[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Edward George Taylor.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Margaret Swanston Neville.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Ernest Lillie Montgomery.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Ethel Gordon Wright Ball.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Ivan Ignatius Brazill.-Mr. Mowat.

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

Mr. McDONALD:: 1.	Has any action 'been taken by the Government during the past year to forbid meetings of Civil Servants in Government offices after working hours?
2.	If so, why was said action taken?
3.	Has the ruling, if any, been applied impartially to all Civil Service organizations and groups?
4.	Have any representations been made to the Government by any Civil Service organization that this privilege of meeting in Government offices be restored to the Service?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to restore this privilege? If not, why?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: 1.	Meetings of organizations of a general character have never been authorized. The practice has, however, grown up in different departments of employees of the department remaining after office hours to discuss matters of interest mutually to such departmental employees. This practice has not been interfered with.


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. There cannot be any question of restoring an alleged privilege which has never been authorized.

Hon. Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	How many miles of railway have the Government built in the Island of Vancouver, B_C, (as an extension of the Canadian National Railway), during the last three years?
2.	How many miles of steel have been laid on the same railway in the last three years?
3.	What is the total cost of the above extension?	.


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No grading done during this period.
2.	72.2 miles.
3.	Total cost of above extension during the three years in question was $1,735,748.86.


INCOME TAX
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the amount of Income Tax collected for the year 1919?
2.	What percentage of such amount has been applied to collection and administration expenses?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Collections under Income War Tax Act in fiscal year 1920-21 were $46,381,806.64; of this amount $9,597,211.13 were collections made on assessments based on income for the calendar years 1917 and 1918; $32,685,630.24 for the calendar year 1919, and $4,098,965.27 applying to calendar year 1920. Total collections to date as at May 14, 1921, based on 1919 income, $34,485,640.61.
2.	The administration of the Business Profits and Income War Tax Acts is conducted by the Taxation Branch of the Finance Department. The appropriation is voted and spent without allocation to one or the other taxes, as the staff and outlay interlock.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: What amount was collected through Income Tax on corporations in 1920-21?


Hon.   S@: $13,481,809.99, in addition to the collections made under The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and Part One of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.


EX-MEMBERS OF CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	Have ex-members of the Canadian Navy 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?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes. 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.


RAILWAY STATISTICS
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Are there any statistics kept by any of the departments of the Government as to the amount of freight and passengers carried by the railways of Canada, both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway?
2.	Are there any statistics as to the number of passengers and number of cars handled by the various railway systems of Canada?


John Flaws Reid: 1 and 2. The transportation Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publishes annually statistics showing amount of freight and number of passengers carried by the railways of Canada, both collectively and individually. It also contains complete information as to rolling stock and motive power.


EDMUNDSTON POST OFFICE
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What was the revenue of the Post Office at Edmundston, New Brunswick, for the last fiscal year?
2.	What salary was paid the Postmaster of this office during the same period?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	$11,389.94.
2.	Salary allowance, including $1,054.50 arrears
from previous year.. $4,719.50
Money Order Commission.. 317.34
Postal Note Commission..	8.40


$5,045.24 PIERREVILLE POSTMISTRESS
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Regarding an answer by the Minister of Justice on the 11th instant in which is given the reason for the dismissal of Mrs. Boucher as Postmistress at Pierreville, Yamaska County, is it not a fact that the outsider referred to is Mr. Aime Boucher, Liberal Candidate in Yamaska and son of the Postmistress?
2.	Is it not a fact that the only accusation against Mrs. Boucher was that she allowed her son to help her sort the mail?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The accusation made against the Postmistress was that she had allowed her son,

the Liberal candidate, to enter the private office where the mails are kept and also to sort and handle mails in violation of the law.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the outsiders who have heen allowed to handle mail at the Post Office at Pierreville, as stated toy the Minister of Justice on the 11th instant lin answer to a question of Mr. Ball, M.P., regarding the reasons for the dismissal of Mrs. Boucher as Postmistress of Pierreville, Yamaska county?
2.	What was the exact nature of the reproached acts?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Mr. Aime Boucher is the one outsider whom the Postmistress admitted had interfered with the mails.
2.	Assisting in sorting and handling the mail.


QUEBEC POST OFFICE INSPECTOR
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Who is Post Office Inspector at Quebec?
2.	Has an automobile toeen put at his disposition?
3.	If so, what make is the car, and what number?
4.	Is It for official use only, or is it to be used by his family and his friends?
5.	Is a record kept of the official trips made by the Inspector?
6.	Is a record kept of all persons taking passage daily in such car, can the names toe obtained, and the mileage each day?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	S. T. Green.
2.	Yes.
3.	Reo T 6.
4.	It is for official use only.
5.	The official trips of all Inspectors are recorded.
6.	No.


DOMINION SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR COMPANY, LIMITED
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Has the Government taken control of the Dominion Shipbuilding and Repair Company Limited?
2.	If so, when and oft what conditions?
3.	How many steamers are under construction in the above-mentioned shipbuilding plant?
4.	Has the Government entered into any contract for the completion of the said steamers if any?
5.	If so, with whom and on what conditions?
6.	Are the said steamers presently insured? If so, to whom has the premium toeen paid and what is the amount paid to each insurance agent or company?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Two.
4.	Yes.
5.	The Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and the John Inglis Co., Ltd., have contracted to finish the ships and complete and install the engines and boilers respectively on the basis of cost of labour and material which they will have to furnish plus 15 per cent for profit.
6.	Yes. Toronto Insurance and Vessel Agency-$4,785.00.


PRINCE RUPERT DRY DOCK ENGINEERING CO.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Has the Government taken control of Prince Rupert Dry Dock Engineering Company, Limited?
2.	If so, when and on what conditions?
3.	How many steamers are under construction in the above-named shipbuilding plant?
4.	Has the Government entered into any contract for the completion of the said steamers, if any?
5.	If so, with whom and what is the nature of the contract?
6.	Are the said steamers presently insured? If so, to whom has the premium been paid?
V. What amount has been paid to each insurance agent or company in this regard?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Two.
4.	Yes.
5.	The Wallace Shipbilding and Dry Dock Company, Limited, has contracted to finish the ships on the basis of cost of labour and material which they will have to furnish plus 8 per cent for profit.
6 and 7. Yes. Johnson & Higgins, New York and Seattle, $9,960.56.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence and Orders in Council regarding the control, by the Dominion Government, of fisheries in the tidal waters of the province of Quebec, as well as a copy of the judgment of the Privy Council dealing with this matter.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: For a copy of all documents, letters, scrip notes, transfers of lands consequent upon such scrip notes, and all and every other documents without reservation whatsoever in connection with the issue of Half Breed scrip to one Elizabeth Hislop.
.	THE BUDGET


DEBATE CONTINUED ON THE ANNUAL STATEMENT PRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Saturday, May 14, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, that
[Stage Direction]
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. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton East):: Mr. Speaker, representing, as I do, a constituency in Western Ontario, and after listening to the doleful tale of woe which was told by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), on Saturday last, I feel it is my duty to participate in this debate and to show, to some extent at least, the need of supporting a policy such as that proposed by this Government. If you will draw a line through Toronto, north to lake Simcoe, you will find that west of that demarkation there are constituencies represented in this House by forty-two hon. members. Fifteen hundred thousand people live in that locality, the assessed value of their property amounts to over one thousand millions of dollars. More industries are there located than are to be found in all the rest of the Dominion of Canada put together. In western Ontario we have not only a large number of manufacturing plants, but an intensive farming industry. In no place on this continent, is intensive farming carried to the extent that it is in the southwestern part of the province of Ontario. The hon. member for North Essex, who, I regret, is not in his seat, was rather pessimistic in his views as to what we might expect if the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), were carried into effect. That hon. gentleman (Mr. W. C. Kennedy) represents the city of Windsor and the surrounding districts. There are 206 manufacturing plants in his constituency, and yet he is prepared to back up the Liberal policy that would wipe out practically half of those industries if it were put into operation. Let me read a letter which I received from the secretary of the Board of Commerce in that city, so that I may convey to the members of the House some idea of the enormous development in that territory. The following communication reached me on March 11, 1921:
In reply to your esteemed favour of the 8th, we now have two hundred and seven operating industries at these border municipalities. Forty-four of these came in during 1919, and over thirty last year. Practically all of them represent American capital and enterprise. When running full swing these industries employ nearly twenty thousand workers. As to the development of these communities,-we might say that in the spring of 1918 our collective population was estimated at about forty thousand. As some indication of the phenom-

enal increase that has taken place since then, we might mention that over thirteen thousand copies are now being delivered daily by the local newspaper to the homes of the Border Cities; and when one remembers the acute housing shortage from which we suffer, it seems fairly safe to adopt the ordinarily accepted average of five people to a home. This will enable you to form your own conclusions as to our present population; and it must be remembered, of course, that our paper is not going to every home, although it does go to most of them. If there is any further information that you may d^esire, be good enough to let us know.
Yours faithfully,
F. Maclure Sclanders,
Commissioner.
On the basis of five persons to a family, it will be seen that if 13,000 copies of this newspaper are distributed, the population is some 65,000. This Chamber of Commerce has published and distributed a pamphlet from which I desire to quote an extract. The article appears under the caption: "Rediscovered by American Manufacturers" and is in part as follows:
Further, business with many British possessions could be more advantageously conducted from Canada than from the United States, owing-among other things-to tariff preferential granted Canadian products. There were also many other sound and even compelling reasons for the establishment of American branch factories in Canada,-and, especially, at the Border Cities, which are so conveniently close to many very important industrial centres in the neighbouring states. And, so it was that in an astonishingly short time, the string of stagnant hamlets took upon themselves the aspect of a thriving, throbbing centre of extraordinary industrial activity. New factories literally streamed in. For instance, no fewer than 48 of such-large and small-located during 1919 ; while, for the first seven months of this year, others have established at an average rate of almost one per week. To-day, we have a total of 206 manufacturing concerns, practically all of which represent American capital and enterprise.
The foregoing has reference to the district represented by the hon. member for North Essex. Two hundred and six industries operate in that district by American capital, and yet the hon. member supports the Liberal policy as propounded by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), in the statement which that hon. gentleman made, warning Americans, who might desire to come to Canada to locate and establish factories, thus assisting in the development of Canadian industry, that it would not be to their interests to come here, for, if they did, they might expect little support from any Government in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Did I hear some one say "hear, hear" in reference to that statement? Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that any Government that might come into power in Canada would dare to tear down the tariff wall and wipe out industries that have been so successful in developing our natural resources and the trade of our land. The hon. member for North Essex, however, not only takes that position; he objects to this Government taking into consideration the fact that the antidumping clause will protect the manufacturers and further their interests. He says that there is unemployment in his city, some of the factories being shut down. I wonder whether he reflects that a great deal of that unemployment may be due to the fact that manufactured goods are coming into Canada from other countries which are turning out their products and shipping them into this country at below the actual cost of production. I wonder whether that hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that millions of dollars' worth of manufactured goods have been shipped into Canada during the last few months, below the actual cost of production, in the countries from Which they come, despite the anti-dumping clause. This anti-dumping policy is worthy of the support of every member of the House, and of the member for North Essex in particular.
Then my hon. friend found fault with the exchange situation as it affects Canada. What about the exchange? Do we want, as a people, to allow manufactured goods to come into this country from Germany, where the mark that was worth twenty-three cents before the war is to-day worth only one and a half cents, and where they are paying their labour on that basis? Does he want goods to come in from Italy, where the lire, worth twenty cents before the war to-day is only worth five or six cents? Does he want goods to come in from France where the franc has fallen in value, or from Great Britain where the sovereign has depreciated? In those countries they are manufacturing goods at the lowest possible cost, and it is up to the Finance Minister of Canada to see to it that the interest of the manufacturers of this country are considered in connection with the question of exchange. Now I claim that when we are looking after the interest of the Canadian manufacturers we are helping to develop our cities and towns, and our home market. In turn the people of Canada will be able to consume a large portion, at least, of the products of our farmers.
The hon. member for North Essex pointed the finger of scorn at the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) and called attention to the fact that he left the Liberal party and joined this Government in 1917. There is not a member on this side but feels proud and glad to know that the hon. member for South Wellington joined this Government, and assisted in carrying on the affairs of Canada in the able manner in which he has. The question is, did the Minister of Militia do right or did he do wrong in 1917? Is there any question but that he took the right position? All honour to the mep who came out boldly and manfully at that time, who left their party and joined the ranks of the Union Government in order that the affairs of the country might be properly administered. I regret indeed that any hon. member should have taken the position which my hon. friend from North Essex took in that regard.
We have in this House another gentleman from western Ontario who represents the county of Kent (Mr. McCoig) in which the beautiful city of Chatham, filled with industries, is situated. That hon. gentleman, along with the hon. member for North Essex, and other members for Ontario, attended the Liberal Convention in 1919, and helped to support the planks in the Liberal platform that would wipe out hundreds of industries in western Ontario-not a doubt about it. One of the planks of that platform is that the principal articles of food shall be placed on the free list. That platform also calls for free trade in agricultural implements. Let us look at the constituency represented by the hon. member for Kent. We find there two large sugar refineries in which are invested nearly $3,000,000. These refineries manufacture the raw material that is grown by the farmers in the western part of the province into the finished product and sell it to the people of Canada. That fact is surely worthy of some consideration. Yet the hon. member for Kent supports the policy of free trade in the principal articles of food, among which sugar surely must be included-he would support such a policy as that. These hon. gentlemen also advocate free trade in agricultural implements. Now there is a large *implement factory in the city of Chatham. What would become of that industry if we had free trade in agricultural implements? The Dort Motor Company also have a large factory located in Chatham- are they in favour of free trade in agricultural implements and machinery, which would include everything they manufac-

ture at their plant? There are also canning factories and the tobacco industry in the county of Kent. All these industries need a protective tariff at their hack to support them against foreign competition. Yet my hon. friend supports the Liberal platform which would throw the Canadian market open to foreign competition. A little further east is the county of Middlesex. My hon. friend who represents West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) has in his constituency large fruit areas, canning factories, wood turning establishments, and many other industries. What position is he going to take on this resolution? What position did he take in 1919? Why, he attended the Liberal convention and supported the resolution that would place the products of the bulk of these industries on the free list. A little farther east is the city of Kitchener. There you will find many other factories, and in the neighbourhood a big sugar refinery which takes the beets grown by the farmers and manufactures sugar from them. What position is my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) going to take on this resolution? I ask the same question with respect to my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. McDermand)? I am glad to see the hon. member for that constituency in his seat. He is generally there; he is a good and faithful attendant at the House and a good citizen. I had the privilege of doing what I could during the space of a couple of weeks to show the people in his constituency that they should support the present Government. Let me tell hon. gentlemen two or three things about that constituency. We have heard a good deal of talk about East Elgin and what wonderful things were accomplished in the by-election there, but let us look at the facts. In round figures there are 13,000 voters in the riding of East Elgin, but there is only one town in the constituency-the town of Aylmer with 2,700 inhabitants and two or three small villages, none of them having a population ovep 300 persons. Of the total number of voters more than 10,000 live in the country districts; but notwithstanding that the representative of this Government was able to come within 200 odd votes of defeating my hon. friend. When people talk about this Government and the great defeat it received in East. Elgin they should remember the foregoing facts. Now, my hon. friend was hardly elected before certain representatives from that riding-including gentlemen connected with the canning industry- [Mr. J. E. Armstrong.}
who had voted against the Government went to London when the Tariff Commission sat there last year and pleaded with the Finance Minister to keep the duty on the products of these industries in order that they might carry on. My hon. friend knows full well that if the milk condensery and the canning factory in his riding were wiped out, the value of the farms throughout the district would be materially reduced. He knows full well that the canning factory distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars amongst the farmers of East Elgin, and that the milk condensery paid out over $900,000 for raw milk that was manufactured into condensed milk, and distributed throughout the country. I am merely making these statements to show that in that western part of the province-and I am sure that the same principle applies in many other districts throughout the Dominion-it is impossible for the people to accept the policy of free trade in fruit, in agricultural implements, in food products, and in dozens of other products such as are named in the platform of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Then I might turn to my good friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). As he is well aware, the beautiful city of Sarnia is filled with factories, and the Board of Trade are urging Americans to cross the border and locate more factories in order to still further develop that city. Among its industries is a large plant manufacturing threshers and tractors. This industry and other industries would be wiped out if the policy enunciated by him and his colleagues in 1919 should be put into effect. For instance, in his city is an oil refining plant, the largest in Canada, erected at a cost of $2,500,000 or $3,000,000. The policy of his party and of the Agrarian group is to place lubricating, fuel and illuminating oils on the free list. Crude oil and gasoline are already exempt from duty. What else would be left to keep that refinery going if the free trade policy were in operation? And yet that one company alone has invested over $20,000,000 in refineries and stations throughout the Dominion. Unquestionably they would not operate in this country if you took away the little protection they now enjoy. It is apparent that many of our industries cannot possibly carry on without reasonable protection. I am not a high protectionist, far from it, but I am heartily in support of the policy of moderate protection enunciated by this Government, and I favour the Budget presented by the Minister of

Finance in support of the policy which we on this side of the House advocate.
Now, a word or two about my own constituency. In it there are fifty-one industries, twenty-one of them being entirely separate and distinct in their organization. Do my ihon. friends of the Agrarian party expect me to support their policy? I cannot do it. Do hon. gentlemen opposite expect me to support their policy? If I gave it my endorsement I would simply have to go back to my constituents and tell them what I told them last year, that over half of their industries would be wiped out if the policy of the Liberal and the Farmers party were put into effect.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: They would not
believe you at all.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My
hon. friend says those industries would not be wiped out. That was the cry in 1906. But he and his party have a definite tariff policy, and its effect on my riding will be evident when I read this passage from the resolution on the tariff adopted at the National Liberal Convention of 1919:
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-should be free from customs duties-
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should he effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear-
That the British preference be increased to fifty 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.
There is no question of doubt in my mind that if the Liberal party were to carry that policy into effect it would not only wipe out practically half the industries in Ontario, but it would also materially affect every industry in the sister province of Quebec. Hon. members from that province know full well that in supporting such a policy they are not acting in the best interests either of the people of their province or of the people of the Dominion generally, and I hope that when opportunity is given to the electorate of that fair province they will come out manfully and decisively in support of the protective tariff enunciated by this Government. We have 18,000,000 horsepower of electrical energy available, of which 14,000,000 is going to waste to-day. How are we going to develop that 14,000,000 horse-power up-less we encourage the establishment and
development of industries .that will use our raw materials and carry on a variety of manufactures? We have the second largest coal area of any country in the world. How can we develop it unless we take an active interest in a policy that will ensure a reasonable amount of protection to our industries? Why do American industries come to Canada? Not only for the purpose of taking care of their Canadian business, but in order that they may develop trade with the Motherland and our sister Dominions.
I wonder if we appreciate the enormous natural resources this country possesses? The output last year of our mines was over $400,000,000; of our forests over $182,000,000; of our fisheries over $60,000,000. Our farming industry produced over $2,000,000,000 worth of products. But it must not be forgotten that our manufactories produced goods to the value of $2,700,000,000. Surely, they are worthy of consideration, and I ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to give this question their very earnest consideration, feeling sure that if they do they will support the policy enunciated by the Minister of Finance in the Budget which he has presented to this House.


Mr. J. E. PREVOST (Terrebonne):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, neither the speech of the Minister of Finance on this deficit-laden Budget, nor after all the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session, were calculated to comfort public opinion.
If it be true that nations have the governments they deserve, Canada must be very guilty indeed to be deserving of the Government which gives itself airs under her eyes, gorgeously adorned with the name of National, Liberal and Conservative government, a compound name for a composite government having no authority nor cohesion, a name which has no meaning at all because it is intended to mean too many things. This so-called National, Liberal and Conservative government wearing that name as it would a patch-work recalls to memory that vaudeville character who sings on a lively tune: "A proof that I am something is that I do not know what I am."
How distant are the glorious days of the mighty Conservative party under the leadership of Cartier and Macdonald! That political party has passed through all the stages leading to its downfall. To mention but three of those stages: in 1911, Conservatives came into power by de-

nouncing reciprocity formerly advocated by Macdonald; in 1917 they throw to the dogs their old name, become "unionists" and seize power by means of an electoral plunder which will forever defile the memory of that party; and in 1920-21, the former Conservative party has completely degenerated and is totally in the hands of the Tory element, which under a spurious label seek to put the public on a wrong scent.
Divided, subdivided, torn apart and indifferently mended, the Government show themselves absolutely powerless to direct Canadian politics with foresight and firmness. Tossed about by endless eddies, the ship of state has, in three years, completely changed its crew, and its new pilot will not be equal to prevail against the storm which is brewing outside, nor able to long impose his authority over his immediate surroundings.
I know that the Prime Minister has audacity, and that he is capable of using the whip to tame those who dare raise their heads; he will cut to the bone. He is of those who cut the Gordian knot instead of untying it. But cutting is not enough, there is also splicing to be done. The Prime Minister does not seem to me particularly qualified to group around himself goodwill and tried talents desirous of directing and hastening, in a warm atmosphere of union and co-operation, the economic uplifting of our country.
The contact with the electors, in the course of the last months, has shown this Government, born from the tricked ballots of 1917, that they do not possess the confidence of the people. And there is no wonder in that, for this Government, in spite of all the false faces they put on are nothing but the Government of National Distress.
And, to begin with, can we feel safe as to the administration of our finances?
We are in the midst of a financial crisis, a great part of the responsibility for which is due to the Government. No doubt the war has brought about large expenditures and entailed heavy burdens. But the war is not the only cause of our financial disorder.
Let the Government search their conscience if they have any. Scandalous contracts have enriched favourites of the ministers. With their profiteers of all typ s; hoarders, bloated capitalists, speculating shareholders, they have cost millions to the country. These parasites have lived upon 
the Unionist Government like all parasites feeding upon the beast they cling to.
We have seen the Government embarking upon a ruinous railway policy. Instead of firmly pursuing a programme'of restoration of our finances, the Government has delighted in their lack of foresight. Hundreds of millions have been added to the already heavy liabilities of the country by the purchase of the Canadian Northern, by the purchase of the Grand Trunk,- condemnable measures which have been blamed by the serious business men of the country without party distinction and by the boards of trade of our largest cities.
The nationalization of the railways has entailed upon our Budget an ever-increasing annual deficit; a deficit of 40 millions in 1919, of 70 millions for the last twelve months, and which the Minister of Railways foresees will be of 100 millions at the end of the present fiscal year.
Sir Robert Holt, president of the Royal Bank of Commerce and Sir Vincent Meredith, president of the Bank of Montreal, recently advised the Canadian Government to renounce their public ownership policy and to take necessary steps to return the railways to their former owners.
Lord Shaughnessy himself has just advised the Government to abandon the direction of affairs which ever-increasingly deepen the abyss of our deficits.
To its already grave faults the Government still added others: for instance, in bringing from the United States self-styled experts to reclassify our Civil Service; experts who only bungled the former classification, and who cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.
The trade commission which was the charnel-house of all the claims of the consumers against the high cost of living, cost the country $25,000 a year.
Last session, the Government caused to be voted for military purposes, the sum of $12,000,000; this year they again claim $11,890,000 for militia and yet the war is over.
I neglect many instances and some of the worst. The Government indulges in this financial debauch at a time when our finances are in a pitiable state.
In 1914, our expenses were $127,384,473; in 1920, they reached $533,000,000; in 1921, they will come up to $591,500,000. The debt of the country, which, in 1914, was $335,996,850, that is $43 per capita, amounts in 1921 to $2,350,236,700, or $284 per capita.
Although in 18 years, from 1896 to 1914, the public debt increased to $77,000,000

from 1914 to 1921, in seven years, it rose to $2,000,000,000;. The interest on the debt, which in 1914 was $14,752,117, amounts to-day to over $140,000,000 yearly. We had, in 1914, a surplus of $35,000,000; our deficit in 1921 was $220,000,000. For 1920 only the debt has increased to $101,368,000. The Minister of Finance has declared with a cheerful mind that the total trade has increased from March, 1920, to 1921. It is true, but we must remember that our imports have increased by $175,000,000, while our exports have been reduced by $25,000,000.
The minister further states, in this House, with a smile of self-satisfaction, that our revenues, which were $349,000,000 on March 31, 1920, have reached $432,000,000 in 1921; but only for war taxes of all hinds, we have paid within the last 12 months $170,000,000.
When the Government claims a surplus of $69,000,000 over the ordinary expenses, they omit to say that they include in their receipts those extraordinary revenues derived from war taxes and amounting to $170,000,000.
Without any additional taxes for the 12 months from April 1, 1921, we would have to meet foreseen expenses of more than $591,000,000, receipts reduced to $375,000,000. Consequently, we would have, notwithstanding a deficit of $101,000,000 during 1919-20, another deficit amounting to $219,500,000, on March 31, 1922. Our national railways alone are to absorb over $165,000,000. The condition is such that provision must further be made for new taxes. Besides those $163,000,000 which our people have paid up in 1919 in custom duties; besides those $37,200,000 which they have contributed in excise duties, this Government has collected the following taxes:
On business profits	$40,000,000
On income taxes	 46,500,000
As war-tax of the Inland	Revenue..	79,050,000As well as other war	taxes	
2,355,000
It is according to those figures that we must judge of the evil deeds of the Government who, after having dragged us into debt beyond all measure, refuse to make the necessary economy to balance our finances and to carry on economic uplifting of the country. Far from that, the Government are taxing the people. The enormous fiscal effort asked from the Canadians will not give the results expected, if the Government does not cut down with a firm hand the useless expenses. In other words, the one remedy for the present conditions
is to practice a wise and strict economical hygiene.
The Government, it is true, says that they are willing to economize, and are doing away with certain expenses; but let us make a distinction. Our ministers who talk about economy have mostly in mifid the retrenchments to be effected in the present service, namely in the staff of the civil servants, and specially the mean reduction of their bonus, etc. But, those reforms are but slight economies. Moreover, it must be admitted that those who are in need the most amongst civil servants are not, as a rule, paid as they should be, if a decent living is to be guaranteed to them.
What I am censuring are the extravagant expenses of the trading and industrial Government. They have ventured into railway enterprises; the systems which they operate show a deficit of $70,000,000.
Not having profited by that disastrous experience, they now want to hazard themselves into a Government merchant marine, and, although they have asked us for that $20,000,000, last year, they want to spend this year $8,330,000 more.
What about our military expenses which, in peace times, amount to $12,000,000 each year! The Government have no right to be extravagant, and they are, when they make a gift of $25,000,000 to the provinces in order to build healthy houses, and another gift of $20,000,000 in order to improve the highways; when they spend annually $12,000,000 for militia; when specially, they grant $28,000,000 to a merchant marine, what are they going to answer when we ask them where all these millions will be derived from, when the Budget shows a deficit of $220,000,000?
It is quite plausible to give some explanations about different increases in the expenses. But there is a fact of the utmost importance, and it is the necessity of remedying our financial distress. It is a crime to increase by many millions the national Budget for new and dangerous undertakings. It is a mad ride towards bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times I have no confidence that the Government, with its bad antecedents, will adopt a consistent policy of economy, will equitably assess the taxes and seriously help the nation to recuperate.
The Government with which we are afflicted, is also the Government of National Distress, born of imperialism.

It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of this so-called National-Liberal-Conservative Government is the averred Imperialist who wanted to lead Canada to ruin for the benefit of the Empire, and that he has come to power just at the time when the policy he wanted and inspired is dragging our country to ruin.
I do not want to reopen a question which belongs to the past and which remains a badly closed-up wound. If I recall the lamentable conscription law, it is only with the object of connecting it with the Imperialist policy which has always been that of the Tories, and which is consequently the policy which prompts the present Government.
Many times we have proved that the voluntary enlisting was sufficient to maintain the four Canadian divisions at the front; but this was not the object of the measure, which so unfortunately divided the nation; its object was Imperialistic. As the tribute of $35,000,000 which a Tory Government wanted us to pay to England, conscription was an acute manifestation of British Imperialism, which tends to make of colonials, not citizens but subjects taxable in money and labour at discretion.
I will not insist upon a point which impartial history will bear out. Let me only observe, Mr. Speaker, that in Australia, conscription was viewed from the same angle as by the Canadian anti-conscrip-tionists, and was twice rejected there. It is important to recall these facts on the eve of the London conference to which the Prime Minister is so anxious to go.
If on October 28, 1917, the referendum before the people in Australia rejected Mr. Hughes' proposition about conscription, it was not due to lack of patriotism on the part of Australia; in that country as well as in Canada, the opposition to conscription was a protest against an Imperialistic tendency.
It behooves us in reality to understand the facts. In Australia, conscription or obligatory military service, had existed several years, since January 1, 1911, for the defense of the confederate states. In 1917, Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of the Federation, proposed to put the military forces of Australia at the disposal of the Government for the purposes of the war and wherever it would be thought useful to send them. This is the wording of the question submitted to the people:
Are you of opinion that, in view of the present grave circumstances, and for the duration of

this war, and in respect of the requisition of personal military service outside the territory of the Commonwealth, the Government should he invested with the same powers as they already have in respect to military service within the limits of this territory?
The result was negative.
It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the question to be voted upon was in effect:
"Do you wish that conscription which already exists for the defence of the territory be utilized for a war outside of Australia?"
The Australians considered that Mr. Hughes' proposition would only result in favouring Imperialism. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I thought it proper to quote the example of Australia. If I referred again to this measure, it is that in Canada as well as in Australia, it was an Imperialist movement. It was an attempt to finally and bindingly engage Canada in the war ventures of the Empire.
Now, the leader of the present Cabinet was the brain of the Borden Government that decreed conscription. The motto adopted by the present Prime Minister was "to the last man, to the last cent," in a war in which Canada's share should have been strictly limited to its national interests.
The party which now governs Canada is neither Unionist, nor Liberal, nor Conservative, nor National; it is the Tory party in which the mischievous element of Imperialism is preponderant
There is in your country a spirit which is not Canadian, for there is here a dynasty which comes down in direct line from the old Tories who played such a pernicious part in our history. In their minds the British Empire is to be an omnipotent state, its rights ever increasing while the rights of the individuals of the Canadians are reduced to naught.
They seek to domineer over our politics and to create a point of view as false as it is anti-national. In other words, the jingo-Tory-Imperialist element wish to change our political course, and suppress the Canadian feeling, replacing it by British pride.
It is to be feared that the Prime Minister may belong to this family; he has given proofs of this already. If we do not care to see him leave for London, it is because we dread the day when he returns. We fear that, because of his imperialistic feelings, his sojourn on the banks of the Thames may be to the detriment of Canadian interests. We fear that he may return from overseas entrusted with the mission to

make us endorse such agreements as we might regret.
We ask the Prime Minister to adopt, first, a Canadian policy which he will preach and extol until it triumphs both here and in London. And he may find a splendid example in another Canadian Prime Minister who represented our country, in the very heart of the Empire, at several intercolonial conferences. May the present Prime Minister who will leave in a few days-for England take example on the irreproachable attitude taken 'by Laurier, the illustrious son of Canada, a loyal subject of the British Empire, if ever there was one, and who, yet, never let another country take precedence over his own in his affections.
Face to face with the Imperialist doctrine stands the Canadian doctrine. Laurier had chosen the latter and was faithful to it to the last. In so doing, he was undoubtedly guided not only by his sincere patriotism but also by a clear-sighted love of the British Empire.
On each of his voyages to London, at each one of the intercolonial conferences which he attended, he had to choose between two tendencies: the Imperialist and the Canadian. He declared himself decidedly in favour of the Canadian.
On the eve of the conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire which will be held in London and which the Canadian Prime Minister will attend, it is well to remember hpw, in the past and under similar circumstances, a great Canadian checked Imperialism.
Let us first take the Intercolonial conference which was held in 1902. So as to convince one's self of the energy displayed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on this occasion, one need but glance at the official documents concerning the colonial conference which was held in 1902.
The principal questions which were discussed at this conference were: the political and the trade relations of the Empire and its naval and military defence.
We know that Laurier, so far as our political relations were concerned, would not even entertain the idea of possible changes in the existing situation. The conference passed only the practically meaningless resolution to hold, at least every fourth year, colonial conferences of the same kind as that of 1902.
As to our trade relations, our Canadian ministers endeavoured with care, but also very clearly, to make England understand that the preferential tariff which she had
obtained from Canada deserved that the latter country in turn be granted privileges on the British market.
But when Chamberlain showed his ill-will by not admitting that we were entitled to privileges for lowering our tariff-how quickly did be then change his mind!-the Canadian ministers had let it be understood that it might be possible to increase certain duties in favour of British goods, but, they said that, if after all these efforts to obtain a change in the tariff, the Canadian government found out that the policy of a mutual preferential tariff did not suit the colonies or England they would consider themselves free to adopt such measures as they thought proper.
On this point as well as on the other, Laurier stood for Canada, and he took great care not to take the least step towards this Imperialism by which Chamberlain tried to dazzle the colonial political chiefs. But it is mostly the question of naval and military defence which casts the greater light on the brave attitude taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his ministers at the conference in 1902.
Let us first take the military defence. It bad been suggested that the conference pass a resolution by which each colony would have pledged herself to maintain "a military reserve for duty, in case of necessity, outside of the limits of the colony where the said reserve would have been organized". While the representatives from the Cape and from Natal were quite willing to accept the policy proposed by Mr. Seldon, and by the war secretary, and favoured by Mr. Chamberlain, the Canadian representatives, according to the official report of the conference, thought it would be better to improve the military training of the troops, organize the service and complete the necessary equipment for the mobilization of a field army, whilst the colonies would have the right to determine, when occasion would arise, how and to what extent they should help.
It meant that they refused. In order to be fully understood, our representatives added that "to organize a military force specially for the service of the Empire and practically under its control, would be to give up a prerogative which the colonies enjoyed." I ask you if that was not a strong claim of our rights as a Dominion.
Let us see now what took place about naval defence. On that issue, Laurier had a great deal to do so as not to be influenced in favour of a direct Canadian

We liberals wish him to know that we are strongly opposed to the centralization of imperial control and to any organic change in the constitution of Canada, so far as it concerns Canadian relations with the Empire, even after it is passed by Parliament, and before it is ratified by a Canadian vote, by means of a plebiscite. Such are the minutes adopted as the Liberal policy, by the national- convention, in 1919.
Besides, as was declared in this House by the leader of the Opposition, on April 27, last, the Liberals, whilst admitting that it may be useful for Canada to be represented at the next imperial conference, object to any decision being taken, during the course of the said conference, which might involve any change whatever in Canada's relations with other parts of the Empire, and they are of opinion that, owing to the present financial situation in Canada, nothing should be done which would be of a nature to involve the country in further expenditure for naval or military purposes.
In assuming this attitude we have been inspired above all things by a Canadian policy, the only one which will uphold the Empire, and will guarantee the survival of Canada and its complete national development.
Let us always have for object and for motto Laurier's splendid formula:
Imperial unity by means of local autonomy.
The hybrid Government who administer the country's business without the support of public opinion are still causing a national distress and they have set the nation at variance.
The truth of this need not be proven; it is written in large type of such size as to cast a shadow on all provinces of the Confederation from ocean to ocean.
The nefarious administration of the so-called Union Government has created a legitime distrust in certain provinces, it is the cause of the farmer's movement, it has irritated the working class, called forth protestations from the soldiers whose anger it has aroused. Never had we seen the country so badly at variance, never had we heard of such disputes.
The Prime Minister has realized how much this distrust, these quarrels have weakened his Government.
Scarcely had he taken the direction of public affairs, when he decided first to smile to the province of Quebec which until then had been denounced, calumniated and brought into disrepute by his friends.

Although certain papers have announced that the Prime Minister's affectionate demonstrations will soon be at an end, it is not yet too late to mention the subject.
As soon as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie became Prime Minister, he declared himself in favour of peace and union; he henceforth uttered only honeyed words, and he laid down the trumpet which had but lately sounded the war cry against us and rallied in a common crusade both orangemen and tories.
The Prime Minister has replaced this warlike instrument by the Pandean pipes and he is trying to tune them to the sweetest melody.
Never have the prairies and the mountains re-echoed with such sweet melodies on the part of the hon. member. Listen to him:
The danger which every nation has to face is a tendency to divide on -the point of view of race, religion, social classes and right of opinion. .	.	,
We ought to set aside all disputes which may exist, all those which do not exist so far -as concerns vital questions in the country. There are here two great races. The fundamental Canadian institutions are as dear to the one as to the other. Law and order count as many friends, and there is as responsible a government amongst the French Canadians as there are amongst the English Canadians. Cheer up and get together.
Never have such conciliating words been proffered by the member for Portage la Prairie, during the twelve years that he has held a seat in Parliament.
Until now his conduct has been the very reverse of the fine doctrine which he now adopts, now that he is Prime Minister, now that, to govern, he needs the help of those whom he has always judged and treated so unfairly.
I would like to quote in extenso the "pastoral" speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Portage la Prairie after he had been chosen as leader of the Government; it is remarkable for its soit and lively expression and for its skilful peacefulness.
"Get together," says he. I believe that it is my duty to give the province of Quebec the share to which she is entitled in the Federal Government." He is quite willing that "a moral union be formed amongst those who are right-minded."
With magnificent generosity he proclaims that justice will be done wheresoever it is needed. How pleasant and Virgilian these things are to hear. It reminds us of the first eclogue, where Tityrus eulogizes peace and renders thanks to Augustus,

Deus nobis haec otia fecit. The Prime Minister is that deity, that double face Janus who, for the moment at least, hides his war-like countenance.
Nevertheless these emotions of the member of Portage la Prairie, that have perhaps affected his followers, leave us cold and sceptical. Never shall we forget the bitter feelings of this political man towards Quebec and the wicked deeds he is guilty of against the Canadian nation.
I therefore feel that we should not be lulled into a false security by listening to the soft melody of the chants of this youthful Prime Minister. If only he had been frank; had he only apprised us of his intentions towards national unity, had he but repented, disavowing this pitiless fanaticism, this blind and prejudicial Tory infatuation by which he was swayed in the past, and if he proposed in the future to be of an open mind, to calm the bitterness of his soul, to take as a future guide, thoughts really fruitful and truly Canadian thus doing away with those evil and wicked underlying designs.
Unfortunately the Prime Minister's speeches are but hymns devoted to peace, manifestations without weight deprived of any guaranty. Let him fiddle away, he will not make us forget that he was one of the leaders of that clan who wished to vanquish our race by appealing to the most shameful prejudices, the electoral brigandage which has absolutely destroyed the sincerity at the polls weighs heavily on his conscience. In vain will the leader .of the Government assume his most enticing ways to draw us within his enchanting flute, after having battered us and stolen away the country from us by unbridling against us the passions of race and religion, h^ will not trick us this time.
Many friends and the Prime Minister himself have defied us to state one word which the present leader of the Government has said against the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) took up that challenge here in this House and has rightly said: words count little but deeds speak. We are acquainted with the deeds of the Unionist Government of which the Prime Minister was the inspiring soul. Nevertheless to our opponents' challenge, I will in my turn answer: I defy them to quote one single word of the Prime Minister in defense of the province of Quebec, and protesting against these ignominious slanders of which she was made the target of, for over two years, on the part of the Prime Minister's
friends through a bigoted organization closely connected with him, and through a political clan of which he was the moving soul. His declaration of love, to-day, had therefore very little sincerity since he was silent when the Unionist press stirred up the most shameful prejudices against us, calling us Germany's ally and rousing hatred to such an extent as to say that a vote for Laurier, the Frenchman and Catholic, was a vote for the Kaiser.
The Prime Minister approved by his guilty silence this hideous campaign. The French Canadians have a very good reason to prudently keep away. The Borden Government tried to make us forget its wrongs by speaking of war; the Meighen Government tries to make us forget the iniquities committed by the Government during and after the war by talking tariff and the love they bear us. Let us be on our guard lest that such adversaries wish to embrace us so as to better strangle us. Mr. Speaker, we wish the union, and it shall become an accomplished fact as it is already taking place through the country, only that union is taking place not with the Government but against it.
. It is true that the allurements of power has bewitched one of ours. A sardonic smile must have come over the Prime Minister's face when he witnessed a chip fall from the solid Liberal block.
The incident has very little importance: the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) notwithstanding his eloquence and his talent will follow inevitably the sad fate of turncoats of all times who are traitors to their friends and throw away their principles; they are at first despised and later cast in oblivion.
It is a sad fate for the one who has just fallen.
However, Mr. Speaker, the tree of the Liberal party is vigorous enough, deep-rooted enough, rich enough in foliage to shed a few dead leaves without being weakened in its sap nor impaired in its splendour.
The tree planted by the fathers of the Liberal party still spreads with marvellous vitality, and will none the less continue to shelter under its vast shade the sound Liberal doctrine, the true principles which should guide Canadian politics, the great ideas of liberty, justice, loyalty and fidelity to the interests of the people, which gave to this country for fifteen years the most prosperous era that it ever knew.
Mr. Speaker, I have wandered in the course of my remarks from the question

' which is the immediate object of this debate. I have not to apologize for that since the Budget statement is properly a bid for a review of the general policy of the Government.
In the balance sheet of the state affairs, in the inventory of the causes of riches or poverty, of successes or failures in the administration of public affairs, we should not stop only to consider the financial course adopted by the Administration. Man does not live on bread a'lone, and besides "a money sore does not kill."
Other wounds, deeper and more serious, afflict us. We should face all realities, and by the side of our financial deficits, we should place, consider and study the shortcomings of the present regime; failure of national spirit, failure of Canadian patriotism, failure of constitutional government, failure of popular confidence, failure of union and harmony between the citizens of this country, all capable or putting in danger the very life of Canada. Should this Government remain long in office this accumulation of defiicits and failures is due to disregard for the sound policy which should make of Canada not only a rich country but a nation, a true nation with its own soul, and conscious of its present duties as well as of its future grandeur.
The failure of the Government is complete and affects the service of the state in all its ramifications.
There is a consoling fact: it is that the country is better than its rulers.
At present, since we are specially considering the fiscal system and the tariff policy of the Government which is at the point of death under our eyes, it seems evident to me that the ministers cannot remedy any of the evils of the country. The Minister of Finance particularly has nothing to offer us but wretched expedients which leave our finances in the same precarious state for which the Borden and Meighen Governments are responsible. Our great steward believes that he has found the solution for the economic problem which alarms all Canadians, when he gives a turn to the screw of the press and makes it yield sixty additional millions this year.
I have never understood the ostrich's method, it hides its head under its wing- and gets killed. Such is the fate awaiting these incapable and imprudent administrators, who believe they can conceal their huge bankruptcy under the dark wing of
[M r. Prevost.]
taxation which they spread over a people already oppressed by the high cost of living.
The Prime Minister delivered in this House on Friday, an aggressive speech which was much applauded by his partisans.
His effort was more an attack against his opponents than a defence of his Government. Our perilous economic situation has no anxiety for him, as he merely referred to it without offering any remedy to the evils from which the country suffers and which the Budget speech sets forth in plain daylight.
He rather applied himself to treating with sarcasm those who oppose his Government. In this the Prime Minister showed himself a better party man than a statesman.
To such a speech was due an obligato accompaniment of frantic applauses from the ministerialists who in him have put all their trust, all their hopes for the putting off of the general elections which are to be their political grave.
The Prime Minister raised particularly the enthusiasm of his followers when he reproached the Farmers and the Liberals with not setting off with more details their tariff platform in the wording of an amendment to the Finance Minister's motion. It hardly behooves the Prime Minister to address' such a reproach to [DOT]the Opposition when the Goverment which he leads are themselves to-day, putting aside the principal measure which they formally announced at the opening of this session. Indeed what do we read in the speech from the Throne delivered on Feb. 14 last, just three months ago.
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province.
Now the cabinet conceal their intentions, they differ that revision of the tariff which, according to them, was urgent three months ago. Nay, worse, they bring forth as a plea for holding back and for their inaction, that the fiscal policy of Canada must be subordinate to that of the U.S.
The policy of the United States is well known. Why should the Canadian Government put off making their !own policy known? They lack dignity, energy and decision when they lay aside, for such a reason, the most important plank in their platform for this session. The real reason of their continuous postponement of the

tariff 'revision announced by them ever since 1918 is that the cabinet is not unanimous on this question, the Government is marking time, while its ministers are swayed to and fro. Therefore the Prime Minister is very daring when he blames the opposition for not having had the courage to make known their platform with respect to the tariff. He is mistaken if he thinks that he will thereby divert the attention of the public and make them forget the tactics of the Government who, not having the courage to undertake a general and thorough revision of the tariff, nevertheless touch it up on the sly, but always with the tendency to higher protection, thus far from alleviating the burden of the consumer, has the contrary effect of increasing it. They have just given us another instance of that when they decided to increase the sales tax on all imported goods by 1 per cent. This new tax is a sly protection which will increase the cost of living, and which no national industry needed. The amendment which the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne has moved to the Budget speech shows the direction which should be given our fiscal policy, and I think I shall be fulfilling my duty as a Liberal and as a Canadian by voting for it.
Mr. M. J. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville : Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I am not able to give a fair translation of the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost) because I believe that it is one of the best contributions to this debate. I hope that hon. members of this House will take the trouble to read it when it is translated.
The Budget speech, Mr. Speaker, had been looked forward to as the chief matter of importance to be presented to the House during this session. In the speech as delivered by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) there is nothing, so far as I can see, which may be regarded as unexpected, except, possibly, the attitude of optimism taken by the minister, an attitude for which I can discover no good reason. After all, the only substance which can be extracted from the speech is the statement that there is an increase in our statement that there is an increase in our national debt of $100,000,000 and additional taxation. For my part, I do not find very much comfort in that condition. The statement of the minister with regard to the financial and economic condition of the country is of such a nature
as to command public attention and thought. It is more and more evident that we are living in a period of emergency, and it is the duty of the representatives of the people to awaken public opinion to the seriousness of the situation. Our financial position, Mr. Speaker, is worse than ever; it is worse than at any time during the war. It is surprising to hear the admissions of members of the Government themselves with regard to our financial troubles and economic difficulties, because such an attitude on their part is not customary. I submit also that we cannot but feel a certain amount of anxiety when some of the most prominent citizens outside the field of politics have deemed it their duty to utter what I would call a solemn warning to their fellow countrymen. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to present any pessimistic views as to the ultimate destiny of our country, because I think that with the development of our unlimited natural resources the future may be faced with confidence. But I am not satisfied that the Government has given any proof of its ability to meet the requirements of the hour; on the contrary, their methods of government have been disastrous and I cannot see any indication of an improvement. If one studies the methods followed by this Administration in the conduct of public affairs the only conclusion to be arrived at is that it is the deliberate decision of the Government to pursue the same policy of extravagance and waste that they have pursued for years and which has been so detrimental to the best interests of Canada. Sir, I will endeavour to prove this assertion. I sometimes wonder whether the Government realizes the state of disorganization in which Canada finds herself. We know that we can hardly meet our national obligations, and we are informed in the Budget that the Government will have to squeeze out more money from the taxpayers of Canada in order to try to make both ends meet. Our financial condition, Sir, is appalling. Let me illustrate by quoting some fundamental figures. In 1914, our expenditures were $180,000,000 or $24.11 per capita. In 1921, our estimated expenditures will be more than $600,000,000, or more than $70 per capita. In 1914, our gross debt was $554,000,000, or about $71 per capita. In 1921, although the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in his speech, did not give us the exact amount of our gross debt, it is no exaggeration to say that it is over $3,000,000,000, or more than $335 per capita.


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
In 1914, as I said, our gross debt was $554,000,000, but that represented all our national obligations since Confederation. We shall not forget that, during that period, that is to say, from 1867 to 1914, the money borrowed by Canada contributed to the equipment of our country. We built railways, canals, wharves, bridges and so on; we provided for the general organization of the country. But what have we, materially speaking, for the $2,500,000,000 added to our gross national debt since 1914, that is to say, during the last seven years? Almost nothing. This is one of the main considerations when we are endeavouring to understand our real financial and economic situation. Under such circumstances, is it necessary to say that the first and the last duty of the Government is, not only to preach but to practise, the strictest economy, to effect drastic reductions in our public expenditure, to limit our expenses to things of the most urgent character? Is that what the Government is doing? The railway and the shipbuilding policies of the Gov-ernement have proved to be nefarious; nevertheless, the Government is determined to persist in them. The National Railways policy of the Government will be recorded in the history of this country as the most hurtful Iblunder ever perpetrated by any government. The people of this country will never admit that public interest was served by the acquisition of the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk by this Government, when by those transactions we are assuming obligations of insolvent corporations as if they were solvent. The people of this country will never admit that this Government has a right to do what would be considered in private business as stupid. Last year, the railway administration had to report a deficit of $47,000,000; this year, the admitted deficit is $70,000,000; and if we were to believe some will informed people, this deficit really is $138,000,000; and the Government cannot give us any hope that the situation will not be worse next year. But the Government persists in that policy; it says: "What can the Government do?" Everybody knows that the Government is at sea; that it is absolutely unable to meet the situation. The (Government admits that itself, and that is one reason why I repeat what I said in a previous debate, namely, that the duty of this Government under such circumstances is to resign and let other people endeavour to solve the problems.

As regards the shipbuilding policy, notwithstanding the obviously manufactured surplus of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), it is very clear also that this is one of the big mistakes of this administration, and I think that everybody will admit that "mistake" is a very mild expression with which to qualify such a scheme. Without considering the excessive cost at which the Government is building ships,
5 p.m. without taking into account the general depression in traffic and transportation, without even going into the merits of that scheme, I say that the hesitation, the unwillingness of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on the discussion on his Estimates, to provide the information asked for by members of the Opposition, were, for me, evidences of the folly of that scheme. It was very clear that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not favour too much talking, about the matter and I desire to say here that after a few hours of discussion, the application of closure in order to pass the Estimates of the ship-building policy of the Government, was a new display of autocratic methods which, with this Government, are customary.
Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Does my hon.
friend call an all-night sitting and three previous occasions when the appropriation was before the House, a "few hours"? If all the hours were put together, I am sure they would comprise something like two days;


Mr. DEMERS:: For a scheme like that, it was a very few hours to discuss the policy of the Government, and the time was so short that even now we have not the necessary information. The attitude of the Government was the application of arbitrary methods that the people of this country cannot and will not tolerate for very long. It was a violation of the fundamental principles of responsible Government. It was the application of the' autocratic rules which existed before the Magna Charta, when constitutional Government was unknown, when the people had no right to be heard and when the only governmental principle was "taxation without representation." Perhaps this is a digression; but let me say that the first thing that we should preserve in this country above any matter, (financial or economic, is -responsible Government. We shall not forget the struggles that the people had to go through before being

recognized, before obtaining the consecration of the principle that their representatives should have absolute control of all moneys asked for and spent by the Government. For my part, I diaim that this principle has been wilfully and generally ignored and violated by this Administration, and that the tendencies of this Government have been such in that respect that the main issue during the next general election should be the necessity of re-establishment of responsible Government in Canada. This will be the best kind of reconstruction work for our country. It will furnish the best contribution to its greatness and prosperity, and to the welfare and happiness of its people.
May I also be permitted to say that amongst the many problems that we have to face in Canada, there is one of importance that should not be overlooked, and that is the question of the relations between capital and labour. Generally speaking, the workers throughout Canada are not satisfied with existing conditions; there is a certain amount of discontent and unrest.
. To that condition of affairs many causes may have contributed, which it would be too long and too difficult to analyse because they pertain to the social, psychological and economic domains. But I think we can arrive at this conclusion, that labour will never revert to its pre-war condition. For myself, I am glad of that, because I do firmly believe that in the past the workers all over the world did not get a fair share of the happiness and good things of life. I am a believer in the principle of fraternity and equality; I think it is only by the application of this Christian principle that our civilization can be saved. I believe it is the duty of every public man to give this question of the relations between capital and labour his best attention in order to find some way of effecting a reconciliation between these two elements. If the House will permit me, I will give my own personal opinion as to the ways and means that might be adopted to attain such a result.
There are, according to my mind, two ways by which a reconciliation can be effected. First, the workers should be satisfied that they are getting a reasonable share of the profits realized from their work. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I do not say that they should have an equal share of the profits. What is in my mind is this: that they should have a reasonable participation in the profits, after allowance
218J
has been made for the risks and responsibility of the employers, for the costs of materials, administration, and executive, for running and overhead charges, and manufacturer's profit. Or Sir, excess profits should be employed to form a reserve fund to provide for old age pensions, mother's and widow's pensions or other humanitarian institutions. I think |we should always remember that labour is a living, fighting force, fighting for equality, and that it will not stop until it achieves a victory.
Coming back to the question of the necessity for economy, as I said before, I cannot see any evidence of any such spirit in the policy of the Government. I have spoken of the railway and shipbuilding policies of the Government, which, to my mind, are nothing but a negation of any principle of economy. Let me now point to some other matters that call for the immediate attention of the Canadian Government, if we are ever to get out of our difficulties. There is for instance, the question of the Civil Service. For my part, I believe that our Civil Service is inadequate in this sense, that we have by far too many civil servants. I think that their number should be gradually reduced. I believe that some millions of dollars could be saved in that direction, and I think that that is a work that should be started at once.
There is another question upon which I desire to say a few words, and that is the question of military expenditure. The Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) quoted some statistics the other day going to show that Canada's expenditure on naval and military defence was lower than that of any other country in the world. Sir, we know that comparisons are odious, and this case, I think, is no exception to the rule. To compare Canada with sovereign countries seems to me to be no more reasonable than to compare the physical strength of a man with that of a child; and when you compare Canada with the other Dominions, if you wish to make a. fair comparison, there are many things that you must take into consideration. First of all, we should look not merely at the amount expended in only one branch of the administration of a country, but at the total expenditure of every one of these Dominions with which a comparison is made. Their geographical situation must also be taken into account, as well as other factors. But even if all these conditions were exactly the same in the different countries that my hon. friend the minister has mentioned, I

do not think we can fairly conclude that because one country is spending too much money in one direction, we should also do the same thing. If the minister is satisfied with his statistics, I certainly believe that the people of this country do not share his satisfaction. For my part, in view of the very grave financial situation of Canada, and of the additional taxation to be imposed, I was expecting a substantial reduction in our military expenditure. The expenditure of $12,000,000 for military purposes is, in my opinion, nothing short of extravagance, and the same can be said of many public works such, for instance, as: the Victoria dry dock, which is the subject of some interesting discussion at the present moment; the Toronto harbour; the St. John harbour; improvements to the Welland and Trent canals; and other undertakings of that character. In the face of these extravagances it is nothing but provocation to the people for the Government now to talk about additional taxation. As I said, economy should be the watchword everywhere, and it is for this Government to set the example.
There is one matter of supreme importance, in regard to which the Government will have to render strict account, and that is the acceptance of the battleships offered by the Admiralty. The attitude of the Government in this matter had no justification whatever. We should not spend one cent on the expansion of the Canadian navy. Sir, we have nothing to fear, and, therefore, we do not need a navy. There is only one country with whom we might expect to have difficulties, and that is, our neighbours to the south of us, the United States. I am sure, however, that there is no hon. member in this House who would say that there is, or can be, any reasonable fear of such a calamity as a rupture between us and the United States. It would be absurd and entirely wrong on our part to provoke any serious conflict with them, and it would be equally unjustifiable and unjust for them to do anything that would incur our enmity. All that we need in the way of a Canadian naval force is a fleet that will provide protection for our fisheries, protection not against any nation, but against individuals. I say that the acceptance of these battleships will simply burden the people of this country with a very large and unnecessary expenditure for which there can be no excuse, and I therefore register my protest against such a policy. Some one will probably say that we on this side of the House did once favour a
I Mr. Demers.]
Canadian navy. I shall not pay any more attention to that question than to say that we submited our policy to the people and it was rejected. Is there any reason to believe that the public sentiment in that respect has changed, especially when there is no longer ground for the fear that existed then, and when the causes for apprehension have disappeared? There is something more to say on this question. These battleships were accepted without the consent of the people or of Parliament, and the consequences of this action may prove of very great national importance. The acceptance of a gift of such a nature may well involve dangerous obligations in the future, and I cannot too strongly express my protest against the autocratic and unconstitutional action of the Government in this matter.
I said a moment ago that economy is absolutely necessary everywhere to-day; but economy, Mr. Speaker, is not the only necessity in Canada. There is one great principle, the application of which will do more than anything else to accomplish the great work of reconstruction which rests with the public men of this country. That principle is this: Mind your own business. That principle is that Canada should be the only object of our attention and consideration at this time. We should restrict our activities to Canada exclusively. Our country is large enough to require the concentration of all our energies towards its development. Let us be Canadians first, [DOT]and Canadians only; let us get out of European and Imperial affairs. It is about time that the true Canadian began the work of creating an exclusive Canadian sentiment in this country, and there could be no better time than now that we realize that we cannot ever meet its requirements.
I was impressed the other day with an article which I read in no less important a paper than the Montreal Gazette, which declared that Parliament is sick of the League of Nations and of trips to Europe by Cabinet ministers. I thought that that was the real feeling of a good many members of this House, also, if they would only voice it. At any rate, any man who does not agree with that view must admit that he has not learned the lessons of true Cana-dianism which we received from the two great leaders, Macdonald and Laurier.
Sir, Canada is the only country in the world for us; it is all that we can call our own, and it is so immense in area and of such vast possibilities that it will take all our time to develop it. Let us not only

sing, but let us feel and fully appreciate the sentiment of our national anthem, "0! Canada."
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to deal with any other questions at this time, but before resuming my seat, I should like to summarize, in a few words, my views as to the methods which this Government should adopt to carry out the work of reorganization and reconstruction: First, an exclusively Canadian policy; second, restoration of responsible government; third, solution of labour problems; and, fourth, economy in every branch of administration. Such is, Sir, to my mind, the policy that would restore prosperity and greatness to Canada. 1
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton, N.B.): Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a great deal of interest the different speeches that have been delivered during this debate. I must say, however, that I was rather disappointed in the speech the Prime Minister delivered on Friday last. I think the members of this House, and the people of the country, expected the Prime Minister to deal with the very serious problems that face the country to-day-the railway situation, the unemployment situation, and the other serious issues that confront the country. But what were we treated to on the part of the right hon. gentleman? He gave one of the greatest expositions of ridicule and abuse that this House has ever witnessed. The Prime Minister accused our little group, in this part of the chamber, of not moving their platform in Parliament. Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of a passage in a book that hon. gentlemen are more or less familiar with: Cast not your pearls before swine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CALDWELL:: We have moved this platform before a tribunal that is possibly less prejudiced than this House, a tribunal higher than Parliament itself-the electors of Canada. That platform has been endorsed in a large number of cases where it was tried out before the people on its merits, and if it is endorsed to as great an extent at the next general election as it has been in the recent by-elections we will have no cause to complain.
I think it was very small politics for the Prime Minister to try to make out that we were an "annex" to the Liberal party simply because we propose to vote for the amendment before the House, in view of the fact that we have supported the
Government with our votes in this House nearly as often as we have opposed them. As to where we stand I think, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do better than quote what I said last year on the Budget because what I said at that time is quite applicable to our position to-day. Speaking on May 27, 1920, I expressed myself as follows:
-we do not propose to support either of the old parties in this House. When a question arises such as the present question before the House we intend to take a stand on it that will be in the best interests of Canada. We may err, but if we do we shall err in judgment; we shall not be whipped into line to support this party or that against our convictions,-do not make any mistake about that. I think that we have proved our independence in this House during the present session; we have voted with the Government perhaps as often as against them. I am only sorry that we were not able to vote with them oftener, because if we had been able to vote with them it would have meant that they were bringing down good legislation, legislation for the good of Canada and which we would have been pleased to support.
I do not wish to take up a great deal of time in this debate, because the discussion has run at some length now, and after matters of this kind have been discussed for three or four days there is not very much new left to be said with respect to them. I do, however, wish to give a concrete example or two of how a protective tariff affects the business of the country, and how extravagant a method it is of collecting a revenue, and I wish to take in illustration some articles I know something about-articles that are used in my own province very largely.
For one thing I wish to speak of the duty on fertilizers. At the present time, as you all know, there is a duty of 10 per cent on mixed fertilizer, whilst chemicals, with the exception of acid phosphates, are admitted to the country free. I have here the imports of fertilizers for the last ten years, giving the amount imported that was dutiable and the amount imported that was free. Some of the recent speakers have referred to the Canadian tariff as inducing American manufacturers to locate in Canada. I want to show you why that is the case-because while they are able to import into Canada their raw materials free they are able to charge a duty on the manufactured article, collect it from the people of Canada and put it into their pockets instead of that duty going into the revenues of the' country. For instance, in 1912 we imported $413,338 worth of fertilizers that were dutiable, and on those imports collected $41,333 in duty.

That same year there was imported, duty free, fertilizer materials to the value of $735,053.
Had these materials been dutiable the duty collected would have been $73,505. But that went into the manufacturer's pocket, not into the revenue of the country. Therefore, for every dollar that we collected in duty that year the manufacturer put nearly two dollars in his pocket. I do not know that I will trouble the House to give the figures for each year separately. I wish to state, however, that in the ten years we collected in duty on fertilizers imported into Canada $769,585.20, and we imported, duty free, fertilizer materials on which, had there been duty the customs imposed would have amounted to $1,766,134.90. It is just possible that some hon. member will say: Well, the fertilizer manufacturers do not take advantage of this. Very well, I want to disabuse the minds of hon. gentlemen in that particular. I have here the price lists of a firm-an American firm by the way-who have a factory in Canada, a mixing plant. They import their chemicals free of duty and sell the finished product in Canada as well as in the United States. Living as I do only six miles from the American boundary I know whereof I speak In regard to this matter. I have here the lists of this company giving the prices at which they sell in the state of Maine and in the province of New Brunswick. Now, the fertilizers which they sell in Maine for $62.50 they sold in New Brunswick this year for $77.50, a difference of $15 a ton. Yet the chemicals were brought from the same source and it was the same company doing business in both instances. Another fertilizer that they sold in Maine for $67.75, they sold in New Brunswick for $82.75. Another brand, of a higher grade, they sold in Maine for $75.75 and in New Brunswick for $90.75. Owing to this fact our farmers' organizations have taken to buying their own chemicals and importing them themselves. Accordingly this year we were able to lay down at the farmer's local railway station, chemicals such as used in the brand that our dealer charged $77.50 for at $46.18, a difference of $31.32. The farmers, of course, have the remedy in their own hands, and I feel they are going to avail themselves of it- they will simply import their own chemicals and mix their own fertilizers.
I now wish, very briefly, to illustrate how a heavy duty affects our exports. We grow in New Brunswick large quantities of potatoes; that is the reason we use so
[Mr. Caldwell.l
much fertilizer. The latter part of this past season the prices have been very poor in New Brunswick, and we are not realizing a very good price for potatoes at the present time. However, I notice that the potatoes exported during the present year, that is up to the end of March last, have brought a higher average' price than those exported last year when the prices were quoted so high. The high price of last year caused different members to fling the accusation at the farmers that they were profiteers, that they were selling potatoes at $12 a barrel. Potatoes did go to that price in April last year for the simple reason that there were no potatoes in New Brunswick. The potato crop in Canada the past season on the whole, sold at a higher price than the year before. Prices are very low at the present time, for the reason that there is an over-supply on hand and the demand is not equal to the supply. I have here figures of potato exports from Canada to the United States from 1912 to 1921. Of course, during the few war years prices and conditions were abnormal and therefore I shall take two years before the war and two years after and compare them. During the two years before the war there was a duty against our potatoes going to the United States which made the export business rather unprofitable for us. In 1912 we exported 27,286 bushels at a price of 70 cents a bushel; in 1913 152,557 bushels, at a price of 84 cents a bushel; in 1920-when there was no duty-5,480,754 bushels at a price of $1.25 a bushel; and in 1921, 4,204,684 bushels at a price of $1.98 a bushel. It will be noticed that in 1920 we exported over 5,000,000 bushels as compared with only 27,000 bushels in 1912.
When the Fordney Tariff Bill was proposed I took it upon myself to write to the Prime Minister to know if our Government could not take some steps to overcome this Bill. Of course, I realized, as our Prime Minister informed me, that the United States Government have full authority to legislate for themselves, and would resent any interference. At the same time, in view of the fact that Canada has practically a monopoly of the pulp-wood supply of North America, it seemed to me that our Government could very well have put it up to the United States Government that if they discriminated against our farm products it might be necessary for Canada to impose a heavy export duty on pulpwood. I think if this

had been done the United States would have thought twice before passing an Act discriminating against our farm products.
I do not know whether such representations were made or not by our Government to the. Government of the United States, but at any rate this country had had no intimation of any such action having been taken.
In view of the fact that the Young Emergency Tariff measure will affect the potato growers of Eastern Canada very severely, I should like to urge upon the Government the necessity for providing facilities at the port of St. John for the shipping of potatoes during the winter season. If we are practically shut out of the United States, Cuba is our next best market. During the past winter I received several communications from potato shippers in New Brunswick urging me to see if the Government would provide some means for shipping potatoes through the port of St. John during the winter season.
I believe it would not be a costly matter -merely the erection of a frost proof warehouse. These shippers advised me that during last winter they were compelled to ship via Boston, which meant, according to the ruling of the Railway Commission, that they had to pay freight in American funds from the shipping point in Canada to Boston, and from Boston to Cuba. Had they been able to ship by the port of St. John the- difference in the rate of exchange on the freight and in the short rail haul and the longer water haul would have meant practically a dollar a barrel difference in favour of the farmers. I sincerely hope that the Government will take this into consideration and provide the necessary facilities at the port of St. John for handling what is the big export crop from the province of New Brunswick. There are already facilities at the port for handling our western grain, facilities that the whole Dominion has helped to provide, and I think it is no more than fair that the province in which this port is situated should have the facilities required for handling its potatoes.
In speaking of how a high tariff affects imports and exports, I would crave the indulgence of the House while I read an extract from the Montreal Gazette as to what the minority members of the House of Representatives think of the Fordney Tariff Bill.
In the minority report the Republicans are accused of tossing into the lap of "three great trusts, the packers, the sugar trust and the -woollen trusts $775,000,000 a year," and of seeking to disbar any future trade with the Central Powers and smaller states in Europe through
"a subtle and dangerous joker," in directing the Secretary of the Treasury to fix the value of foreign money as a basis for levying duties on imports.
The present bill is characterized as even worse than its predecessor, the Fordney measure, by the report which asserts that "if any advantage will apply anywhere from the new proposal, it will be to the trusts, speculators and profiteers."
It also calls attention to provisions of the Republican national platform-
By the way, that platform provided for a decrease in the cost of living.
-and inquires whether -any honest 'Republican can sincerely vote for this bill in the belief that it will reduce the oost of living."
"We note that the bill has been changed since the last session of Congress," the report adds, "from the Fordney Emergency Tariff Bill to the Young Emergency Tariff Bill. Whether the ways and means committee throught the name of its chairman, Mr. Fordney, attached to the bill, would discredit it or believed that by attaching the name of Young from the agricultural state of North Dakota, it would more easily fool the farmers, we cannot undertake to say. But there must ibe some political significance in it."
"Figures were presented to show that the actual increase in living costs resulting from enactment of such law would be about $2,000,000,000 a year. The statement says that the bill would hand a gratuity of $125,000,000 annually to the sugar trust $550,000,000 annually to the meat and beef trust, and more than $100,000,000 a year to the income of the woollen trust.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that a high tariff has that effect in any country. I realize, however, that in view of the Young Emergency Tariff Bill going into effect our Administration will have to be governed in their tariff legislation accordingly, but I hope they will not increase the duty, for instance, on fertilizers, with which we grow potatoes, because we have to pay that import duty, and also the duty on our potatoes going into the United States. Somebody will say: That is not logical; if we pay the duty on the fertilizer coming in, why will we pay the duty on the potatoes going out? The explanation is simply this, that our export trade in potatoes to the United States compared with the quantity of potatoes they grow is a very small factor in fixing the price in that country. For that reason, we being the little fellow, the price is practically set by the big fellow. In that connection, a duty of 25 cents a bushel is being imposed on our potatoes entering the United States, while their potatoes enter Canada free to-day. I think under these circumstances our home market for potatoes should be reserved to Canadian growers. In the next two months we will have a large quantity of potatoes on our hands, and they certainly will not all be disposed of in Eastern Canada, as the new potatoes coming in from the United

States 'will take the place of our own product. Our shippers tell me that if retaliation is proposed by this Government it should be in such a form as will offset the duty that the United States has imposed on articles imported from this country. Of course, you will hear the old cry: Where will you get the revenue from? Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that there is as much in the spending of the revenue of the country as there is in collecting it. It seems to me that if our Government had not seen fit to loan $23,000,000 to Roumania in 1919 we would not have needed so much revenue. The very fact of our immense debt makes it clear that Canada had no money to lend, least of all to a bankrupt country from which there is very little prospect of ever getting either the principal or interest. That interest was to have been paid twice a year, but already nearly a million and a half is overdue, and I doubt very much if it ever will be paid. Not only have we thrown this $23,000,000 away; but the people of Canada will have to pay interest on it until the Victory bonds through which we obtained this money to squander are redeemed. I think it would have been a good thing for this country if the revenue in the past few years had not been quite so large; the Government would not have been quite so ready to squander it in loans to bankrupt countries, nor to apply the closure in this House very recently in order to vote $8,0000,000 to build ships for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine at exorbitant prices. If I am not mistaken-the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) will correct me if I am wrong-the price paid for the building of vessels in Canada recently has been $191 a ton. I believe that a firm in Montreal bought a couple of vessels. very recently for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 a ton. Of course, we realize that that does not represent the cost of building the vessels, but there are numberless ships idle to-day and no doubt the owners of these were in difficult financial circumstances and were glad to realize money on them at any price. I believe that a member of this firm made the statement that very soon it would be possible to buy ships in Canada at $25 a ton, because large numbers of vessels are at present tied up and unable to get sufficient freight to enable them to pay operating expenses.
I have spoken of the loan to Roumania. At the time it was made we all wondered why the Government was so willing to lend 
money to anybody at that time, to say nothing of lending it to a bankrupt country. The answers to questions put on the Order Paper last year by the member for Chambly-V ercheres (Mr. Archambault) throw some light on why the Government authorized this loan. If I remember rightly the hon. member inquired who were the firms who supplied the goods to Roumania and Greece and what were the prices. It is my memory that the names of a number of firms were given but that the prices were not stated. It was with more or less amazement that members of the House read the answers to those replies, and that they found that a large quantity of goods furnished to Roumania and Greece on this credit or loan was furnished by firms of which supporters of the Government were members, of which some hon. members of this House were presidents and managing directors. If an individual member of Parliament had sold any goods in this way and for this purpose, he would have to resign his seat. But the supporters of the Government were able to get away with it, due to the fact that they were members of these companies. I think, however, we will all admit, that they got very close to the edge.
In dealing with the question where the revenue was to come from I pointed out last year, when speaking on the Budget, a source of revenue that this Government had not only failed to take advantage of but had made it impossible for any succeeding government to take advantage of, namely, Victory bonds exempt from taxation, amounting in all to $1,358,000,000.- More than that, it cost the country nearly $14,000,000 to float those loans, in the payment of commissions to agents who canvassed for the sale of the bonds and to the banks for handling the amounts as they were turned over. We have never been able and never will be able to collect one cent by way of tax on the income derived by the holders of these bonds amounting to $1,358,000,000. I said at the time it was , proposed to make this loan free from taxation that I could hardly find language strong enough to express my disapproval of that course. The Finance Minister pointed out that if the Government did not exempt the bonds from taxation they would not be able to float the loan. Well, it is a fact that the later loan in 1919, which was made taxable, was over-subscribed just as readily as the non-taxable loans; therefore the theory of the Minister of Finance was disproved. Certainly it is harder to sell a

taxable bond, once you set the precedent of not taxing, than to sell a non-taxable bond, but, as I say, the loan in 1919, which was not exempt from taxation, was largely oversubscribed. I have made an estimate of what the income would be by way of income tax if these loans had not been exempt from taxation. The income on $1,358,000,000 at 5J per cent would be $74,690,000. It is fair to suppose that $37,345,000, or half this amount, would be taxable as income at the rate of 4 per cent, because, I think, it is true that these moneys were not all subscribed by the poorer people; it is fair to assume that half the people who subscribed to the loans would have incomes taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. This would add $1,493,800 to the revenue of the country. I think it may be assumed also that the other half of the $74,690,000 would be taxable at the rate of 8 per cent, which would yield a revenue of $2,987,600. I also believe that half of this revenue from interest on Victory bonds would be " received by persons whose incomes were large enough to pay a surtax of 3 per cent, and that would add another $1,120,350 to the revenue of the country, or a total of $5,601,750 yearly. But due to the fact that this tax exemption was made as part of the agreement when the bonds were issued, no government will ever be able to make these bonds taxable which I consider is very unfortunate in view of the fact that we must raise such a very large revenue, a revenue double per capita that raised in the United States. I think it has been stated that the amount which we must raise per capita in order to obtain the necessary revenue will amount to about $70 per capita or $350 for each family of five in this country. The expenditure per capita in the United States is $35 per head, or just half of what ours is. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States has warned the United States Government that . they must retrench, that the country cannot stand the present extravagant rate of expenditure. When you compare the revenue which they raise per capita with ours, you will see that they spend one dollar per head for every two dollars per head that we spend in Canada. I do rfot think any member of this House, and I am sure that no elector in this country will contend that we are able to pay twice the amount of taxes per head that the citizens of the United States could pay.
I think it was a very unwise thing to abolish the luxury taxes, having regard to the facts concerning our expenditure. The
sound way to raise revenue is by taxing a man on what he is worth, not on what he consumes. The fact that the luxury tax was a good revenue getter was another reason why it should not have been abolished. During the six months that it was in operation it produced somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000 more than the sales tax has produced in ten months. The luxury tax fell upon people who were better able to pay than the majority of those who will be called upon to contribute to the revenue through the medium of the sales tax which is to take the place of the luxury tax. In my opinion the business profits tax should also have been continued. The people would be interested to know, I am sure, just what was behind the abolition of the luxury tax and the business profits tax, and I propose, before I conclude my remarks, to give them just a little information in regard to this matter.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, ivhen the House rose at six o'clock, I had just arrived at that point in my remarks where I was saying that I believed that the consuming public of Canada would be anxious to know what influences were behind the Government to induce them to abolish the luxury and business profits taxes which were such good revenue getters. I said that I hoped to be able to enlighten the House and possibly the country as to just what these influences were that induced the Government to do this very unbusinesslike act. I wish to quote from an article that was printed in the Montreal Gazette of May 12, 1920. There were very big headlines on this article: "Million Dollar Fund for Propaganda." Then in somewhat smaller headlines were the words, "Canadian Manufacturers' Association Insistent Upon Tariff Commission of Specialists." The article goes on:
A million dollar fund for the propaganda of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was foreshadowed to night at the annual dinner of the Montreal Branch. Among the guests were Col. W. Grant Morden, Sir James McKechie, head of the Vickers firm.of England and many of thQ business leaders of the province.
T. P. Howard, as President of the Dominion Manufacturers' Association, said that they had approached the Government on the necessity for a scientific tariff board for Canada and stated that it would be considered with the support of

1,600 labor unions of Canada as well as the manufacturers, and in a defence of great industrial mergers both here and in England.
With regard to this demand of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for a scientific tariff board for Canada, I understand that their wish was to have a tariff commission appointed that would deal with the tariff in much the same way that the present Board of Railway Commissioners deals with freight and passenger rates-a board that would have absolute control over what the tariff on all imports should be, and a board that would not be responsible to the electors. I wish to congratulate the Government on withstanding the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in this demand. To appoint such a board would be very unconstitutional, and I am pleased that the Government did not do it. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, not being able to accomplish this object, evidently turned their attention to the matter of outlining a plan of taxation for Canada, for in the Montreal Gazette of a later date, I find the following:
March 29, 1921.-The question of Federal taxation will Ibe discussed here this week by representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, and the Wholesale Merchants' Association, as a result of an intimation from Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, that he wishes to obtain the collective judgment of the business interests in Canada as to the most desirable plan to raise revenue for Federal requirements.
It is quite evident that these people had raised their million dollar fund, and had assured the Government that they could deliver them the support of 1,600 labour unions. Here we find the Minister of Finance telling them: All right, if you can deliver me this support, get together and tell us what you want, and we will see if we can meet your requirements. I think most people will agree on looking over the Budget that all of the requests made by the big interests of Canada have been granted except one. I believe they wanted in addition to the abolition of the business profits tax and the balance of the luxury taxes, the income tax on corporations abolished. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on not acceding to this last request, but it is just possible that he is coming to that by easy stages, and that that tax may be the next thing to go; I hope not, however.
During the war, the slogan in Canada was: The last man and the last dollar. We got the required men all right, but I am sorry to say that the Government did

not begin to get the first dollar of big profits made on war contracts during the war. I think the Government and the Minister of Finance were about two, if not three years too late in starting to tax the excess profits of the business interests of Canada. And I believe it would be unsound to abolish that tax at the present time.
I wish to quote a few extracts from thei Montreal Star of May 12, 1921, which prove conclusively, if proof were needed, that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the other interests allied with them were the instigators of the present taxation scheme for Canada:
"It appears to me that the Finance Minister has worked out the matter in a very clear and concise way," said F. W. iStewart, Chairman of the Montreal Branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. "It appears to have been very carefully designed, and the changes made are in the best interests of business. The sales tax is really the basis on which taxation will affect the consumer the least. The manufacturer does not absorb it, and by showing it separately on his invoice no advance is added to it. The sales tax was working very satisfactorily indeed, and its continuation will be satisfactory to wholesalers and manufacturers."
I cannot for the life of me see how Mr. Stewart comes to the conclusion that the sales tax will affect the consumer least, because it is the consumer who pays that tax. Mr. Stewart admits that the wholesaler does not absorb it, so he must pass it on to the consumer. I quote again:
The new budget provisions bring a welcome relief to the ardent card player, to whom the high cost of cards has (been a source of freque.it complaints. The tax on cards not exceeding $24 a gross, is reduced "from 15 cents a pack to 8 cents, and that on cards costing over $24 a gross, drops from 25 cents a pack to 15 cents.
I suppose that the ardent card player, the people who have leisure to indulge in card playing, and the card sharper who fleeces the innocent victim out of his money at cards, will no doubt be benefited by the Budget provisions in this respect, but I do not know whether it is in the best interests of the country or not. I leave that for the House to judge. Another quotation:
The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada is well pleased with the budget, and is glad its work has resulted in what it has been aiming at.	>
So if we needed any further proof that the Budget was the work of the Retail and Wholesale Merchants' Associations and of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, I think we have it here in the avowal that the Retail Merchants' Association have accomplished what they were aiming at. Again:

"So far as we can judge, Sir Henry Drayton has taken the best possible course in his budget," said T. P. Howard, ex-President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and President of the Howard Smith Paper Mills, Ltd. "The abolition of the business profits tax is good. We realize that Sir Henry had to get revenue, and he has done it in the way that presses least heavily on the taxpayer and on business."
When you take out the taxpayer and the business man, who is left to pay the taxes? It is evidently the consumer who owns no property, according to this man, because it is the non-taxpayer, and not the business man. It is the poor labouring man who is working in a mill or on the railroads for $2 or $3 a day, trying to support a large family, who is raising the revenue by paying a tax on everything that he and his family eat and wear. If that is a sound method of taxation, I will admit that I do not know very much about economics. My idea of equitable taxation is to raise the revenue by taxing the men best able to bear it, the men who own property, or who make big profits out of business. It has been said that the reason why the business profits tax was abolished was because there were no profits. If that were the case no harm would be done by leaving the tax in force. To abolish the tax is simply saying to the business man:	Go
ahead and make all the profits you like, and we will not touch you. That is not sound, in my opinion. I have another quotation to make from the Montreal Star:
"I think the increase in the sales tax will meet with little opposition," states W. M. Birks, 1st vice-president of the Montreal Board of Trade. "It is not so general or uniform a tax as the turnover tax advocated by the Board of Trade, but still It is quite good, as is the abolition of the business war profits tax and the last of the luxury taxes, for which the council of the board has been pressing for some time."
Why are these people so jubilant over this tax? To my mind the reason can be summed up in a word:	They are able
through this new measure of taxation to shift their load on to the other fellow's back.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, the Budget debate
has lasted now over a week and has been the means of giving much information to the House and the country at large on the fiscal proposals of the Government. It is certainly with great regret, when I see my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), opposite to me this evening, that I rise in the exercise of what I feel to be my duty to inflict upon him the
burden of my remarks on the Budget. He has delivered his Budget with evident sincerity and honesty, and for that we certainly owe him a debt of gratitude and our congratulations. The fact that he occasionally enunciates good Liberal principles has led me to believe that my hon. friend was a Liberal, but that he has lost his bearings in the befogged economic atmosphere of Toronto. To-day every Canadian is anxious to know what the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) can do to improve our present disquieting financial conditions, and although the Budget which my hon. friend has submitted to Parliament does not contain very much, the facts it discloses are serious enough to set every earnest citizen thinking. It is true that we have passed through very grave and difficult times, but we know, Mr. Speaker, that while our obligations are tremendous, we have resources that are almost inexhaustible; and if the Government would only go about it in the right way, they would find it not an impossible task to put this country once more upon a sound financial basis. I do not minimize the vastness of the task, but I certainly think that the Government is not doing all it can in the present circumstances. For many years to come the people of Canada will have to shoulder a heavy burden in the way of taxation, and it is the duty of whatever Government may be in power to do everything humanly possible, in the way of developing our natural resources, and, above all, of economizing in the management of public affairs, to relieve the people, as far as possible, of that burden. But conditions, I am afraid, seem to be going from bad ' to worse, and this year we have to raise an amount much larger than was called for last year; in addition to which, we must face the increased deficit which is anticipated in connection with the Canadian National Railways. The people to-day are undoubtedly discontented; but, if they had an opportunity of electing a new Parliament, and could feel that that Parliament truly reflected their opinions and their wishes, they would take heart and be fully prepared to co-operate with the Government in the effort to discharge our obligations. Unfortunately, however, as has been remarked on many an occasion, not only the Prime Minister and the Government, but this Parliament as a whole, cannot claim to represent the people. This Parliament was elected under particular circumstances for a specific purpose. Its mandate has expired; the occasion for
| COMMONS

which the Government was returned to office has passed; and the people are anxious to return new representatives who will reflect their views and their wishes, and endeavour to implement their ambitions.
For some considerable time now we have been promised a revision of the tariff, which has been demanded by a section of the press; and if, as some people think, that section is a ininority, still it is a minority that commands the respect of the people. Two years ago we were promised a tariff revision during the recess; and last year the same assurance, in emphatic terms, was given to the House by the Minister of Finance himself. After that assurance I felt convinced that this time there would certainly be a revision of the tariff which we might discuss at this session of Parliament. I am inclined to think that the hon. minister, who travelled from one end of the country to the other, going to the trouble of taking evidence extensively, and of hearing the whole question discussed from every standpoint, must have been personally in favour of undertaking a revision of the tariff. No doubt, however, he has been influenced in his decision by the counsel of his colleagues, and if he finds himself to-day unable to carry out his promise to give us a revision of the tariff, he is not alone responsible. Pressure has been brought to bear upon him, I presume, by the Government and the Prime Minister, and so we hear hon. gentlemen opposite putting forward, as a reason why there is no tariff revision, the importance of our waiting until the United States puts its new tariff law into effect.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Canada would not to-day be faced with any adverse exchange with the United States if we had been wise enough in 911 to adopt the reciprocity agreement proposed by that able leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That agreement was unquestionably conducive to the greatest prosperity in this country; and, if we had adopted it, it would have made for better conditions financially for Canada, and a very much better mutual understanding between the two countries. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), in 1911, told the people that their only salvation lay in defeating reciprocity; but recently we have seen him pleading with the United States, in that eloquent way we all know, and beseeching them not to use the -weapon in their hands. In 1911, the war cry was "No truck or trade with the Yankees;" to-day it is this:	"Let us be friends; we

are of common origin; there is no reason why we cannot carry on business amicably with each other".
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) the other day, in that virile style of his, criticized the Opposition. I know that he is never at a loss for an argument, but I think he went rather too far when he declared that the tariff we have to-day, under the Conservative party, is identical with the tariff as it was left by my hon. friend, the exMinister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), in 1911. I will admit that the tariff may be the same as was left to hon. gentlemen opposite in 1911-minus the benefits of the reciprocity pact. Those benefits would have been added to the tariff but for the position which my hon. friend and his friends took in regard to reciprocity. Immense benefits would have accrued to Canada under the reciprocity pact to which my hon. friend the ex-Minister o'f Finance had given two years of hard work in order to try and bring the representatives of the American people into harmony with his views and aspirations. Fortunately, there were a couple of provinces in Canada which were not affected by the tornado of prejudice which swept over the country in 1911 and which affected more particularly the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
I refer to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. These two provinces sent a full contingent of representatives to Parliament in support of reciprocity, with the exception perhaps of two gentlemen who have since taken refuge on the bench or elsewhere. Every other representative of the two provinces came to Parliament in the chariot of reciprocity, and not one of them has changed his mind on that important question.
My hon. friends opposite are fond of talking of the value of the home market to the people of Canada. That is the great slogan of the protectionist-the home market. They tell you that you must not consider outside markets or outside conditions; you must confine your activities to the home market. As an illustration of the value of the home market they refer to the article of butter which, during the war, commanded such a high price. Are we not to consider any of the rest of our farm products? What about our wheat and our other grains needed so much by the outside world, and abundant crops of which mean so much to the prosperity of this country? Are we to confine ourselves, in the development of our resources, to a

market of eight or nine millions of people when those resources are such as to enable us to supply the needs of a great part of the world? Where would the wheat grower of the Prairie Provinces be if he were limited to producing only sufficient for the needs of eight or nine millions of people in Canada? Where would be the great benefits to industry, that are now enjoyed, if we had such an extremely restricted market? It is an unrestricted development of production which makes for the prosperity of a nation. We have a country of immense area, and of unlimited resources; and it is in the development of our trade with outside countries that I expect to see Canada grow and expand in the future. Our manufacturers in the big cities should realize this-I think as an actual fact they do realize it-but until they get this broader outlook and act upon it we shall not see Canada expand and prosper in the way she ought to do.
We have seen the luxury taxes as they were called-those taxes which gave so much trouble to the retailers and their customers-discarded and other methods resorted to. But in every case it is the consumer who pays. I have always been in favour of the abolition of taxes that press heavily upon the masses of the people, and replacing them by taxation that would fall upon those best able to meet it. It is not only upon the ordinary commodities that the Minister of Finance is imposing taxes that will bear heavily upon the people-he is now imposing a tax upon lumber. The proposition of the Finance Minister, as outlined in the Budget, reads as follows:
Provided that in respect of lumber an excise tax of three per cent shall be imposed, levied and collected on sales and deliveries by the Canadian manufacturers-
This is going to add to the cost of erecting buildings more especially in the cities, and by reason of it tenants will have to pay increased house rents. Only a short time age we heard from the Minister of Railways the statement that owing to the high freight rates we cannot get lumber from British Columbia. Even the people in the prairie district of the West are suffering by reason of that fact. Notwithstanding the prosperity they have been experiencing they will not, owing to the high cost of transportation, be able to obtain lumber from British Columbia to shelter themselves, their families and their stock.
Again, he tells us that that lumber cannot under the present excessive freight rates be transported to Central Canada to meet the needs of the people there. We know also that owing to those same excessive freight rates New Brunswick lumber cannot be sold in Montreal, Toronto or Buffalo as it used to be. Our lumbermen of northern New Brunswick have to pay a freight -rate of $11 per thousand feet to send their lumber to Montreal, and they have to pay another $12 or $13 freight rate to extend their sales to Toronto or Buffalo, which represents the price of the lumber itself. And yet after receiving that statement from the Minister of Railways we find the sales tax on that lumber is increased to three and a half per cent.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me? I am sure he would like the facts. Does he know that the two taxes of one per cent each making 2 per cent in all of last year have been consolidated this year in so far as lumber is concerned into a three per cent tax, an increase of one per cent only on the two, and that the rate as consolidated and increased is only 3 and not 31 per cent.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I accept the explanation given by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton), but still under present conditions if there was one article which should be free of that taxation it is lumber, because in every city there is a dearth of dwelling houses, and the high prices of lumber and other material tend to discourage the erection of new houses.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the amendment brought in by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) will receive my hearty support, although I think it is well known in this House that I am willing to go much further; but, as I have said on other occasions, we cannot expect free trade to become effective in a moment, especially under present world conditions. It will come gradually as circumstances permit. But certainly the principles underlying that amendment are such as if put into practice will undoubtedly improve' the conditions of our people. The .principle of protection itself is injurious to any country, but especially to such a country as Canada that can only prosper by the development of its natural resources, -that circumstance alone is a sufficient condemnation of protection. The United States is often cited as an example of the benefits accruing from protection, but it must always be remembered that however

high the protective tariff has been in that country, it has never been such a burden upon the people there as is our protective tariff upon our people to-day. But, outside of tariff matters,' permit me to say that the growth and prosperity of the United States cannot be attributed solely, or, indeed, in any degree to their tariff policy, but rather to the expansion of territory which has resulted from successive annexations until the original thirteen New England States have grdwn to over forty, not only increasing the area of the United States but its population also, and those states enjoy a freedom of trade that was unknown to the old colonies. In a word, the industries of the whole country have been developed, and we find that the industrial expansion in California has kept pace with that of New York, while the city of Chicago has become the great centre of commerce of the Middle West, and its unparalleled prosperity has not been at the expense of, but has helped, the prosperity of New York, Boston and Philadelphia.
And my great leader, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, developed this country by revising the tariff to the untold benefit of our people, and by adopting a vigorous immigration policy, he attracted a virile enterprising class of settlers who peopled our western territories, necessitating the creation of new provinces and virtually expanding our territory in a manner somewhat similar to the expansion of the United States. The result has been that the energy of Canadians from the East combined with the energy of our newcomers has developed the West to its present prosperous condition, which has reacted on the East, and this country would not be as well off as it is to-day but for that farsighted policy.
But we are told that we must have protection. I see that the Minister of Labour addressed a meeting a few nights ago at McAdam Junction, and for the time being, apparently, represented himself as the friend of the railway men and of labour generally, and he told them that they must have protection to afford the labouring men plenty of work. In this connection I would remind this House and the country that the working man besides being a seller of labour is also a purchaser of commodities, arid the price of his labour must correspond to the price of the commodities which he has to buy. It is not only a case of for instance a particular manufacturer of boots and shoes, saying to his workmen: "You pay a little more for your boots and shoes
	,
and I will give you higher wages." But after buying their boots and shoes those workmen have also to buy food and clothing for themselves and their families. So we cannot judge of the prosperity of the country merely by a tariff.
This amendment is certainly a move in the right direction-a direction which the late hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier indicated in his manifesto to the people of Canada, in which he said among other things:
If I should he entrusted with th? administration of the country, I would immediately relieve agriculture from all its shackles of the customs duties. Thus I would at once abolish the duties on all farming implements and the other necessities of the farm, and would advocate as an essential object of my administration a general and well constituted reform of the tariff, tending to aid production in Canada and to relieve the Canadian consumer.
This is the programme which would have shaped the destinies of Canada in 1917 had not the people been misled by the flag-waver, and this country would be in a far different position than that in which we find it to-day. Every Canadian, I am sure, will admit that this programme was the best that could be instituted in the interests of Canada, having regard to the conditions. We would have had a degree of free trade which certainly would have satisfied my desire as well as that of every honest free trader in Canada. The same object is embodied in the resolution which has been introduced in amendment by the ex-Minister of Finance, the member for Shelburne and Queen's.
The protectionist spirit, Sir, is not consistent with the principles of democracy. It is the masses of the,people, ninety or ninety-five per cent of the population, who most require assistance. The millionaire can look after himself; it is the man in the factory, the workingman, the man who assists in the development of our natural resources, the man who gets his bread by the sweat of his brow-this is the man whom we should look after. Generally it is he who has the largest family. The object of his affections is at home, and if during the six working days of the week he must worry about how he may provide his family with the necessities of life, he cannot enjoy his home on Sunday. To improve the condition of these people should be the aspiration of every man who has to do with the administration of the country's affairs, and this applies not only to Canada but to every other nation. Henry George once said that the spirit of love, not hate, will produce happiness; that it knows no difference of race or creed; it knows no animosities. That,

Mr. Speaker, is the spirit of free trade, and whether or not we can put it into practice in toto, it is the spirit which should animate the people of Canada to-day.
I listened with great attention this afternoon to the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) with regard to the condition of the workingman. He said he would have the workingman prosper; he even said they should enjoy a portion of the benefits accruing to the businesses for which they were working. I consider myself a greater free trader than the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville. I do not go so far as he does, but I do say that we should do all we can to bring happiness and contentment to the workingman, and only by enabling him to obtain under fair conditions the commodities which he must purchase for the sustenance of his family can we hope to make him happy and contented. If we make the workingman happy and contended he will rise in the esteem of the whole people; his work will contribute to the prosperity of the nation and he will be glad to do an honest day's work for whatever wage he gets.
With regard to the question of revenue, I submit that the raising of what I might call indirect revenue means the placing of the burden upon the masses of the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite express their approval of the income tax. It is true that we have had income tax for the last three years, but I may point out that the provision for income tax, while put into effect by hon. gentlemen opposite, is the work of the Liberal party. We had almost exhausted our patience in asking for it, and the Government had exercised all its powers of resistance against it. I and other gentlemen on this side from the very beginning of the war urged that we should have income tax and thus avoid borrowing in order to meet the expenses of the war. But during three years of the war, when the greatest prosperity prevailed in Canada, when immense profits were made and such a source of revenue would have yielded two or three times what it brings to-day, the Government took no action. Of course, the present Finance Minister is not responsible, for he was not here at the time. I am sure that if he had been here, he would, in his generosity of heart, have inspired his colleagues to better sentiments in this direction. However, I repeat that the Liberal party through its constant efforts in that regard is responsible for the introduction of this tax.	-
We are told that we must have a tariff; that a tariff alone can save the country. But look at the case of Great Britain. During the last sixty or seventy-five years she has had free trade and she has expanded her commerce so greatly that the English language is recognize^ to-day as the language of trade and commerce. Her trade has reached every shore and every ocean, and the principle of free trade, recognized by Great Britain, has been the means of engendering a spirit of fraternity and encouraging true Christian sentiments. It is the policy which has created Britain's great merchant navy-and it is to be remembered that it was Britain's navy which won the war and without which the victory could not have been ours. Surely that is a circumstance which should impress every nation.
On different occasions in this House the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has referred to hon. gentlemen on this side as Bolshevists and wreckers. As I and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) have on many occasions in this House set forth the principles of free trade, I must be included in the reference which my right hon. friend made, in which hon. gentlemen advocating the policy of free trade were called Bolshevists and wreckers.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Perhaps the hon. gengentleman will do what hon. members of the Agrarian party have always failed to do in that regard. Would he be good enough to quote just what I said, before he seeks to attack it?


Onésiphore Turgeon: I have not under my
hand reports of those speeches.


Arthur Meighen: They never have.


Onésiphore Turgeon: But it is well known
that they conveyed this idea as regards all those in this House who were opposed to him.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.
Mr, TURGEON: The words "wreckers" and "Bolsheviki" were used.


Arthur Meighen: Get somebody to quote what I said.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am not so far away from the truth after all. I am not converted for all that to the principle of protection, and I sincerely believe in this great policy which is bound to be adopted in Canada, because, if there is in the world a country which has been made, by Providence, a country which should have free trade, it is certainly Canada with her mag-

nificent natural resources and her markets on every ocean and on every side. We can reach the countries on the Pacific ocean as well as those on the Atlantic. When I speak in favour of a diminution of the tariff as rapidly as possible, I do not think the result will be to injure the manufacturer. I have no objection to the prosperity of the manufacturer; I desire that he should prosper; and when I advocate an expansion of trade into the great markets of the world, my desire is to ensure his prosperity, for I say that the Canadian manufacturer will never prosper as he should, with the resources that he has at his command, until he has developed his trade with other nations, whether on the European continent or in the Orient. When I say that we can do with a lower tariff, I do not mean that I want to harm either the manufacturer, the employer or the employee. A protective tariff is bad, as everyone who will study the matter will admit; a tariff for revenue is better, but no tariff at all is better still. Let me prove my contention by this argument. We say that we must have revenue, and to get revenue we must have importation. You cannot have revenue unless you import. The more revenue you wish to collect by a tariff, the more you must encourage importation, and the more you deprive the labourer of his work and the manufacturer of his products. Supposing we collect $200,000,000 by a tariff. That represents a total importation of, say, $800,000,000. Therefore, it means $800,000,000 worth of commodities that the labourer has not been able to work upon and that the manufacturer has not been able to produce in this country. Therefore, the more you encourage revenue by importation, the more you deprive the workmen and the manufacturer of their prosperity.
This is a time when the people of Canada should encourage freer trade between the nations in order to restore harmony, more particularly between nations on the European continent and some other continents where agitation still exists in the minds of the people. This can be done by opening the doors to their commerce and asking those countries to join with us in trade as well as in other matters. Trade creates friendship, and with friendship we shall have peace. With animosity, we shall have war.
The Brussels Conference was referred to by the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in a speech which he delivered in presenting his amendment. I should, how-

ever, like to read over again the two resolutions which he quoted from that conference, in order to impress more deeply upon the House the consequences which I draw for Canada from them. This is what the first one says:
The Conference recommends that within such limits and at such time as may appear possible each country should aim at the progressive restoration of that freedom of commerce which prevailed before the war, including the withdrawal of artificial restrictions on, and discriminations of price against, external trade.
Another resolution is this:
The International Financial Conference affirms that the improvement of the financial position largely depends on the general restoration as soon as possible of good-will-between the various nations; and in particular it endorses the declaration of the Supreme Council of the 8th March last "that the States which have been created or enlarged as a result of the war should at once re-established full and friendly co-operation and arrange for the unrestricted interchange of commodities in order that the essential unity of European economic life may not be impaired by the erection of artificial economic barriers."
Such is the proposition laid down by those resolutions of the Brussels Conference at which the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) represented Canada, and I am proud that a representative of Canada gave his adherence to such resolutions, the putting into effect of which would fill my heart with joy
9 p.m. and happiness, because I would see, in the near future, happiness and contentment in the various nations of the world. It is an invitation which, certainly, the people of Canada should not only accept with great pleasure, but endeavour to enforce upon other nations. Let Canada do her duty to-day "as she did it at the beginning of and during the war. As in those days, love of the Mother Country, Great Britain, was able to bring from every ocean her millions of subjects and to unite them into one common bond under the beneficent smile of Providence, let again the same spirit animate us all in every clime, and in every country; let us here to-day, unite in the endeavour to promote peace, harmony, and good-will amongst the nations of the earth. We have been told that Canada is a great nation; that she enjoys a reputation beyond that of any of the greater nations owing to the sacrifices which she made in the war and the intelligent service rendered by our Canadian soldiers. If Canada is a nation big enough to be a member of the league, let her be a member big enough to be a leader in that league.

Let us to-day put aside our prejudices and start in the direction of freer trade with other countries, so that we may be sure we shall not be confronted with another war in the future. We are asked, what else are you going to do? I say: Reduce the tariff so that our people may be able to buy the necessaries of life and educate their children, who certainly in the course of time will be the rulers of the country. We all know that very often from the families of the working men come those who are destined for the highest places in the world.
I have already on more than one occasion given my ideas on a system of taxation which is not new to this Parliament. I have dilated on that scheme very often and perhaps I should not touch upon it to-night, but I read a reference to it, not being present in the House, in the speeches of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Thomson). I refer to a land values tax. I again advocate that system of taxation. I want it to be well understood that I am not advocating a tax on improvements to property, but merely on the unearned increment. The local Government are to-day raising revenue by the taxation of property, but they are taxing the improvements. I do not advocate that. I want only that land to be taxed that is unemployed, and that is being held mainly for the purpose of exacting a higher price. It is the mere value of the land itself that we should tax, and not the improvements, for that would be an injustice to the people of Canada. In any country the value of the land rises with the improvements and the general prosperity of the country. The construction of a railway or of public works in any portion of Canada causes the land in the neighbourhood to rise in value, and this added value that is given to the land should be for the benefit and prosperity of the whole country. To-day the farmer who has 100 acres of land upon which he works hard finds that the more buildings he erects and the more improvements he makes to his property the more he is taxed, while (he farmer alongside of him who allows his land to lie uncultivated pays no tax at all. It is the land of this farmer, who is leaving his farm unused, without any benefit to the people of the community, that we wish to tax. And similarly with regard to the land in the cities. We do not wish to tax the improvements, but the vacant land that is
being held for a higher price. If you tax that land, the owner seeks either to use it or to sell it. As I said, land values rise with the improvements in the neighbourhood and the general prosperity of the country, and it is certainly astonishing sometimes to see how greatly values rise. Every time I walk along Sparks street I am struck by the immense value of its property-a value which has been given to it by the Federal Government of Canada. What was the value of a foot of land on Sparks street or Bank street about fifty years ago before the creation of a Capital in Ottawa? Not very much. Since the session opened I saw in the newspapers that a piece of property with a thirty-three foot frontage on Sparks street, without a building on it, had been purchased by the Home Bank for $195,000. How much would that land have been worth if the seat of Parliament was not in Ottawa? Only about $400 or $500. The increased value has been given it by the Federal Government being in Ottawa and having erected buildings here, with all the necessary improvements in the neighbourhood. These improvements have meant that a piece of land that otherwise would have been worth only a few hundred dollars is now worth $195,000. If we have to raise $200,000,000 of revenue, we would have to raise from the city of Ottawa, I suppose, about $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, according to population. How much better it would be if we could help to raise that amount by taxing the land values in the way I have suggested, instead of raising the money by going into the home of the working man, the clerk, the school teacher, and the returned soldier, and extorting the tax from their tables and upon the things they wear. That is the difference between the two methods of taxation. A land values tax such as I have advocated will not interfere with exchange or transportation or with any other business. After all, this land value taxation is an old British Liberal principle. You can find that principle as far back as William the Conqueror, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows I am right. William the Conqueror took possession of all the land and parcelled it out amongst his generals and officers and soldiers on the condition that they would always be prepared for military service. During this great man's reign the common people had no regular taxes to pay in connection with wars; the nobility were always in a state of preparedness. It was



[Stage Direction]
only afterwards, when they refused to discharge their obligations, that the common people suffered and pauperism got a footing in Britain. The principle which I have stated is one that Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, and Lloyd George advocated before the war, although Lloyd George of late has betrayed it. Even at the rate of one per cent we could raise a very large revenue by taxing unused lands, and by that means we could raise revenue instead of taking it out of the working classes, who find it difficult enough to provide themselves and their families with food and clothing. The sooner we have a Government that will introduce a system of this sort, the better it will be for the whole country. If this were done, the working classes would be grateful to the party that brought it about. Extravagance at any time is wrong, but to-day particularly it is criminal, and I think we can safely claim that the Conservative Government and its successors, since 1911, have been wasting the people's money. Now, I think that one way of putting an end to extravagance would be to tax land values. If this were done, the land-owners would themselves see to it that there was no extravagance on the part of the Government, entailing an increase in taxes in which they'would participate; and I suggest this as one of the best policies that could be adopted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have perhaps kept the House too long. I regret my inability to place before you and before the country, the views which I hold on many subjects. Were I gifted with the eloquence, the impressiveness, and the clear expression of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), or of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), I would use that gift in submitting, not only to the members of this House, but to the people of the country at large, the views which I have for the betterment of conditions in this country, and the opinions which, I think, if put into practice, would at least help towards the general prosperity. My opinions may not be acceptable to many hon. members, but I state them, nevertheless; and, as I say, my only regret is that I cannot express myself with the clearness which I should desire. I believe that there are many things which the Government could do to help the country out of its present difficulty, and I only wish they would do these things. In conclusion, Sir, I trust that the House will pardon me for having taken so much time in giving expression

to the principles of British Liberalism which I have stated to-night, and which I think are the only right principles in the present conditions, not only in Canada, but throughout the world.
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth) :: tariff for the sake of agriculture in the United States. Hon. gentlemen must remember that it is the American people who tell us what we can sell in their country, and it is the Canadian people who tell them what they can sell in our country. It has been said by economists that one of the most useful purposes to which a tariff can be put is that of a weapon for bargaining. It enables you to say: We will trade you this for that so long as it does not injure any interest that is neces-say to our country or injure any of our institutions. A country like Canada, with eight millions of people, that would adopt free trade with the highest protected country in the world at her doors, with a population of one hundred and ten millions, would be committing national hari-kari, or a crime, call it by any other name you will, that would put her out of existence in the twinkling of an eye.
Having said that much, may I suggest to the Government-I know the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) will not agree with this, for this matter has been mentioned in the House before- that at the present time they should look a little forward in regard to our own trade problems. Internally, I think, Canada has weathered the storm pretty well. I think she is entitled to be proud of the sanity and level-headedness of her people, but at certain times in our history I believe there is a duty upon Government to do a little more than probably they would do in ordinary times. In that connection I want to point out that last year the United States sold to Canada over $1,000,000,000 of their products, while we sold to the United States about $552,000,000; that is, the United States, with 110,000,000 people, sold $2 worth of goods to us, while Canada, with a population of 8,000,000, sold $1 worth to them. Our trade stands out very prominently there, because one might have expected that a country like the United States with their gigantic industrial system, their large organizations and their much greater population, would have sold their goods to us in a greater proportion than two to one, hut thanks to our tariff we have held them to a reasonable basis. If we had free trade, they would sell to. us every dollar's worth of goods that we wanted, and this country would go out of business industrially. The United States has adopted a different position from ours. They went after Canadian trade, but Canadians did not go after American trade. This $552,000,000 of Canadian goods was 
sold to the United States without Canada trying to sell them. What I means is this:	the United States has
in this country ninety-two consuls-general, consular agents and trade agents. For the benefit of the House I would refer to the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs of this Government, for the year ending March 31, 1920. At page 9, appendix A, of that report you will find the names of all the American consuls in this country. They have two or three in Montreal and Toronto, several in Vancouver, and in all our cities from Halifax to Vancouver there is either an American consul-general, an American vice-consul, or an American trade agent. We have not a blessed one in the' United States 'with its market of 110,000,000 people, while they have 92 in this country. What for? Why, to look after the interests oi the United States in Canada. I repeat, we have not one to look after our trade interests in the United; States. These- consular agencies of the United States in' this country have put themselves on a selfsustaining basis. Under their regulations every shipment of goods from this country to the United States must be accompanied by a fee for viseing the invoice. In the eight years from 1913 to 1920 there have been collected from the Canadian people in these fees on Canadian shipments to the United States the sum of $2,595,326.92. The total expenditure for Canada was $1,630,823.80. Thus, the consular agents of the United States, out of these fees from Canadian pockets in these eight years, have made a profit over all overhead charges for the maintenance and upkeep of their oflices in Canada of $964,503.12.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY:	Does the hon.
gentleman pretend that we have no business representatives in the United States?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I believe so. I have
not been able to find them. While we have no business agents there, Great Britain has. She has 115 trade agents in the United. States, including the ambassador. What for? To look after British trade in that market, protection or no protection. Great Britain is alive, up to date; she has 115 trade agents in the United States:	What
did we export to the United States last year? I will give some of the exports in round figures: paper, $50,000,000; wood products and pulp, $32,000,000; shingles, $10,000,000; fish, canned and salted. $9,000,000; leather, $4,000,000; butter, $5,000,000; milk, canned and condensed, $2,000,000; flour and mill products,

$4,000,000; confectionery and maple sugar, $1,500,000, most of the latter, no doubt, from the constituency of my hon. friend from Beauce; binder twine, $3,000,000.
Flax and products	$1,205,000
Wool clothing	  1,000,000
Rolling mill products	 1,687,000
Smelted products	 4,769,000
Asbestos products	 6,752,000
Abrasives	 1,355,000
Fertilizers	 4,624,000
Inorganic chemicals	 3,134,000
Scientific and educational equipment 1,100,000 Roughly speaking, $160,000,000 is represented in these items alone, of goods partly manufactured and wholly manufactured. It seems to me that with that list alone, anc} it is not complete, it ought to be worth while for our Government to give close attention to the establishment in that country of an export market for Canadian goods in spite of the tariff which they will raise, because I maintain that the higher the tariff the more need there is for us to work to get an export market, and if we do not have an export market for our goods, the exchange will be against us forever. If there is anything in the economist's statement, that exchange is adjusted and regulated by exports of goods over and above the goods you import, then this is, to my mind, indubitably a case where I would want some one to show me some reason why Canada should not be represented in the United States, and endeavour to put the products of Canadian industry into that country. We should seek a greater export market, not only there, but throughout the world, and thus improve the state of Canadian exchange and give to Canada that opportunity in the markets abroad to which she is entitled if prompted by activity. But some gentlemen will say: Oh, let the manufacturer and the merchant, the men who have goods to sell, go over there and do it; it is right at their door. Well, it is about as long a journey from here to the western United States as it is to Liverpool. Liverpool is almost as close to the United States as we are to the remote parts of that country. But the question which I should like to have , answered is, why Canada has no trade agents there while Britain has 115. I do not suggest that the commercial activities of Great Britain would be pursued and developed at the expense of Canada. I have never heard it suggested that this should be done, and I cannot conceive it to be so; but I will venture, without fear of successful contradiction, the statement that the British trade
agent is looking especially after British trade and not Canadian; and our trade would be greatly increased if we had in the United States, commensurate with their population, a staff of trade agents from Seattle or San Francisco to New York, and down to the Gulf of Mexico, and throughout the Eastern States. If we had, in every important city of the American union, a corps of properly trained agents skilled in business methods, we should be able to extend our trade with the United States, to an extent hardly conceivable, and where we sell $552,000,000 worth of goods in a year, without special effort, the amount we could sell, if we did try through the work of trained agents, would he so great, in spite of a tariff which might be prohibitive in some respects, that it would redound to the everlasting welfare of this great Dominion. We have trade agents in Asia and Europe, so that the principle is not new. Now, what other benefit would there be from having trade agents in the United States to look after Canadian interests? In the first place, if the United States in Canada, with a consulate service numbering 92, can make nearly $1,000,000 a year more than it costs to maintain the service, surely it is not too much to say that Canada, with a service of equal strength, could make a million and a half dollars more than would pay the way of these trade agents, in view of the fact that their trade shipments are greater to Canada than ours to the United States. The trade agents would be live wires, because, of course, you would have to send none but live wires. There are hundreds of young men, commercial travellers and business men, in this country who I believe could do wonderful work if this policy were adopted. Indeed, there are thousands of them and they are of the brightest minds we have in business and trade. Let them go over. If we have an ambassador there, all well and good; but if I had my choice between an ambassador on the one hand, and a number of trade agents on the other, I would elect for the trade agents every time, and leave the ambassadorial work to the British Embassy. Let us get into the British ways of trade expansion and "go to it" as a young man would say. These trade agents located there would be active and energetic and would prevent smuggling into this country, because every invoice would have to be vised and would pass through their hands. They would also prevent any improper valuation, which is something that invariably we are up against here. It is said


Mr. J. ALFRED LEDUC (Westmount-St. Henry):: I deem it my duty on rising to congratulate the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Morphy) on the thoroughly efficient manner in which he extolled the Government's action and policy. I am not at all surprised at the hon. gentlemen's eulogy; I think he still hopes to enter the Cabinet in which there are yet " rooms to let." I imagine his object in making so lengthly a speech must have been to qualify himself for a portfolio.
The hon. member for North Perth dwelt on the importance of having Canada represented by trade agents in the United States. This policy was first advocated by a former member for St. James, Montreal, the late Honore Gervais, who for many years favoured such a course in this House. What Canada needs at the present time is not an ambassador at Washington for ceremonial purposes but a real business man to develop trade with our great neighbour' to the south.
I am certain that nobody in this chamber will refuse the Minister of Finance the admiration which he deserves for his courage in the presentation of such a poor Budget. For my part, I do not deny him my warmest sympathy in the thankless task which he had in explaining to the country the lamentable state of affairs for which the present Government is responsible.
Lamentable, it is in reality, Mr. Speaker, for to the enormous debt under which the tax-payer is already overburdened, one must add the trifle of over one hundred million dollars for this year, despite the promises made last year by the Minister of Finance that the national debt would be reduced.
I doubt very much if, when he made this consoling promise, the Minister of Finance had taken the time to measure the incompetance of the Government into which he was invited to enter. Had he done so he would have maintained a prudent silence, instead of blaming inwardly those who drew him into this chaos where now hs finds himself with his unfortunate though honourable colleagues.
How far are we, Mr. Speaker, from those blessed times when, after twelve months of fruitful administration, the honourable member for Shelburne' and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), then Minister of Finance of the Liberal Government, unrolled before the amazed eyes of the country the spectacle of the prosperity existing from one end of the country to the other, the spectacle of peace and concord reigning among employers and employees. How far we are, Mr. Speaker, from that happy time when we saw every factory in the country smoking night and day and where we saw our dear Canada advancing by giant strides towards her destiny, under the vigorous impulsion of our ever to be regretted chief, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
To destroy this magnificent work ten years have sufficed, Mr. Speaker, of a government born in 1911 of the alliance, justly called immoral, of the Tories with a handful of political adventurers disguised as Nationalists, wrecks of the two parties who were thrown on the reefs of the indignation of their compatriots.
I can quite understand, Mr. Speaker, that the right honourable predecessor of the present Prime Minister, oppressed with a sense of discouragement and fright at the sight of the ruins of his party, might have wished to throw on the shoulders of the right honourable member for Portage-la-Prairie the weight of the universal repror

bation under which the Canadian electorate proposes to smother the present Government at the next general elections; for, it would be just that -the right hon. Prime Minister, principal author of these fatal politics, should- behold their disastrous consequences.
If now, Mr. Speaker, we cast a glance at the state of our finances, we are amazed to find that not only has our debt not diminished, but it has increased, as I indicated a moment ago, to the truly colossal sum of two billion three hundred and fifty millions; and if we seek the cause of this increase, we find it in the foolish policies of the Government, which, since 1911, has clung to power iby means of all possible concessions;-policies, foolish and disastrous, I repeat, chiefly in three cases: An imprudently immoderate participation in the European war, costing us the loss of millions and millions of dollars, which otherwise would be available now; absurd railway policies which have this year absorbed one hundred and thirteen millions of dollars; and, finally, unlimited waste, added to the improvidence of a Government which has done nothing to guard us against the labour crisis at present raging throughout the country, the reverberations of which are shaking the economical structure of the nation.
J was in favour, Mr. Speaker, of reason-ab.e and limited participation in the European war, but I absolutely disapprove of the manner in which the Government conducted it. Instead of enriching certain of their favourites with millions through large war contracts, why did they not take over, for instance, the control of the manufacture of munitions, even if it were necessary, as in the case of the erection of this Parliament building, for example, to allow a percentage of reasonable profit to the different firms having charge of the manufacture of munitions for the account of the Canadian Government, thus saving to the state 'millions which were scandalously wasted to gorge the pockets of a few personages in the good graces of the Government.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, has a right to be pleased with his work-he, who, in 1915, swore to spend up to the last cent of the treasury, even if it was necessary to bring the country into bankruptcy. I spoke a little while ago of the railway policy of the Government.
It is not surprising to us on this side of the House that the country is facing disaster; from the moment, when, by a turn [Mr. L,educ.J
of the hand, the right hon. chief of the Government, instead of asking the administrators of the private railways the secret of good direction, bought the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, it was to be foreseen that the same disorder, the same contempt for the safeguard of the money of the Canadian people, the same wild dance of dollars would bring us rapidly to the regrettable'situation in ,which we find ourselves to-day, by the accumulation of annual deficits. But, how to get out of this mix-up, Mr. Speaker? I would suggest to the right hon. the Prime Minister that this should be put before the committee appointed to consider these questions, and the suggestions made by that capable business man, Lord Sh-aughnessy, should be taken into serious consideration.
I may quote, Mr. Speaker, an article from the Financial Times of January 29 last on a speech delivered by Sir Herbert Holt at the annual meeting of the Royal Bank of Canada, which reads as follows:
"Government control has practically disappeared during the year just past-wheat, papei and sugar being the commodities to be freed from regulation. Government ownership of transportation systems has developed. Without any advantage to the public in efficiency or rates, the operation of our national railways during the past twelve months has resulted in a loss which will probably more than absorb the amounts collected on excess profits and income taxes for the year 1919. Unless Government methods of operation are more efficient in this country than they have been in others, tax payers in Canada may find the maintenance of their railroads and fleet more expensive than pension charges and other legacies of the war combined."
These few sentences constitute one of the most graphic denunciations of the evils of government ownership it has been our privilege to read in a long time. Time was when the mention of millions almost took our breath away. A millionaire was as well worth seeing as a crowned head. It was not necessary to gfl beyond millions to express the superlative of all things. The war ruined our perspective. We began to talk of millions as though they were merely thousands. It is no longer -possible to waken the Canadian public to a realization of what government operation of railways may cost by expressing it in figures. What if it does cost $50,000,000 or $75,000,000 per annum? The Finance Minister will borrow it or dig it up in some manner. The cost does not seem to come home to us. We will pay it along with other costs and grouch about our heavy taxation and let the government continue to extend it field of operations. We will ask it to loan us more money to bulid houses witih and to finance other operations or interfere in other matters of business which we should be attending to ourselves and which will only result in further deficits and increased taxation.
President Holt of the Royal Bank, however, avoids much reference to figures. Instead, he tells us that government operation of our railways will probably result in a loss which will

exceed the governmental revenue from excess profits and income taxes. Could anything bring this matter home to us in more vivid manner? The whole business world denounces the excess profits tax and practically everyone who pays an Income tax does so with rage in his heart against the German junker who is supposed to have laid him under the levy.
But, here, in Canada, and altogether independent of the war, is a levy which we, as good democrats and as electors with the freedom of the ballot, have placed upon ourselves. The excess profits tax and the income tax go to wipe out the annual defiicit of our governmental system of railways. Nay, the situation is yet worse. This whole burden of increased tatxation which we laJbor under promises to go finally but to wipe out the annual loss incurred in the operation of our railways We are not paying the interest on our war bill with it at all, we are not even paying pensions

we are just breaking even-on governmental operation of our railways. Presumably this means we will have to tax ourselves all over againt to pay for the war. Truly it is a condition of affairs of which we have little reason to feel proud.
As long as the Government persists in its nefarious policy of helping certain gangs of financiers-if I may use the expression, Mr.	Speaker-interested	in the maladministration of the railways, by administering them in the worst possible manner, the Canadian people must hold themselves ready to meet the growing deficits from year to year. '
I have been asking myself, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Finance could make up his Budget this year without borrowing. There remains to him, it is true, the imposition of new taxes. As to that, the Canadian people would have little to say if the Government would divide the burden equitably and proportionately to the re sources of each class and of each individual. I understand that again this year the Government is following the detestable custom it followed during the war, wheu it placed its rapacious hand on the shoulder of the small contributor, the man who had brought up a large family only to make food for cannon, while it exempted those who rested comfortably at the fireside and amassed exorbitant profits. Following this policy, the Government has lifted the tax on luxuries, which, to my mind, was a just tax. It has also abolished the tax on profits, thus lightening the burden of the rich, very often with few if any children, and shifting it to the poor, frequently the supporters of large families. Further, the only capital which should have been spared -the human capital furnished by these numerous families and which in the end, constitutes the wealth of the nation-was again this year particularly hit for the benefit of capial held in the hands of a minority which compromises by its monopoly the equilibrium of the country.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, let this occasion pass without saying a few words about the high cost of living, which has regularly increased every year under the placid eyes of the Government-a Government more occupied in conducting throughout the country a campaign of racial hate to ensure its return to power than in giving attention to matters of this kind. While the humble labourer was asking himself how he was going to meet the needs of his family, the profiteers and monopolists of all kinds were occupying themselves in artificially raising the cost of living and hastening to protect their fortunes by buying up nearly a billion and a half of Victory bonds-free from taxes through the imprudence of the Government-and openly defying the Board of Commerce, the institution supposed to be designed to regulate their profits. Mr. Speaker, if I were to enumerate all the errors accumulated by the incompetence of the Government during the time it has had charge of the country's affairs it would be necessary for me to retain the attention of this chamber for a much longer time than I intend to occupy.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to protest in advance in the most vehement manner possible against any attempt to change anything which touches the actual state of our foreign relations or to involve us in new military or naval expenses outside of our country without the unanimous consent of this House? I allude to the next Imperial Conference, in which the Government has given itself carte blanche to take part. Too often our autonomy has been sacrificed at these Imperial conferences and heavy burdens imposed upon us under the pretext of our being admitted to the rank of sister nation. Too long the Imperial statesmen have tired our ears and fascinated our eyes with the words "equality" and "sister nation", while they sacrificed our children, exploited our finances and endangered our liberty. Before we become embroiled to our great detriment in Imperial affairs, let us remember that our country is Canada and that no others than Canadians can ensure her prosperity and future.
I see the hon. Minister of Finance in his seat, although I know he is there not specially to listen to me, but to fulfil his duty. I would like to ask him if he has ever considered the advisability of reducing the income tax upon the heads of large families. Has he ever put to himself this question :	Suppose I were the father of a
family of seven or eight children, my income is $3,000, and I am exempted on $2,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend must know that if his income was $3,000 and he had seven or eight children, he would be exempt from taxation on $2,000 and on $200 for each child, so that he would have nothing to pay.


Joseph Alfred Leduc: My point is this:	the
education of many children is continued after the age of eighteen. I have never seen a law student attending college who was under eighteen years of age. For my part I have seven children at college, all over the age of eighteen, and I am trying to do the best I can to educate them. A boy or girl who is going to school should be called a child, for/that matter; he is a child so long as he is maintained by his parents. I ask you gentlemen who are lawyers how much money you brought home before you were twenty-five years of age.


Mr. McMASTER:: Not much.


Joseph Alfred Leduc: I do not think many hon.
members who are lawyers brought home any money before they were twenty-five years of age. I would ask the minister to consider this question and see whether he cannot take that burden off the shoulders of parents. The amount by which the revenue would be reduced, if the minister were to adopt this suggestion of mine, would not be very great, because not many who have large families are rich.
In conclusion, I may say that, in accordance with the brief remarks that I have made this evening, I am going to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
Mr. A. M. DECHENE (Montmagny) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister of Finance seems to be happy since he has given us the result of his burning the midnight oil to impose the financial condition of Canada, but the people were disagreeably surprised at his Budget speech. In fact, what is there in that statement to show his desire to dress the wounds of the Canadian consumer and to alleviate the heavy burdens weighing on his shoulders? Almost nothing, and if the hon. minister has worked hard during the first months of the session, it was surely not for the purpose of finding a fairer or most efficient way of portioning out the taxes from which we have so much to suffer at this time. The remedy which he has found-and that remedy is always the Tory party's remedy-consists in enabling as much as possible the great business corporations to pocket big dividends;

it consists in not disturbing the big financiers who control those corporations, dispensing them with making a report on their enormous revenues. A much simpler mean was found:	They increased the
tax on retail sales from 2 to 3 per cent. This tax, which was already 2 per 100, has been increased by 50 per 100 of its original figure, doubling, by the very fact, the burden imposed upon the Canadian consumer. Why? Simply in order to enable the great financial corporations to easily overcome the very serious crisis now affecting every country in the world, and especially to make the most of the good will of those people with respect to the coming election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh! Oh!


Mr. DECHENE:: I hear some hon. member say: Oh! Oh! May I be permitted to remark that the whole country has gathered from the stump speech delivered by the Prime Minister the other day, that we are to have at an early date an election, and a general election at that, thank God-and that it was necessary to submit to the people, by all means, a series of small arguments, since there were no serious ones to submit.
The Prime Minister's speech, which laste for two hours, is far from being what could be expected from a statesman. To my mind, it was a cross-road politician's speech. It was very easy for that hon. gentleman to tell our colleagues of the Agrarian party:	"Why did you not come
forward with your tariff, with your fiscal policy?" It was easy also for him to say to the hon. leader of the Opposition:
" Why did you not include in your amendment all your policy concerning the tariff?
Mr. Speaker, to blame an opponent is an easy thing to do, but while the Prime Minister had the floor, while his Minister of Finance was preparing the Budget during the two months, why did he fail to state his own parinanent fiscal policy or why was it not announced in the Budget; it was such an easy thing to do? But the hon. gentleman drew the curtain over his own policy, he buried the great inquiry which his beloved colleague made through the country. However, he was perfectly in a position to bring a permanent fiscal policy forward.
Why then has he done so? Was it because of lack of that master-mindedness which one expects to find in a Canadian Prime Minister? Is he to be classed, in

spite of his youth, among the weakest of our Prime ministers? The public truly have the right to know this fact, and we on this side of the House, who have heard the great speech he delivered the other day are quite convinced that it is so.
The hon. Minister of Finance told us recently that he had abolished the war profits tax, because, said he, large companies shall not have any more immense profits and shall not pay another cent. But you are quite aware that these large companies have divided up their capital in three or four parts and that instead of paying any dividends on a share which was originally worth $100 or $200, the apparent value of these shares has been raised to four or five hundred dollars. Are you not witnesses that these large companies-they are friends of the Government, you may say- have changed their capital stock, that they have quadrupled, quintupled this capital, this being done, the dividend must also be quintupled. It is not surprising therefore that it is as much as large companies can do to pay their dividends or even to pay a part of their profits to the public treasury. The hon. minister had it in his power to prevent these large companies from subdividing their stock. Why has he not done so? If he had acted thus he might have obliged these gentlemen, his friends, to pay into the public treasury a part of the wealth they have extorted from the public during the war; but he could not do so, because they were his friends and he had to protect them. Therefore the Minister of Finance is to blame if the Government's friends are not paying the taxes as they should.
The hon. member from Neepawa (Mr. Davis) remarked the other day that while taxes had been abolished for large companies, nothing had been done to amend the income tax so far as smaller companies were concerned. It is these small companies in the province of Quebec and the western provinces which usually manufacture the agricultural implements which our farmers need, and these small companies which did not come under the war profits tax, had to pay the income tax. By leaving the income tax such as it is, these small companies which are capitalized at less than $25,000, are still subject to a tax. An exemption of $2,000 is allowed on their capital, and any amount in excess of this shall be taxed 10 per cent; as in the past. Yet, they are forced to sell their products at 3 per cent like the others. This makes it impossible for the smaller companies to continue their business and it places them almost on the
verge of bankruptcy. It is an indirect way of doing away with the small competitor, he who very often succeeds in making the large companies, who are friends of the Government, reduce their prices. The hon. Minister of Finance has veiled these details in the Budget. It is the consumer who, in the end will have to pay; it is he who shall have to meet the large deficits of this Government which the people did not want, this Government which has proclaimed itsel! "the country's Government" and which, however hard the Opposition has tried, it has not been able to bring them to their senses and have them bring on the elections.
I had the pleasure the other day to hear the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballan-tyne) claim the candidate from Yamaska as his worthy adopted son, also as that of his leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen). Now that the child has been recognized, that he is to be christened -for he is in the county of Yamaska to be christened-I shall take the liberty of asking a question:	Who are the ministers
who are entitled to vote in the county of Yamaska? Could the hon. Minister of Justice tell me if there are any? Could the hon. Minister of Marine tell me if there are any ministers who are entitled to vote in Yamaska? The hon. Minister of Marine does not wish to answer. It might be interesting to know. We might then know, now that the hon. minister has accepted the son, who is to show him the way in the county of Yamaska? According to the law, all ministers must reside in Ottawa; yet there is a minister who has found means of registering in Yamaska so that he as well as his own family, may cast a vote in that county. Could the Government allow a minister, according to the law, to vote in Yamaska, when he has lived in the city of Ottawa since 1911? The Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) has found out that he could vote in that county, as well as could all his family.
I have in my possesion for the personal edification of my hon. friend and to replace the answer which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries refused to give me, the proof that the Postmaster General intends to vote in the constituency of Yamaska. One father has owned up to the child, but the other supposed father-when one is a putative father, there may be several-will try to mark out the way for him. In the parish of St. Francois-du-Lac, there appears on the electoral list the name of the Hon. P. E. Blondin, senator,

Postmaster General, and it has been put there on the special request of the minister himself. Although he is a resident of the city of Ottawa, this gentleman's name has been inscribed on the electoral list of the parish of St. Franeois-du-Lac. Not satisfied with his name being placed on the list he has seen that the name of Madam P. E. Blondin be added to the electoral list. Then, the hon. minister said to himself: Why should not the name of my sister-inlaw be added also? And the name of Miss E. Brisson, sister-in-law of the hon. Postmaster General has been added on the electoral list of the parish of St. Francois-du-Lac, notwithstanding -the fact that she lives in the city of Ottawa. Miss Marie Brisson too, another sister-in-law of the hon. minister has found a way, thanks probably to her charming brother-in-law, to obtain for herself the right to vote in the constituency of Yamaska, although she resides in Ottawa. Arthur Brisson, civil engineer-a rather interesting thing for his friends in the Mines Branch-also an official of the State residing in Ottawa, found it possible to have a right to vote in the same county. Moreover, the name of Miss Josephine Blondin, a cousin of the hon. Postmaster General, now employed as a stenographer for the Federal Government in Ottawa, figures also on the electoral list of St. Francois-du-Lae, making in all six members of the Blondin family, all residents of Ottawa, who have a right to vote in the constituency of Yamaska. Therefore, this is why I have asked the hon. Minister of Justice as well as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who fortunately understand very well the French language, if to their knowledge some of their colleagues had the right of vote in the county of Yamaska. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries discovered the candidate and has claimed him. Well, the Postmaster General for his own part will despatch him by mail on May the 28th, but, Sir, to the dead-letter branch. When one realizes the ways and means taken by the members of this Government in order to assure the election of their candidates and how they can twist the law in view of securing a right to vote in a constituency where they do not reside and where they simply go for an automobile tour during the summer, have we not the right to ask you to what excess you, as well as your colleagues are ready to descend in view of securing votes?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I will remind the hon. member that he must address his
	,
remarks to the Chair and not to the hon. ministers.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I am glad to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I will follow it henceforth. I thought may be those remarks were supposed to interest the hon. minister much more than yourself, Mr. Chairman, and I tried to give them some direct information, without having to communicate them through you; at any rate, I will sin no more. Besides the electors from Yamaska will give them the latest news. The Postmaster General will come back to his department where he will take care of his dead letters. It would perhaps be better for him to go there in the broad daylight instead of in the darkness of night and to avoid the by-ways. The whole population of Montreal district is aware of those facts and you may rest assured, gentlemen, that it is not so easy to humbug the people of Yamaska. There is a song of Musset which says:
"Oil le pSre a passS, passera bien l'enfant."
I believe that Musset under that circumstance meant to -speak of the real father. But the putative child does not always pass where the supposed father has passed. Now, I desire to make a few remarks concerning the way the hon. Minister of Finance deals with the railways' deficits. I believe that the best way for my hon. friend to cover these deficits of our Canadian National railways is to remain silent cm that score. In the long run it is "Baptiste" that pays. Do you want an illustration, gentlemen, about the bad administration of the national railways?


Georges Henri Boivin: I will remind the hon. member once again that he is speaking in the House of Commons and that he must address the Chair.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The Department of Railways is administered in such a way that the present state of things is of evil omen for the country. The Government, not satisfied with having dragged the Canadian Northern Railway System to bankruptcy, has taken into its service the leading officials of that railway. How could we expect, Mr. Speaker, that the administration of this road would sustain many changes at the hands of these people?
I claim that it is not so, and we become absolutely sure of it when we see what is going on around us. Let me specially draw your attention, for instance, to the manner in which the express companies are being dealt with. There are two great ex-

press companies in this country: the Dominion Express, which is the sole property of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian Express, which belongs to the Government. As you follow the Intercolonial frormMontreal along to St. Rosalie, Drummondville, Levis, Montmagny, Riviere du Loup up to Rimouski, you will notice a most extraordinary state of things. We have here a Government who accepted to take over a company with a capital of $1,000,000 and which has $4,000,000 of debentures on the market. That makes a capital of $5,000,000. In every station of the Intercolonial the agent of the Dominion Express is the station master who is in the employ of the Government, while our own company, the Canadian Express, must seek refuge outside of the station. Who has to suffer for this? Who has to pay for the transfer of the goods from the station to the offices? It is the people, it is the company itself. Here is a striking example:	In
the town of Montmagny, which has a population of 5,000, both companies are represented. The station agent of the Canadian National railways is the representative of the Dominion Express, and the latter's packages are received in the offices of the station agent. Now, what is being done with regard to the Canadian Express? The goods are left on the platform of the station and the company has to pay somebody to bring them over to the offices which it had to rent in the town, and also to deliver them to the people at the same rate as the Dominion Express. It means that in the town of Montmagny alone, the Canadian Express is losing every year $500 or $600, which it could save, if conditions were reversed. Why should not the Canadian Express, which is our oVvn company, be represented at the station? Why do they not compel the Dominion Express to transfer its offices elsewhere and to pay for the carriage of its goods? In that way we could get our full revenue and we would be able to save millions on the whole system if the Government would only manage the roads in the proper way. But they don't want to do it; they gave the Canadian Pacific privileges which they do not care to take away from that company.
One of the hon. members opposite, speaking on behalf of the manufacturers, said that if we wanted to reduce our deficits and be able to pay off our debts, we should encourage our industries and buy "made in Canada" goods. Do you know, Sir, who originated this war-cry and who first urged upon the people of Canada to buy Canadianmade goods in preference to, the imported ones? It is the manufacturer himself. If we, the consumers, must buy Canadian goods, we have a right to know whether the manufacturers are themselves setting the example in patronizing Canadian industries and Canadian financial undertakings and also in buying as much as possible of their materials in Canada. To illustrate my thought and to show that these people are not quite the patriots they would like us to believe they are, I made inquiries as to how much insurance, either against fire, or employer's liabilities, or as security bonds, they were taking in the various Canadian companies, and also how much they were taking in British and foreign firms. In 1919, fire insurance policies in Canada amounted to $40,031,474. Out of that sum, the Canadian companies only held $6,415,838; the British companies, $20,377,871, and foreign firms, $13,237,765. Therefore, out of $40,000,000 worth of insurance carried in this country, only six millions were placed with Canadian companies, and thirty-three millions were held by companies having their head office and shareholders outside of Canada. If you consider the difference between the amount collected every year as premiums and that paid out by the companies, you will realize that we are paying a tribute of some fifteen or eighteen millions to strangers every year. Now, who are the people holding the largest fire insurance policies in Canada? It is surely not the farmer nor the poor consumer who very often is not insured, it is the financial corporations. Why do they not apply to the Canadian companies to get insured? Why do they not set the example of encouraging the Canadian companies? Their support would make those companies more powerful, that money would remain in the country and the whole community would profit by it. In 1919, the respective amounts of insurance taken in the Canadian, British and foreign companies against accidents were according to order as follows: $953,103, $1,199,036 and $388,009. Why should those people not get their workingmen insured in Canadian companies, when they are so loud in their utterances to the effect that goods made in Canada, should be given preference?
If you wish to see another aspect of this question, I shall give you the figures on cattle which are specially for the farmer's use. In 1919, $65,657 worth of insurance [DOT]on Canadian herds was taken in Canadian companies and $32,942 in the British companies, foreign companies having done no



business because they were not represented with fespect to that kind of insurance, and this is to our farmer's credit. Though the figures just quoted be not very high, we see, however, that our good country people go so far, at least, as to apply those principles by favouring their fellow-citizens rather than foreigners. Mr. Chairman, if the manufacturers, who are always complaining that they are not protected as much as they should be, were willing to apply the principles which they preach, our financial situation would not be what it is to-day, the one-half of our people would not be taxed for the benefit of the other half.
The ministry in power has not the support of the people, all the by-elections went against them. They are afraid to face the storm and they put off, as much as possible, holding elections in the constituencies which are not represented in the House of Commons, and I can safely assure you that if the Government decided to do what the Prime Minister gave us to understand, the other day, that we might anticipate, the event alluded to by the Ottawa Journal this morning, the Prime Minister would take the place of the leader of the Opposition, which is rightfully his, because he should lead the opposition for a long time before he is Prime Minister.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: 
TABLE No. 2
[Stage Direction]
Rate of
			duty
		Duty	per
Articles	Value	collected	centWool.. ..	.. ..$ 500,000	$150,000	30Cottons ..	.. .. 300,000	Nil	FreeAgricultural	im-	plements	. . . . 250,000	Nil	FreeLeather	and	manufactures	thereof..	. . . . 400,000	120,000	30Steel and	manu-	factures	there-	of. . . .	. . . . 500,000	150,000	30Total.	.. ..$1,950,000	$420,000	22.1Average	percentage of	duty on	dutiable. AVCiagC pcit-ciiia.8'-	~	
goods, 30 per cent.
Average percentage of duty on total imports, 22.1 per cent.
Now if I followed the method that was followed by the Prime Minister, it would be fair for me to say that the rate of duty on dutiable goods was the same in both cases, but would that be a fair method of comparing the two? I submit that it is an unfair way to compare the record of one party as against another by giving only one-half of the story, as was done by the Prime Minister last year in this particular case.
There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. In his statement last year the right hon. the Prime Minister referred to the lowest rate of duty under the Liberal regime as being 28.56 per cent. In his speech a few days ago, he used the following words, referring to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's:
When he went out of power the tariff averaged 26.7 per cent.
Evidently the right hon. gentleman has revised some of his figures of last year.
Mr. STEVENS:: As the Prime Minister is not here, perhaps my hon. friend


John Ewen Sinclair: As the hon. member for Vancouver has not spoken in this debate, he will have a chance later on. He can take a note of what I say.
Mr. STEVENS': What the Prime Minister stated was that 28.65 was the average duty in the 15 years of the Liberal regime, and 26.7 per cent the lowest rate of duty or the duty at the time the Liberal Government went out of office.


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. gentleman has just told us that 28.65 per cent was the average duty in the 15 years of the Liberal regime. The words that were used by the Prime Minister are these, as will be seen by Hansard of last year:
The next year the percentage was 28.65.

There is no average for fifteen years about that. It is the percentage for the year. Therefore, I cannot accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Vancouver. Then the right hon. gentleman stated in this debate a day or so ago, referring to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's:
When he went out of power the tariff averaged 26.7 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For that year.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is correct, not for the whole fifteen years, as stated by the hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said 26.7 was the duty at the time the Liberal Government went out of power.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have shown by the tables I have read how an unfair impression may be conveyed by giving the average showing averages by range of duty on dutiable goods.
Let me give another illustration. Take the rate of duty on dutiable goods for the year 1920. The amount of dutiable goods imported in that year was $693,655,165, and the duty collected was $187,524,181.77, or an average on dutiable goods of 27.32 per cent. In his speech a few days ago the right hon. the Prime Minister stated:
The tariff that he (Mr. Fielding) left at that figure in 'the fiscal year that has just passed averages precisely 21.2 per cent.
So, Sir, the tariff in 1920 was 27.32 per cent on dutiable goods, and for the year just closed, according to the figures given by the Prime Minister, 21.2 per cent. One might infer from the argument of the righj: hon. the Prime Minister with regard to fiscal changes under the Liberal regime that the tariff'brought down by the Budget of last year was very much lower than it had been previous to that time; but that is not the case. So the method of argument that was followed by the Prime Minister is not a correct method. It does not show the true comparison with regard to the tariff, and I submit' to the House and the country that the only correct way, if you are going to take averages, is to take the average, of imports and the duty collected thereon.
Let me show what the average customs tariff on imports of dutiable and free goods entering Canada for home consumption has been since 1896.
per cent
1896		 18.28
1897		  17.87
1898		 16.95
1899		 16.70

1901
1903
1905 1907 190'S
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
per cent
15.98 16.06
15.99
15.87 16.28 16.04 16.07 16.27 16.11
16.24
15.87 16.00 17.03 16.91 17.39 20.47 17.46 16.79
17.24 17.61
The average percentage of duty for the .fifteen years under the Liberal rule was 16.29, and the average under the eight years of Conservative rule 17.41. This table is given in page 13 of the report of the Customs Department for the year 19191920. It shows that there was a reduction, under Liberal rule, of 2.41 per cent oi) the whole amount of dutiable and free goods, and that under Conservative rule, from 1911 to 1920, there was an increase of 1.74 per cent. Now, sir, in the face of these figures in the blue book how can the Prime Minister justify the statement that the tariff reduction to-day is forty times greater than it was under Liberal rule. It is absurd. Further than that, the Liberal government in 1911 entered into an agreement know as the reciprocity Pact, by which many more items would have been added to the free list. I find on looking over the returns that during the Liberal rule there were 122 items added to that list and only 18 items added during the Conservative regime. The fact of the matter is that in the campaign of 1911 such a sentiment was aroused in the country that it was impossible for any Government to refuse to add those items to the list which were placed there during the last ten years. A feeling of resentment was displayed by a great many of the people when they found that the reciprocity agreement had been defeated at the polls; and a large percentage of the adverse vote were cast by those who supported the Conservative party at that time. The feeling if disappointment was so strong, and the public sentiment so pronounced, that the Government were obliged to add the items in question to the free list.
In the province from which I come the tariff question is a very live issue. It is not satisfactory to the people of Eastern Canada to hear the Prime Minister and '

the Minister of Finance say that we can afford to wait and see what is to be done in the United States before we undertake tariff revision in this country. That is not a policy that will make for good under the present circumstances. Canada being the smaller country, we cannot afford to pursue a policy of retaliation in regard to the United States tariff. We must, if possible, keep in touch with our good friends in the United States. There is a sentiment in that country, as well as in Canada, that favours a moderate tariff, a lower tariff, a tariff for revenue only rather than a high protective tariff. In support of that statement* let me quote the words whiph were uttered by the late President of the United States when he vetoed the Fordney Bill. On that occasion Mr. Wilson said:
I do not believe that the sober judgment of the masses of the people of the nation, or even of the special class whose interests are immediately; affected by this measure, will sanction a return, especially in view of conditions which lend even less justification for such action, to a policy of legislation for selfish interests which will foster monopoly and increase the disposition to look upon the Government as an instrument for private gain instead of an interest for the promotion of the general well-being'.
He said further:
It 'S obvious that for the commodities, except sugar and wool mentioned in the measure which make up the greater part of our agricultural international trade, the imports can have little or no effect on the prices of the domestic products.
This is strikingly tr,ue of such commodities as wheat and corn. The imports of wheat have come mainly from Canada and Argentina and have not competed with the domestic crop. Rather they have supplemented it.
That expression of sentiment by the President of the United States is supported by a great many people in that country, and if we in Canada adopt a policy of "wait and see," or of retaliation, in response to the tariff that may be imposed by the high protectionists at Washington, we cannot expect to be able to negotiate trade arrangements, as between the two countries, that will be favourable to us. We, as the smaller nation, stand to lose in the event of high tariffs being brought into operation between Canada and the United States. In Eastern Canada a condition exists which is more extreme than has been experienced for many years. In our cellars we have a crop of potatoes that it was impossible to move entirely last fall -our communications with the mainland were not good-and to-day we have two million bushels stored that are not worth
anything. It is quite true that we did not this year enjoy a market in the eastern states. Speaking generally, however, [DOT] and taking the average of one year with another, we have always had a market in the eastern states for our surplus stock of potatoes-potatoes grown in Eastern Canada but not needed there for consumption. We now have facilities for moving these products down the seaboard to the Atlantic ports; and it looks as though we might, in the very near future, have a very cheap method of transportation by water, because rates are coming down every day and competition is becoming keener between the water carriers. It is therefore to our advantage to have an open market in the United States for our products. In view of the contemplated tariff legislation in the United States are we going to make conditions better by resorting to retaliatory measures? No, the results will be much worse for the Canadian consumer and there will be no advantage for the Canadian producer. Because, as I see it, and I think I am correct, the American market of 120 millions of people controls the price as between that country and Canada. The proportionately small amount that we export to the United States makes no difference to the price in that country. On the other hand, if they put up a tariff to keep our products out of the American market and send their low-grade goods, -of which their surplus in food products largely consists-into Canada, they can demoralize the market in this country. That is, as regards low grade goods. In products of the higher standard we can compete with them in the open market because the quality of what we have to sell is equal, if not superior, to theirs. Under favourable conditions we can obtain a market in the United States for our eastern products at a comparatively small expenditure; and the people of Central Canada can trade with their neighbours across the international boundary line much in the same way. But the higher the tariff is made the worse it will be for the people of Eastern Canada, they are the ones than will suffer.
Another product that we are finding an excellent market for in the United States, ever since the duty was removed is eggs. In the last few years the farmers in Eastern Canada have been shipping their fresh eggs to the United States, and have built up a splendid trade with that country. The success achieved in that way has done a good deal to encourage the egg trade.

The farmers have been encouraged to improve the quality of their output and today the quality of the eggs produced in Eastern Canada compares favourably to the eggs produced in any other part of Canada, if indeed it is not superior. On the other hand ten years ago the quality of that product was at an extremely low level. These facts tend to substantiate the statement I make that our people in the East will benefit, and have benefited, by a low tariff with the United States, especially in the matter of food products. And if we pursue a policy of retaliation against their increased tariff, without making any approach to them, we cannot expect any-ing else but a tariff war between the two countries.
I wish also. Sir, to make reference to a local matter that is closely related to the ' last subject, and that is the method of getting our goods to market. I do not wish to bring local issues too much into this debate, but it is necessary from the standpoint of attending to every portion of the country that where grievances exist, whether it be in the east or in the west or in the centre, those grievances should be adjusted, otherwise we cannot expect to keep our country united and present a solid front in the .markets of the world. We have in Prince Edward Island a condition that has accentuated the potato situation as I have described it, and that is the method of transportation to the mainland during the winter months. Last fall our farmers taxed the capacity of the railway to its utmost before the season closed for moving out their potatoes. During the winter months owing to the railway being in a state of transition from the narrow gauge to the broad gauge on which work began some years ago and was later suspended, those farmers were able to get out only a very small percentage of their crop, and when the spring opened up they found themselves with large quantities of potatoes on their hands and a very poor market for them; in fact, the freight rates were so high and the market so unsatisfactory that the returns on their potatoes would not pay for the freight and bags. If we had had our transportation system completed we would not have been in such a bad condition, as our crop would be moving during the whole winter. Therefore I want to impress upon the Government the necessity of putting the transportation system in better shape. I would urge them to complete the work. of broadening the gauge which was undertaken some years ago and stopped during the last two years 
of the war for various reasons, which I am not going to refer to nor complain of now, but it was generally held that it was poor policy to discontinue the work.
It is very expensive to operate the railway in its present condition, and the expenditure necessary to. put the railway facilities in good shape is fully justified. It costs more to operate the system under present conditions on account of having to transfer freight from the narrow gauge to the broad gauge, and vice versa, etc. According to the estimates made by competent engineers and endorsed and passed by the board of mahagement of the Canadian National railways-which estimates are now awaiting endorsation by the Department of Railways and Canals-the work could be completed for $650,000. The annual saving in operation would then be $81,000 per annum, made up as follows:
Saving from transfer of freight west of
Summerside	 $11,000
Saving from transfer of freight east and
south of Charlottetown	 20,000
Saving from use of standard engines
operating over the entire	road		30,000
Saving' from extra men now required on
third rail section	 15,000
Saving of extra material required for
upkeep on third rail section	 2,000

Now, Sir, when the province asks for work of that nature, and it is shown by competent engineers that an annual saving to that extent would accrue, and when we consider the improved service that would result and the consequent increase in volume of traffic and revenue, I think it will be admitted that the necessity of having this work gone on with at once cannot be too strongly urged upon the Government.
There is another point in connection with the railway that I should mention, and I think in common with all hon. members that it is wise to express it to the Government, namely, that we deplore the present high freight rates. With the price of farm products at such a low ebb, it is almost impossible to send them to the markets that we have been in the habit of supplying during the past few years. In this connection allow me to submit to the House a resolution unanimously passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island during the past few weeks. It is as follows:
"Whereas an unusually large quantity of potatoes are at present in our farmers' cellars awaiting shipment,

And whereas the freight charges are greater to our Canadian markets than the pricfe offered for this product,
And whereas on account of the season it is impossible now to feed any considerable quantity of this product to live stock,
And whereas if immediate relief is not forthcoming in the nature of a substantial reduction in freight, great loss will ensue to the province, and a disaster to those who have a large stock still on hand,
And whereas under existing circumstances it is impossible to transact any business, and the railways are suffering with the farmers through the loss Incurred by this condition.
Therefore resolved that this legislature would strongly urge upon the Minister of Railways the necessity of immediately reducing the rate on potatoes at least one-third until June 15 to enable our farmers to dispose of this surplus food product.
I might also submit a few figures to show how the freight rates affect- our shippers. We depend largely upon the province of Nova Scotia for our domestic coal, and it is there we find one of the ready markets for our farm products. Let us compare the rates of freight on coal and on potatoes that exist between those points and Prince Edward Island, and vice versa.
Coal Rates Inward
Rate per 100 lbs.


[Stage Direction]
Sydney to Chalottetown
[Stage Direction]
16
[Stage Direction]
cents
[Stage Direction]
Point Tupper to
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown..
[Stage Direction]
..
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Pictou County Mines to Charlottetown
[Stage Direction]
13
[Stage Direction]
i
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Springhill Mines
[Stage Direction]
to Charlottetown..
[Stage Direction]
11
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Potato Rates Outward
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown to
[Stage Direction]
Sydney
[Stage Direction]
43
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown to
[Stage Direction]
New Glasgow. ...
[Stage Direction]
371
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown to
[Stage Direction]
Spring-hill
[Stage Direction]
351
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown to
[Stage Direction]
Montreal
[Stage Direction]
43
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown to
[Stage Direction]
Boston
[Stage Direction]
60
[Stage Direction]
"
[Stage Direction]
You will see that the rate from Charlottetown to Sydney is as high as the rate from Charlottetown to Montreal, over three times the distance. The rates on the exportable products of Prince Edward Island and on the product which is the exportable surplus of Nova Scotia are unfair beyond all comparison. This bears heavily upon our people when the price of the product goes down. When we are getting the high price for- potatoes last year of $3 per bushel f.o.b. railway the freight rate did not seem so much, but when the price goes down to the point which it has now reached and 17 cents a bushel is all that can be offered to the farmer on account of the high freight rate, it makes it almost useless to try to market the potatoes at all. At this season of the year it would not pay a farmer to give the time to hauling the potatoes to the station at that price if he had to haul them more than a mile, as many farmers have
to do; in fact, in many cases they are hauled ten miles. I have made reference to this local condition in order that hon. members of the House, especially members of the Government, may be familiar with the situation as it exists in regard to farm produce in the eastern provinces.
There is another matter, Sir, to which I should like to refer before 'I close. Coming back to more controversial politics I may say that we have an election pending in one constituency in New Brunswick and in one constituency in Quebec, to take place on the 28th of this month. I see by the Ottawa Citizen of May 13, that one of the members of the Government, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) visited the constituency of York-Sunbury and spoke at McAdam on May 12. On that occasion he is quoted as saying.
There has been no government in power since Confederation whose policies could not be justly criticised and accused of dishonesty, yet even its political enemies will not accuse the present Governmnet of misappropriation of funds during the war.
Now, Sir, I want to draw particular attention to that statement of an hon. minister of this Government in a by-election in the province of New Brunswick. What is the record of the Government during the war? Have any accusations been made? I think, Sir, I can justly say to this House and to the country that the statement made by the Minister of Labour is not borne out by the facts that are on record-on the record of the Committees of this House during the war. I refer to the Public Accounts Committee in 1915, when it was proved that the moneys were misappropriated by the Government for war purposes. It was shown before the Public Accounts Committee that there was lost or squandered of the moneys of this country, on horses, $83,000; on bicycles, $28,000; on shield shovels, $30,000; on binoculars, $3,000; on submarines, $250,000; and a large amount on Oliver equipment. It is surprising, Sir, to see a member of the Government going into the country and appealing for support on such a cry-stating, as appears in the press report, that no accusation has been made against the Government when the records of committees of this House show that hundreds of thousands of dollars were squandered- It is evident, therefore, that references and comparisons made, as I have shown, by the right hon. Prime Minister in the House and by his ministers out of the House are not borne out by the facts when the whole truth is told. Mr. Speaker,
[Stage Direction]
the hour is late and I will not detain the House any further.
On motion of Mr. Kennedy (Glengarry) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 12.16 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 17, 1921.