations within one Empire, together with the great republic to the south, would form a magnificent foundation for a permanent league of nations. While there are those who are. endeavouring to cause division and differences between the Mother Land and the United States, I think Canada is peculiarly fitted geographically and by the genius of her people to bring together the Mother Land and the United States. Some hon. gentlemen may say:	Let us do it by
friendly commercial treaty or commercial arrangement. I say that the people of the United States are not concerned so much about our fiscal policy, any more than we are particularly concerned about theirs, except in a general way. What they are really concerned about, and what we are really concerned about, is the soul of the people, what we think of each, other, and we know this:	In all our aspirations and
ambitions the United States and Canada think very, very closely alike, and we can interpret, I think, in a manner that no other nation can the views of the United States to the Mother Land and the views; of the Mother Land to the United States. So I say to the Government, in conclusion, that in my judgment, they should hasten to fill this post at Washington so that Canada may fulfil the high destiny to which she is called.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman who has just resumed



S636 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
his seat (Mr. Stevens), has re-affirmed his belief in protection as the correct fiscal policy for this country. My hon. friend will absolve me from the slightest intention of giving any offence if I say that the speech which he has made to-night will not change a single vote in this House; but, Mr. Speaker, that statement could not, with the same truth, be made with reference to the possible effect of the hon. gentleman's speech outside this House. And I will tell you why. A few months ago th^ hon. gentleman had charge of the Government campaign in the then Tory riding of West Peterborough. At different points in that riding the hon. gentleman made protectionist speeches precisely similar to the one to which you have just listened. And, Sir, what was the result? The people went forth from his meetings, there and then they left the ranks of the Tory party, they ranged themselves in solid array against the Tory candidate, and on election day they declared, by an overwhelming majority of their votes, that they did not believe in the fiscal doctrines preached by the hon. member for Vancouver and that they desired to be represented in this House, not by the Tory candidate, but by the hon. gentleman who now sits here as the Liberal member for West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon). In view of that result, Sir, you will understand that it may be regarded as not improbable that the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman to-night in this House will have an effect outside of this House the very reverse of that which it may produce here, but, one that will be exactly in line with the result of his speeches in the riding of West Peterborough.
Now, the hon. gentleman, in the course of his remarks, paid a good deal of attention to the speech delivered by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, a speech, Mr. Speaker, which in point of vigour, logic, and comprehensive grasp of present conditions in Canada, has not, I venture to say without fear of contradiction, been surpassed in this debate. The member for Vancouver was very wrathy at my hon. leader for having dared to say that this Government is the child of the invisible power known as the big interests. Then he went on to challenge my hon. leader to name those interests. Well, if my hon. leader means the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and if my hon. friend from Vancouver also means the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, then, 
Sir, before I resume my seat, I shall have proved that this Government is beyond question the creature of that organization, and I will defy any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to gainsay the fact.
Then the hon. gentleman dealt with the leader of the Opposition's criticism of the railways owned by the Government, and of the personnel and the operations of the Government Board of Railway Directors. In that connection, the hon. gentleman said that there was no objection to bringing down in this House the fullest possible information with reference to the railways and to the Board of Directors. Well, Mr. Speaker, if your memory does not altogether fail you, that must have struck you as a very strange observation, coming from the hon. member in view of the fact that it is only a few weeks ago since a resolution moved from this side of the House, asking for just that kind of information, was voted down by hon. gentlemen opposite, including the member for Vancouver himself.
The hon. member also discussed what the leader of the Opposition had said with reference to the loans made to Roumania and Greece, and he waxed eloquent on that point. Pie declared that the contracts were not let by this Government, but were let in Paris. My hon. friend, if he desired to carry complete conviction to the members of the House, and to the public outside the House, did not go far enough. Possibly-possibly, I say, Mr. Speaker,- the contracts were let in Paris; but if my hon. friend desired the hon. gentlemen sitting on this side to believe that no gentleman interested in this Government, or very close to the members of the Cabinet, had anything to do with the letting of those contracts in Paris, then he should have gone on and told the House where a gentleman named Sifton-Sir Clifford Sifton- was, about the time these contracts were being let. He should also have gone on and informed the members of the House where a few other eminent Canadian captains of industry were about the same time. Had he done that, Mr. Speaker, he would have given to the House complete and unanswerable proof of the correctness of the statements made this afternoon by the leader of the Opposition.
My hon. friend echoed a complaint upon which those who are in the tadpole stage of politics have been very eloquent during recent months. My hon, friend, .if course, has long since emerged from that

stage. He complained that the leader of the Opposition had not moved his tariff platform, because he was afraid to put the party on record with reference to that platform. Mr. Speaker, how often is it necessary for us to go on record with reference to that platform? This party,-if it is to us on this side of the House that the hon. member was referring-were members of the convention that made and adopted that platform. This party voted for that platform. So that these statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite and by their friends throughout the country consist of the merest nonsense. This platform, after having been formally adopted at the great National
11	p.m. Liberal convention, by representatives of the whole Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada, is not, Sir, to be submitted to the House unless it were intended to trifle with the House and to waste its time. This platform is intended to be submitted to the whole people of Canada at the next general election, and when it is thus submitted to the entire electorate of the country, we on this side of the House have no doubt of the overwhelming majority of the people approving that platform. Then my hon. friend went on to censure the leader of the Opposition because of criticism offered by that hon. gentleman in regard to the Government's failure to bring down a measure of tariff reform. The hon. member for Vancouver said-and I took down his words-that it was "asinine to bring down a tariff measure now." Well, the only comment that I need make upon that, Mr. Speaker, is that, adopting the language of my hon. friend, the Government were asinine in saying in the speech from the Throne that they were going to bring down a measure of tariff reform. The language is not mine. The language is that of my hon. friend and I thank him for it. Applied to the Government it is most appropriate.
Then my hon. friend took up a statement made by the leader of the Opposition that the people should govern, and with a display of what he seemed to regard as cleverness he asked who rejected reciprocity? The answer, of course, is, the people rejected it. But, Sir, may I call the hon. gentlemen's attention to the fact that the party of which he is a member, and which he so consistently supports, have paid little or no attention to the will of the people as expressed with reference to that measure, because they have taken good care to grant piece-meal what our party proposed to grant at one time by a single piece of legislation. And, Sir, in this connection, as differentiating the two parties and marking the essential and eternal difference between Liberalism and Toryism, it must be remembered that had our late distinguished leader so willed it the reciprocity measure could have been put through Parliament by the adoption of closure but he said:	No, we do not believe in coercion. We will not put this measure through by such means. We will never adopt closure while we are in power in this country. That, Sir, is a feature of the matter which should not be overlooked, and I mention it in case my hon. friend should have occasion to refer to the subject again.
Then the hon. gentleman directed his attention to my hon. friend the member for Marquette. He criticised him in rather severe terms and he challenged what my hon. friend had said with reference to the kind of canvass that is going on down in the constituency of York-Sunbury. He disputed the statement made the other day that the electors there are being asked to vote for the Government candidate on the ground that the Catholics are supporting the farmer candidate. In support of the denial of that statement by the Prime Minister the hon. gentleman read a telegram from the Tory candidate in the county of York-Sunbury. On that aspect of the dispute I do not wish to make any further observation. But the hon. gentleman also challenged the statement of the hon. member for Marquette with reference to an offer having been made to the Hon. P. J. Veniot, the Catholic representative in the Government of New Brunswick, to become a member of this Cabinet. The hon. gentleman laid much stress on the fact that the Prime Minister had categorically denied that statement, and he evoked the cheers of those around him by denouncing the hon. member for Marquette for having made it. Well, Sir, it happens that at this moment I am in a position to settle the dispute upon that point; and if I make no other contribution to the debate than the one that I am just about to make, then in all modesty I may aver that I will have rendered a public service to this country at the present time. The hon. member cited the denial of his leader that any offer had been made to the Hon. P. J. Veniot to become a member of this Government. Well, Sir, it so happens that the Canadian Press despatches to-day carry an article giving an interview with Mr. COMMONS
Veniot, the man whom the hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will admit is the man best qualified to tell what did take place with reference to the question under discussion. This is the article:
St. John, N.B., May, 19.
In reference to the claim of Hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of the Progressive in the House of Commons last Tuesday that Premier Meighen or his agents had approached "the Catholic Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick Hon. (P. J. Veniot), with a view to his coming into the Government," and Mr. Meighen's denial that any such offer had been made by him, or w-ith his authority, Mr. Veniot is quoted in a special despatch to-day as stating:
"I would have preferred, not to have discussed this matter, but in view of Premier Meighen's statement and the attempt made by the Conservative press to leave the impression that I sought the position instead of the position me, I feel, in justice to myself and my friends, I should break the silence maintained by me since first I was approached in December last with the request that I consider an offer to enter the Meighen Cabinet."
"Let me first say that I had no part in giving information on which certain questions asked in the House of Commons were based. I never authorized the use of my name in this connection."
"In view of all that has taken place in connection with this matter, I am, to say the least, surprised at the statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister in the House on Tuesday last, when he left the impression that he knew absolutely nothing about any overtures made to me."
"The person who made the overtures to me presented to me a letter addressed to him and signed by Premier Meighen.
This letter showed that the Premier was in close touch with the situation, and, further, I may say that a certain other Cabinet Minister also wrote to this same person. It is scarcely necessary to add that the party who made the overtures is a strong and influential Conservative."
"I never sought the position, and my reply, dated January 11, 1921, can be produced to prove this when the proper time arrives. Should I ever aspire to fundamental"-
Evidently the word "fundamental" is a mistake.
-"honours, I would not attempt to obtain such honours, by a base betrayal of my Liberal principles and the friends with whom I have been politically associated during the last thirty-five years. I still have faith in the grand old Liberal Party, and that faith cannot be shaken by any offers made by Premier Meighen and his friends."
George Green Foster: May I ask
my hon. friend a question? My hon. friend has read a letter of which I did not hear the whole, but the purport of which, if I understand it, is that Premier Meighen authorized some one to approach the gentleman who is referred to with an offer of a position in the Cabinet. Is that the purport of the letter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it again.


Charles Murphy: I have no objection to
my hon. friend asking a question, but in reply to his question I just want to say that I prefer not to be interrupted in my speech, and that this despatch-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Murphy: I want to see who is
laughing, because I can change that laugh in half a minute.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will be changed
pretty soon.


An hon. MEMBER:: "The loud laugh
denotes the vacant mind."


Charles Murphy: The despatch I have
read tells exactly what was done in the language of Mr. Veniot and my hon. friend can see it for himself. Now on this point this document, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the hon. gentleman read the letter. I have not heard it and I would be glad indeed if he would read it?


Charles Murphy: I have read the
despatch; the hon. gentleman was not in the House at the time. I desire to make some extended observations and I do not care to read it again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Murphy: I intend no discourtesy to the right hon. gentleman. It is not my fault that the right hon. gentleman was not here. He should have been here.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman refuse to read it in my hearing?


Charles Murphy: No, I do not refuse to read Mr. Veniot's interview in the right hon. gentleman's hearing. That is not my reason for refusing to read it again. I have already read it, and the right hon gentleman should have been in his place to hear it.
In the course of this debate there have been various references to the right hon. gentleman's speech delivered a few days ago in this House. It was not my privilege to hear the right hon. gentleman, so I have been obliged to form my opinion of his speech by reading it, by hearing opin ions expressed about it, and by listening to a discussion of it here in the House. This afternoon my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition stated that in his opinion the lengthy speech of the right hon. gentleman in its duration of two and one-half hours did not contain a single human note. My impression is, Sir, that that is a correct

description of the speech. It might have been an appropriate speech for the right hon. gentleman to deliver a few years ago when he was the chief slugger of the Borden Administration, but I submit it was not the kind of speech that we have a right to expect from the Prime Minister of Canada. I say, further, Sir, that there was neither dignity nor leadership in the speech, and that it was remarkable mostly for-


An hon. MEMBER:: Slugging.


Charles Murphy: -for what it omitted rather than for what it contained. The right hon. gentleman devoted almost his entire time to an attack on members of the Opposition; but he had nothing to say about the question of unemployment or the remedy for it; he had nothing to say about the high cost of living or a measure of relief to reduce it; he had nothing to say about curbing public expenditures; nor had he anything to say about any policy to increase Canada's fexport trade.
Possibly, Sir, we have the key to the last omission in a report that appeared in this morning's Citizen, giving the substance of a speech delivered at Toronto 'last evening by Mr. Lloyd Harris, a friend of this Government and a gentleman who has occupied a very prominent place in the business life of this country. The despatch is as follows:
Toronto, May 18th, Lloyd Harris, former Canadian Trade Commissioner, addressing the Canadian Confectionery, Biscuit and Chocolate Manufacturers at a banquet tonight which concluded the annual convention of the organization, said: "Canada's export trade in Great Britain was suffering because of our present political system. The Government is so inefficient," he said, "that it has less business understanding than a boy in the street."
And strangely enough, Sir, on the very day that the report of that speech appears there is given ocular demonstration to the members of this House and to visitors in the gallery that this business inefficiency even extends to the length of its being impossible for the Government to put two clocks on the walls of this chamber that will both tell the same time! As you will observe one is 10 minutes ahead of the other. And on the point of Government inefficiency it may also be observed that while my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) did not specifically mention it, it may be assumed that he had Mr. Lloyd Harris' words in his mind when he strongly urged the Government to disregard the opinions of the hon. member for Durham
(Mr. Rowell) and the right hon. member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), and to hurry up and appoint a trade commissioner at Washington.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not improbable that my opinion of the Budget, which has been more or less under discussion in this House for the past ten days, might be conjectured with a fair degree of accuracy, even if I refrained from giving expression to my views on the subject. However that may be, I deem it a duty that I owe to Parliament, to my constituents and to the country at large that I should state briefly and plainly what my position is, and at the same time make known the reasons for the vote that I intend to give upon the amendment that has been moved by my colleague the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
To the merest tyro in politics it is as clear as the noonday sun that this Budget was born of the necessities of the Government. In the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session, as has been frequently said, a revision of the tariff was promised, but now when the Budget is brought down near the end of the session it does not contain the promised revision, and we are told that there will not be any revision of the tariff for some time to come. In other words, the Budget is the makeshift product of a makeshift government. For that very reason it has given fresh stimulus to the commercial unrest that a comprehensive and stable policy would be a prime factor in removing. Already merchants are protesting against some of its features that, in their application, are held to be injurious to the normal and proper conduct of business, and it is certain that as time passes this feeling will increase in intensity, just as the feeling against the luxury tax did, so that nobody need be surprised to see the Minister of Finance again recede from his position as he did on a former occasion. There can be no doubt, Sir, that, like the policeman in Gilbert and Sullivan's opera, the Finance Minister's lot "is not a happy one." Indeed, on this side of the House we should be disposed to extend greater sympathy to him if he had not given us such abundant proof that he is mentally constituted like the great majority of children, some women, and a considerable number of men, who do not realize the danger of certain tasks that they attempt.
Opposition members have sought to impress upon the Minister of Finance, the futility of trying to re-establish equili-

brium in our national business affairs by piling taxes upon taxes while useless expenditure goes on unchecked.
On that point I want to add a word.
It is true that the Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues in the Government preach economy, but, Sir, it is truer still that they do not practise economy. There has been a carnival of unnecessary expenditure in connection with the railways, the merchant marine, the militia, and the transfer of the mounted police froni their natural and useful field of action in the West to an unnatural and an indefensibly expensive field of inaction in the East. Added tto all this there have been new and 'hitherto unheard of schemes invented to spend public moneys, such as the housing scheme and the jobs created for and the financial rewards given to, scores upon scores of so-called Liberals who deserted their party in 1917. The net result is that no matter what amount may be raised by taxation, a large portion of it is put to uses from Which the public as a whole derives no benefit whatever.
Dealing with this subject, the Toronto Globe in an editorial published a few months ago said:
At a time when Britain has been cancelling debt at the rate of almost a hundred million dollars a month Canada is barely holding the net debt down to the figures shown at the completion of demobilization. The need for thrift in the various departments of the national service was never more urgent than it is to-day. There is no justification for the spending of public money at the rate of over $360,000,000 a year, even though that vast sum includes interest and sinking fund on the national debt. The Canadian people cannot stand taxation of almost $40 per year for every man, woman and child in the country. The load is intolerably great.
In view of the official figures, Sir, that have been made public since the editorial from which I have just quoted was written, the statement of the Globe has even greater weight to-day than it had when it was published a few months ago. But having regard to the forces behind this Government, it is, I fear, too much to expect that they will practice economy even if they desired to do so.
As a contrast, Mr. Speaker, with what has been their practice I am reminded of an incident that was told me to illustrate the spirit of thrift that animated Mr. Gladstone, the greatest of British statesmen.
A few* years ago Mr. Lloyd George was showing me over the premises in Downing Street which he then occupied as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He directed my attention to a small plot of bare ground,

possibly about fifty feet square, forming part of the government property immediately in the rear of his official residence. With a smile, he told me that Mr. Gladstone when Chancellor of the Exchequer had occasion to point out the same plot of ground to a friend and that the friend had suggested that it should be graded and sodded. Mr. Gladstone instantly turned and said: Sir, where is the money to come from? Merely to recall the incident, Mr. Speaker, is to illustrate, without any comment of mine, how sadly Mr. Gladstone would be out of place as a member of the present Government of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen who have preceded me on this side of the House have discussed the Government's Budget and its tax proposals in such detail that at this stage of the debate I do not think that anything could profitably be added to what they have said if I were to discuss any special features of the Government's policy. I will, therefore, confine my observations to a brief review of the tariff position taken by some hon. gentlemen opposite and then to an exposure of a few of the methods adopted by protectionists to attain their chief object is life, namely the fleecing of the Canadian public.
The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) who, I hope, is in the chamber at .the moment, in his several tariff speeches during the present session paid a good deal of attention to the Opposition, and their attitude towards the tariff seemed to disturb my hon. friend. Well, Sir, as I listened to the hon. gentleman the thought occurred to me that what was really troubling him was not the present tariff attitude of the Opposition but the ghosts of some of his own former speeches on the tariff. In times past,. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman took a very different attitude with regard to the tariff from that which he has recently taken in this House. I do not propose to go over all the tariff pronouncements made by my hon. friend, but, with perfect fairness to him I can indicate by a few references just where he stood upon the tariff a very short time ago and what he thought about the Government that then advocated a brand of protection similar to that which is advocated by the Government of which he is now a member.
When the Bill introduced by the Borden Government for the purpose of creating a tariff commission was under discussion in this House in February, 1912, the hon. gentleman took very strong exception to it.

After having described the Bill as "nothing more nor less than a cheap Yankee device of the Finance Minister copied from the United States, a device notoriously invented hy the high protectionist party in the United States," and having further alleged that the Bill was " intended to sustain the glorious doctrine of protection," the hon. gentleman let in the light on his present political associates in a few biting sentences. They may be found on page 2604 of Hansard of 1912. They were as follows:
This Bill cannot be said to be original in any respect. There are only two or three countries,
I believe, in the world-only two or three at all events, of which I know-which have adopted tariff commissions and it is a strange thing that the countries which have adopted this method of procedure are the highest protected countries in the world. A tariff commission board seems to be a necessary adjunct to the high protective system, and I do not think I am going one jot beyond the truth when X say that this Bill is brought in here-almost the first important Bill of the the first session of this Parliament-as a quid pro quo for the Canadian manufacturers'. Association to redeem the promises made to them for their generous and lavish support during the election on the 21st day of September last.
Having thus exposed how his present bedfellows proposed to reward their benefactors, the hon. gentleman declared that "the farmers of Ontario are .not high protectionists," and then, having stated his own position in these words: "A tariff for revenue affords enough protection in my community and, in my opinion, it is sufficient"-the hon. gentleman wound up his excellent speech by moving that the Bill be given the six months' hoist.
Now Sir, the position taken on the occasion to which I have just referred by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was a fairly advanced position, but he made still greater progress toward freedom of trade during the following twelve months.
It will he remembered that there was a by-election in the constituency of South Bruce in the month of October, 1913. The hon. gentleman took part in that byelection and he delivered a number of stirring speeches in behalf of the successful Liberal candidate, the hon. member who at present represents South Bruce (Mr. Truax) in this chamber. One of the meetings that was addressed hy the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was held at Walkerton on October 23, 1913. At that meeting a speech was delivered in support of the Tory candidate by the present right hon. Prime Minister. It fell to the lot of my hon. friend, who is now a
colleague of the Prime Minister, to reply to the latter on that occasion, and from the report of his speech published in the Toronto Globe on October 24, 1913, I take the following paragraphs:
Kvery day since the present Government assumed office the cost of living had been increasing. Prices were being held up by the trusts and combines. There was a call in the country for a Government that was strong enough to break the flour combine, the canners' combine and the packers' combine.
We want a Government that is strong enough to go to these people and say that the cost of living must be reduced. I will stand up in the House of Commons, or :n the country, for free food for the people of Canada. Where was Mr. Meighen, too. on the duty on agricultural implements? He had moved a resolution in the House of Commons to have the duty on farming machinery reduced, but now that he was in the Government nothing was heard of it.
I call upon the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) to redeem the public promise that he made in the riding of South Bruce in the year 1913. I call upon him to stand up in this House and demand free food for the people of Canada. If he does not do so then out of his own, mouth will he stand condemned; and hy that broken pledge rather than hy any mandate from the people, will he justify his continuing to hold a portfolio in this Cabinet of broken pledges.
During the past year the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) has made a number of speeches on the tariff in the country and in Parliament. His most recent speech on this subject was made in this debate a few days ago. In all his speeches the hon. gentleman has assumed a critical attitude towards the Liberal party and, stated in general terms, his position has been that he supported the tariff policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; that the Liberal party has abandoned that policy and substituted another which is not the one which Sir Wilfrid advocated, and that in consequence, the hon. gentleman cannot support the Liberal party. Now, Sir, let us examine these assertions.
Granting that the hon. gentleman supported the Liberal tariff policy down to the year 1911, I contend that his support of that policy ceased in that year. Recently I had occasion to read a list of names of certain Liberals in Montreal who opposed their party on the reciprocity issue in 1911. Included in the list there is a gentleman named Ballantyne, and upon making inquiry I was told by Montreal friends that the gentleman who is thus designated and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are one and the same person. That being so, it is evident that the hon. gentleman

broke with his party on the tariff issue in 1911 and that on fiscal matters he was not, from that time on, a follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Therefore, I cannot admit the claim set up by the hon. gentleman, based on the incorrect statement, that he was a consistent follower of Sir Wilfrid's tariff policy.
Now let us examine the other branch of his statement that the present tariff policy of the Liberal party is not the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that it is a substitute for the one advocated by the late leader of the Liberal party.
In the House of Commons on May 23, 1917, the Hon. Frank Oliver moved, and Mr. F. B. Carvell, then member for Carleton, N.B., seconded this resolution:
1.	That, wheat, wheat flour and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining-, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repa'rs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour) domestic animals- and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of, any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
Upon reference to the Parliamentary records of the date mentioned, it will be found that Sir Wilfrid Laurier supported and voted for the resolution that I have just read. That resolution, therefore, embodies Sir Wilfrid's tariff policy on May 23, 1917.
Later on in the year 1917, in his election address of November of that year, Sir Wilfrid Laurier thus defined his position on the tariff:
In further mitigation of disadvantages to agricultural production, I would immediately remove the duties on agricultural implements and other essentials, as demanded by the western farmers. A general well-considered reform of the tariff for the purpose of helping Canadian production and relieving the Canadian consumer would also be an object of my administration.
These words make it plain that at the end of 1917 Sir Wilfrid stood on the same tariff platform as he had advocated earlier in that year.
The last public address delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was his speech at the convention of the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association on January 14, 1919, just about a month before he died. The convention

had adopted a comprehensive tariff resolution summarizing the Liberal party's record from 1893 to 1919, and declaring for a downward tariff revision in accordance with the resolution moved by Mr. Oliver and seconded by Mr. Carvell in the House on May 23, 1917, and in expressing his approval of the action of the convention, Sir Wilfrid spoke as follows:
In the resolution which was passed upon this subject at the convention of 1893, we declared against the principle of protection, and when we had the opportunity we lived up to our declaration. Sir, it has always been made a cause of reproach to us that when in office we did not adopt but were recreant to our declarations. Such a reproach cannot reach us. We were not recreant, we proceeded step by' step towards the goal, always keeping it in view, never imposing a duty for protection's sake only, but always acting upon the principle or the basis of a tariff for revenue and revenue only. This was our policy in the past, it is our policy to-day and we have taken this occasion to reaffirm it. Sir, as I have already told you, the reproach is made to us that we were recreant to our declarations, to our policy. This reproach is well rebuked already by the declaration which you have passed this afternoon, reciting what we have done, reciting the many articles which we placed upon the free list, and reciting the many articles upon which we made a reduction of duty. But there are two features especially of our policy which will stand at all events, one will stand forever, and the other will soon be restored, I believe. The first policy which we affirmed upon succeeding to office was the policy of a British preference.
Then, after giving the details of the different stages in connection with the several increases of the British preference, Sir Wilfrid proceeded:
This was done in spite of all the opposition of the Conservative party.
And I might interrupt the reading of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech at this point by recalling that the hon. member for Vancouver, when he was speaking a little earlier this evening, said that, when there was any question of trading with Great Britain, that touched hon. gentlemen opposite on a tender Spot. There can not have been much tenderness in that spot when the Liberal party introduced the British preference because, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier says, we adopted it "in spite of all the opposition of the Conservative party." Sir Wilfrid continued:
And upon what ground was their objectioi based? t Simply upon the ground that we should have exacted preference for preference, that if we gave preference to the goods of Great Britain, that country should give us the preference for our goods. That was not our policy. We said: "No, we are not going to bargain with the Mother Country upon matters of that kind. We do it because we are British subjects, and because we believe in the principles of free trade. We believe

also that it is for the good of the Canadian people that we should adopt that policy, and by that policy we stand to-day also. In your resolution your affirm that the black eye which was given by the present Government three years ago should be removed, and, Sir, if it is in our power to do so, we shall do so. At all events, we shall take the opportunity to bring the matter before Parliament at the next session."
Then a little later on in the same speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier dealt with the subject of reciprocity, and he said:
Sir, there was another feature of our policy another attempt that we made at freer trade- this time not with Great Britain, but with oui neighbours, the American people. .	.	. Bet
me say here that if ever there was a polioy which would have been beneficial to the Canadian people, it was the agreement which was made between iMr. Fielding and the Government of IMr. Taft.
However, that policy was defeated. It was met with the cry, of "no truck or trade with the Yankees,'' Which was stupidity itself, and I am sorry to say they carried the country with it. But, Sir, revenge is sweet at all times, sweet even to me who profess to be a good Christian. Revenge is sweet, and do you know *why? My revenge is in the attitude of the Conservative party who have proclaimed no truck or trade with the Yankees, and yet had to go to Washington, reluctantly, I admit, very reluctantly, but under the threat of the western farmers, who were asking for free wheat with the Americans, they had to go-the consequence is that to-day we have free wheat. But that is not all. They had to make another advance to the Americans, not for the farmers of the West this time, but for the farmers of the East. The growers of potatoes in Prince Edward Island and in New Brunswick made demands, and so those in power had to adopt the American offer of free potatoes; and so to-day the potatoes raised by eastern growers are free in the American market. There was still another step, and this one was taken, not by adopting the Washington legislation, but simply by action at Ottawa. They gave free tractors to the farmers of the West, this action being taken by Order in Council. I had no objection to such Order in Council. I would almost forgive them the others if they would pass more of this kind.
Now, what do these piece-meal advances in reciprocity mean? They are simply an admission that these people were acting stupidly- to pu-t it no stronger than that-when they refused the offer made by the Americans of extended free trade with them. If there ever was anything stupid in the world surely it was the action of the Conservatives in 1911, in declaring that we Canadians, numbering less than 8,000,000 of people, should refuse to trade with the wealthiest nation on earth to-day, the American people.
He concluded that branch of his address with these words:
Of course, they have the satisfaction of having won office upon the stupid anti-reciprocity cry, but better lose ten times over than triumph by such methods as that. For we know that if there is one thing which, more than any other is conducive to good relations between
nation and nation it is trade. And, though our commercial relations with our neighbours have not been as free or as friendly as I would like to have them, and though we lost a great opportunity in 1911 to make them more friendly than they were, still, thank Heaven, we have the satisfaction of knowing that for over a hundred years we have had no war with our American neighbours. That is a great triumph.
There, Sir, you have in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's own words his dying message as it were on the subject of the tariff. Now, after that, what did the Liberal party do? Did it, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries claims, depart from the position taken by Sir Wilfrid and substitute another policy for his? It did nothing of the kind. At a great National Convention-such a convention, Mr. Speaker, by the way, as the Tories have never had the courage to hold -the Liberal party affirmed the policy which Sir Wilfrid had advocated by voice and vote, and it did so in a resolution whose terms are practically identical with those of the resolutions supported by Sir Wilfrid in 1917 and in January 1919. So that there may be no doubt on that point, I will read the resolution adopted by the National Liberal Convention in August 1919. It is as follows:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of Customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: First: diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; Second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food: farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers should be free from Customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general .consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 56 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal Party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
Now if the language of that resolution be compared with the resolutions publicly supported by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917 and in January 1919, it will be found that the Liberal party to-day stands exactly

where Sir Wilfrid stood up to the last hour of his life; and if my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wants to see those who have abandoned the tariff policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, let him look first at the seats around him on his own side of the House, and then if he desire to complete the survey, let him look in his own mirror. Therefore, I say, let us hear no more of the silly talk that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries indulges in when he says that he follows the tariff policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that we of the Liberal party have abandoned it.
Here let me interject, Mr. Speaker, an observation based on the presence in the Liberal party's tariff platform of a declaration in favour of increasing the British preference fifty per cent. Every time that is mentioned by anybody on this side of the House, up jumps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and asks:	Do you
mean that? I have been wondering, Sir, whether the physical agility which the mention of that phrase, British preference, imparts to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has any relation to the fact that British manufacturers are famous the world over for making a superior quality of paint?
Now should my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries act on my suggestion and make a survey of the Liberal backsliders on his side of the House, one of the first upon whom his gaze will fall will be his colleague the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). For that reason, and for other reasons as well, this hasty sketch of party fence-jumping would be minus its most attractive feature if the Minister of Immigration and Colonization were left out of the picture. Therefore, I will devote a few minutes to the hon. gentleman before I hasten on to the concluding part of my remarks.
In July last the hon. gentleman assisted at the birth of an alleged new party, and was one of the sponsors for the name adopted, the National Liberal and Conservative party-a double linchpin name. Following that event, it was announced that my hon. friend would be one of the members of the Tariff Commission, and that he would make a tour of the country with that body. For some reason that has not yet been disclosed, the hon. gentleman did not take up bis duties with the Tariff Commission, but he did make a tour with the right hon. the Prime Minister. It was understood, Sir, at the time, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization was to ac-

company his leader in the role of a political economist to preach sound fiscal doctrines in the West. You can therefore imagine the surprise, Mr. Speaker, of the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the vast amusement of the rest of the Dominion, when the Minister of Immigration and Colonization suddenly discarded the role of political economist and stood forth at a meeting one night in the character of an ornitholigist. declaring that in previous years, when he had spoken about the tariff, he had spoken as a parrot. Pursuing this new role, he endeavoured, but in vain, to convince his audience that he now spoke upon the tariff as an owl; and, on the authority of some of those who were present on more than one occasion, it can be asserted that the western people refused to take any more stock in the hon. gentleman as an ornithologist than they took in him as a political economist. Now, if the hon. gentleman is still pursuing his researches in ornithology, and if his analytical mind still occupies itself with a dissection of the elements of the party with which he is facing a lingering but inescapable fate, let me assist him in his studies by referring him to a few paragraphs in a speech delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright to the Young Liberal Club of Seaforth, Ontario, On October 27, 1886. These paragraphs are as follows:
I want to say a few words to you on the proper relations which should subsist between Liberals and Conservatives. I want you to understand distinctly that in my opinion there is not necessarily, and ought not to be, any conflict between true. Liberals and true Conservatives. According to my view of the situation Liberalism and Conservatism are rather the complement and supplement of each other than the necessary opposites. So to speak, I would say that Liberalism represents the masculine element, and Conservatism the feminine element in politics, all the world over. Don't let my Conservative friends here-if any such be present-for one moment suppose that with my view's of the rights and functions and future place of women, when I speak of Conservatism as the feminine principle in politics, I do anything else than pay Conservatives an extremely high compliment. . . . We must recollect that it is the duty of the stronger to respect the weaker vessel. Both are wanted in a well ordered state if you can get them of the right sort. So I say to my young friends, be Conservative or Liberal, as you please ; still I say also: Be one thing or the other. Let there be no halting between two opinions. If there be one thing I do abhor and detest, it is those Laodiceans of the commonwealth, those political mulattos who inherit the vices of both parties, and the virtues of neither; who seek to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare; who blow now hot and now cold; who, when political exigencies require it are ready to swear that black Is white, that orange is green, that a circle is square, or a square is round, who are prepared to call themselves

Cat ho li e-Protestants, or Prates tan t-Cat ho l ies, if they may thereby get a vote; whose principles are to have no principles; those men whose name is a lie in terms, which the other title of the animal is-"Liberal-Conservative." If any of that particular description of gentry object, Sir, I am willing to indulge them with another comparison. I revert to my original metaphor. If it be true, as I have intimated above, that Conservatism is the feminine and Liberalism the masculine element in politics, it follows, as a matter of course, that "Liberal-Conservative" represent the neuter gender-a barren, sterile, unfruitful generation, productive only of debts, of taxes, and of scandals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), will bring his acute mind to bear upon the sentences I have just quoted, he will readily see that in the case of himself and his associates who are banded together under a name which, as good old Sir Richard said, "is a lie in terms," history is merely repeating itself, and the same fate awaits those who have adopted this new camouflage as the one that overtook the party that was held up to ridicule before the Young Liberals of Seaforth in 1886. For the sake of old times, let me offer a suggestion to my hon. friend. If, before the inevitable happens, the hon. gentleman should by any chance have occasion to address meetings in Western Canada again, I would suggest that he abandon ornithology and appear as a zoologist. If he will do that, and if he will then tell his audiences that, when he is speaking on the tariff, he is speaking, not as a parrot, but as a chameleon, he will make the hit of his life-
12	m. Mr. Speaker, in the Budget, as well as in the speeches supporting it, the feature that stands out most prominently is the concern of the Government to protect the interests of the few at the expense of the interests of the many. Protection is thrust forward so aggressively that new meaning is given to the phrase that "it is a condition and not a theory" that the Canadian people have to face. What the condition is may be gauged by an exposure of some of the methods that have been employed to produce it, and that are now being used in an organized effort to make it permanent in this country.
Many of the members of the House, perhaps all, will have read, occasional protests on the part of certain newspapers against the attempts of Mr. G. M. Murray, the former secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, to control editorial opinion by the giving or withholding of advertisements. How that gentleman has been operating is not so well known, and as his operations are financed by the beneficiaries of protection, and are designed for the sole purpose of stifling or [DOT] corrupting public opinion for the benefit of those who enjoy protection, it is in the public interest that the character and extent of these operations be made known. In general outline, that is what I now propose to do.
For six months or more prior to his resignation as secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Murray served on a number of Government boards and commissions. In reality, his services were loaned to the Government, because he was paid throughout by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. After resigning his secretaryship in the association, Mr. Murray began to collect his staff for the business in which he is now engaged, a business, Mr. Speaker, which is without precedent in Canada. Indeed, I doubt whether any parallel for it can be found in any other country in the world.
Mr. Murray operates through a company called "Murray's Editorial Report Service," with headquarters at Toronto. The chief business of this company is to collect the views of every Canadian daily newspaper, and Mr. Murray is assisted in this work by a corps of university graduates, who are supposed to be experts in "sizing up," as it is termed, any newspaper. Reports are sent out at irregular intervals to the company's patrons, or are given to them when called for. These reports are designed to guide the company's subscribers in the placing of their contracts for advertising space, and papers that advocate protection are always given the preference.
With funds supplied chiefly by Eastern manufacturers. Mr. Murray established two other companies to extend the scope of his operations. One was "Publishers News Service Limited," at Regina, and the other was "Canadian Newspaper Service Limited" at Hamilton. The former company was to put out in the West what are known as "Datent insides" or ready prints for the newspapers, and the last named company was to perform similar work in the East. It was claimed that through these two agencies about 140 papers would be supplied with protectionist "patent insides".
The whole business under Mr. Murray's control has been conducted under a cloak of secrecy, and the names of the patrons of this unique service have not as yet been divulged. To keep up the mystery



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
all the subscribers to the service have been furnished with a chart or analysis of the Canadian daily newspaper field from the standpoint of the editorial policy pursued by each publication. This chart or analysis is a mass of symbols, letters, and numerals that can be translated into ordinary language only if the Key to the analysis is at hand.
Now, Sir, it will be of interest to the House, and of even greater interest to the country, to learn how the chart or analysis, as interpreted by the Key, deals with the Canadian newspapers. For an illustration let me take two of the leading Canadian dailies, namely the Toronto Mail and the Toronto Globe.
In the analysis the name of the Toronto Mail is preceded by the symbol formed by the two pairs of crossed lines used to denote the word "number." According to the Key this means that the Mail is "Unionist in politics" and "supports Meighen." Then after the name of the Toronto Mail, there are in separate columns, under appropriate headings, the following letters and numerals:
/"A.l." Which means: "Gives good comprehensive news service covering both general and local fields. Excellent,-the best."
"E.l." Which means:	"Well written
editorials, clever in argument, forceful in expression, carrying conviction."
"J.l." Which means: "Gives expression to safe and sane views on Labour, Industrial Unrest, and Socialism, denounces extremes of all kinds, pleads for moderation, etc. Discusses the subject very frequently."
"N.l." Which means: '"Supports a protective tariff with or without revision. Discusses the subject very frequently."
"R.l." Which means: "Generally sympathetic with Business",-business, Mr. Speaker, with a big B-"apparently desirous of seeing it get a square deal." "Fair in argument and truthful in statement. Discusses the subject very frequently."
"U." Which means: "Specially deserving of support. Sound on practically all points. Alert and capable in defence of Business."
Again business with a big "B." That ends the analysis of the Toronto Mail. Now let us see what is set down about the Toronto Globe.
In the analysis, the name of the Toronto Globe is preceded by the two symbols used in currency to indicate dollars and pounds. Again turning to the Key, it will be found that these mean that the Globe is "Liberal

and Farmer" in politics and that it "supports King and Crerar." After the name "Toronto Globe" there appears the following letters and numerals:
"A.l." Which gives it the same rating as the Mail for news service.
"E.l." Which means that in editorial ability the Globe is on a par with the Mail.
"H.4." Which means "shows strong editorial bias on subjects not hereinafter covered. Anti-Union Government."
"J.l." Which means: "That the Globe's views on Labour, Industrial Unrest and Socialism are the same as those of the Mail and are expressed as frequently;" "0.1." Which means: "Favors low tariff with considerable extension of free list and all-round reduction on the remainder; favors reciprocity with the United States. Discusses the subject very frequently." "T.l." Which means:	"Generally antagonistic towards Business, or given to misrepresentation and unfair arguments, or featuring the bad and saying nothing about the good. Discusses the subject very frequently."
"X." Which means:	"Unfair. Bad
points outbalance good. Objectionable." And there, Sir, the analysis leaves the Globe. Other examples need not be cited because in every case the paper that favours protection is recommended as the medium through which to advertise.
No less interesting than the Analysis and the Key, and even more informative, are the reports issued confidentially to the subscribers to Mr. Murray's service. In a sheet called Editor and Publisher, dated August 28, 1920, appears one of these reports :
Toronto-G. M. Murray, whose plan for putting control of the editorial opinion of Canadian newspapers into the hands of the purchasers of advertising was reported last spring in Editor and Publisher and given liberal space in the Canadian press, is "in again." He attributes his previous lack of success to the fact that newspapers did not then need the money so badly as they do now, in the face of rapidly rising costs. Under date of August 16, in his latest "confidential" communication to the manufacturers he is trying to organize, he says: "What with one thing and another, the newspapers were simply reaping a harvest and if an advertiser tried to talk editorial policy to them, they simply wouldn't listen."
"Just when they are beginning to figure how much higher they can jack up their advertising rates to meet their increased cost of production and to calculate how much more space they oan sell at the higher rates, along comes a business depression that leads to the wholesale slashing of advertising appropriations. To the manufacturer in a similar position, the sympathetic editor would no douibt say, 'Draw on your reserve.' But it makes a wonderful difference whose ox is being gored.

"Advertisers can talk policy to that editor today and they will he attentively listened to. The editor knows that advertisers form the one class who can save his enterprise from financial disaster and anything those advertisers ask in reason they are going to get.
"The fact that already there have disappeared from the field such papers as the Toronto News, Peterborough Review, Saskatoon Phoenix and Regina Post is warning to all and sundry that in the midst of journalistic life we are in death and that he who would survive must henceforth pay less attention to the editorial sanctum and more to the office of the business manager."
Having thus pointed out to the manufacturers how they could bring the newspapers to time Mr. Murray proceeded to goad them to action and on December 29, 1920, he sent out a report in which the following paragraph occurred:
To-day the free trade storm signals are set as a warning to navigators upon the sea of business. Make no mistake about it. They are there to be seen, clear as the sun in the sky, by all except those who keep their heads in the sand. The organized farmers, under the leadership of fanatical theorists, have been worked up into a veritable frenzy of resentment against a fiscal policy that they have come to look upon as special privilege. They are out to effect changes by a process of destruction-a process that once initiated may go to untold lengths before it can be checked. If those who would thus be destroyed don't speedily organize for their own defence, and marshall all their resources in money and brains to meet the attack, they will almost certainly find themselves powerless to ward off a blow for which the Grain Grower arm is already bared, nerved with the last ounce of strength and determination.
In another - communication to the subscribers on the subject of how they should spend their advertising appropriation in 1921 Mr. Murray said:
"The average agent, of course, pays little or no attention to editorial policy; with him all that counts is rates and circulation. If he had his way, many a publication that is doing its best to ruin Canadian industry, would be rewarded by the prospective victims to its folly with huge chunks of profitable business, tendered on a silver piatter. I try to persuade my subscribers to let me look over the schedules their agents are asking them to adopt. When they comply, I give them a brief report upon every publication in the list. Those that are O.K. are marked accordingly. In the case of those that are objectionable, I explain what it is that makes them objectionable. Some are worse than others. Some I recommend be retained, but with a reduction from full to part schedule. Some I recommend dropping altogether, and to replace them I submit where possible the names of meritorious publications of a similar class circulating in the same territory."
''The far-reaching possibilities of this work are nicely illustrated in an unsolicited letter just received from an old friend connected with a paper that has been giving us splendid support. Speaking of one contemporary (a low tariff advocate) he says it has noticeably moderated In tone, in an effort to hold all the advertising
231J
it can. Speaking of another (a free-trade organ) he says that despite many manifestations of wrath, as it lost schedule after schedule, it now appears to be tactfully backing away from free trade. 'If your work', he continues, 'has had one-half the effect in other parts of Canada that it has had here, then your subscribers should be able to See it as I do. Moreover, an opportunity for increasing its effectiveness will come with the new year, when newsprint costs will take a further jump, and the difficulties of the publishing business will grow more acute. Many papers will watch their step, more particularly so because they know through past publicity that you exist and are watching things'."
"This frank statement of the case should sure-* ly suggest to all subscribers the desirability of refraining from entering into any new advertising contracts until they have first submitted their schedules to me for a report."
Now, Sir, as a final link in the chain I will summarize the details of a few incidents that establish the connection between Mr. Murray's operations and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
At a meeting held in Toronto last year it was represented by the executive of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that a fund of $3,000,000 would have to be available in the event of a Dominion election. Of this sum it was stated that $1,000,000 should be immediately available. A difficulty arose on the score that companies or corporations were debarred from making political subscriptions; but this was overcome by the explanation that the money would be used chiefly for newspaper propaganda.
Mr. Murray was present at this meeting, and after explaining his plans for securing protectionist publicity, he obtained the approval of the meeting for his method of distributing among the newspapers "ready prints" or "patent insides". Mr. Murray was placed in charge of this work, and it was decided to supply all the funds that were necessary to make it a success. So that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association might not be officially connected with the scheme, a special committee was appointed to deal with it, and an amount, said to have been in the neighbourhood of $40,000, was placed at the disposal of this special committee. It was emphasized that the association would look to Mr. Murray to protect its interests, and that the greatest possible care should be taken to prevent the attitude of the manufacurers towards the newspapers from being made public.
For the present, Mr. Speaker, I do not consider it necessary to enter into any further details of the operations of Mr. Murray and his protectionist patrons. In all probability I have gone far enough to make it unlikely that any supporter of the
[Stage Direction]
Government will rise in his place to defend the methods that I have just exposed; and yet, Sir, it must be borne in mind that these methods are being resorted to for the political benefit of the party now in office, and that that party must share responsibility for these methods with those who originate them, must share responsibility with those who finance them, and must share responsibility with those who carry them into execution to the detriment of the national welfare.
Mr. Speaker, it is because I hold these and the other opinions that I have expressed in the course of my address that I shall vote for the amendment that has been placed in your hands after being moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.
Sir, in the next general election the whole record of the present Government will be the issue before the public. The Government's tariff policy will form an important part of that record. Hence, Sir, it is the duty of all who desire to see peace, prosperity and goodwill restored in this country to acquaint the electors at every possible opportunity with the true inwardness of the Government's tariff policy and with the aims and methods of those who support it. East Elgin and West Peterborough have demonstrated, and I venture to prophesy, without fear of successful contradiction, that York-Sunbury, Yamaska and Medicine Hat will further demonstrate, that protection will not protect this Government from the fate that awaits it when the verdict of the whole Canadian people is registered at the polls.
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate but for the fact that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in the course of his speech made certain statements with reference to the building of a dry dock at Esquimalt, B.C. He implied that the construction of this drydock was entered upon for the purpose of assisting my re-election after my appointment as Minister of Agriculture. I want to state here, Sir, that if I had felt it was necessary to have a dry dock or any other public work constructed to elect me as a member of this House, I would still be in the live stock business out on the Pacific slope. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman did not possess full information on the subject or he would not have made the statement which he placed before this House, and on that account I think it would be well for me to give the
[Mr. Murphy.J
history of the construction of the dry dock from its inception up to the present time.
Esquimalt is located about four miles from Victoria at the southern extremity of Vancouver Island. It is in the constituency of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. McIntosh). I represent the city of Victoria alone. A small dock, about 430 feet in length, was constructed at Esquimalt about forty years ago, for the purpose of accommodating naval vessels, Esquimalt having been the station of the British Navy on the Pacific coast for a number of years until it was handed over by the Imperial authorities to the Canadian Government. The dock was found of excellent service, and was the means of establishing at that particular point a very important ship repairing and shipbuilding business. For a long time, however, it had been felt that owing to the increasing size of vessels it was necessary to have a larger dry dock, for in many instances the Esquimalt dock being unable to accommodate ships wishing to dock for repairs, those ships went over to United States dry docks, and the work was lost to our contractors and also to our workingmen.
About the year 1912 the question of a drydock became a live issue. The matter was discussed very freely and active measures were taken to induce the Government to take some action with a view to providing larger accommodation in the dry-dock line. Til fact that same year a dry-dock site was purchased at Lang's Cove in Esquimalt Harbour. About that time a big shipbuilding firm, Yarrows, Limited, with headquarters at Glasgow, Scotland, was searching about the Pacific coast for a suitable site for a drydock, having in view the establishment of a branch of their business on this continent. They examined sites on the American as well as on the Canadian side and after a thorough investigation they decided that Esquimalt was the most suitable place for their dry-dock. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that that was just five years before I had contemplated going into politics at all. The dock site, as I say, was selected, but owing to the fact that the war broke out shortly afterwards the work was not proceeded with and no further active steps were taken until 1919, the construction of the dock being agreed to in the month of June of that year. It was not until August 2 that I was asked to accept the portfolio of agriculture in the present government when the construction of the dock was ' agreed to in June.

I had no more idea of occupying my present position than I had of leaving for some other country; nor was the matter brought to my attention in any way by any member of the Government. It was 1920 that the contract was let for the construction of this dock. I cannot see, therefore, how under these circumstances my election either in 1919 or in 1917 can be connected with the construction of this dry-dock at Esquimalt.
Another dock is to be built at Vancouver under the Drydock Subsidies Act. There is also a floating dock at Prince Rupert, owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, but as that point is over 500 miles north of Victoria ships will not go from the south end of Vancouver island or down in the neighbourhood of the Straits of Juan de Fuca up as far as Prince Rupert if they can secure satisfactory accommodation nearer at hand.
There are a number of reasons why" Esquimalt has been selected as the site for this drydock. A glance at the map will show that the Straits of Juan de Fuca pass in from the Pacific eastward and branch off to the south, terminating in Puget Sound on the American side, and also pass up to the .north and into the Gulf of Georgia, thence up to Vancouver and further north. Esquimalt is situated about fifty miles from the Pacific ocean, and all traffic, whether destined for Southern Columbia ports or for American ports, passes practically within view of Esquimalt harbour, so that we have the benefit not only of Canadian-bound but also of American-bound traffic. The port is practically free from fog the year round. The waters of Esquimalt harbour have a considerable advantage over those of eastern points where drydocks are located in that they are liquid during the whole year, making them always navigable. We have there a very light rainfall, from 27 to 32 inches in the average year. Last year there was an average of sunshine or bright weather from five and a half to six hours a day during the whole year. There is winter temperature of about 42 degrees and a summer temperature of 60 degrees enabling men to work on the ships the year round; no fires are necessary to keep the men warm during the winter season. The work can be carried on under the cheapest possible conditions. The port is situated advantageously in that help can be secured from nearby centres, where it is always available, in the event of any big rush of ship repairing work coming on at any particular time.
About the time that the dry dock site was purchased Yarrows Limited was given to understand that this dock was to be constructed at Esquimalt, and this big firm immediately decided that they would, locate there. They have since been carrying on to great advantage the business of a ship repair plant, employing a large number of men. The Government have thus not only kept faith with the people of Victoria, to whom this dock had been promised but have also kept faith with this big British firm which had come to this country to invest its money. If we hope to get British capital in this country one of the first things we must do is to carry out our undertakings in respect to that capital on every possible occasion. About seven or eight weeks ago I made a hurried trip to Victoria and Esquimalt, and at that time they had four deep sea-going vessels under repair. They had recently turned down another vessel because they could not accommodate it, and a Japanese vessel, the Manila Maru, had to go to Seattle for dockage accommodation because that available at Esquimalt was to small. This firm have plenty of capital. They do not ask for bonuses; if they lose money on a contract nobody knows anything about it but themselves; they do not come to the Government for assistance. They are rapidly building up a very valuable business at that point and employing a' large number of Canadian workmen.
The trade of the Pacific Coast is increasing at a very rapid rate. There is at present about $2,000,000,000 worth of trade carried on yearly between America and Canadian Pacific ports and the Orient and countries to the south, and with the many millions of people over on the Asiatic side it is only reasonable to expect that this trans-Pacific business will increase by leaps and bounds, If we are to meet the situation we must have proper facilities on the Canadian side to accommodate shipping, to repair ships, and so on. As an indication of how keenly alive the Americans are to the situation, let me say that they have no less than sixteen floating and graving docks situated at San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and Bremerton, Washington, as compared with our one small dock at Esquimalt, which accommodates only one small ship, one floating dock at Prince Rupert and two other docks under construction. In the East, too, there are a larger number of docks than there are on the Pacific Coast. From the figures I will give you in a moment you will see that the number of docks on the Pacific is very

small compared with that in the East, having regard to the amount of tonnage involved. With the present dock at Esqui-malt and one under construction we will be able to accommodate any ship afloat. The dock has a division in the centre so that two small ships can be put in at the same time giving us dock accommodations for three vessels at once. Through the operations of this firm of Yarrows Limited, which is known from one end of the world
to the other where shipping is done, I am sure that a great deal of business will be brought to that point once it is known that we can accommodate anything that may offer.
I would like to place on Hansard a few figures to show the amount of tonnage entering the various ports in Canada where dry docks are located. The statement follows:



SEA-GOING VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
Docks and Time of Construction	Arrived	Departed	No. of Vessels	Tons Register	No. of Vessels	Tons RegisterQuebec-	983	855,101	1,066	865,998392	1,822,029	199	902,111Victoria- 1884	* 1920 	823 2,170 279	511,203 1,673,470	791 2,168	486,388 2,249,422273,044	283	269,930425	1,702,690	420	1,683,2611,453	1,769,999	1,347	1,429,750St. John, 1911	1,219	1,232,360	1,133	935,822

[Stage Direction]
Docks and Time of Construction	Arrived	Departed	No. of Vessels	Tons Register	No. of Vessels	Tons RegisterQuebec- 1877	43	9,077	20	3,6531914	.*	495	105,132	445	91,810804	631,730	713	559,915

[Stage Direction]
Docks and Time of Construction	Arrived	Departed	No. of Vessels	Tons Register	No. of Vessels	Tons RegisterQuebec-	1877	2,845	318,899	2,845	318,8991914	1,000	1,702,402	1,237	2,558,182Victoria-	1884	792	232,815	786	231,4941920	3,380	2,114,401	3,412	1,740,018Prince Rupert, 1912	1,253	590,537	1,213	522,978Montreal, 1912	7,273	2,850,974	7,335	2,897,404Vancouver, 1920	10,572	3,764,124	10,908	4,324,388St.John, 1911	1,386	459,969	1,585	790,725
If the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) were here, I believe he would agree that we should court on our side such industries as will retain [Mr. Tolmle.I
the service of our Canadian workmen and will also enable us to cope with the increased traffic that we expect and have already on the Pacific ocean. I am quite

sure that he would not agree that it would be good business for us to try to continue with a dock of small capacity, while our larger vessels were compelled to go to the American sfde to be properly repaired and taken care of. With smaller dock equipment at Esquimalt, we are quite unable to accommodate even the vessels of the Canadian Mercantile Marine, with the exception of small boats such as those which operate on the lakes, and, of course, they do not reach the Pacific. Therefore, this dock is an absolute necessity if we are to make any progress along these particular lines, and to get the great trade on the Pacific that we expect.
I do not believe that the country is going to gain very much by our continually voicing our pessimism, or talking about hard times. By intelligent expansion, the country can accomplish a great deal of good. Having been brought up in the West and having experienced one or two western real estate booms, I ido not feel at all down-hearted about our present condition. By careful economy, by the investment of money along such lines as give promise of safe development, this country is absolutely Sure in its future progress. In addition to that, I feel that after what we have accomplished in the war, we have the proper Canadian spirit to develop and build up a country which must occupy a position of prominence amongst the great nations. This is one of the finest countries in the world, and our present conditions will compare very favourably with those existing in any other country that has taken part in the war.
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James:) Mr. Speaker, after the contribution made to this debate to-day by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), I feel there is very little to say on this side of the House, and I rise only to put myself on record as briefly as possible regarding this Budget which is of such interest to the people of the riding that I represent. Before I do that, I wish to say a few words regarding the declaration just made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), that it was a mere coincidence if this drydock in Esquimalt was in any way connected with his election. We certainly have a Government of coincidences, because it happens that when there was an election in West Peterborough, by a mere coincidence also, a contract was given for the Trent canal to 
the tune of $175,000, and I was quite surprised, when I ran in the division of St. James, that the Government did not see fit to begin to build a wharf in one of the water basins which decorate the squares which are so rightly famed in that division. I happen to have in my hand extracts from the Victoria Times, a paper which, no doubt, the Minister of Agriculture knows quite well. On October 21, the Victoria Times published a report of one of the meetings of the Minister of Agriculture. What do we read?
Dr. Tolmie went into the dry dock situation and declared that he was anxious for the establishment of the dry dock at Esquimalt because it would tie the ship repairing industry down here.
Addressing the electors of Victoria on October 20, 1919, he said:
I am now In a position to say that X have the assurance of the Government that the work will be prosecuted Without delay.
Again, on the same date, speaking to 400 shipworkers he said, referring to the dry dock:
I When a fellow works hard and delivers the goods as I think I have done at Ottawa-
And as he was doing out at Victoria, I might add.
__do you fire him or do you send him back and
give him another chance?
I have taken a deep interest in these yards and have had something to do with securing these contracts. We must have prompt measures to provide for further work. Since I arrived in town I have been busy on this but we would like to get two more steel ships and also wooden ships and secure the development of the ocean
I think I need say no more to establish that the dry dock did indeed play a part in the election, and that it was used at that time also to do some repairing on the Government ship itself.
The Prime Minister the other day in the' course of this debate made the statement that he did not think in the whole of his parliamentary career he had witnessed a budget statement received with such general approval as that of this year. I humbly submit that this is another case which should come under the ruling of the Chair against imaginary statements'being recorded in Hansard. I consider, on the contrary, that never in the history of this country has there been presented to the House a budget so appalling in figures, so disastrous in all that it has to admit and certainly none so burdensome upon the Canadian taxpayer. The Minister of Finance has	to admit	that
[Stage Direction]
although he has exerted his power of taxation with a view to securing from the public $100,000,000 more than is needed for the current expenditure of the country nevertheless on the whole operations of the year the deficit is twice that amount. The Minister of Finance, however, has great confidence in the future. With this distressing statement, he has given the House the valuable information that the sun still shines, our rivers still sparkle, our lands are as great and as fertile as ever, and our resources just as vast. Alas, Mr. Speaker, he has forgotten to add that our Federal expenditures are as great as ever, our deficits are running up all the time and the Government of the country is as incompetent and as unrepresentative as ever. Not that I wish to lay the whole blame on the. Minister of Finance. We all know that he has only joined the Government of late, and that he is not responsible for most of the trouble. When he joined the Government party boat, to borrow a familiar metaphor of the Prime Minister, the ship of State was in a very unseaworthy condition, with the sails all torn out, the bottom leaking lamentably, the oars half disabled, and the planks in such a state of rottenness that no one short of a magician could have restored it and put it back into sailing condition. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, though a sinner, is only a sinner of the eleventh hour, and I do hope that for him the text of scripture does not apply in the reverse form. He has done his best under the circumstances. He labours under the burden of an intolerable legacy, and is hampered by a policy which has proven disastrous. What could he do in view of the railway policy of the Government, and the merchant marine, the Militia Estimates, and all the extravagances of the Government? It is only natural to find that his financial powers have been superseded, and it is only logical that he should find himself confronted today with a shortage of food and an excess of appetite.
While the Minister of Finance undertook the duty of telling the people by what amount the country has been impoverished during the past year, the Prime Minister took upon himself to enter upon what he called a discussion of the tariff. May I here interject with all due courtesy that while we paid the greatest attention to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Min-* ister, even to the point of putting questions to him occasionally, I was surprised to find that when the leader of the OppositMi\ Kinfret.]
tion delivered to-day one of the greatest speeches we have heard in this House, the Prime Minister saw fit to keep away from the chamber. I think it is very seldom that a speech has been delivered by the leader of either party in a Budget debate wihch the other leader has not followed with due attention.
Arthur Meighen: Possibly the hon. member would permit me to explain. I had to go out of town. I remained here yesterday, in the belief, according to announcement, that the leader of the Opposition would speak. He did not, and I had to go to-day. It was certainly out of no discourtesy to the leader of the Opposition. I would have been very glad indeed to have been here.


Mr. RINFRET:: 
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Does the hon. member adhere to the platform of 1919?	/


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I did not catch your question.


Peter McGibbon: Do you adhere to the 1919 platform?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was out of town or not, but I stated only ten minutes ago that not only I, but every hon. member on this side of the House, did adhere to that platform and, further, would live up to it.


Peter McGibbon: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, now, if that will cheer the heart of my hon. friend, I am prepared to make that declaration as often as he likes. But to come back to the Tariff Commission, I should like to read what the Gazette had to say in praise of the Minister of Finance when the work was about over. I will read only one paragraph, but It is most interesting. Says the Gazette of November 18, 1920:
The Finance Minister has conducted the Tariff inquiry admirably. As is his duty, he listens intently and patiently to petitions presented him, and does not hesitate by query and interjeeion, to expose off-hand the fallacy of an argument or to develop it to a logical conclusion.
You will observe, Sir, how exquisitely the Tory organ puts it. When a low tariff witness came before the commission, the commissioners were up in arms to expose the fallacy of the argument; but when there was a demand for protection, the commission eagerly inquired: "Are you quite sure you do not want more?"-and developed the demand to its logical conclusion. Yet the Prime Minister will not revise the tariff. He is looking for our plat- . form, and that of the Farmers. Well, I will not read our platform; it has just been read to-night by the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy).


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Read it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The Prime Minister
says he cannot find that platform in the amendment moved by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), but he takes great comfort in the fact that he will be able to import a few lemons from the south, and that it will have cost the country hundreds of thousands of dollars in order that the people may have the incomparable privilege of drinking cheap lemonade.
filr Ru'fret.l
In the meantime, the Prime Minister is leaving for England and, as I understand, he will deliver a few speeches there. I have no doubt that he will make the best use of his knowledge and talent when he addresses the British public. Now, he alluded the other day to the speech he delivered on the Budget last year. That speech contained a description of the way in which the fiscal policy of England has operated in the Mother Country, and I would advise my right hon. friend to take that speech with him when he goes there and quote it. I can picture the scene at the great banquet where all the economists of the country would be gathered and when the traditional usher would call in his rich melodious voice "silence, pray, for the Prime Minister of Canada." My right hon. friend would get up and say:
3Vty Lords and Gentlemen, you are all wrong and your fiscal policy is all wrong. Free trade has depopuated rural England; it has filled the emigrant ships with fugitives from her shores: it has scattered the manhood of Great Britain through the fields and workshops of the United States it has starved and repressed and dwarfed the nascent industries of Ireland ; it has reversed the supremacy that Britain held through centuries In the industrial life of the world, and caused her to concede the place to other great competing nations who adopted a different policy. Such is the history of free trade.
Now, I will not play the childish trick of waiting for the question to be asked, "Who said or wrote this?" This is a speech that was delivered by the Prime Minister. It was not written by Norman Lambert; it is a speech to which the Prime Minister gave utterance.


Arthur Meighen: And the Prime Minister has not changed his sentiments since.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I know that. That
speech last year evoked a great deal of applause from the other side-in fact everything my right hon. friend says evokes a great deal of applause and desk-thumping on that side. Unfortunately that deskthumping has no echo in the country; its only effect is to injure the furniture in the chamber and further add *to the prevailing waste and extravagance. But I do not think there will be any desk-thumping in England if the Prime Minister repeats those sentiments there. If I have quoted his speech it is not for the mere pleasure of including it in the debate. It is because we find there in that single paragraph that blind, partisan, prejudiced attachment to a fiscal policy that we precisely condemn in the amendment that is before the House. I would go further than that. As far as I

am concerned I will say that I not only approve of the amendment as it stands, but I would make it read: that the tariff should not be based on the principle of protection, or on the principle of free trade, or on any stringent fixed doctrine. Because I contend, Mr. Speaker, that in this country-young and rising as it is-we cannot fix the tariff on any stringent doctrine: It must be flexible, it must be dealt with item by item, and it must adapt itself to the needs of the country.


Arthur Meighen: That is pretty safe.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
wish to say merely a word about the St., James election. I am sorry to say that while my right hon. friend took no part at all in that election he is now manifesting considerable concern in the then Liberal candidate. He pointed to me in the House last session and asked how I should vote because I was elected, he said, on the platform of protection. I think he also did me the distinction to refer to me in his Sherbrooke speech saying that I was one of the Liberals who favoured protection. Finally, in his speech in this House the other day, he made some remarks of the same kind. Now, I do desire to state that during the St. James election we stood by the Liberal platform. It was read in public by different members of the House and by myself during the course of the campaign. The other candidate never dared to challenge it because he rather espoused it himself, and claimed that he was also a candidate approved by the leader of the Opposition. I may say that the whole electorate of St. James voted for that platform. Allusion has been made several times during the debate to Le Canada. This has afforded us free advertising which I appreciate. But let me say that we did publish that platform to a greater extent, perhaps, than any other paper in the whole of the Dominion.
The hon. member for Vancouver reproached me a few minutes ago because my paper published the interchange of remarks which took place between the Prime Minister and the member for Marquette, about the York-Sunbury by-election. I may say that we merely published the report sent out by the Canadian Press. I may add, however, that if the member for Vancouver, or any hon. gentleman opposite, is interested in to-night's proceedings, we will see to it that the interview about Mr. Veniot which was read a moment ago, is published.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would improve on the hon. member
for Russell and be good enough and honest enough to read the statement in my hearing.


Mr. BUREAU:: Never mind reading it again. It will be published to-morrow and you can have a chance to read and think over it.


Peter McGibbon: Read it here, do not lose your nerve.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: At this late hour I do n6t propose to detain the House very much longer. Some of the details of the Budget are very interesting. For example there has been quite a change in connection with the Customs Department, and I wish to congratulate the Minister of Customs upon having given up the writing of private letters and busying himself with public affairs. We are promised a chance in the Customs Department that we on this side have been asking for a long time in order to put that department on a business basis.' Last year we inquired whether the Government intended to estimate customs duties according to the current rate of exchange and the reply was made by the then Minister of Customs that they did not. But good ideas make their way. On July 22, the former system was altered and a regulation passed by Order in Council-the usual method of the Government in dealing with these matters, only it was too long delayed-changing the regulations of the department in that respect. This session the Minister of Customs was asked whether further changes were intended as regards, for instance, goods coming from the United States, and again the reply was in the negative. However, good ideas once more made their way. We are now told that this regulation will also apply to imports of goods from the United States. Unfortunately the Government has seen fit to put an arbitrary value on all European moneys in this sense-that it will not, in any case, allow the depreciation to be any lower than 50 per cent. Now it is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that European merchants who are quite conversant with the depreciation of their money usually make an overcharge on their goods before they export them to this country. However, this is a matter which can be taken up more in detail when we reach the committee stage. The same applies to the sales taxes and other provisions of the Budget.
Before I take my seat I wish to say a word or two about what is embodied in the last

clause of the amendment concerning the general expenditure of the country. I think we should divide that expenditure into two groups. The first group would include expenditure, which we must acknowledge because it forms obligations which the country has taken upon itself. In this group would be the war debt, and I fully share what was so eloquently stated by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Pacaud) that as regards war expenditure we must pay up without the least discussion. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we should not altogether allow ourselves to be too much moved by the mere fact that it is war expenditure, because it is well known that under that head are included not only the amounts that were strictly necessary for the conduct of the war, but also considerable amounts which represent the scandalous and extravagant waste which was indulged in during that time. I am not going over all that again. It was proven in this House and before the Public Accounts Committee that millions of dollars were squandered in payments to profiteers-friends of the Government, colonels and others. Therefore although we must pay that debt, we should be allowed to hold the Government responsible for the fact that we are not only paying interest on strictly war expenditure, but we are also paying interest on all those millions which were squandered. We should also hold the Government responsible, although I am afraid we cannot remedy the evil, for the fact that $1,300,000,000 were invested in loans which are exempt from income tax. I need not say that profiteers who had made enormous profits during the war and did not know where to invest their money were the first to take advantage of these war loans. I remember an article which I once read in an American paper to the effect that you ought always to keep a very close watch on profiteers because of their alertness. The writer went on to say that in a certain country it had been decided to hang profiteers, and those profiteers at once formed a trust to hoard coffins! That is what the people can expect from profiteers. But there is another group of expenditures, and they have been mentioned often during the course of this debate. There is, for instance, the railway deficit. I see my good friend-if I dare use that expression-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) before me, and I recall when I was a member of the press gallery in the old House how he used to get up with feigned indignation when the Intercolonial railway was showing i'AIi. Pirfret.l
a deficit of a few million dollars. Mr. Speaker, we have read in that great poem, Dante's "Inferno", that the sinners were punished according to the character of their sins; the gluttons were famished, the proud were humiliated, and carnal sinners were tortured in their very flesh. I think, Sir, that my good friend has reached a circle where, after feeling so indignant over a deficit of a few million dollars, he has now to swallow a deficit of $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 as the result of his Government's policy. There is also the Government merchant marine. I am not going over it again at this late hour, for I have delivered several speeches on the subject-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Go ahead.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But I do recall that
recently when the genial Minister of Marine was showing us over a dry dock-not the Victoria dry dock, but a dry dock in Maisonneuve-he took great pride in the fact that they were launching a boat which was being sold to Norway for $170 a ton. When the minister made that remark a member said-I do not know if it reached the ear of the minister-"If that is so, by all means let him sell the merchant ships of the Government and get rid of them as soon as he can at that price." As for the Militia Estimates, it is no argument to declare that we are not spending more for the militia than we did before the war. As a matter of fact we are spending more. But the argument of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) was that as the militia was more costly now than before the war we had to spend more on it for the same number of men. I have figures here-but I will not go over them now which show that we have more employees now in the Militia Department and about one thousand more men in the force than we had before the war. We should do away with this militia expenditure because it is less needed at the present time, because it is more costly, and because we have no money to waste on it.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to go over the different clauses of the amendment, but there is one reason more than any other which will lead me to vote for that amendment, and that is that it contains a general denunciation of the policy of the Government, and if perchance it were carried it would force the Government to go to the country, and would restore to the hands of the people their supreme and paramount right to elect their own representatives.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the

House very long, but some statements have been made that I think I should answer. Before doing so I want to compliment the Minister of Finance on his splendid Budi get report. I think never in the history of this House has there been presented a Budget so acceptable to the people or so eulogized even by members opposite. I also feel glad that in our Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) Canada has such an able leader, . and when I read some of the eulogistic statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite regarding the Prime Minister, I feel" that we on this side of the House have reason to be very proud of him indeed.
There has been a great change in my time in the official Opposition. I have been a member since 1904, and at that time there was a solid Liberal delegation from British Columbia supporting Sir Wilfrid Laurier-that great and respected statesman whom I think every one remembers to with pride. Where is that representation to-day? Not one is left. Hon. gentlemen opposite have lost the support of that solid delegation. In Alberta the same condition exists-only one or two supporters of the Liberal party have been returned by that province; in Saskatchewan you find the same condition; and in the province of Manitoba their support . has all gone to pieces. So we can say without possibility of contradiction that the great western provinces which supported the policy of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) have deserted the present official leader of the party. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that outside of the province of Quebec he and his party have from the other provinces only twenty or twenty-one supporters in this House. As against that, on this side of the House supporting the Government we have about thirty of the stalwart old Liberals whose names are well known throughout all Canada as the very foundation and pillars of Liberalism in the past.


Mr. ARCH AM  B AULT@: They will never come back.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Well, my hon. friend may not be as good a prophet as he thinks he is, I could recall the names of some of these men. Take men like William Charlton, from a neighbouring county of mine, one of the stalwart Liberals in Ontario during the last fifty years and a strong supporter of the present Government. We have the Mowats the descendants of Blake-we
have all the great Liberals of the province standing by and supporting this Government. We on this side are a united, enthusiastic and loyal party, and we are loyal and enthusiastic in the support of our present Prime Minister, whom we are proud to follow.
I want to refer just for a moment to the Agrarian group. I do not want to say anything unkind of them. I have respect for them; I have respect for the farmers of this country. No man in this House sympathizes more with the farmers than I do. I know how hard they work for their money; I know what long hours they devote to their work on the farm; I know the conditions under which they live. But I submit that hon. gentlemen on this side are all anxious and willing to do what they can for the farming interests of Caada. So far as I am concerned, if the Farmers' party on any other party in this House will move a resolution which in my judgment is in the interests of the farming people of this country I will support it. But we do not get many of those resolutions. We hear many statements and a lot of talk, but we do not get very many resolutions from hon. gentlemen oposite.
One of the great questions in this country, a few years ago, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was conscription. I do not want to refer at any length to that subject, but I am sorry that the Government of Canada had to enforce conscription. The conditions were such, as hon. gentlemen of the Agrarian Party know, that the decision to enforce conscription had to be supported, and who helped to support it? The leader of the Agrarian Party and the men sitting behind him crossed the floor of the House, supported conscription and voted in support of this Government for at least two years. They did that, I say in the interests of enforcing conscription in this country, and I want that put on record in order that the farmers of my county, anyway, may know that we were not alone on this side of the House with regard to that question.
We have heard a good deal in this House about free trade. As the' Prime Minister has said, I think that free trade was born in the West. In that part of the country some of the people are pretty sincere, perhaps, in the views which they hold on free trade. But I have sat in this House with a good many of those who now make up the Agrarian party. Where were they in the years when the tariff of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)

was carried out in this country? Where were they during those sixteen years? That tariff was higher than the tariff at present in force, because reductions have since been made by this Government on many of the necessities of life, upon agricultural implements especially. But even when the tariff was higher, every one of the representatives of the farmers in this House supported that policy and helped to carry it out-the high tariff policy of the member for Shelburne and Queen's. None of them went back on it at that time; they seemed to think it was all right. The reason is that they were supporting a low tariff policy then; they were supporting a high tariff policy. And my friends directly opposite are in precisely the same position. They talk now about free trade and the tariff, but between 1896 and 1911 they supported the policy of the member for Shelburne and Queen's and stood by it by their votes and their speeches in this House. I want to congratulate the member for Shelburne and Queen's upon the fiscal policy which he maintained during thdse years; I wish that the Liberal party sitting behind the present leader of the Opposition would stand by the principles that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the member for Shelburne and Queen's upheld during all those years. We who are interested in manufacturing and in supporting the manufacturing industries would be proud indeed if we could look forward to the continuance of such a policy as the Liberal party had at that time. But I doubt very much whether on the Liberal side of the House we have a great many men, especially among those from the province of Quebec, who would be glad to suport that policy or who if they were returned to power-even with the Agrarian's, the annex supporting them- would see that ,the principle was carried out. They talk of free trade, but I do not believe they are free traders at all, the great bulk of them. I do not believe they have an idea in their mind of lowering the tariff. A great many of the members from Quebec, especially those from Montreal, including the member for St. James Division (Mr. Rinfret) who has just spoken, would not support any policy which had in view the lowering of the tariff. The same applies to many other memb'ers who have spoken on this question. The member for West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon)-does any one think that he is a low tariff man or a free trader? Not by any means; he is a supporter of high tariff, or
	,
would be if he thought that any proposed tariff for Canada would have the effect of intefering with the progress and development of the manufacturing industries of this country.
I do not think any class of the people would be in a worse position with a low tariff than the farmers would be. The protection of the farming interests is necessary especially in Ontario. I do not believe there is any sympathy so far as the tariff is concerned between the farmers of Western Canada and the farmers of Ontario and Quebec; their ideas are entirely different. The farmers of the West depend upon wheat and grains almost entirely; the farmers of Ontario depend upon general farming and as general farmers they never could stand for free trade or a low tariff duties on farm products. Take the question of butter and eggs. The amount of butter imported from the United States last year was very large. We imported 7,000,000 dozen of eggs from the United States, and $10,000,000 worth of meats last year; do hon. gentlemen say that the tariff should be lowered and more of these goods imported? A large number of the farmers of my county were at one time in favour of reciprocity, but when they heard the arguments presented to them, when they realized the condition in which they would be placed under a low tariff or under reciprocity with the United States, they voted very strongly against it. And what did reciprocity do for them in respect of the articles on which it was applied? It did not help them any in the manufactdr-ing line, as we all know, because the duties to-day upon agricultural implements necessary for use on the farm are lower than as provided for under the reciprocity agreement. So that reciprocity, I say, would not be any advantage to them. I say without fear of contradiction that a protective tariff-that is, a fairly reasonable protective tariff-is in the interests of the farmers of Quebec. We have heard many misrepresentations in connection with the -manufacturing industries. I say that the manufacturing industries of this country are misrepresented by statements made by the Agrarian group as well as by the official Opposition. So far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned I do not believe they are sincere in the statements which they make; they surely must be in favour of reasonable protection to the manufacturing industries of Canada. Quebec is a great manufacturing province, one of the greatest in Canada, and I am sure that

Quebec will grow in importance and in wealth under a fair and reasonable protective tariff. What would a low tariff do as regards people who work in factories? It would, as we all know, throw them out of employment, and I am sure men working in factories need protection now if they ever needed it in their history, when men are out of employment and looking for work. I regret exceedingly that there is unemployment in Canada to-day. But what would be the result if you took down the tariff wall between the United States and Canada, and with a low tariff or free trade allowed goods to come into this country? Hon. members from Quebec and the other provinces know as well as I do what would happen. I know that in my town in which I have lived all my life, if it were not for the manufacturers and industries in that town, grass would almost grow upon its streets. It is a town that has grown in a few years from a population of about 1,500 to something like 4,000, as the result of reasonable protection to its manufacturing industries.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that manufacturers increase the price, I say that such is not the case. If you want to lower the price to the consumers of Canada, manufacture the goods in your own country, and competition between manufacturers in Canada will reduce the price to the level of the price of the imported article. Every dollar's worth of goods made in the United States or Great Britain and imported into Canada displaces just so much goods made in Canada and throws Canadians out of employment to that extent. My hon. friend shakes his head, but that is certainly the case. Men cannot be upheld in manufacturing industries; families cannot be kept and encouraged, unless manufacturers have a reasonable profit to encourage their industries. Manufacturers, we are told, take advantage of the duty and add it to the price. As a manufacturer, I say that that statement is not founded on fact; manufacturers do not take into consideration the duty upon an article when they set the price. What regulates the price is competition amongst manufacturers themselves, and perhaps the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) will bear me out in that. As I said, competition amongst manufacturers is sufficient to make the price just as low as it possibly can be made, and the price is very low and close. On many articles in Canada we manufacture and sell just as cheaply as American manufacturers do. I
believe that in this country, boots and shoes-and they can go into the United States free of duty-can be bought just as cheaply as in the United States, and surely it is better to employ our people making shoes rather than to employ Americans to make them. I do not think members from Quebec, with the great shoe industries of that province, would ever endorse or support a policy that would admit boots and shoes into this country under a low tariff or free trade.
The same thing applies to the textile industry. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that we should appoint trade commissioners to develop trade in the United States. How can you develop trade in the United States for our manufactured goods when they put up a tariff wall that shuts us out of their market. A duty of 30 to 40 per cent is imposed on textiles going into the United .States. How can you get over that wall of protection, and what would trade commissioners do in that country to develop and increase the exports of Canada? The people of the United States do not want our goods; their whole policy is to keep them out, not only by tariff, but by regulation, and any man who has attempted to export goods to the United States knows that the regulations there impose such restrictions upon him that it is almost impossible to get his goods in. I know, from experience, that textiles are sold as cheaply in Canada as in the United States. I am interested in a large factory in Buffalo in the United States; our scale of wages in Canada is practically the same as that in our American factory, and the goods we manufacture in our different factories in Canada are just about as cheap in price as those manufactured in our factory, and the goods we manufacture in factory in the United States. We do not sell our goods in the United States any cheaper than we do in Canada, so that the people of Canada are not robbed to the extent of one cent as against American prices. But we employ about 1,000 people in this country with their families to manufactories, and we must remember that those goods are made in 'Canada. Surely, that is better than manufacturing them in the United States and bringing them into Canada. If you import goods from the United States or from England, the people pay the price and the duty also. The development of industry in Canada will make our price lower than the American price and will encourage the employment of our own people.

What do the people of the United States contribute to our country and its development? They do not contribute towards our churches, charities, taxes, or anything else; but they manufacture goods and ship them in here, employing their people while, when goods are manufactured in Canada, that means that Canadians are employing their own people and contributing money towards Canadian necessities.
I was much amused the other day at the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) saying that taxes should be imposed upon vacant lots. I do not think the hon. gentleman is sincere in that. In my town and in every other town and city in Canada artisans working in factories and men employed in other walks of life have bought lots; they are trying to save up enough money to pay for those lots and eventually to build a home on them, and the hon. member for Marquette says that those lots should be taxed in the interest of the Federal Government. I do not think the working people of Canada would appreciate very much a statement of that kind.
We want the Canadian market for the Canadian people, whether it is the manufacturer, artisan, man or woman working in those factories. We have about 8,000,000 people in this country. Do our own friends opposite say that we should open up that market of 8,000,000 people to the 105,000,000 people in the United States? As a manufacturer I say-and I think the manufacturers of Canada would endorse what I say,-that if we could get into that market free of duty, we would hold up both our hands for that; but they will not let us in; they shut us out, by their tariff and regulations. Yet our hon. friends says: "Let them into our market and ruin our market and industries for the Canadian people." That is not a loyal or patriotic policy for Canada. Every town, I think, wants manufacturing industries, and we want to encourage the establishment and development of such industries; but the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says: "If you know of any individual or institution who wants to come to Canada and start a manufacturing industry, tell him not to come."


Andrew Ross McMaster: Depending on the
tariff.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: He says: " They will not get any protection in this country if they come. If you know of anybody in Canada who contemplates starting an enterprise, tell him not to start one because he will not

get reasonable protection." I say that all Canadian towns and even our cities want protection and to encourage and induce manufacturing industries to locate in them. In my town, the board of trade and Municipal council are putting forth efforts every day in an endeavour to ge manufacturers to locate there. Under the policy of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), they are told to keep away and not to start their manufacturing industries in Canada.


Mr. FIELDING:: I do not want to delay my hon. friend. I would prefer that he read what I said. He has hardly stated the position exactly. However, the difference is not very great and I do not want to delay him.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I may not have given it word for word, but practically speaking, that was it.


William Stevens Fielding: No, not practically. I
said that if a manufacturer was depending upon protection he would not be wise to come to Canada, because he could not rely upon its being continued.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is practically what
I said.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think so, that if the
manufacturer depended upon protection he had better keep away. I say that we want to depend on protection. We want industries started in this country. We want men in Canada who have enterprise enough to start new industries, and there are a good many men in Canada who are abused by hon. gentlemen opposite who have enterprise enough to invest their money in Cana' dian industries. There are many men in this country who started with a very small capital, and who by their enterprise have built up manufacturing industries that are a credit to Canada. One of the great industries that I am interested in is the knitting business. We have a large institution which grew up under the Liberal policy in this country which gave us ample protection. All that we asked was that they would announce their intention of continuing that policy. Unfortunately, however, the Liberal party have now reached this position: They are afraid of the Agrarian group, who are free traders, and in order to satisfy them if they possibly can, they take the position in their speeches, at all events, in favour of low tariff or free trade. Whether they are sincere in that, I cannot say, but I doubt

very much if they are. I believe, however, that many people in Canada believe that they are insincere. They know what the Liberal' party professed in this country previous to 1896, when they were preaching this kind of thing, but did not carry it out after they had got into power. They put on a tariff very much higher than the tariff of this Government. The tariff of this Government is at least 3 per cent lower than the tariff of the Liberal party. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, if they are restored to power, would they restore the tariff. That shows how sincere they were, in power, and would our Agrarian friends support it? Our Agrarian friends who had loyally supported this Government left this side of the House when we lowered the tariff. That shows how insincere they were. I believe that the friends of the official Opposition throughout the country think that if they are returned to power they will not lower the tariff. I do not know what would happen between the two groups opposite. I do not know who would be leader, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. King), or the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). There may be some trouble over that, but at present both parties are trying to stand upon the resolution and the policy that has been introduced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. His resolution does not mean anything. Members from Ontario and Quebec, free traders and protectionists can all stand on that resolution.
Since I have been in this House I have never heard any one in the Farmers group move a resolution in favour of their policy of low tariff and free trade. I have never heard a resolution moved by the official'Opposition in this House advocating low tariff or free trade. They have not the courage to move such a resolution. The Prime Minister has dared them time and again to do it, but they have not done so. They have simply indulged in vague statements, instead of bringing in a resolution upon which one could stand.
I rose chiefly for the purpose of speaking on a matter in connection with which my name has been mentioned. I refer to the Roumanian and Greek orders. The men who have made that statement have made a statement that is absolutely unfair, and it was made for political purposes. I want to give the Farmers group credit. I do not think they have made that statement; but our friends of the official Opposition have. What are the facts? I speak of the industry I am interested in-the textile business. Samples were submitted by the Canadian manufacturers to Roumania and Greece. They themselves selected from those samples certain goods that they wanted to buy from Canada; they were a pretty low-priced goods. They sent their men over here, and they met manufacturers from every province. I say without hesitation and without fear of contradiction that no pressure or influence was brought to bear by any manufacturer to secure orders under the Roumanian or Greek loans. The manufacturers were given orders just as large as they could handle, and in some eases more. At the meeting of the manufacturers each one had the privilege of taking all the orders he could supply, and as I said before, manufacturers were there from Quebec, Montreal and every province and every place where they manufacture textile goods. Our manufacturers were busy at the time manufacturing goods for thp home market, and many took orders beyond their capacity. Other firms had to take over these contracts later. We manufactured what we had contracted for, and we helped out a good many other manufacturers, but there was no pressure or influence whatever brought to bear. It was a Clean, fair arrangement to everybody who wanted to take an order, regardless of what province he came from or where he made the goods. I say that it is absolutely unfair for men, solely for political purposes, to drag my name and the names of others before this House and claim that we got these orders as a favour from the Government. It was not any favour at all. The manufacturers took these orders largely from patriotic motives/ Notwithstanding that we were pretty busy and could not very well take these orders, the manufacturers felt that it was their duty to take all they could because Roumania and Greece were needing these goods. It was a clean, open business affair, and no one had any favours granted him.
In concluding, I believe that protection is the proper policy for Canada. I am not an extreme protectionist, but I believe that a fair and reasonable protection is in the interests of Canada, in the interests of the farmers, and more particularly in the interests of the working people in the factories of Canada. At the present time industry is in a deplorable condition. I know what I am talking about. Conditions are so bad that some manufacturers have lost more money in the last six months than they made perhaps during the whole of the war. At a time like this, industries need



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
to be encouraged, and tbe men in those industries should not be held up to ridicule and have unfair statements made about them in this House, because no one deserves such treatment less than those engaged in the manufacturing industries of this country. Our manufacturing industries need help; they need encouragement; they need protection, and I am sorry that all of us, farmers and men in every walk of life, Liberals and Conservatives, cannot all unite upon a policy of support and encouragement to the great manufacturing industries of this country.
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), irf beginning his speech this afternoon, assured the House that he was going tc be exceedingly brief, so that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) might have the floor immediately. He then proceeded to falsify that prediction, and succeeded admirably in doing so before he took his seat. In contradistinction to the hon. member, when I make the statement now that I shall be brief, I do so with the determination to live up to that assurance, not because there is not enough material to discuss, but because of the very early, or late, hour, as the case may be, and the evident desire of the House to come to a decision upon the question under consideration. That is the principal reason for my intention to be brief in the remarks I am going to make.
Now, the fact has been very patent, not only this session, but last session as well, that there is no single question which has been debated to such an extent from the Government benches as the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. That has been a favourite topic with a goodly number of hon. gentlemen opposite; in every debate of any pretensions they have introduced this subject. Well, that is really good political capital for our group, because the people who know our company best know perfectly well that the majority of the statements made in regard to that concern by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are biased, and are not directed in any proper or sensible spirit. We know that very well, and I would advise the Government that those gentlemen sitting on the benches behind them and supporting them, who persist in debating the merits of the United Grain Growers' Company, are a load that no Government can afford to carry. If the leaders of the Government have not had sufficient perspicacity to see that, then I am giving that first-hand information now, because I have

travelled around the country considerably, and I know the sentiment of the people, and I can assure this House that the people, particularly in the western part of Canada, object to these irrational statements on the part of individuals who know little about the operations of that company. I deplore the very low level which was reached by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in his contribution to the debate. The hon. gentleman's attitude is to be deprecated, and the arguments which he has advanced tonight are not worthy of the smallest man in this House, particularly in so far as his remarks had reference to the United Grain Growers. But there is one matter to which he made reference, and in regard to which I, as an individual, have more information than any other member. I have personal information on the subject in question, and had not been for the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver resuscitated it, I had no! intended to allude to the incident. Perhapc the House is already aware of the fact thal I put in two weeks, excepting two days, in the electoral district of York and Sunbury, and I spent every day but one of the time I was in the constituency in the city of Fredericton, the headquarters of both organizations. I know this to be a positive fact, which neither the Prime Minister nor any other gentleman can controvert, for I heard it iterated and reiterated, on the streets of the city of Fredericton, in the committee rooms, and in every other place where men congregate to discuss public matters, that the Government and its party are canvassing absolutely on religious lines. I speak whereof I know, and I would not have referred to this matter had it not been for the efforts of the Government to make it appear that this assertion in the first place had no basis of truth. I repeat that this is the biggest issue discussed
2	a.m. in York-Sunbury, namely the charge that the Government supporters are working on religious grounds.
Now, we have listened to an address on high protection by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), and we quite expected the hon. gentleman to make a speech of that nature. I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into any detailed discussion of the merits of the question. The hon. member makes the sweeping assertion that we are free traders. When my hon. friend makes that statement, he thereby gives proof positive that he has not read nor considered the platform on which we stand

Neither he, nor any other hon. gentleman can prove that we have ever stated that we are a free trade party, and yet that assertion is made throughout the country on the hustings, and also in this House, no matter how frequently nor how clearly it is refuted. In a few words, I would say that we demand that those who wish protection shall come before a tribunal of the House and show reasons why they should have it; and that is a most logical position in regard to the tariff. With that sentiment, I will leave any further reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Haldimand.
I rose for the purpose, if possible, at this late hour, of introducing some new material into the debate. Ever since I have come to the House, I have been quite in sympathy with the Minister of Finance in the great task with which he is charged, of raising money wherewith to administer the affairs of the country; but it seems to me that the minister himself is not sympathetic with those who would help him. He apparently has no desire to accept advice from those who tender it from this side of the House, and his cold attitude towards the sincere intentions of hon. members who would lend him some assistance cannot but be regarded as evidence of an improper spirit. Now, I wish to state that I am always proud to say a word for the big organizations of the West, the big agrarian organizations. Some time ago the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association asked the Canadian Council of Agriculture to gather first-hand information pending the day when bank legislation would be introduced so that such information could be available for the use of those who might frame that legislation. The idea was borne of a desire to help the Government, but we find that when the Minister of Finance proceeds to get information he does not go to any of these organizations. Now, I am actuated to-night by a desire to suggest to the minister some new avenues whereby money can be raised for the country. My sole desire is to suggest ways and means whereby the Minister of Finance may raise more revenue and tax some sources of wealth so far' untaxed or, if taxed, not taxed to their capacity. I wish to refer, then, to our large banking institutions. Now, the banking institutions of this country, like those of other civilized countries, hold valuable franchises granted by the Government not only for the purpose of handling the moneys of the country, but for extending credits. It is a very valuable thing, a great consideration, to any group of individuals to be granted such a privilege and power. By that power they can extend or curtail expansion, and as a result depress certain industries if they so desire. It seems to me, Sir, that our banking institutions in Canada have not had the right view in respect to commercial and agricultural enterprises. It seems to me that their desire has been to extend credits more quickly to commercial enterprises than they have to agricultural pursuits. I cite the following as an illustration: When we wish to market our wheat in the West, or when, late in the season, it is our desire to prepare the soil for the next season an individual may go to the banks and say "I would like to ask for a loan to permit me to get my land in better shape for my crop of next year. I have so many thousand bushels of wheat threshed and in my bins on the farm and I would like an advance to finance myself until the cold weather comes when I can haul my wheat." Immediately the banking institutions will say "No, we do not extend credit in the case of wheat." But what happens? The moment you take that wheat and put it in the elevators the same banks that in the first instance refused the farmer credit, extend a credit to the concern which probably has put up a $5,000 or $7,000 building at that point although they had denied it to the agriculturist. That goes on all over Western Canada; I believe it to be the case in the east, wherever commodities are handled in large quantities and big sums of money are required. I quote that in substantiation of the statement I made that the viewpoint of the banking institutions of Canada is not as favourable to agriculture as it is to other industries. Of course those other industries may have two or three turn-overs in the course of a year, and that may be one of the reasons for the bank's policy towards them. But in the final analysis I am convinced, and I think all other hon. gentlemen are also, that agriculture is the surest source of wealth in Canada. Now we have a Government that does not seem to want to intervene in behalf of agriculture in that respect; I believe there is something lacking there. I believe that agriculture should demand that the influence of the Government should be used to see that equality prevails in the establishment of credits to commercial and agricultural enterprises alike.
I now wish to deal with the question of taxation. The axiom we should follow is
[Stage Direction]
that those best able to bear taxation should pay it; and I believe that if we look into this matter closely we will come to the conclusion that the large banking institutions of Canada are not contributing as large a proportion to the taxes as the franchise extended to them by the Government warrants, although they are in better shape financially than other sections of the community. The statement issued with respect to the chartered banks of Canada up to March 31, is before me and a perusal of it would lead one to believe that these large institutions are concealing the value of their assets. I will give an example of what I mean, and because I use the names of certain banks I would not have the inference drawn that it is from any desire to discredit those particular institutions-I believe the same conditions prevail in all our banks. In the case of any business corporation it will be admitted that when in large urban centres a' central site is chosen and expensive buildings erected thereon, the value of the land and buildings is not stationary, but an increase in value follows. That does not appear to be the case in the bank statement; no matter for what.length of time a bank occupies a site it continues to send to the Government only the initial price paid for that land and the buildings erected upon it. For example, take the Royal Bank-which is considered one of the strongest if not the strongest bank in the Dominion at the present time. The figures for that institution are as follows:
Total assets	$543,748,151
Total Liability	 501,340,235
Assets over Liabilities	$ 42,407,916
Value of premises	 9,705,809
All hon. gentlemen who are familiar with large urban centres where the Royal Bank holds valuable property will realize that the price given in those figures is a very low estimate of the value of the sites and buildings which they possess. Now take the Bank of Montreal:
Total assets	$528,101,391
Total liabilities	 476,899,937
Assets over liabilities	$ 51,201,454
Value o£ premises	 5,550,000
The same condition obtains with respect to the Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Hamilton, the Imperial Bank and all the other banks. Now here is the comparison 
I wish to make: In the West we have the small city of Weyburn with a population of not more than 8,000. In that city there is a bank known as the Weyburn Security Bank, which has fifteen small branches located throughout the West. Many of these branches are established in villages, none of them in large populous centres and yet we find the figures sent in by the Weyburn Security Bank are $203,515 for fifteen branches, or an average value of $13,567. The initial price, or at least the price per site, of the Merchants Bank is $10,388, a less amount per site than that given by the little Weyburn Security Bank in the West. The Merchants Bank has its headquarters in a city which boasts a population of 750,000 and yet its average price is given as $3,250 less than the average site of t^e Weyburn Security Bank, located in m<v..y instances in places not having a larger population than 250. Something is wrong also when the Royal Bank shows a valuation of only $26 per site more than the little bank referred to. If it is a fact that these banking institutions are not sending in proper returns to the Government they should be obliged to live up to the law; otherwise what is the good of sending in the returns at all? If an organization or an individual were to go to the directors of the Bank of Montreal and ask them for the value of their buildings and sites they would probably place it at $50,500,000 rather than $5,550,000. If they have received profits of that nature from valuable franchises of the Dominion Government, I believe it is only right that investigation should be made so that they may be called upon to pay their fair share of the taxation of the country. There must be some reason why the returns are sent in in that manner.
Another illustration that I would give refers to land taxation. In our western country, and I believe in all the other provinces, we have the evil known as the land speculator, but particularly in the West, while even down in the province of New Brunswick I have heard complaints that the evil is prevalent and lands are being held out of use. In the part of the country in which my home is, when I went in there speculators, largely from the United States, held lands that they had purchased at from $1.50 to $3 an acre. Those lands at that time were not worth any more perhaps, but those speculators came in and bought them in sections, half townships and townships, and as the homesteads around were taken up and my neighbour and I-I use this

only as illustrative of what happened- made those vacant lands valuable, those speculators were able to sell at an increase in some instances as high as 1,500 per cent. I maintained in the first address I made in this House that that unearned increment is one of the means whereby this Government should receive taxation. What happens? Our big speculators come in from the United States and for an outlay of a few thousand dollars get in return hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they take back with them, and our Government stands aside and lets them do so. The State has created that wealth, and a portion of it should be taken for administering the affairs of the State. I think it is only logical and just that in Canada or in any other country where such conditions prevail the Government should step in and appropriate a certain portion of that unearned increment.
I read in the book which was quoted by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) yesterday as an authority that agriculture every year loses approximately $125,000,000 because of destruction caused by vermin and insect pests. That is an enormous amount of money, and these large vacant areas are largely responsible, as any hon. gentleman who has lived in the West knows to be the fact, these large vacant areas are the breeding grounds of all the vermin and insect pests that prey upon our field crops. And those large vacant areas work this further hardship, that neighbours are a mile farther apart and 'have farther to go to church and to market; yet the settlers have to pay the taxes for the local improvements that enhance the value of these lands held by speculators. Every statement I make is applicable to the lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of its subsidiary companies. I think my suggestion can be worked out, and I am confident that the people of Canada will endorse a policy that will ensure a fair proportion of this unearned increment being appropriated for the use of the State. The taxation of these lands is a policy that we of the western provinces have to resort to simply because we have not any natural resources to fall back upon. We have been obliged for the purposes of provincial revenues to devise ways and means whereby taxes could be raised, and we have imposed a tax upon these people. Still they do not yet pay their fair proportion of the taxes. The residents have to pay the federal, provincial and municipal taxes, and now a sales tax is imposed, which increases the federal levy; but these speculators, who mostly live outside of Canada, escape the majority of these taxes, and pay no federal tax for the use of the land or for any unearned increment. I maintain that the federal authorities should oblige those speculators to leave a fair share of that unearned increment in this country, either in the form of straight taxes or of a substantial portion of the large profits they receive as a result of the enhanced prices of their land due to the efforts of the people in the community.
During the last ten or twelve years the provincial and federal governments have got much of their advice through commissions, but it is my opinion that the day of commissions is pretty nearly past. What Canada needs at the present ^ime is appraisers to go out and value the assets of the country-the assets of great institutions, to ascertain if they are paying their fair and equitable share of taxation. In the case of the civil servants here in Ottawa their Pay Sheets are taken as the basis for computing the taxes they shall pay. They are made of the same clay as the people interested in these large institutions, and the Government should be big enough to have men go out and place a value on them, so that they may be taxed as thoroughly as the civil servant. One should be treated the same as the other. I maintain that if appraisers are put on and institutions can show they are paying a fair share of taxation they will not suffer; but when men connected with those institutions decry the appointment of appraisers, that immediately raises a doubt in my mind as to whether they are really paying their fair and equitable share of taxation, because if they are they would have nothing to fear.
Francis Ramsey Lalor: They would be delighted to have an investigation and to pay theip share of the taxes.


Mr. GOULD:: I would point out to my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) that that is one of the planks in the platform of the Agrarian party, and I am pleased to know that he supports that plank. Despite all the lamentations over this platform, I find in the majority of cases wherever I have been speaking, whether here, in the country or on the floor of this House, invariably some plank in that platform is brought up which some one will endorse.

Now, on a number of platforms in the West preceding this session when being asked by members of my audience about the proposed tariff commission, I made this assertion-I do not wish to say this as endeavouring to prove that I am a prophet, for I am not, neither am I a descendant of a race of prophets-and it will be borne out, I believe, that all the tariff commission would amount to would be to fulfill the promise the Government had made to hold an inquiry, but that the evidence collected would be pigeon-holed. Such we find to be the case to-day. The people have demanded that the promises of the Government should be implemented to the fullest extent, and that following the work of that commission legislation should be brought before this House. We would like to know what the sentiment of the Government is in the matter of 'tariff revision, whether up or down. Just the bald statement that the Government stand for a protective platform is not good enough. The people demand from the Government, just as the Government have been demanding of the Opposition, a definite declaration - they want to know whether the revision is going to be up or down.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Will my hon. friend be good enough to tell me whether he accepts the policy of the Canadian Council of Agriculture to the effect that the British preference should be increased to fifty per cent and that free trade should be completed in this country inside of five years?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman is the same gentleman who asked that question yesterday.


Avard Longley Davidson: A new seeker after
truth.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have no hesitation in saying that that is our policy. I am not prepared to accept the view expressed by the hon. member for Brantford that if we were to have free trade with Great Britain it would mean free trade with the whole world. We h'ave a British preference at this time, but it does not affect the tariff in relation to other countries. In my humble opinion, it is absurd to say that if we have freedom of trade with Great Britain it must necessarily follow that we shall have free trade with the whole world.
The hon. member for Brantford asserted also that the policy as outlined by the hon. member for Marquette, my honoured leader, would be destructive to the interests of

the workingman of Canada; that our policy as laid down in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture would work havoc and ruin to the Workingman as well as to the industries of Canada. Well, it was a case of simply making assertions without offering proof. Why the policy to which the hon. member for Brantford gives allegiance has already proved itself to be a failure. Take the case of Toronto, with the 20,000 men clamouring for bread; surely that in itself is condemnation of the present system. In a land in which the resources are so great and the agricultural possibilities so abundant, is there any reason why we should have starvation?


Mr. MYERS:: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how many are employed in free trade Britain?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am not prepared to give the figures, but when coal strikes are on and other economic disturbances prevail, figures do not prove anything in any case. We do know, however, that Britain is recovering much more readily from her huge war debt than Canada is, and that may count for something.
I was making some reference to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Brantford. I believe that he asserted that the value of the exports of manufactured goods was in excess of the value of exports of agriculture. I asked the hon. gentleman at that time if it was not a fact that, taking say 5 bushels of wheat at a value of $1.50 a bushel, or $7.50, entering into the manufacture of a barrel of flour valued at $12-the only value coming under the head of manufacture being $4.50- I asked whether the whole value of the product $12 had not been credited to manufacture instead of only $4.50. Any computation on that basis would be quite unfair. If in such cases the price of the natural product were deducted from the value of the manufactured product, it would be found that the value of manufactured products exported does not compare with the value of the products of the farm, and the difference would be even greater if you added the products of the mines, the fisheries and the forests. The natural products of Canada are the wealth of Canada upon which the national debt rests and by and through which the national debt must be paid.
As a further illustration, take the case of hides. I have before me a letter written by my brother-in-law in which he asks

me if another brother-in-law had said anything to me about beef hides. He shipped to Brandon six hides and he got one cent a pound for them. After he had paid the express on these six beef hides he had $1.35 left-and Brandon is about 130 miles distant from his home. They say that every cloud has a silver lining. Well, the only silver lining I can see in this case is that if he is called upon to pay income tax next year it will not be very heavy. Six cow hides-and one dollar toward the price of a pair of shoes! You could load up a team with beef hides and you would not get enough from the sale of them to pay for the harness with which the load was drawn. That is agriculture, and if my hon. friend from Brantford wishes to take that as an illustration; if he takes the value of the hide when made into leather and into shoes and counts that as manufacture, and then asks the people of this House to believe that the value of manufactures exceeds the value of agricultural products, then I say that it is an enormity, an illustration used simply for the purposes of argument.
The Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) has also done his best to make it appear throughout the country that this United Farmers' Organization is a very vicious institution. 'Likewise, the member for Brantford would make it appear that it was not a fact that the manufacturers of Canada had refused to sell to the United Grain Growers. Now, I happen to be a shareholder in that organization; I am proud to say that I was a shareholder in it when it was first started. This company has been doing my business; I am satisfied with the manner in which they are doing it, and that being the case I do not see that it is anybody else's business. The very fact that this company does a large volume of business proves that the people for whom they do business are satisfied with them.
The Minister of Militia, speaking in York or some place near Toronto, said that we were disloyal in not buying Canadian made implements. The privilege had been denied us at the time at which he spoke, but in the House he made reference to it, and we tried to give the hon. gentleman the evidence, possibly thinking that he did not have the full facts. But he said: "I do not wish to be interrupted." I do not know whether the hon. gentleman's sentiments are influenced by the signs which have been placed up by the Canadian Manufacturers, on one side: "Buy made-in-Canada goods," and on the other:
"Where will the revenue come from? " I read in the Estimates of the hon. gentleman's own department: "Customs duties on all imported stores and clothing, including material for the manufacture of ammunition, $40,000"-and this is the hon. gentleman who charges the farmers with being unpatriotic. Last year the item on this account was $50,000. Now why does the hon. gentleman go about the country trying to create prejudices, trying to make it appear that the farmers in the West, who were forced into this business in order to protect themselves from the avarice of financial institutions, are not acting properly, when the hon. gentleman himself was far more guilty of the very thing of which he charged us? But I wish to have it stated in Hansard that too much of this stuff is spoken, not in sincerity, but only on account of political prejudices, with a desire to make political capital. The people of the Dominion are anxiously looking for men who will speak in accordance with principles in which they believe and on which they act. That is, at least, what I am trying to do. I speak from a principle, and I have not yet reached the political stage where I would lose my sincerity to such an extent that I would try to take cheap political pat ty advantage of hon. gentlemen. That is beneath me, and, I believe it is beneath the policy of the group which I have the honour to represent.
Just a few words in closing. The minister rose to a very high tone in his closing remarks when he asked for the unity of the people of Canada. When he went to the manufacturers' associations, retail merchants' associations, Credit Men's associations and so on for advice, they advised him to discard the luxury and other taxes and to impose a sales tax. I wish to point out that the labouring man, the man who works in the mine or on the railway or on the farm, wears out more clothes and shoes than hon. gentlemen sitting in this chamber, and the. result will be that the sales tax will bear more heavily on those individuals, while the individuals who have a right and can afford to pay taxes on luxuries, are exempt. Had the minister gone to the Canadian Council of Agriculture, he would at least have heard the other side of the story and it is only fair to the great masses of the people of Canada that the minister, in his desire, which was, perhaps, an'earnest one, to get first hand information and advice, should have gone to all classes representative of the people of

the Dominion to ask for that advice. If, perchance, the minister has an opportunity another year of asking for advice. for the purposes of Government, I would advise him to go to that great organization, because we believe, and we have a right to believe, that we have in that great organization in the West, the Canadian Council of Agriculture, a body of men and women who are the equals intellectually of men and women in any other organization in this Dominion. But in all cases they have been despised and ignored by this Government, because they are the appointees of the plain people who think of these economic questions so much. When these people elect these men to do those things for them and this Government, sitting in high places, spurns and despises the advice which they give, not in a partisan spirit, these people have a right, perhaps, to repeat the sentiments that are sometimes sent out that this Government is representative only of the big interests of the Dominion of Canada. Not until all the people of Canada shall be taken into consideration, will faith again permeate the body politic. The minister asks for it in high tones; but he has not established a precedent himself, and I say, not in any spirit of antagonism, but in a desire to suggest something of the errors into which the Government has fallen and means whereby it can redeem itself largely in the eyes of the people, that it should not ignore the request of the plain people, hut should lend a sympathetic ear, because they are just as capable and wise as those belonging to other organizations, and in many" eases they seem to be used only as the dromedaries of taxation. The people object to that.


Mr. SEGUIN (L'Assomption and Montcalm) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, if I rise at this stage of the debate, be assured that I do not intend to put forth new arguments to condemn as it should be condemned the policy of the present Administration; but as I occupy a seat in this Parliament in order to represent my constituents, I think it is my duty to express my most emphatic disapproval of the manner public business is administered by this Government. After having given us a real dance of the millions, after having completely destroyed Canadian credit by their extravagant expenditure, after having lead us to the very door of bankruptcy, our present administrators cannot find any other remedy to-day to help us out of the predicament in which they have placed us,

than to impose new taxes. Instead of practising the strictest economy, the present Government distribute gold by the handful, provided some of their friends are there to receive the lion's share.
These gentlemen talk of economy and of a wise administration of the public treasure only when it is proposed to assist some public undertaking, however meritorious, in the province of Quebec. If you ask these gentlemen to vote moneys for a post office, for the establishment of experimental farms or other similar works required in one of our counties, the answer is ever ready: "The treasury is empty"; but, should the proposal be to build a railway, or ships, or to increase the militia, oh! then, there is no hesitation in taking money out of the treasury and the debt continues to increase, to the despair of al. true patriots.
While listening to the speeches delivered, during the course of this debate, by the hon. minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), by the right hon. Prime minister (Mr. Meighen), and by several others, one wonders if these gentlemen have not gone out of their minds. Instead of admitting that the State treasury is quite empty, that there is a large increase of our indebtedness at the end of each fiscal year, the present Government cry as loudly as possible that everything is all right and they continue cramming their friends.
The so-called tariff commission went travelling through the country during several months, and with a semblance of seriousness, they gathered the information as well as the suggestions which were available. Considering all these preparations, the electors throughout the country, were entitled to a revision of the tariff in view of improving present conditions.
Even the people in the rural districts were allured by the deceitful management of our Government leaders, and to mention a case with which I am well acquainted, and which I have taken especially to heart, I may refer to that of my friends, the tobacco growers of my district. Their situation is one of the most critical; some of them have yet on hand their tobacco harvest of 1919 and 1920, it is no unusual occurrence to meet farmers in my county who have a thousand, five thousand, ten thousand and even twenty thousand pounds of tobacco for sale and who are offered only ridiculously low prices. Yet, the hon. Minister of Finance has invited them to meet him in Montreal and even in Ottawa. They have explained to him the critical situation in

which they are placed, they have suggested to him remedies for their troubles. They had a right to expect that he would take their case into consideration and that something would be done to improve their fate; they had awaited the Budget with anxiety, and now they have been completely ignored by the Minister of Finance who evidently wishes to irritate them by depriving them of all hope for relief. In behalf of all these worthy farmers of whom advantage is being taken, in behalf of rfty good friends the tobacco growers of l'Assomption and Montcalm, I wish this evening to place on record my protest against the lack of pro- | tection given by the present Government to the interests of the agricultural class, and in behalf of the latter, I wish to repeat to my hon. friend the requests which I made when I submitted to him the representations made by the tobacco growers, in my county, and I would ask him to submit to the House, before the end of the session and without further delay, a measure to which I extend my support in advance, though it be on a protective basis because I declare myself for anything which may protect the farmer and the tobacco grower.
Such a measure should include the following provisions which sum up the fair claims of the tobacco growers of the country, that is to say:
I.	Increase the duty to one dollar a
pound on foreign tobacco, unstripped, and to one dollar and fifty cents on foreign tobacco, stripped.	*
II.	Make compulsory the destruction of the ribs stripped from the tobacco leaves, as required previous to 1917.
III.	Allow the producer to keep, for his
personal use, at least thirty-five pounds of leaf tobacco or other tobacco; give the same permission for each of his sons and his male servants.	.
IV.	Dispense growers of the requirement of securing a yearly permit and abolish the five cent duty per pound imposed on leaf tobacco, and if there must be a permit and a duty, to facilitate the collection of same by establishing an office to that effect in the post office of every locality where tobacco is being grown.
May I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will hear this appeal in the name of my electors? I entertain serious doubts in this respect. Nevertheless, it would show that really the minister is anxious to be fair towards the farmers of this country.
The hon. Minister of Finance and the Government of the day have heretofore
failed to implement their pledge to those who relied on the long advertised revision of the tariff. They have particularly omitted to procure relief to my good friends, the tobacco growers of l'Assomption and Montcalm; moreover, as I have not the least confidence in this Government of profiteers, I shall gladly vote against the motion of the Minister of Finance, giving my full support to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's ;(Mr. Fielding).


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Jacques-Car-tier) :: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I feel father embarrassed in addressing the House after all those splendid speeches. The hon. members on both sides, have spoken admirably on the subject of the Budget, and it so happens that, at two o'clock in the morning I am obliged to make a few remarks in all fairness to my electors. May I ask my hon. colleague to grant me their attention for a few minutes?


Andrew Ross McMaster: (Translation). Hear, hear.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.)
When one is in business, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary at times to take stock. Merchants, manufacturers, business men and even to professional men examine the state of their business every year, and this is what I mean to do this evening, as a politician.
I have seen many a thing in my time- unfortunately I am getting old. When hon. Mr. Mackenzie came to power, and this is a long time ago, I was a young man, yet I was interested in politics. He came to power in 1874, and administered public affairs until 1878. He was a freetrader. He was an honest man, a man of strong principles. No one ever doubted the sincerity of the late Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. Amongst other important things which he did, was the institution of the Supreme Court. He gave the people the ballot system, he continued the construction of railways which had been begun. We had just had the amazing scandal, the Pacific scandal, and I remember well the words of the Conservative leader of the time: "These hands are clean." He spoke the truth. The late Sir John Macdonald, an honest man, a most distinguished politician, had not taken any part in this, extraordinary scandal, this colossal scandal, for which his friends were responsible. One had received a large amount, another had received a smaller one; there were quite a few whose hands were not clean. That is why Sir John Macdonald de-

dared: "My hands are dean." And I believe it was true. The hon. Mr. Mackenzie assumed the duties of office and performed these until 1878. He was a free-trader, and decidedly so. The people did not approve of his administration. Sir John Macdonald, who was cumiing, took advantage of the situation to ask for protection; the national policy which he had always refused to give. He had been a free-trader at first, but seeing that his opponent was also a free-trader, he said to himself: This may help me in getting into power, I am going to declare myself a protectionist. He won the elections wiih a large majority, assumed power ana governed until his death, in 1891. He was replaced by Sir John Abbott, a distinguished lawyer from Montreal, and one that held a high reputation, an honest man who did not live very long. He did not have time to do much. He was succeeded by Sir John Thompson, who was a Catholic; and who kept the reins of power until his death which occurred in England. Great Britain furnished the ship which brought his body home to Canada. On the ship's arrival at Halifax, there was another scandal and a very extraordinary one. I remember taking part in elections at that time when we were speaking of the famous scandal which had occurred on the occasion of the death of Sir John Thompson. The friends of the deceased managed to spend a considerable amount of money for his funeral. The pall bearers were given each a new pair of shoes, worth fifteen dollars and a silk hat. Generally, when you go to a funeral, before leaving your house you take your hat along with you, and you do not expect a new hat to he given to you at the deceased's house, on that occasion, you had to wear a new silk hat. Usually you give a pair of gloves to each one of the pall bearers; but this time you required twelve pairs, for each pall bearer. There were roses also. Well, it is the custom to give roses to newly-wed couples, but on the occasion of a funeral, you usually give a wreath or a few flowers. At any rate, they spent $2,000 worth of flowers for this funeral, the total cost of which amounted to $12,500. When we told the people that they had spent that much for a funeral, they would not believe it; we had to bring them the Hansard and let them read the evidence thus brought out; then they realized that we were telling the truth. So much said for the funeral of Sir John Thompson. He was succeeded by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was an honest man.


Mr. FONTAINE:: (Translation.) He
was not a Catholic.


David Arthur Lafortune: men as Mr. Joly, once premier of the province- of Quebec. He gathered the Prime Ministers from every province and thus formed a very, strong cabinet.
For the Department of Agriculture, he chose a most practical man, Hon. Mr. Fisher, who died recently. He was a man of great experience. He knew the difference between a duck and a goose. The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Montague, coming to a farm-yard one day, said to the farmer's wife: "Madame, what a fine goose you have there!" "Sir," she replied, "this is not a goose, it is a duck." He did not know the difference between a goose and a duck. Mr. Fisher knew better. With men of such worth, well-known men of high reputation, in Sir Wilfrid's Laurier's Cabinet, not the first year, because there was a small deficit, but each subsequent year, there was a great surplus at the end of the fiscal year, whilst the other gentlemen, the previous administrators, had deficits, and large deficits, Mr. Speaker, this proves what men of worth, talent and integrity Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues were; they administered the country wisely, prudently, rightly, and with the greatest success.
The Hon. Mr. Mackenzie was somewhat obstinate; he was a Scotchman. He was advised by friends, at that time, to change the tariff, but he did not want to do so. He was a free trader, and held firm to his principles. That brought his defeat. Sometimes I hear hon. members on the Government side trying bo recall the past in order to prove that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends were free traders; but, these gentlemen are only quoting things that happened before Laurier came to power. They quote Sir Richard Cartwright, he was a free trader. Some of his friends were free traders, but Sir Wilfrid always refused to adopt that policy. He adopted the policy of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) which was of a happy medium, and that policy is mine also. I regret not being able to follow the arguments which our hon. friends on the ministerial side are trying to bring forward, but I prefer adopting the same argument as the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) whom I trust. I listened to him to-day with great pride. There were several candidates at the large convention. We struggled hard before we made our choice. Hon. Mr. Graham was one of the candidates, there was the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, he is not a first-
comer, he is an extraordinary man; we had the leader of the Opposition who was chosen in preference to all; neither is the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie.) a first-comer, and he also was there; but we needed a leader in Parliament, we could not have a family of leaders, we had to choose one only, and I think we chose the best. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's is here, he has shown what he could do during fifteen years, and we want him for our Minister of Finance at the first opportunity. I assure you that it is not an easy matter to get millions from the hon. member. He was very strict. His friends . thought so, because he did not unfasten the purse-strings very readily. One wants unreasonable things sometimes, and asks for them just the same, then, sulks and murmurs when it is impossible to obtain what has been asked; but, I assure you that one must be careful with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's; one must be there early to get something; but let us honour him for that, honour is due to this method of managing the public funds. He has proven his worth, he is highly reputed as a financial man, and we want him to continue the work he has started with such success.
When Sir Wilfrid came into power and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's had given us the tariff, manufactures were built as if by magic. My county is a manufacturing county, it is the county of Jacques-Cartier. There are several manufactures in the county of Jacques-Cartier, and they were all prosperous; industries were most prosperous during Sir Wilfrid Laurier's and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's time. Manufactures rose amongst us as quickly as mushrooms. In less time than it takes to say it, a big chimney, a large manufacture was built; and, Mr. Speaker, were you to visit the county of Jacques-Cartier and see what is being done at Sainte Anne, Point Claire, Dixie, Valois, Lachine, Dorval, St. Pierre-aux-Liens, Cote Saint Paul, Emhrd, Saint Gabriel, you would be most astonished to see the great number of manufactures that have been erected in that district.
Then you go to Cartierville? you come to Saint-Laurent, to park Amherst, to Bordeaux ; manufactures and very, prosperous manufacturers. And if ever the hon. member for Prince, who is our leader, wanted to adopt a policy capable of hurting these industries, I would vote against him. But there is no danger; he is of the good school.

He attended the school of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the school of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, that is enough. I am certain he will never swerve from the proper course, from the golden mean, which would permit success to the manufacturer and give the working class, the artisan, the workman, bread for their families. I am certain he will never swerve from that course, should he try to do so, D. A. Lafor-tune, member for Jacques-Cartier, would be against him. But no danger of that.
The agricultural class was most prosperous during the fifteen years of the last Administration-Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew its needs, and his followers knew what their electors needed. As for myself, I have lived in the country for the last thirty-five years, cultivating farms at Saint-Laurent, and under the Liberal Administration I have been proud and happy; but since the fall of Sir Wilfrid and his friends, distress, want prevail'. In former time, the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier meant prosperity; that of the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and his successor spelt wretchedness. They had the same tariff, they had the same elements to deal with; but the boss was not the same. He had promised to settle the burning school question which Sir 1 John A. Macdonald, Sir MacKenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John Thompson, all the Conservative leaders that are no more, had promised, but failed to settle. Mr. Laurier succeeded to settle this question, not completely, but to the satisfaction of the episcopate, to the satisfaction of His Holiness Leo XIII, who said to the faithful-I advise you to accept this settlement, it is not complete; I would have desired to see it more satisfactory to the Catholics, but under the circumstances, accept what is given and pray God you may obtain the rest.
This question has dissappeared from the field of discussion. All are content, and I pay my tribute to the Canadian clergy for having, by their acceptance of that settlement, put an end to the then existing trouble. Since that day, there is no hell for the Liberals, we do not hear any more that the heavens are blue, that hell is red (the colours of the two parties of that day), and the clergy has done justice to us in putting us on an equal footing. Those days are ended.
I remember going once into a church, in the district of Three-Rivers. The parish priest ascended the pulpit and said: "My
children, be careful, there are Liberals today in the village, in the parish; do not listen to them, listen to your priest. You know that hell is red, and that heaven is blue." I need not tell you that we left the church not over-pleased for having been treated in that way. We were going there to do our duty, to preach peace, concord, to make known the policy of the Liberal party; we were not expecting such treatment. But, all credit to the clergy now! Those things are of the past. Now, the Liberals are treated like the Conservatives and vice versa. We have nothing to complain of.
It had been said that contracts would be given to the lowest tenderers, and Sir Wilfrid, jealous of his word, had a law passed providing that for all cases of contracts of over $5,000, tenders should be invited, and that all such should be given to the lowest bidder. When you see the hon. Minister of Marine giving $78,000,000 contracts without tenders; when you see, I say, the Minister of Marine giving contracts for 75 or 78 million dollars without tenders-I will not abuse him, he is a former Liberal', let us respect him; but I will tell him that he has violated the law put on the statute book by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which prohibits contracts being given without tenders in matters of more than $5,000. That law, the hon. minister has had occasion to see it, to read it, to get acquainted with it, but he did not respect it-let him allow me to say that he does not respect the laws that are on the statute books, he over-rides them, he does not mind them. He is king and master in his department, but let me say to him-"Sir, this is not the way the laws of the land should be observed."
There has been put in the contracts a clause which did not exist before-to the effect that the workman's salary should be respected by the contractors and all subcontractors, and that the recipient of a contract, would be responsible for the workman's salary. It was not that way before. A contract was given to Peter, Peter would transfer it to Baptiste, Baptiste to Paul, and in the end the workmen did not know whom to apply to for their pay and they lost it.
There are now in the agreements a clause which protects the labourers, and that is what we had said.
We have built a great number of post offices. The Montreal post office was in a wretched condition, as well as in other places; every public building was neglected,

and we had to provide for a great number of post offices and for repairing those which existed. That cost very dear but notwithstanding the expenses incurred for those large undertakings there was always a surplus at the end of the year.
In Montcalm, I had succeeded with great difficulty to get the consent of the 'honourable Minister of Finance to give me a post office. I had difficulties because he thought that the population was not sufficiently great, and that the business of the community was not sufficiently large. I proved to Mr. Laurier and the Minister of Finance that a post office in Montcalm was necessary and I got it. What happened? A site was bought and paid for; I had specifications prepared and I was ready to ask for tenders when the general elections were held and my post office was left there. At the present time, it is the cats and dogs that occupy the site; the specifications remained in the pigeon holes and we have never been able since that time to get a post office built. I am not sorry for it, because I have obtained from the voters of Montcalm a promise that if I could get a post office built there, they would give it my name, but, let them not do it, and I will have it built myself and my name shall be there; that post office will be the work of the next administration. They will ask for tenders and the Saint-Jacqueis post office will be built, and I shall he glad to have contributed to it.
The Hon. Mr. Laurier created two large provinces, and, if we have the honour now to have so many distinguished men from Alberta and from Saskatchewan, to whom are we indebted? It is thanks to Mr. Laurier. It is the government of that time who gave us an opportunity to bring to this House so many distinguished men from the West. There is something more to do at the present time. There is the great NorthWest Territory to open, and we shall do it when we have a Liberal government, and it will not be long now.
The hon. Mr. Gouin, who is not the first comer has compelled the Dominion Government to give u's an additional subsidy which we had not before Mr. Gouin showed that the 80 cents obtained every year from the Dominion Government was not sufficient. Mr. Laurier was a little reluctant; Mr. Fielding was hesitating, hut finally those terms were granted to the provinces and, if the province of Quebec receives a [DOT]million, if the province of Ontario receives a (million and three or four hundred thousand dollars and the. other provnces as

much, we owe it to Mr. Laurier and Mr. Fielding, who recognized the fairness of the claim. Mr. Gouin had called together all the Prime ministers of the several provinces in a great convention, and he satisfied the Dominion Government that the request he made for an additional subsidy was reasonable. We got it, and it was a great help for the provinces.
We have brought into existence the rural mail delivery, which was not a small improvement. How happy we are to receive our letters at home! The red box that we have at the door of each dwelling is a great relief indeed. In days gone by we used to receive our letters at the village, when we had time to go and get them. It was often late, roads were bad, and very often also the weather was bad. This rural mail delivery accommodates us indeed.
There is every year a large deficit in the post office department. The Hon. Mr. Lemieux took charge of the department and got a surplus of a million and some hundreds of thousand dollars. After having improved the post offices, after having decreased the cost of stamps-instead of paying three cents we then paid two cents and one cent-the	surpluses
weire considerable. We have changed boss, it was not the old administration. The hon. Mr. Lemieux, now representing Maison-neuve and Gaspe, had much success in his administration as Postmaster General.
A MEMBER: Hear, hear.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Since then there was a change in the price of postage stamps. The one cent system has disappeared. The hon. member for Mai-sonneuve( Mr. Lemieux) brought into Use the post cards I assure you that everything went well with those post cards; there was much correspondence and that increased enormously the revenue.
Under Sir Wilfrid, all the departments had a fair proportion of employees belonging to each nationality. Irishmen, Englishmen and French Canadians were about in the right proportion. But since Sir Wilfrid Laurier is gone, things have changed. A great number of French Canadians were dismissed and replaced by Irishmen and by Englishmen. When we come back to power, we shall see that this proportion is restored in a just and fair way, and that those of our French Canadian countrymen who have been dismissed and put out of the Civil Service will be reinstated. We shall see that justice is done to our friends.

Mr. Speaker, we had promised to improve the St. Lawrence route from Montreal to Quebec by doing the dredging, the work necessary to make that waterway safe at any hour of the day or night, and to equip it in such a way as to avoid the danger of accidents, and we have spent very large sums to improve the St. Lawrence river. We have built a great number of new wharves, we have enlarged or repaired the old wharves and we have improved the harbours, everywhere, in a proper way. The elevators built by the ' Liberal party were the most powerful, the most important in the world. In fact, there are no better elevators than those which we have built at Montreal or elsewhere. We have built a great number of dry docks and spent enormous sums of money. The former administration had started to build the Soulanges canal and the Liberal party pushed that enterprise to completion. A little work was done on that canal every year; the work was suspended in the fall and had to be done over again in the following spring, so that never any progress was made. The canal was filling up as rapidly as it was dredged, and never would it have been completed if such a system had been continued. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends went te work, they completed the Soulanges canal and made it one of the most magnificent in the world.
The Lachine canal was also completed. But there is a little bridge on the locks of that canal and I have tried my best to have the department do the repairing which it requires. We are answered "yes," but no action is taken. A young girl had a narrow escape of being drowned while passing on that bridge which is too narrow for circulation. That bridge was sufficient formerly, but Lachine has become a large town, one of our most important; it has a population of 35,000 and the traffic is such that this bridge is insufficient. However, I cannot succeed in getting the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) or the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) to repair the bridge. They tell me that they will do so, but they take no action.
We have gone on with the building of railways which had already (been commenced; it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Cabinet that carried on that work. Bridges were built in a great many localities, such as Charlemagne, Richmond, St. John, Halifax and Terrebonne. There remained the Quebec bridge, which was already started, but it happened to collapse.
I well remember, Mr. Speaker, how the Conservatives jeered at this sad event, how loud they were in their very offensive remarks. They even went as far as to claim that this was the fault of the former administration. But God punished them as they deserved, they received what was coming to them, for they met with a similar accident. I- do not say it was their fault if the accident happened, I do not blame ' them for it, I only wish to show how inconsistent they were when they tried to hold the Liberal party responsible for the collapse of the Quebec bridge when they also met with the same accident.
We have encouraged foreign immigration, we have brought to this country a great many people who have settled in the West, in the new provinces; at a great cost to the country, but the influx of immigrants was very great. However, as a reward for such good work, the Liberals had to be defeated at the last election, and to make sure of this and of their own return to power, the Conservatives disfranchised these people for one reason or another. We shall, at the earliest possible moment, return these people their right of vote. .
Our French Canadians had emigrated to the United States. When the last census was taken, there were living in the United VStates as many as 1,300,000 Canadians who were born in the province of Quebec. Before Laurier and his friends got to power, the Canadians had left the country, the farms were deserted, the houses were closed, the barns were /abandoned throughout the whole province. After Laurier took office and brought great prosperity to his country, the French Canadians who had settled in the United States came back to their native land, they went on the farms which they had abandoned and remained in our midst.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Montcalm and 1'Assomption (Mr. Seguin) who has succeeded me in the county of Montcalm. When we came to power, the duty on tobacco was only five cents.
Mr. Laurier immediately increased those duties to ten cents. Then, we asked for more protection and they were raised to fifteen cents. Later on, we asked the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and Sir Wilfrid Laurier for still more protection and we succeeded in getting a duty of 28 cents upon tobacco. The growing of tobacco in Montcalm, Joliette, Berthier, Farnham, Kent and Essex has assumed

large proportions, very important ones, but it is not enough. The hon. member from L'Assumption-Montcalm and myself would like to have an additional tax put on foreign tobacco, American tobacco, so as to offer more protection to the growing of tobacco. We have been promised that the duty would be increased by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but these gentlemen do not live up to their promises. We shall be indebted to the next administration- and it will be before long, I hope-for the placing of an additional tax upon foreign tobacco so as to give more protection to our Canadian weed.
Hon. Mr. Fisher, who was a practical man, had cold storage apparatus installed on board ships for the shipment overseas to England of our butter, our cheese, our eggs, our bacon, our apples, and the member of to-day followed in his steps and they acted right.
We established with a great deal of success a number of experimental farms wherever it was necessary to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the country has become prosperous; Laurier and Fielding had been so successful that deposits were filling the banks; legal interest which had been 6 per cent was lowered to 5 per cent on account of the large amount of money we had, and legal interest is still 5 per cent although formerly it was 6 per cent. The deposits in the banks have increased considerably.
The Laurier Administration was wise, cautious, honest and fair. The hon. member from Shelburne and Queen's was a faithful trustee of the public exchequer, stern and granting no favour nor privilege and that is why he was so successful in the administration at that time.
The hon. ministers as well as the hon. members had not been elected to hand over presents; they had been elected as we were to administer the commonwealth and I remember the nights spent in discussing the $35,000,000 which the Government intended to give away, and they would never have succeeded in voting that sum had it not been for the gag. I remember Sir Wilfrid Laurier took the floor and was gagged-they silenced him-it was a painful sight to see a man of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's standing prevented from speaking by those gentlemen who gagged the men who were discussing public affairs and trying above all to oppose that present of $35,000,000.

Onbe, a farmer from the county in which I reside (Jacques-Cartier) told me: "Now, Mr. Lafortune, those 35 millions were not voted; they were voted, but the Senace dissented from that Act." I said to him: "But you do not add that it is the Liberal Senate that prevented the passing of the Bill; you say it was the Senate, but had the Senate been composed of men like those who are ruling us nowadays, it would have passed scot free." The Liberal Senate put aside those 35 millions and we have not given them away.
The hon. Mr. Fisher, who has just died,* went through a campaign in the county of Chateauguay. I took part in the fray. I remember that hon. Mr. Sevigny who led the Conservative forces-went from one parish to another in the county of Chateauguay, saying to the electors, in the presence of the ministers who accompanied him, that if they would elect Mr. Morris, of Chateauguay, the bridge leading into the county of Huntingdon would be built from Caughnawaga to the shores of Lachine; he was sure, positive; he pledged his word in the presence of the ministers that the bridge in question would be built. In vain did we tell the electors: "Don't you see it is a hoax; don't you see those men are trying to deceive you? Weil you know that the bridge will not be built." But that statement was made before the ministers by Mr. Sevigny and his friends; the people believed those gentlemen; Mr. Fisher was beaten on account of the bridge. Go and see whether or not the bridge is built; just inquire if a step were taken towards its construction. That bridge is needed; it is a necessity for the counties of Beauhar-nois, Huntingdon, St. Johns, NapierviLe and Laprairie. I was not opposed to the construction of that bridge, but to the manner in which they held it out to the electors. That was the cause of the defeat of the late hon. Mr. Fisher. The hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Robb) knows as well as I do, that this bridge would be of great advantage, that its construction is badly needed. It is not all to say so, it must be done.
Since I have the honour of occupying a seat in the House, and practically since I represent the county of Jacques-Cartier,
I have asked the right hon. Minister of Justice: "Why do you not build this tunnel for the Ville-Emard? Why do you not build this tunnel which is needed, so greatly needed, you, who are the Minister of Justice, who represent the division of St. Anne's, you know that my request is fair

and necessary, you know that the electors of the district have to suffer because there is no tunnel to cross the Lachine canal in that region; why do you not build that tunnel? The people are suffering and insist loudly on having a tunnel where they can pass, when the bridges are open and boats are going down the canal The hon. Minister of Justice pretends he does not hear, just as if I did nbt speak, as if I was asking this tunnel for myself; I' do not need the tunnel, but the people I represent are clamouring: "Mr. Lafortune, for God's sake, ask the Minister of Justice, he who represents St. Anne's, your neighbouring district, to build this tunnel, kneel down to him and ask him to do so." I am quite willing to kneel down to him if he will only have this tunnel built. But no, he is deaf to my request, the request I am making in behalf of my constituency. He has plenty of time to do all kinds of .things; he has time to go to Europe, he has time to lend millions to foreigners but he has no time to consider building this tunnel for which I am asking. He will be held responsible for this. The hon. minister is like the other members, he will have to render an account to the people; when election time comes, he, in turn, will have to take off his hat and ask the people to re-elect him. Then the people will have their turn. May be he will disappear, he may be called to the bench, or he may go to Europe, or perhaps Washington; he may not need the people, after all. He seems to be quite independent of the people, otherwise he would be more careful, more attentive, than he is.
I also want assistance to build a bridge between St. Anne's and Vaudreuil. That bridge shall be built, but we did not want any tolls on it. The Government of Quebec is willing to pay half of the cost of the bridge. All that we ask the Dominion Government is to help us to build the bridge. We are told: "It is not an interprovincial bridge it is a local bridge." Does not everybody cross that bridge? The object of this bridge is to allow people from Montreal and outsiders to go in and out of the metropolis; it is needed and it has been promised thousands of times by all representatives of the county of Jac-ques-Cartier, by the hon. Mr. Laflamme to begin with, the hon. Mr. Girouard, the hon. Mr. Monk, who had given his word of honour that if he were elected for the county of Jacques-Cartier, the first thing he would do, would be the bridge between St. Anne's and Vaudreuil. Mr. Monk made promises, alas, and though he was an
honest man, a man of his word, he left without having made the least effort to build the said bridge. He had a small post office built in Saint Laurent where I live; we were proud of this post office, yet the bridge is more important. The bridge is to be built shortly by the Government of Quebec, only we shall have to impose tolls on it, whilst if the Dominion Government would only assist us, we would have a free bridge, and that would be of great advantage to the country.
A military hospital has been built ill St. Anne's hospital has cost large sums of money. This hospital is needed. There are numbers of patients who go to that hospital. There is also the large Macdonald college at St. Anne's which cost nearly ten million dollars, there are many visitors who come to see the college, they have to cross from St. Anne's to Vaudreuil and Perrot island in a skiff, and unfortunately, we have had to deplore drown-ings there. If the bridge were built, it would connect the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It is the only place at present, whence we cannot cross over to the island of Montreal. Bridges have been built at Charlemagne, Terrebonne, Bizard island, Sault-au-Recollet.


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.)
And Longueuil?


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
am coming to it, I have it in my notes. A bridge at St. Anne's would be very useful for the people of Montreal and of the surrounding districts. Then there is the Longueuil bridge, which is necessary and it has been accepted. The usefulness of that bridge was recognized by all the boards of trade, and by all the great manufacturers and investors. All realize the necessity of building that bridge. Why do they not do it? They say that there is no money available for works of that kind. I have long asked for a bridge to connect Bizard island and lie Jesus, and I am told that there are no funds available for that, and there are none either for a bridge at Chateauguay or on the Lachine canal.
Under the Laurier "administration, we had succeeded in having the wharves on the Bizard island bridge built by the Government. They had noticed at the time that the ice floes on the Ottawa River were liable to do great damage to the Bizard island bridge. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, after having made a complete survey, consented to give us the wharves. They were not sufficiently stiong, they are now in a bad condition and the



[Stage Direction]
bridge is not safe. We are asking the Government to have these piers repaired, but we cannot get satisfaction.
In my county, the Government has a wharf at Pte Claire, but it is of no value, and no boat can land there. We have been told that the wharf was leased to the Grand Trunk, but now that the Grand Trunk is the property of the Government, why should they not make the necessary repairs?
Take the Ottawa river in front i of Bizard island, Cartier and St. Vincent de Paul. There are two rapids which should be done away with. The former member, Mr. Wilson, when he represented the county of Laval, succeeded in securing from Mr. Laurier a subsidy of $50,000 for that purpose; that was very well for a start, but we need another $100,000 to make the river navigable. It would be a great thing for the people of Laval and Jacques Cartier if that part of the river could be made navigable, because they would be able to bring their' lumber from Ontario and land at Cartierville, and from there through the Ottawa river at Bout de l'lle up to St. Vincent de Paul, and also to bring in coal, produce and everything that is necessary for the penintentiary and the village of St. Vincent de Paul. It would afford great protection and it would mean a great saving for those parishes, if the Government acceded to their very just request, but the Government are turning a deaf ear when applied to for works of that kind.
If we ever get into power as I hope, we shall grant the people of Montreal and of the province of Quebec that which they all ask for: the Georgian Bay canal. How many times have we discussed the matter! The former administrations, including that of Sir Wilfrid, spent considerable sums in soundings, surveys, plans, specifications and all kinds of works. Up to now we have spent nearly $200,000 towards the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. Everybody recognizes the necessity of shortening the route from the Great Lakes by 450 miles to carry wheat through the Ottawa river down to Montreal and then direct to London without breaking bulk. Some say that it will cost a lot of money. It is true, but you cannot reap unless you sow. Seeding costs money, but it is essential if you want a crop. It has been established beyond doubt that the Georgian Bay canal would be a great national undertaking which would cause a large saving in the future and therefore it must be carried out.
r.\tr. I.ajortmie.j
What about the Montreal Exhibition which did not take place for the last twenty-five years? The Dominion Government is giving rather large sums of money to help exhibitions in other provinces, to help the Toronto Exhibition, but not Quebec, Quebec gets nothing. They could not help Quebec while they help the others. We are asked repeatedly why the Government do not give a good sum yearly in order to create a permanent exhibition in Montreal. Montreal is the only important city where no yearly exhibition takes place. I was in Toronto last year. In just one day 300,000 people visited the grounds where one could see the most beautiful, the most useful and the most practical things. Trade, industry, commerce and fine arts were all represented there. But Toronto has not a population as large as Montreal. Toronto is a second rate city, while Montreal, the metropolis, the largest city in the Dominion could not even exhibit a kitten.
You tell the farmers: "Cultivate your lands, stick to the land." Yes, but are you going to help us? You spend large sums of money for stables in Ottawa and you give nothing, absolutely nothing for the Montreal Exhibition. This sort of thing has got to stop. We have bought the Grand Trunk following on the acquisition of the Canadian Northern. Considerable sums were spent in those deals. Although we protested, although we opposed the acquisition of those roads the Government claimed that it was good business, a first-class transaction and a profitable undertaking. Now, what is the result? Where do we stand? With deficits amounting to $75,000,000 last year; $45,000,000 this year and probably $75,000,000 next year unless they go to $150,000,000. Where will such a policy land us?
Mr. Speaker, there is in the statutes a certain enactment, the Conscription Act. This unfortunate Act should be eradicated from the statutes. It should be recalled at once. It is unfair and scandalous to leave such an Act in our statute books. Voluntary enlistment is thought sufficient. A man who is now lying on his death bed, the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) claimed that voluntary enlistment was sufficient and that conscription was unnecessary. He was mocked, laughed at, and considerable sums were spent for what? In order to annul judgments rendered by magistrates and judges of the Superior Court who had exempted farmers' sons from conscription. The farmers were told that their sons would not be called. We went

before the judges of the Superior Court and we got these boys exempted. Then, the Government set up a Court of Appeals in Ottawa, a court presided over hy Mr. Duff,' so as to annul all these judgments and put aside the exemptions granted to farmers' sons. Mr. Speaker, I say that this was a scandal to appoint judges of the Superior Court so that they might grant exemptions, then having those decisions reversed so that the parents of those boys had to spend large sums of money. The speech from the Throne stated that a revision of the tariff would take place and the Government made that speech lie. Such a thing is unfair. The word of the King is a sacred thing. It is customary to say that the King may speak nothing but the truth, that the King cannot be wrong. In this case I charge the hon. gentlemen opposite with having put a lie in the mouth of the King.
But, Mr. Speaker, honour to the Liberals of the various counties! Honour to these Liberals who, once the war was over, had some respect for their pledged word. The hon. members for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), for Durham (Mr. Rowell), for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), for Battleford (Mr. Wright), for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston), for Nelson (Mr. Campbell), for Neepawa (Mr. Davis), for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid), for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan), for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson), for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt), for Red Deer (Mr. Clark)-the last but not the least-those who have had the courage, the self-denial and the honour to leave the opposite side of the House to come back and sit on this side, thus redeeming their pledged word that, once the war over, they would as true Liberals come back to occupy seats on your left, Mr. Speaker. As to those who remained on the other side, I shall not taunt them but I shall tell them that they have not proved so disinterested as those of our colleagues whom I have named. They have remained at your right, Mr. Speaker, through personal interest.
Mr. BELAND:: (Translation.) Hear,
hear!


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Speaker, that we do as is done in ordinary life, and that is to pass the ministerial brush over the signs which these hon. members have put up. By what right can these gentlemen call themselves Nationalists? The Nationalists who have
fought against us are not in the House. There are no more of them here. There is only one left, and he is in the Senate. The Nationalists were of good faith, when they fought against us. They had for leader a serious man, a man of worth, but who has given up politics. These gentlemen who call themselves Nationalists, have certainly not asked for his advice when they put up such signs as "National," alias "Liberal," alias "Conservative". Liberals are Liberals and Conservatives are Conservatives.
What would you say if the Liberal party were to put their own sign; "Liberal-Conservative"? The day when we call ourselves Conservatives, will be the day we are hypocrites. We are Liberals, and nothing else. I would therefore say to these gentlemen: When you adopt the word "National" or "Liberal", you are trying to lure the people, it is camouflage, nothing else; you want the public to believe that you are Liberals, Conservatives, Nationalists, when you are merely Conservatives-Tories, worthy successors of the men of the past. I say to them: Take your brush and paint over your sign, take away the word "National" and also the word "Liberal", and keep the word "Conservative", the only one to which you are entitled.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) told us in his speech that we required a change. Yes, indeed, we do require a change and we will soon have it. The remaining Liberals are superior men, are we told by the supporters of the Government. You are right to tell us that they are superior' men; these men have saved your political life; they have made political sacrifices to keep you in power, you had better take good care them, and treat them well, because it is thanks to them if you are there yet.
You have loaned 46 millions to foreign countries, 2 million dollars interest are yet unpaid, and you tell us: "We have no money for the work which is so badly needed". You -tell us that you have no money when you can find some to lend to all the countries of the world, to insolvent countries; you can never collect that money; it is lost. You have had money for Toronto, Victoria, Vancouver, Halifax, you have money for every one except the province of Quebec, you have no money for her, when her representatives ask you for something.
There are men, there are employees, returned soldiers who ask for better treatment. There are men of the county courts who are calling to you for a higher salary.

These judges are not sufficiently remunerated. There are four judges in Montreal- the Minister of Justice must have received the pamphlet who was addressed to all the members. I have read mine, and I say to the Minister of Justice: " These men are perfectly right in their complaints, the salary which they receive is net sufficient; you have already increased the salary of the judges of the Superior Court; you have raised the salary of the judges of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court; it 's true that you have slightly increased that of the judges of the county courts, not sufficiently. The judges wish their salaries to be raised to $7,000. The are perfectly right. Having practised as a lawyer for 38 years, I know their work, I know their responsibilities. There are heads of families who earn $5,000. Take, for example, Judge Archambault who has to earn a living for his eleven children, boys and girls, who are at the college or at the convent; he receives only $5,000 a year. I say to the Minister of Justice: "Why do you do not help these men; give them an increase of salary, and the public will approve you". Judges who are superannuated, like Sir Alexandre Lacoste approve their request, and so do the judges who are receiving higher salaries. The hon. Minister of Justice who was a lawyer for a number of years, and who sat on the bench for several years, knows what their duties and their responsibilities are, he would only be doing an apt of justice in increasing the salaries of the judges of the county courts.
I am not speaking for myself; I am pleading in favour of those who justly ask for an increase of salary. Let the hon. minister take cognizance of their pamphlet; let him peruse it and weigh the reasons given in it and I think that he will satisfy himself that the claims of those judges are absolutely just, fair and reasonable; you would perform a great act of justice if you were giving them the increase of salary they ask for.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends have acted in such a way that a lot of mothers ' and fathers have shed bitter tears and they also have frightened the people. Several mothers have gone out of their mind at the sight of their sons leaving for the front. To my personal knowledge, many mothers have gone mad on account of their sons being taken by conscription. You had said that you would rely only upon voluntary enlistment and yet you have made people shed bitter tears, you have frightened the population, you are the cause that many

people have lost their mind. Well, Mr. Speaker, when shall these gentlemen try to redress the wrong they have done?
I will just conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. The main reason why we, the farmers of the province of Quebce, wantec to accept reciprocity, was that the hon member for Shelburne and Queen's and Sit Wilfrid Laurier had inserted a clause under which the American corn was admitted in this country free of any duty. How proud and happy were we as soon as we learned that the American corn would come free into Canada! We were saved. But, we appreciated more particularly that part of the arrangement under which they had conceded to us the free entry of corn into Canada. As far as the pact of reciprocity is concerned, I would have refused it if it had been a full treaty, but it was only a partial one; we were free to denounce it at will, to maintain it in force or abrogate it the next day.	Both
parties to the convention had reserved to themselves the right to put the treaty in force but to denounce it in case that one or the other would find that something was wrong or disadvantageous about it. There is another improvement.-that we have been asking for a long time. We urge upon the Minister of Agriculture the necessity of regulating the weight of potatoes. For three years past, we have placed before my hon. friend a request asking to regulate the weight of the bags of potatoes, in other words to fix the weight to 80 pounds instead of 90 pounds.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: (Translation.). Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.). Certainly, providing that it won't be too long.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: (Translation.). Does the hon. member think that the Government of the day is the best Government in the world?


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.). I am not called upon to pass sentence on that Government but to criticise their acts. Regarding the question to bring this Government up for trial, you can do that your-selve.


Pierre-François Casgrain: (Translation.). The people will do that all right.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) This Government is the worst that I have ever known and the people will tell you the same thing at the next opportunity.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to take my seat before being able to express all my views on the topics of the day. But I have still something to say. I will urge upon the present Administration, the same as I will ask my friends if they come to power after the next election, to promote the beet industry throughout the country, since it is so flourishing In fact, the culture of beets is a success in Ontario and I do not see why we should not have the same results in Quebec. If the Government would only assist us, if they were willing to give us a bounty for each ton of beet produced by the farmers, it would be of great help to our people. We could use the residue for the feeding of cattle, cows, sheep, pigs and so on. The establishment of such an industry would afford a good deal of help and protection for us. Naturally, the hon. ministers don't bother themselves with questions of that kind. They have made up their mind that it is a trifling matter but as far as we-the farmers-are concerned, we know what a boon it would be.
Mr. Speaker, I will resume my seat now, hoping that you will excuse me after having taken so much of the time of this House. However, I waited to put those few remarks on record, in justice to the people and the large constituency that I have the honour to represent in this Parliament. If I can spare a few moments later on, I will avail myself of the first opportunity to discuss the other subjects which were left aside to-night.


Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some observations on one or two matters arising out of the Budget, but before doing so I desire to say a word or two in regard to that much talked of public work, the Esquimalt dry-dock. I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) regarding the construction of that dry dock, and I think he made out a pretty good case for its construction, that is, if these were normal times and finances were as buoyant as they have been in the past. Just as good a case however, could be made out for a score of other public works in the Dominion, and a much stronger case for a number of others which have either not been commenced or have been stopped by the Government from the standpoint of economy. I was much interested in the statement which the minister repeated more than once that the Government by carrying on this work were showing their good faith
with the people and thus keeping their word. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that that is not the condition of affairs that has always existed. I have had occasion in this House more than once this year to bring up a couple of matters wherein the Government most emphatically did not keep their word, wherein solemn definite pledges had been broken by (the Government in respect to public works which it had promised to undertake (and in other matters. I refer particularly to the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces, and the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. This railway was promised away back twenty years ago, whereas this dry dock that the Minister of Agriculture was speaking of was promised, I understand, in 1912. The iwar prevented its being gone on with, but the work was undertaken lately, and it is a most peculiar coincidence that it should be gone on with immediately after an election. There is no question that this public work was an issue in the election that took place in Victoria. The only conclusion I can come to why the other promises of the Government that I have referred to have not ibeen kept is that there have been no elections in the Prairie Provinces ,in the last few years, except in Assiniboia, where, as everybody knows, the Government had no candidate, and therefore they -were not interested in the promises made to the western provinces.
Regarding the Budget, I appreciate to a considerable extent the difficulties in the way of the Minister of Finance at the present time. They might be looked upon as three-fold, financial, economic, and political. I am only sorry that so far as the outcome is concerned, it would appear-that the last condition has received more attention than either of the others. On the face of it, it would appear that the Government had decided to let well enough alone or to do nothing in connection with the tariff. Thiat is the impression thait hlas gone out through the country. However, on looking at the Budget it is easily to be seen that considerable has been done which has the effect of increasing the tariff, and that the first impression is not the correct one, for by certain changes in connection with exchange, the increase in the sales tax, and so on, the cords of protection are strengthened, and the result is practically a very considerable! increase in the tariff tax.
In the remarks which I made on the Address some little time ago I mentioned

the expectation I had at that time that the Government would revise the tariff to some extent this year, and I maintained the hope that they would reduce the burden of taxation by eliminating some duties and reducing others; in a word, that they would see their way clear to the cutting away of the "mouldering branches," and remove some of the inconsistencies and anomolies that undoubtedly do exist in connection with the tariff. The Government, however, did not do any of these things which I am satisfied the majority on both sides of the House expected that they would do. I am, therefore, convinced that we can expect no changes from this Government in the way of lessening the burden of taxation in connection with the tariff, and if there is to be any revision, it will be a revision upwards, as it is this year. An upward movement in many matters is a good thing, but in connection with the tariff it is not to be desired.
As far as the tariff itself is concerned, I do not propose to discuss that matter at all. I have said before, and I repeat now, that I do not think the tariff is an issue now; perhaps I should say that I do not think the tariff should be an issue. Now I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am satisfied that a majority of the protectionists in this House want a revision of the tariff schedules. They are not satisfied with the situation. I do not mean that they wish a revision by way of increase, but they want certain changes made such as I have already mentioned. I have here a communication from a friend of mine which illustrates the situation very fairly. This gentleman is a Conservative and a strong protectionist and has been engaged for quite a long time in industrial pursuits. I desire to read the following extract from this communication:
I am a believer in protection but I believe in a protection that is 'based upon a tariff that is properly thought out and which is scientifically arranged. I believe an a protection that has for its objective the well-being and material advancement of Canada and not the creation and maintenance of a few groups of greedy millionaires, men who are in no sense manufacturers, but who are stock gamblers, carrying on tiheir gambling transactions under the disguise of manufacturing. There exists no reason why known abuses should not be rectified; there can be no reason why the compilation of the Canadian Tariff should not be made upon scientific principles. This in the past has never been the case. The present and previous tariffs have been the result of trying to conciliate ''big interests" combined with leaving the compilation to men who possessed little or no technical knewledge of the several industries affected.

I quote this to show the attitude now taken by certain protectionists. I do not wish to be interpreted as in any way justifying the principle of protection myself; I read this simply to show the frame of mind of many protectionists, and I know that there are a number of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who hold the same views as are expressed in the foregoing extract, because they have conveyed the impression to me in almost the same words. They have told me that in their opinion the tariff has outlived its usefulness in its present form, and that in some respects it is a detriment to the manufacturing industries which it is desired to foster. They therefore think that material changes should be made in the tariff as it at present exists. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) evidently believes the same also. He quoted John Stuart Mill the other night. In the course of his remarks he said:
I might also quote statements from some of my hon. friend's favourite authors, such as John Stuart Mill, who says, speaking of infant industries :
That a tax favoring infant industries for a time is the easiest way that a nation can carry them into development.
I am not sure whether these are the exact sentiments of the member for Muskoka, but as the quotation was used by him to refute statements made by some members on this side, I presume he agrees with the views therein set out. But I may point out that this quotation refers to infant industries, and it specifically adds the qualifying phrase "for a time." The reason why protection was introduced, in the first place, was to encourage infant industries, and only for a time, at that; but these industries in thiscountry have grown bald-headed and grey-bearded, and can no longer be classed in that category. Others of the protectionist camp realize that the tariff is out of date and unscientific, including, as I have said, many anomalies. Now, I do not propose at this time of night to follow this question further. I have before me a number of instances showing wherein these anomalies occur, and wherein the tariff is out of date and does not really carry out the purposes for which it was intended. The principal objectionable features with the present tariff are:
1.	Goods are placed, out of their proper group.
2.	Goods belonging to two or more groups and items are crowded in one item.
3.	Raw materials are placed in items, mixed up with manufactures and sometimes with manufactures of raw material altogether different.

4.	Some goods are named in more than one item and under different rates of duty.
5.	Machinery and material required by certain favoured industries are admitted free or on the payment of but a small duty whilst the machinery and material required by other industries the development of which are of equal interest to Canada, are made to pay heavy duties even and although the machinery is not made in Canada.
6.	Machinery of improved design not built in Canada, the improvements making its use necessary by all well managed concerns, is charged heavy duties, thereby penalizing progressive manufacturers, or it may be discouraging a valuable nascent industry, and this is done so that a badly managed moribund concern may continue to make profits by the production of machines that are not economical to the manifest injury of Canada as a whole.
As I have said, I have before me quite a number of definite instances of these anomalies and irregularities, but I refrain from quoting them to-night. Undoubtedly, most of them are already known to hon. members, and I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by my going into them in extenso. Let me say that I look upon this subject with an open mind. I will admit that under some conditions protection may be an advantage to Canada.
I have a rather pronounced leaning towards freedom of trade, but I recognize that this cannot be brought about in the immediate future, nor for a considerable time to come, even if this end is desired. But what I desire to show to-night is that protection is not being carried out as is my understanding of its intention in the first place, and instead of being a system or plan for development of industry, it is used by industrial barons to promote stock gambling, to create monopolies, and generally to bleed the public.
A couple of days ago the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) gave a number of instances of how protection had been perverted to the advantage of certain stock jobbing schemes, and how the public was being mulcted thereby. I have one more instance which I wish to refer to to-night, that is the cement industry. Portland cement plays an exceedingly important part in the development of the country. It is used in the construction of roads, bridges, harbour works, houses, and factories, and for hydro-electric development and many other works of a public nature. Last but not least, it is now being used very extensively, or was until recent years, in the construction of farm buildings; in fact it plays an exceedingly important part in farm structures and in connection with work on the farm generally. Portland cement is composed of (1) lime stone or marl; (2) cement rock or clay; and (3) gypsum. In order to manufacture the finished product from these materials it is necessary to have power and fuel. The fuel used is coal, fuel oil or natural gas, and the power is hydro electric, or other power. Now in respect to nearly every one of these items Canada is in just as advantageous a position as is the United States. The only disadvantage from which Canada may suffer is in the matter of fuel. In respect of the other necessities, there appears to be no reason why cement should not be produced at as low a price in this country as in the United States, except in some instances which are very exceptional. The price in Canada, as quoted a few days ago by the chief concern manufacturing cement, was $3.90 per barrel of 350 pounds including the sacks or, deducting the price of sacks, $3.10 per barrel. Without going into the figures at length I have here a United States publication giving a summary of the cost and selling price of cement for a considerable period.' According to it, the average cost of the production of cement within a recent period is $1.65 and the selling price $1.75 per barrel. It should be noted that the United States barrel has a content of 380 pounds instead of 350, and if we take the Canadian price for a barrel of 380 pounds it would represent $3.34 as against an average American price of $1.75. Now there is a duty on this cement of ten cents per hundred pounds. This perhaps does not account for the total difference, but there has been created in Canada within the last few years a monopoly in the cement business. According to information I have received, which is authentic, when a per- . son wants cement and communicates with an American concern in order to get quotations he is referred to a certain Canadian company to fill his order. That is why the Canadian people have to pay a very great deal more for their cement than the situation warrants. There would appear to be no reason on earth why the duty referred to should exist at the present time. This industry is based on one of our natural resources, it is an industry peculiar to Canada, and is one in which surely the Canadian people can work to as great an advantage as those engaged in the same industry in the United States. Now the reason the people of Canada have to pay through the nose for their cement is largely owing to the fact, as I said before, that there is a monopoly. How has this monopoly been brought about? In 1909 there

was incorporated in Canada the Canada Cement Company which took over eleven concerns which had previously operated. These eleven companies had a total capitalization of $17,750,000. The Canada Cement Company when incorporated issued common stock tc the amount of $13,500,000, preference stock to the amount of $10,500,000; and bonds to the amount of $6,253,966, a total of $30,256,966, or $12,506,966 more than the total capitalization of the companies which they had absorbed -just that much water. This company is on a par with those referred to by the hori. member for Marquette, or perhaps is worse in character, and the financial history of Canada unfortunately is replete with instances of that kind.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: May I ask the hon. gentleman what is the price of cement in the United States?


John Archibald Campbell: I gave the quotation.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Was it $1.75 per barrel?


John Archibald Campbell: Yes $1.75 a barrel.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the price in Canada?


John Archibald Campbell: The quotation I gave was $3.90.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: And there is only a duty
of 8 or 10 per cent? Why do you not buy cement in the United States if the duty is so low? There cannot be that much difference.


John Archibald Campbell: I am prepared to
answer the hon. gentleman's question. The situation is this. The party who got this quotation showed me the letter and that was the price given in it. He told me that he had endeavoured to buy cement in the United States and he had been referred to the Canadian Company; the Canada Cement Company apparently has an arrangement under which he could not buy cement in the United States. It thus appears that a monopoly has been established. As I said before I am aware that the great difference between the price in the United States and the price in Canada is not wholly accounted for by the duty and here is the point I wish to make:	The protective
system was not devised to evolve a situation such as this. Notwithstanding the fact that there is so much water in the capitalization of the new organization its stock was sold, according to quotations I have here, at from 55 to 75 last year. The Canada Cement Company seems to be an 	*
exceedingly prosperous concern. Here is an instance similar to that mentioned by the Prime Minister a short time ago when he referred to the Binder Twine Industry and the lessening of the number of factories engaged in it. I understand there were more factories in existence some years ago than there are now, but some of these factories were shut down and the work of making cement has' been centralized. In a word, the Canada Cement Company seems to be in a particularly prosperous condition and to have profited' to the full extent of the duty that is imposed. It cannot be said, as has been intimated by the hon. member for Haldimand to-night that the putting on of the duty not only does not increase the price but tends somewhat to bring about a reduction through competition. In this case full advantage was taken of the duty, of the exchange, and of an arrangement with United States concerns. The result is that the increase in the price of cement during the last few years has brought about a situation very detrimental to the upbuilding of Canada. It has had an adverse effect upon the construction of public works, of houses which are so much needed all over the country, and of farm buildings generally. No doubt, as in the case of the textile industry, the directors are not conducting this concern for the glory of God or even for the glory of Canada, but purely for their own interests. Possibly some will not blame them, but when they can do so well there is no reason why they should be assisted by the people ocf Canada to the extent of ten cents a (hundred pounds, and there would appear to be no reason why, in the interests of the public or even of 'the cement company, this duty should not be removed. I verily believe that a great many of these manufacturers who are taking full advantage of the tariff could get along very well without it by putting in up-to-date machinery and conducting their business in a more systematic way than at present. I had hoped that the Tariff Commission which roved around the country last winter would have been able to bring forth some information and suggestions regarding this particular phase of the matter, but I have been disappointed.
I have before me some figures about the coal and iron industry, but at his late, or rather early, hour I shall refrain from quoting them, although I might say that that industry is practically on all-fours with the cement industry. There were some other matters which I intended to deal with, but I said I would be brief, therefore, Mr

Speaker, I shall not detain the House any longer.


Mr THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats) :: Mr. Speaker, it would he almost a criminal offence if I took up very much time of the House at this late, or rather very early, hour and I do not intend to do so, but I do not care to record a silent vote on this occasion.
The Budget is quite consistent with the attitude taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and his supporters. They stand for protection, they make no hones about it, and, although I do not agree with them,
I give them credit for their frankness. The Prime Minister in his speeches throughout the West and also in this House has emphasized the fact that the party which he leads stands for protection to the manufacturer. I do not think, though, that he is quite fair to this little group when he referred to us as being "angularly opposite." We prefer to call ourselves the Progressive party. And I think we have shown ourselves to be independent of both the old political parties. We have at times voted for measures regardless of whether they emanated from your right, Sir, or from your left, for we do not consider how our voting will affect either party; we treat each measure on its merits. Whether right or wrong, I feel satisfied that we are perfectly sincere, and some of the statements made by the Prime Minister, in not particularly choice language, do not altogether fit in with our attitude either in this House or outside. I do not know whether the Prime Minister regarded us as a "dilapidated annex" when we swelled his majority from seventeen to thirty-eight, but I feel certain he did not think we were a "servile adjunct." However, even the Prime Minister can make a slip sometimes, and I will let it go at that.
Our platform, Mr. Speaker, has been placed on Hansard, and we stand behind it. The Prime Minister twitted us with not having sufficient courage to place our platform before the House, but, Sir, he knows very well that according to the ruling of the Chair there can be only one amendment to the Budget, and the official Opposition has the sole right to move that amendment. They did not take advantage of that privilege from 1911 to 1919, but since this little group came into existence the official Opposition have been in the habit of exercising their right, possibly from fear that some more obnoxious-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MacNUTT:: -amendment might be brought before the House. At any rate, everything points to the fact that there is no affiliation between ourselves and the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Archibald Campbell: Why the joy?


Thomas MacNutt: During the course of
his Budget speech the Prime Minister read from a pamphlet without giving the name of the author,-a pamphlet written, I think, in 1911, in support of protection. He was on what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) might term a piscatorial expedition, and he caught a fish, but I think the fish escaped and took the hook and line along with him. The right hon. gentleman was referring to Mr. Norman Lambert who has for some time past been the secretary of the Council of Agriculture. Well, as a young man he might form certain views and afterwards change them, as a great many young men do, possibly through getting more light on the subject or through altered conditions. It would be a great pity if all our young men stuck rigidly to the views of their immature youth, and if they did we would have rather a poor country. We have numerous examples of very eminent men changing their political opinions. I understand that the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was at one time a Liberal, and no better evidence of such change of views can be pointed to than the presence of certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House at the present time. A great deal of the support of the present Government is derived from a number of hon. members who in 1917 were elected as Liberal Unionists. They certainly cannot claim to be following at the present time the Liberal doctrines as we understood them. One outstanding example is the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) who at one time was president of the Grain Growers' Association, a body which he evidently now has very little use for. Another is the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). I think I knew that hon. gentleman's former politics about as well as anybody in this House. He was the apostle of Liberalism in the West, but he has seen fit lately to change his political views, and now condemns where he used to praise. I am not criticising the attitude of these hon. members; they have a perfect right to change their views-and so had Mr. Norman Lambert.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and it relates to ex-members of our Canadian navy who served on the high seas during the war. It appears that when any of these people apply for a position in the Civil Service they are treated as civilians. It is well known that when a returned soldier applies for a position in the Civil Service he gets the preference even though he gets a lower rating than the civilians on the list. That is quite proper, but I do not think there should be any discrimination in the matter of the men who manned our small Canadian navy. I put some questions on the Order Paper with regard to this matter, and on account of my leaving out a word or two the answer which I got does not mean anything. My question was:
(1) Have ex-members of the Canadian navy-
I should have said: "who have served on the high seas''.
-the same status as ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who served overseas?
2. Do they receive the same preference with regard to appointments to the Civil Service?
To which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) replied:
1.	Tes. A member of the Canadian Navy who has served in European or Asiatic waters during the war period has the same status as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who had served overseas.
2.	Yes.
Well,' that is no answer at all, because the Canadian navy did not serve in European or Asiatic waters. But Sir, they did good work on our own coasts. The Rainbow, with the two submarines and the parent ship, the Shearwater, patrolled the Pacific Coast from Esquimalt down to Panama and up as far as Prince Rupert. I think that the men who manned that little obsolete vessel, the Rainbow, displayed a good deal of heroism when they went out on the high seas where they might meet at any time one of the three modern German cruisers which were then hovering about those coasts-the Leipsic, the Nuremberg and the Scharnhorst. The Niobe also did good service on the Atlantic coast in guarding our shores. Surely the men who manned these ships were on active service, although not in action. We know that the British fleet kept watch at the entrance of the Kiel Canal; they were on active service but not in action during a great part of the war, yet had it not been for their services the war might not have ended as soon as it did. In a
[Mr. MacNutt. [
much smaller way, of course, the Canadian navy was guarding our shores. The naval service is usually considered senior to the army, but all that is asked for in this connection is that those who served in the Canadian navy be put on a par with the overseas soldiers in the matter of candidature for positions in the Civil Service, rather than be treated as civilians- for certainly they were not civilians. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the Government; I think it should be remedied. The present provision of the Civil Service Act in this regard is as follows- section 39:
Provided, however, that in all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service persons who have been on active service overseas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of His Majesty during the present war.... shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be placed in thf order of merit on the list of successful can didates above all other candidates.
The provision which I suggest could bt made by the insertion of five words by way of amendment to this section, so that it would read:
Provided however, that in all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service persons who have been on active service overseas or on the high seas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty, etc.
The insertion of the words "or on the high seas" would cover the ground. I bring this matter up in order to show that there is discrimination against an arm of the service the members of which deserve all the credit we can give them.
To return to our policy, I may say that we believe, in raising the revenue of the country, in taxing the wealth rather than the poverty of the country, placing the burden on those who are best able to pay, I am going to vote for the amendment, not so much for its own sake as a protest against the Budget, because it still points the way to protection and higher protection.


Levi Thomson: I was
paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JACOBS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCOIG:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: I was paired with
the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Merner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, my rising is more on a question of privilege than for the purpose of taking part in the debate as such. In the course of an address delivered in this debate by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), he made the assertion that an offer of a position in the present Government had been made by

myself or my agent to the present, as he described him, Catholic Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick. The subject was not one that it is customary to make inquiries about or to ask a Prime Minister questions on across the floor of Parliament. But as the statement had been categorically made by the hon. member for Marquette, I felt at that time that I should give it an equally categori-call denial. I did so. Ordinarily the denial, I think, would have been accepted in this House, particularly taking into consideration the subject matter that was covered by the discussion. I find, however, that, in my absence from this House, the question was again raised by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) this evening. In the course of the debate, he read some statement or newspaper interview said to have been given by the hon. Mr. Veniot, who, I believe, is at the present time Minister of Public Works in that province. On arriving in the House after the hon. member for Russell had quoted the alleged interview, I asked if he would be good enough to repeat it in my hearing. I was, however, denied this courtesy by the hon. member for Russell, who took the ground that I should always be in my seat in Parliament. As a former minister of the Crown, I am not able to understand how he conceives that to be possible, physically or in any other way.


Charles Murphy: I may say that I did not say theft.


Arthur Meighen: The statement was
that I should have been in my seat when my hon. friend quoted the interview. Perhaps the hon. member says that I should always be in the House when he is speaking.


Charles Murphy: No.


Arthur Meighen: I very much desire
that that would be possible. I should like, indeed, to be in the House, particularly when the hon. member is speaking, and I may say that I would have expected from any other rather than from him a refusal to quote in my presence an interview in which I was directly concerned. However, he did not do so. I was able to obtain from Hansard a statement of the hon. gentleman's remarks in which the alleged interview was quoted, and I quote from it as .follows-this is the only part I need refer to:
The person who made the overtures to me presented to me a letter addressd to me and signed

by Premier Meig-hen. This letter showed-that the Premier was in close touch with the situation, and further I can say that a certain other Cabinet Minister also wrote to this same person. It is scarcely necessary to add that the party who made the overtures is a strong and influential Conservative. I never sought the position, and my reply, dated January 11, 1921, can be produced to prove this when the proper time arrives.
All I need say is to repeat the statement I made before. No such proposal was made by me, by any one with my authority, directly, indirectly, definitely, indefinitely, or in any other way, and no such letter to Mr. Veniot as referred to by him in the interview quoted ever was written. What the next step on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite should be I need not say. It is obvious to me, and should be obvious tc them.


Charles Murphy: May I just put my right hon. friend right in one particular? The subject was not brought up by me. It was originally mentioned by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens).


Arthur Meighen: No, originally it was
mentioned by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar).
Main motion (Sir Henry Drayton) agreed to, on the same division reversed.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Progress reported.

Georges Henri Boivin: I have the honour to inform the House that the beautiful replica of the Speaker's chair in the British House of Commons at Westminster, presented as a goodwill gift to this House of Commons by the honourable members of the Houses of Lords and Commons, constituting the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, will be officially presented to the Canadian House of Commons by the Right Honourable James William Lowther, P.C., Speaker of the British House of Commons from 1905 to April of the present year, this day, Friday, May 20th, at half past two o'clock in the afternoon.
The ceremony of presentation will take place in this chamber. Members' galleries will be reserved for the wives and families of hon. members. The usual tickets of admission will be required for the other

galleries, all of which will be open to the public at two o'clock in the afternoon.
On the motion of Eight Hon. Mr. Meighen for the adjournment of the House:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend two questions? Will he inform the House if the Government has reached any decision as to sitting on Tuesday of next week? Also what business shall we take up later in the day?


Arthur Meighen: I have had this morning an opportunity of inspecting, a number of members, both peers and members of the House of Commons, were anxious to do what they could to assist in completing the beautiful edifice which was Ibeing reared in Ottawa. Their first idea, I may tell you, was to offer to you a replica of the Table in the House of Commons-a table which was once described by Mr. Disraeli, when he professed to be alarmed at the gesticulations of Mr. Gladstone, as "this substantial piece of furniture Which happily divides us." On second thoughts, however, it was decided' that a table rather connoted conference, but that a chair, a replica of the Speaker's Chair, would be more suitable as being more emblematic of parliamentary institutions and more symbolic of the authority which rests with every Parliament.
Now, the Chair, which for the moment is veiled with the Union Jack, is an exact replica of the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons, Which was erected in that building in 1844. Above the Chair, in the canopy, you will observe, when the flags are removed, the Royal Coat of Arms. This is carved out of a peice of oak which until recently has formed part of the roof of Westminister Hall. The roof of Westminister Hall was erected in the time of Richard II, in the year 1397. I think, imitating the celebrated mot of Napoleon, I can fairly say that from here five centuries will look down upon you.
The Chair was designed by the well-known architect, Mr. Pugin, and the replica has been carried out by Sir Frank Baines. T'he Chair brings to mind the names of eminent statesmen who, from time to time, have addressed its occupant. I need only refer to the great names of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Lloyd George. The inscription in front of the Chair, which you will observe when the Chair is more open to view, recalls what I think I may call this historical occasion. The occupants of the Chair, before I had the honour of taking it, were Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Denison, Mr. Brand, Mr. Peel and Mr. Gully. And, showing how long my Parliamentary career has been, I may add that I have seen in the flesh everyone of those gentlemen, and that I have sat in Parliament under no less than three of them.
But the Chair is something more than a mere gift of friendship on the part of the Empire Parliamentary Association

towards yourselves. It acknowledges, I think, in its presentation by us and its acceptance by you, the great principle which has been accepted by Great Britain and by all the Dominions within the British Empire, that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is best carried out through Parliamentary institutions. That is the best-known method by which a free people can govern themselves, and by which their aspirations or their aversions can be either realized or removed.
The donors cherish the hope that this Chair, presented to the House of Commons of Canada, will, within the walls of this magnificent building at Ottawa, bear an everlasting testimony of the goodwill existing between the members of Parliament and the Mother Country, and of the long sucession of parliamentary traditions inherited conjointly by the free nations of the British Empire.
In 1918, the members of the Empire Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom presented to the Senate of Canada a Black Rod to replace the one which was burnt in the conflagration, and they hope that the gift now made to this House to replace the Chair destroyed by the same fire will be considered as essential to parliamentary proceedings and will forever stand as the symbol of the good-will and the earnest desire for still more cordial and closer relations between the members of the Parliament at Westminster and their colleagues in the Parliament at Ottawa.
Finally, I would say that the Speaker's Chair is the symbol not only of Parliamentary Government as evolved by the great constitutional elements of the commonwealth of nations, but of authority, the authority of the individual selected by his colleagues to preside over them, authority to regulate debate, to mainain order and to ensure the free expression of all opinions. It marks, therefore, not only the similarity and the continuity of Parliamentary institutions in the New World as in the Old, but it emphasizes the principle that, without law, order and authority, there can be no true freedom. Upon the Chair itself you will find this principle enshrined in the succinct maxim: "Libertas in Legibus."
It is the hope then of the donors that the Parliamentary instincts and traditions which, "broadening down from precedent to precedent," have come to us in St. Stephen's, may flourish and abound in this country, and that when this generation and future generations look upon this Chair, the sight

may kindle in their hearts a spark, nay, I would rather say a flame, of respect and admiration and, I trust, affection for the "Old Country."


Mr. SPEAKER:: Your Excellency, Mr. Lowther, gentlemen of the House of Commons-one year ago a cablegram was received by the Speaker of this House from the Secretary of the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association conveying the offer of a Speaker's Chair "as an abiding token of goodwill between both Parliaments."
Acceptance would obviously involve the necessity of foregoing a custom which has obtained in Canada almost since the inception of responsible government, that the retiring Speaker should take with him the Chair which he occupied during his term of office. But the spirit -Which prompted the proposal of so fine a gift and the accompanying expressions were of such a character that no shadow of doubt as to its acceptance could exist, and accordingly on June 8, 1920, on the motion of the Prime Minister, seconded by the leader of the Opposition, it was unanimously resolved:
That the offer of a .Speaker's chair to the House of Commons of Canada by the Lord Chancellor and the 'Speaker of the House of Commons as Joint Presidents and by the members of the Empire Parliamentary Association in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom be most gratefully accepted, and that Mr. Speaker do inform the donors of the high appreciation of this House for the gift, and particularly for the sympathy and goodwill which it expresses.
We now see the Chair in its permanent home. An object of beauty-the finished product of expert craftsman. It is this, and far more than this. It comes to us surmounted by the Royal Arms carved from the oak of old England, which has viewed from the roof of Westminster Hall the changing scenes of the great Mother of Parliaments since the fourteenth century. It brings with it hallowed associations in its being a replica of the Chair at Westminster, a gift from our brother parliamentarians across the sea. It will be valued because it has been brought to us by one who occupied the original with singular acceptance and distinction during sixteen stirring and epoch-making years in the history of Great Britain.
As the years roll by new memories, traditions and sentiments will mingle with those of a far-off past challenging and inspiring future generations to maintain those cherished institutions which through
the centuries have been inseparably associated with this ancient seat of authority.
We gratefully accept, we thank the donors for this treasured gift, and to you, Mr. Lowther, we are deeply grateful for the honour you have done us in making the presentation in person.
Mr. Speaker then took the Chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To preserve the bi-lingual character of the House of Commons, which was so happily recognized by you, Mr. Lowther, I shall call upon the Deputy Speaker (Mr. G. H. Boivin) to follow me in French.


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation.) May it please Your Excellency, Mr. Speaker, Right Hon. Mr. Lowther.
It is a signal honour for me to speak on behalf of the French Canadian representatives and French Canadians of Canada in order to add a few words to those the Speaker of the House of Commons has just delivered.
We see in the Senate the Throne occupied by Your Excellency as the representative of our illustrious Sovereign George V.
In the House of Commons, the Speaker's Chair is the throne of the people, the symbol of the citizens' authority. He who occupies the Chair is the spokesman of the representatives elected at the polls and when speaking, he speaks with all the authority arising from prerogatives obtained through many centuries of struggle, from the time of the Magna Charta up to the present day.
Thanks to the genius of the British people, our parliamentary institutions have reached a stage of perfection which is envied by the whole world and secures to the minorities the absolute enjoyment of their rights and prerogatives. The generous donors of this Chair, a replica of the one which you, Mr. Lowther, have so gracefully occupied for sixteen years, wanted to bear witness to the fact that the Parliaments of the Dominions are enjoying no lesser privileges than those pertaining to the renowned Parliament of the United Kingdom.
From that Chair at Westminster, one of your illustrious predecessors, in 1867 put the question and called for the votes which guaranteed to us the British North America Act, the shield of our liberties, our rights and prerogatives. It is owing to that Act that we, from the province of Quebec, will ever be entitled to send here

sixty-five repxesentatives and to speak in these precincts the ever beautiful French language. It is owing to the beneficient influence of that constitution that those who sit in this Chair must alternately be of English or Freneh-Canadian blood. We hope that the rulings given from this Chair shall always bear the stamp of the same knowledge of parliamentary procedure, the same righteousness and impartiality, the same courteousness which characterized yours, Sir, during the sixteen years you have occupied the Chair of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster.
Let me conclude with a word more expressive than the few remarks I have made to the House, so that you may convey it to the generous donors you are representing to-day. I also address it to you as a [DOT] token of gratitude for the long journey you have undertaken so as to present us with that gift and to offer us a living testimonial that the statesmen of England can speak like us the language of our ancestors. When translating that word, - you will find in it, I hope, all that our French-Canadian heart feels; it is one of the softest, the most expressive words in the French vocabulary: "Merci."


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, Your Excellency, Mr. Lowther, and Gentlemen of the Parliament of Canada:
You, Mr. Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker as well, have couched in very few words the sentiments that animate us all on this occasion, sentiments that I believe are shared not only by every member of this House but by every Canadian worthy of the name. , The presentation of this Chair is an event of real significance. Possession of so splendid and beautiful an ornament adds immensely to the attractions of this chamber but what is of infinitely greater moment it will hold before our eyes throughout the long, we hope unending years of parliamentary government in Canada the symbol of the great mother Parliament of which ours is the offspring and the replica. It will stand as well as evidence of that sense of fellowship felt for us in the old land the helpful results of which we have through all our history enjoyed.
Every nation has made its own characteristic contribution to the world's advancement. Rome has given her simple but sane principles of law, Greece her ideals of beauty, Israel her ideals of religion; Italy has brought us something, Russia even has brought us something; France has

brought us much. It is the peculiar glory of England that she has given to her daughter nations the model, and to the world the example of popular institutions of government. Just when the British Parliament took [DOT] its birth historians hesitate to say, neither its birth nor its growth has been marked by any convulsion, by any easily discernible recasting or innovation. Time and events have done their work along sound and natural lines and wisdom has always presided in the process. This Chair will embody for us British traditions, it will remind us from day to day through the stern trials of the future of British wisdom and British patience.
In Canada we are not all of one race; a large part are of French descent. But I shall echo and anticipate the words of those who in the ceremony of this afternoon will especially represent French Canadians, just so far as to say that they as well as we of Anglo-Saxon blood are 'attached to the free institutions that we inherit from old England, that they believe as firmly as we in the essential rightness and fitness of the form of Government that she developed and that now is ours.
It is worth noting, indeed to me it is a valuable fact, that this gift from British Parliamentarians to the Canadian Parliament is carved out of English oak. The piece that is now the Royal Arms surmounting the Chair is cut from the rafters of the great Hall of Westminister. In the blood of every race there is something, there is some characteristic of every leading race that accounts for its place and power, indeed for its survival. It is the sturdy oak fibre of the British people that has carried them in triumph through the storms and perils of a thousand years.
We are honoured, very highly honoured, in having this Chair presented by the Right Hon. Mr. Lowther-the more so because he has travelled from London to perform this ceremony himself. For sixteen years, heavy, crucial, and eventful years, Mr. Lowther has presided over the House of Commons of Great Britain, and always with singular dignity and capacity. The name of his family has been associated with the public service of England ever since or almost ever since there was any England to serve. Within the walls of the British Commons for centuries back there has sat one of his line. It is therefore a memorable event for us that he should signalize the close of a long and distinguished service as first Commoner in the Mother of Parliaments by coming among us and presenting in person this visible

and lasting link between the Commons of Britain and the Commons of Canada.
I am sure we, one and all of us, are grateful to the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, and particularly to the President who is here and to his co-President. We value this Speaker's Chair as we value the sense of fellow-citizenship in the British Empire which it is intended to express and to ensure.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, Your Excellency, Mr. Lowther-Little remains to be said after all that has been so eloquently and appropriately uttered by the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and the Prime Minister. May I ask to be associated with them in profound appreciation of this gift from the Empire Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom; in appreciation also of the presence of Mr. Lowther, whose name is as well known in Canhda as it is in the Mother Country, and who has served, not only the United Kingdom but the Empire, in the Speakership of the British House of Commons.
Just one thought, perhaps might be added. The parliamentary institutions which we have inherited and which we hold as of right and not of grace, were won by a common ancestry, and through gradual evolution and development during the past five or six centuries. I say a common ancestry advisedly, because it was under the leadership of Norman Barons that the Saxon people forced the Great Charter from a reluctant Norman King. The man who summoned the first gathering that might be regarded as the forerunner of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain, as well as that of Canada, was a Frenchman, born in France. He well served our country by calling together the Commons of England at Westminster on January 20, 1265. Thus, we can look back with satisfaction upon the fact that Saxon and Norman, five or six hundred years ago, stood side by side in the assertion of liberties that are ours today. With even greater satisfaction we remember that, since the establishment of representative and responsible government in this country, Canadians of French descent have co-operated effectively and whole-heartedly with those of British descent in developing our political institutions and asserting our .liberties in this Dominion:
It is perfectly true, as has been observed this afternoon, that the present system of
parliamentary government has been of gradual evolution. One hundred years ago there was in Great Britain representative and responsible government, but the House of Commons was then representative of what was called "an educated minority." To-day the Parliament of the United Kingdom is representative of nearly the whole people. In Canada the franchise began to be extended somewhat earlier than on the other side of the Atlantic. It now includes practically the entire community. I am sure that the influence of women in public life in both countries will be for the best. Already in Great Britain, Mr. Lowther has had the honour of having associated with him in Parliament a lady member of the House. So we .in the near future, I imagine, may expect to see ladies sitting within the precincts of this chamber. It is even quite possible that some lady of distinguished parliamentary service may eventually attain the Chair, where I am sure she will preside with great dignity and impartiality.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I desire once more to express my very great gratification that this gift has been made. During all the years to come it will serve as a symbol of the common purpose of these two parliaments; and I trust that this common purpose may ever tend toward the maintenance of liberty, autonomy, and justice, towards the attainment of the highest ideals of democracy for which it is our duty constantly to strive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, your Excellency, Mr. Lowther-The constituent elements of Parliament here represented do right in regarding the present moment as one of historic significance. There are under British parliamentary institutions two symbols of authority-the Crown, which speaks of the sovereignty of royalty; the Speaker's Chair, which speaks of the sovereignty of the people. That, under the aegis of the British flag, these two sovereignties have blended into one, is a tribute not less to the character and devotion to duty of the occupants of the British throne than to the genius of the British peoples in the art and science of government.
On this occasion, we have these sovereignties not only represented in the symbols I have mentioned; we have them personified in the distinguished presence of His Excellency the Governor General and the presence of the eminent statesman who has crossed the seas to make to this Parliament and the people of Canada the gracious gift


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
from our brother parliamentarians at Westminister, which by you, Mr. Speaker, has just been accepted in terms so adequate and appropriate. y
It was said of our illustrious Queen Victoria that
Statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The hounds of freedom wider yet.
We of this Parliament of Canada, reverencing British lore, and schooled in British parliamentary traditions, recognize in this moment such an occasion. We recognize in our parliamentary institutions, fashioned as they are upon the British model, the greatest guarantee of freedom which a people can possess. We recognize that in the preservation and extension of the principles of government underlying our free parliamentary institutions lies the possibility of our largest contribution to the freedom of mankind. Further, we recognize that it is around the Speaker's Chair that in the Mother of Parliaments the battles of political freedom have been waged, and in appeals to the authority of the Chair, as the symbol of a people's sovereignty, that British political liberties have been won.
We accept, therefore, this gift with a full appreciation of all that it signifies of what we owe of freedom to the Parliament at Westminster, and of courtesy and goodwill on the part of the members of the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association; and we ask you, Mr. Lowther, in conveying the thanks of this Parliament and of the Canadian people, at the same time also to convey the assurance that it will be our high privilege to seek to preserve, with due regard to its rightful dignity and authority, and its ancient and honourable tradition, this noble expression of the freedom and unity of the British peoples so generously committed to our charge.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, Your Excellency,
Mr. Lowther,-There is not much left for me to say on the present occasion. I am reminded however, that it has this fortunate aspect for us. Uusally the debates that take place in this chamber are not attended with the entire unanimity that has marked the proceedings this afternoon; and consequently it is a happy occasion when for the time being we can forget our controversies in the chamber and centre our thoughts on a united purpose. The circum-

stance is not an ordinary one. We to-day, in the admirable words of Mr. Lowther, have been presented with a replica of the Speaker's Chair in the great Mother of Parliaments. That, because of the preeminence of British institutions and parliamentary government, is a matter of no small consequence to us. I am reminded of the fact that Canada has enjoyed now for many years the precious boon of self government. It is a tribute to the genius of the Anglo-Saxon people that they have always endeavoured to build upon the broad foundation of freedom, and there is no finer or greater word in the whole Anglo-Saxon lexicon. We have also-and rightly and naturally so-derived our inspiration in parliamentary government from the Mother Country. We are familiar enough with history to know the struggles that have gone on in the Old Land for many centuries past, resulting in bringing the system of parliamentary government we have up to the state of perfection that we at present enjoy. It is also peculiarly fitting, Sir, that this Chair should come from the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association. That association embraces the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, and it is a great honour to this House that we should receive from them this splendid testimony of their good-will and affection for us.
I wish also to join my voice with those who have preceded me in saying that we are greatly honoured to-day in having with us the distinguished right hon. gentleman who for so many years presided over the deliberations of the British House of Commons. As Sir Robert Borden has stated, Mr. Lowther's name is not unknown in Canada; in fact, it is almost as well known here as in the Mother Land; and I am sure we all feel the deep debt of gratitude we are under to him for the trouble he has taken in coming to Canada to make this presentation in person.
This Chair will grace this chamber long after we who are now participating in the activities of this House have passed from the stage. It will be a constant reminder to the generations who come after us of the greatness and grandeur of British parliamentary institutions, and, moreover, it will be a lasting link with the Empire to which we are proud to belong.


Rodolphe Lemieux: the ocean, we beg our cousins over there to welcome you in that chamber of the British Parliament where, after many centuries, are still sitting the descendants of the old Norman aristocracy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure I voice the unanimous desire when I express the hope that His Excellency will do us the honour of addressing us.
His Excellency the DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, Governor General of Canada:
Mr. Speaker, I hope I may express my grateful thanks to the House of Commons and yourself for having so made the arrangement for this historical and significant occasion as to allow me to be present. As far as I know, neither in the letter nor in the spirit have any of the justly-guarded privileges and traditions of the House of Commons been in any way encroached upon, and I hope I may take it as a happy omen for the future that the cordial relations that I have enjoyed will always exist between my successors in the distinguished office which I now have the honour to hold, and the members of the House of Commons.
The ceremony we witness this afternoon will hold an honoured place in our parliamentary records. The present and future members of the House of Commons will, I know, always have the same respect and veneration for this Chair that their colleagues have for its prototype in the venerable assembly which throughout the Empire we are proud to call the "Mother of Parliaments."
To myself as a former member of the House of Commons the occasion is one of special interest, and that interest is enhanced by the fact that the presentation has been made with characteristic charm and grace by an old House of Commons friend and colleague. I am afraid that I cannot honestly say that I have any reason to believe that Mr. Lowther during his long and distinguished career, first as chairman of committees and then as Speaker, had any particular reason to he impressed with any utterances of mine. At any rate, I think I can claim the satisfaction of knowing that to the best of my belief I never caused him any anxiety.
I join with you in the expression of grateful appreciation of the gift and in the confidence and assurance that the spirit which prompted it is sincerely reciprocated and will still further strengthen the ties which bind the two Parliaments together.


Right Hon. Mr.   LOWTHER@: The House will forgive me if for one moment I say
[Mr. l.ernieux.j
that in addition to the Chair and in complement to it I have brought, on behalf of the Empire Parliamentary Association, this framed scroll with an inscription in front and a list at the back of all the peers and the members who have subscribed toward the gift which you have so generously and so amiably accepted.
[The proceedings were brought to a close by the singing of the National Anthem by all present, and before the meeting dispersed, hearty cheers were given for His Excellency the Governor General and the Right Honourable Mr. Lowther.]
Friday, May 20, 1921.